BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Cochran v M'Laren [1835] CA 13_387 (31 January 1835)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1835/013SS0387.html
Cite as: [1835] CA 13_387

[New search] [Help]


SCOTTISH_Shaw_Court_of_Session

Page: 387

Cochran

v.

M'Laren
No. 118.

Court of Session

1st Division B.

Jan. 31 1835

Lord Balgray, Lord Mackenzie, Lord Gillies.

James Cochran,     Petitioner.— Sandford. Robert M'Laren,     Respondent.— D. F. Hope— Russell.

Subject_Bankruptcy—

Application for sequestration by a creditor who had done diligence by horning and caption and imprisonment against his debtor, and, after the imprisonment had endured nine months, held incompetent, in respect that it was not made “within four calendar months of the last step of the said diligence.”

In November, 1834, James Cochran, farmer at Riccartsbar, presented a petition, setting forth, that he was a creditor of Robert M'Laren, merchant and dealer in Port-Dundas, for £125; that he had done diligence by horning and caption against M'Laren, and had imprisoned him, on 11th December, 1833; that M'Laren was still incarcerated; and he prayed for warrant of service on him to show eause why his estates should not be sequestrated. M'Laren objected to the competency of the application on various grounds, and, especially, because more than four months had elapsed after the last step of the above diligence had been done against him. By § 15 of the Bankrupt Act, it was provided, that if a person “shall be under legal diligence by horning and caption against him for debt, and shall, in virtue thereof, be imprisoned,” it should be lawful for the creditor, “at any time within four calendar months of the last step of the said diligence, to apply for sequestration.” The last step of the diligence was the act of incarceration. That took place on 11th December, 1833, and the petition, not having been presented before November following, was incompetent.

Cochran answered, that incarceration, viewed as a step of diligence, was not a completed and concluded act, so soon as the prisoner was within the jail, but was a continuous and current step of diligence, so long as the imprisonment remained in force. While that public character of bankruptcy remained affixed to a debtor, or at any time within four months after his liberation, it was competent to apply for sequestration.

At advising the case, Lord Balgray, who presided in the absence of the Lord President, suggested, that as it was an important question whether the first moment of incarceration was the last step of diligence, in the sense of the statute, it might be proper to order minutes of debate. It was represented by the parties, however, that they were unable to bear the expense of a protracted discussion, and judgment was craved accordingly.

Lord Balgray.—The words of the statute require the petition to be presented within four months of the last step “of the said diligence.” So soon as incarceration takes place, the last step is completed to the effect of producing all the requisites which must concur to support a petition for sequestration; and I think the first hour of imprisonment is the terminus a quo in computing the four months within which the petition requires to be presented.

Lord Mackenzie.—In a case decided near the commencement of this Session, 1 it was held by us, that after a first execution of search, it was competent for the creditor to make a second search, to the effect of thereby creating a new terminus a quo. But in such case there is a new set of constituent facts created, so as to form a new terminus. That is different from the situation where there has been but one act of imprisonment. The imprisonment may last for ten years, and that would be rather a slow step of diligence, if it was to be viewed as a step, in the sense of the statute, so that within four months thereafter, a petition for sequestration might still be presented. I am for refusing the petition.

Lord Gillies concurred.

_________________ Footnote _________________

1 Robertson, Nov. 25, 1834 (ante, p. 81).

The Court refused the petition.

Solicitors: A. Hamilton, W. S.— Wotherspoon and Mack, W.S.—Agents.

SS 13 SS 387 1835


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1835/013SS0387.html