If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.

Thank you very much for your support!


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

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Crawfurd v Hunter. [1739] Mor 13351 (21 November 1739)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1739/Mor3113351-045.html
Cite as: [1739] Mor 13351

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1739] Mor 13351      

Subject_1 RANKING and SALE.
Subject_2 SECT. X.

Purchaser acquiring an interest not produced in the ranking. - Method of accounting for the price. - Division of the price. - At what time to be made?

Crawfurd
v.
Hunter

Date: 21 November 1739
Case No. No 45.

The purchaser acquiring an adjudication that had not been produced in the ranking, not allowed, at making up the scheme of division, to found upon it.


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

It has been adjudged, that though a decree of ranking be closed, yet when the scheme of division comes to be made out, an adjudger, for example, who had not appeared in the ranking, may appear and claim his share in the division, without being put to the necessity of reducing the ranking. But it was here found, that a purchaser, who, by decree of ranking, is decerned to pay to the creditors as they are, or shall be ranked, thereafter purchasing an adjudication which had not been produced in the ranking, could not be allowed, at making up the scheme of division, to found upon this adjudication for its share of the price, so as to hinder the creditors ranked from drawing their full share for which they were ranked; reserving to him his action of repetition as accords.

The Lords were not unanimous in this. Several of them thought, that as he might retrocess his constituent, who would be admitted, so might he be admitted to claim his share, at least to the extent of what he had paid for the debt, though not farther.

Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 211. Kilkerran, (Ranking and Sale.) No 1. p. 468.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1739/Mor3113351-045.html