Scottish Court of Session Decisions

In this case the pursuer is William Anderson, accountant in Glasgow, trustee on the sequestrated estates of Andrew Jackson & Son, grain merchants there, and of the individual partners of that firm; and the defenders are Messrs John M'Call & Company, corn factors, Glasgow. The issue sent to trial is in the following terms:—

“It being admitted that on 23d May 1864 the estates of Andrew Jackson & Son, grain merchants in Glasgow, were sequestrated under the Bankrupt Acts, and that the pursuer William Anderson is trustee upon said estates:

Whether, after the first deliverance in the sequestration, the defenders removed from the stores situated at 69 James Watt Street, Glasgow, and took possession of the quantities of wheat specified in the schedule hereunto annexed, or any part thereof, belonging to the sequestrated estate of Andrew Jackson & Son; and are resting-owing to the pursuer, as trustee foresaid, the sums specified in said schedule, or any part thereof, as the price or value of said quantities of wheat, with interest thereon, at the rate of five per cent. per annum from the respective dates mentioned in schedule?”

schedule.

1. “The prices or value of 1386 bolls of red French wheat, ex ‘Agriculture,’ £1524, 12s., with interest at 5 per cent. per annum from 4th July 1864.

2. The price or value of 1490 1 4 bolls of wheat, ex ‘Ludovic,’ £1602, 0s. 4 1 2d., with interest at 5 per cent, per annum from 11th October 1864.

3. The price or value of 1324 bolls of wheat, ex ‘Amazon,’ and 1260 bolls of wheat, ex ‘Romp,’ £2647, with interest at 5 per cent. per annum from 10th August 1864.

4. The price or value of 1729 1 2 bolls of wheat, ex‘Bonne Mere,’ £1859, 4s. 3d., with interest at 5 per cent. per annum from 13th July 1864.”

Or,

“Whether, prior to the first deliverance in the sequestration, the defenders had obtained delivery of the said grain as proprietors thereof?“

After the evidence had been led, the Lord Justice-Clerk directed the jury to return a special verdict finding the facts alleged as to removal of wheat proved; but “whether the wheat so taken possession of and sold by the defenders was so taken possession of and sold under a valid title, or whether the same formed part of the estate vested in the pursuer as trustee in the said sequestration; or whether, in respect of the facts above found, the defenders obtained effectual delivery of the said grain as proprietors thereof, prior to the date of the first deliverance in the sequestration—the jury leave to the Court to determine as questions of law, and to enter up the verdict for the pursuer or defenders according to their judgment on the said questions of law.“