Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The objectors, Mrs Hill and others, on the 9th November, 1836, sold certain heritable subjects in Edinburgh to the pursuer Bell. The property was affected, at the date of the sale, by certain claims and burdens, of which the purchaser was made aware, consisting, 1st, of an inhibition directed against the sellers; 2d, of certain arrears of feu-duty; and 3d, of a business-account due to a professional person, who thereafter used arrestments in the hands of Bell. With the view of preventing these claims or burdens standing in the way of a completion of the transaction, Mrs Hill's factor intimated, by letter of 25th November, to Bell, that, as to the inhibition, he had the option to have either the concurrence of the inhibitor in the disposition to be granted, or a discharge by him of the inhibition quoad the subjects purchased, and that the arrears of feu-duty, and the business-account would be paid, at the sight of Bell, out of the purchase-money.

A disposition having been then executed and tendered, and application made to Bell for payment of the price, he resisted the demand, and raised a process of multiplepoinding, calling 38 parties, and alleging that he was threatened with sundry actions at the instance of various creditors and parties claiming preferable right to the price on different grounds and pretences. Before the action was called, Mrs Hill's agent had transmitted to Bell the inhibitor's consent to discharge the diligence, and also a loosing of the arrestment, and a promise to have the arrears of feu-duty paid at his sight.

Mrs Hill, &c. objected to the process as unnecessary and incompetent under the circumstances, there being no double distress or competing claims. ¹

The Lord Ordinary “repelled the objections to this process of multiplepoinding,” pronouncing the usual interlocutor.

The objectors reclaimed.