You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
William Lauder v Sir James Dick of Priestfield. [1688] 3 Brn 684 (26 July 1688)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1688/Brn030684-1060.html
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
Date: 26 July 1688
William Lauder v. Sir James Dick of Priestfield
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The case of Mr William Lauder, and Sir James Dick of Priestfield, was reported by Mersington. Sir James, being pursued on a ticket, craved compensation on a debt due to him by Dick of Grange, one of Mr William's authors. Answered,—All Grange's interest in the sum was only an arrestment for a debt owing by Captain Andrew Dick to Grange; which, 1mo, cannot compete with Mr William's assignation, which is the first completed right by intimation. 2do, It is extinct and expired, not being pursued within five years; and, if it transmitted property, then it would fall under the arrester's escheat and testament; and it could not be the first decreet, but the first arrestment, that would give preference; all which is absurd. And a back-bond affects singular successors, as was found February 1678, M'Kenzies.
The Lords repelled the compensation. But, on a bill, offering new grounds, Sir James got this stopped.
