Whyte v. Union Bank of Scotland, Ltd [1917] ScotLR 480 (08 June 1917)

Whyte v. Union Bank of Scotland, Ltd [1917] ScotLR 480 (08 June 1917)

The assignation was not struck at by Act 1696, cap. 5, because it was retained by the bank in security of advances made after its date (novum debitum), not for prior debts. The bank's claim was therefore valid and entitled to the fund in medio.

Citation
[1917] ScotLR 480
Parties
Appellant/defender/claimant: John Balderston Whyte (Trustee on the sequestrated estates of George Robertson & Company and James M'Lardie Robertson); Respondent/defender/claimant: Union Bank of Scotland, Limited; Pursuers/nominal Raisers: Magistrates of Paisley
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 June 1917
Procedural Posture
Multiplepoinding (competition for Fund in Medio) / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Appeal refused; judgment for Union Bank of Scotland, Limited affirmed.
Legal Topics
Illegal Preference, Assignation in Security, Novum Debitum, Act 1696, Cap. 5
Bankruptcy Banking Law Security Rights Illegal Preference Assignation in Security Novum Debitum Act 1696, Cap. 5

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Balderston Whyte (Trustee on the sequestrated estates of George Robertson & Company and James M'Lardie Robertson)

Appellant/defender/claimant

Union Bank of Scotland, Limited

Respondent/defender/claimant

Magistrates of Paisley

Pursuers/nominal Raisers

Procedural Posture

Multiplepoinding (competition for Fund in Medio) / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an assignation in security granted within sixty days of sequestration is void under Act 1696, cap. 5, when relied on for advances made after its date (novum debitum) rather than for prior debts.

Ratio Decidendi

The assignation was not struck at by Act 1696, cap. 5, because it was retained by the bank in security of advances made after its date (novum debitum), not for prior debts. The bank's claim was therefore valid and entitled to the fund in medio.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; judgment for Union Bank of Scotland, Limited affirmed.

Orders

  • Union Bank of Scotland, Limited ranked and preferred to the fund in medio (£200).