Johnstone v. Henderson [1906] ScotLR 43_486 (15 March 1906)
A defender who has executed a trust deed for creditors is not, in the absence of special circumstances, to be ordered to find caution for expenses as a condition of proceeding with a reclaiming note. The general rule does not require defenders to find caution, and the mere granting of a trust deed does not constitute a special circumstance.
- Citation
- [1906] ScotLR 43_486
- Parties
- Pursuer/respondent: Alfred Johnstone; Defender/reclaimer: William Henderson
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 15 March 1906
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) After Decree in Outer House
- Outcome
- note refused
- Legal Topics
- Caution for Expenses, Trust Deed for Creditors, Rights of Insolvent Defenders
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alfred Johnstone
Pursuer/respondent
William Henderson
Defender/reclaimer
Procedural Posture
Civil / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) After Decree in Outer House
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a defender who has executed a trust deed for creditors should be ordered to find caution for expenses as a condition of proceeding with a reclaiming note.
Ratio Decidendi
A defender who has executed a trust deed for creditors is not, in the absence of special circumstances, to be ordered to find caution for expenses as a condition of proceeding with a reclaiming note. The general rule does not require defenders to find caution, and the mere granting of a trust deed does not constitute a special circumstance.
Court Disposition
note refused
Orders
- The note for caution for expenses is refused.
- Expenses modified to two guineas awarded against the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment