Wilson's Trustee v. W. & J. Raeburn [1901] ScotLR 38_288 (18 January 1901)

Wilson's Trustee v. W. & J. Raeburn [1901] ScotLR 38_288 (18 January 1901)

There were no relevant averments to support reduction of the sale or disposition to Richardson, nor any conclusion against him, as there was no sufficient allegation of fraud, conspiracy, or lack of bona fide purchase. The payments to Raeburn could not be disposed of without inquiry as to whether they constituted an illegal preference under Act 1696, c. 5.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 38_288
Parties
Pursuer: John Walker, C. A., trustee on the sequestrated estates of Robert Wilson; Defender: W. & J. Raeburn, brewers, Edinburgh, and John Raeburn and Harold Raeburn; Defender: Matthew Richardson, wine and spirit merchant, Ship Inn, Melrose; Defender: Haddon & Turnbull, solicitors, Hawick, and Walter Haddon and Andrew Haddon
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 January 1901
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor, Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Effect of Bankruptcy, Illegal Preference, Reduction of Sale, Act 1696 C.5, Fraudulent Conveyance
Bankruptcy Property Law Effect of Bankruptcy Illegal Preference Reduction of Sale Act 1696 C.5 Fraudulent Conveyance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Walker, C. A., trustee on the sequestrated estates of Robert Wilson

Pursuer

W. & J. Raeburn, brewers, Edinburgh, and John Raeburn and Harold Raeburn

Defender

Matthew Richardson, wine and spirit merchant, Ship Inn, Melrose

Defender

Haddon & Turnbull, solicitors, Hawick, and Walter Haddon and Andrew Haddon

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor, Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale and disposition of the Ship Inn to Richardson within sixty days of bankruptcy was reducible under Act 1696, c. 5, as an illegal preference.
  2. 2 Whether the payments to W. & J. Raeburn out of the sale proceeds constituted an undue preference over other creditors.
  3. 3 Whether there were relevant averments of fraud or conspiracy to justify reduction or inquiry against Richardson.

Ratio Decidendi

There were no relevant averments to support reduction of the sale or disposition to Richardson, nor any conclusion against him, as there was no sufficient allegation of fraud, conspiracy, or lack of bona fide purchase. The payments to Raeburn could not be disposed of without inquiry as to whether they constituted an illegal preference under Act 1696, c. 5.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.

Orders

  • All defenders assoilzied from the conclusions for reduction.
  • Matthew Richardson assoilzied from the petitory conclusions and from the whole action, with expenses.