Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Cadby v. Gordon and Co [1866] ScotLR 2_203_1 (14 July 1866)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0203_1.html
Cite as: [1866] SLR 2_203_1, [1866] ScotLR 2_203_1
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 203↓
Court of Session Inner House First Division.
v.
Facts:
On a petition for sequestration of a firm and an individual, “the only known partner,” the Lord Ordinary sequestrated the estates of the individual, but not those of the firm. The Court remitted to him to sequestrate the estates of the firm also.
Charles Cadby, pianoforte and harmonium manufacturer in London, applied for sequestration of the estates of Gordon & Co., musicsellers, George Street, Edinburgh, and of Alfred R. Gordon, “the only known individual partner thereof.” Gordon also applied for sequestration of his estates “as sole partner of said firm of Gordon & Co., and also as an individual.” The Lord Ordinary
Page: 204↓
(Mure) conjoined the two petitions, and sequestrated the estates of “Alfred R. Gordon, trading under the firm of Gordon & Co., of which firm he is sole partner, and also of the said Alfred R. Gordon as an individual.” Cadby reclaimed.
F. W. Clark, for him, stated that the Lord Ordinary should have sequestrated the estates of the firm of Gordon & Co., of which firm there was at least one other partner besides Mr Gordon.
No appearance was made for Mr Gordon.
The Court, while explaining that in the proceedings (which are ex parte) the Lord Ordinary had been misled by the reclaimer's own statement in the petition, that Mr Gordon was the only known partner of the firm, recalled the interlocutor, and remitted to the Lord Ordinary to sequestrate the estates of the firm, and also those of Mr Gordon, without finding that Mr Gordon was the sole partner. The prayer of the reclaiming-note was that the two petitions should be disjoined, and a remit made to the Lord Ordinary to appoint intimation of the reclaimer's petition, and to proceed therein in terms of the statutes; but the Court refused to disjoin the petitions.
Solicitors: Agent for Reclaimer— L. Mackersy, W.S.