£300 should be deducted for behoof of the creditors, leaving the sisters to draw a proportion effeiring to their annuities. In this arrangement the pursuer and all the creditors acquiesced, except Mr Hunter, merchant in Edinburgh, whose debt amounted only to about £200. In order to secure himself against a second imprisonment, the pursuer was obliged, for the sake of obtaining a personal protection, to have recourse to the benefit of the process of cessio bonorum. Hunter, who was the only opposing creditor, appeared, and in limine objected-I. The certificate of imprisonment is not in terms of the Act,-it only bears that the pursuer was imprisoned on the 14th May 1830, and was in custody on the 14th June following, when the certificate was granted; but there was no evidence that the pursuer was not at liberty during some part of the intervening period.-II. All the creditors have not been called.-III. On the merits-The pursuer has, from time to time, varied the amount of his debts in a very unsatisfactory and suspicious manner. The first state was £1200, then £2000, afterwards £4000, and lastly, £5000. Besides, the pursuer has induced many of his friends and relations to come forward with old and fictitious claims, in order to reduce the true creditors' debts to a trifle, and thus benefit himself. Answered-I. The pursuer was in jail during the whole statutory period. The certificate is in the usual terms. The objection is frivolous.-I. This objection was formerly urged, and sustained. By the 102d section of the Act of Sederunt, neither the objecting party, "nor any other creditor who has been cited as a defender, shall be afterwards allowed to repeat the same objections with new names." The opposing creditor (Hunter) was formerly cited, therefore the objection on his part is incompetent.-III. The variation in the state of the pursuer's debts is accounted for by the fact, that, in the present state, his sisters' annuities have been valued, and a cautionary obligation has emerged since his application for the cessio. debts brought forward are true, conform to oaths of verity, and other vouchers produced. The only relations are his sisters, for their annuities. The pursuer has offered £300 a-year out of his salary of £580, in liquidation of his debts. The objecting creditor has in view, by his opposition, to concuss the other creditors to pay his debt, in order that they may, for their own safety, keep the pursuer from going again to jail. If he be a second time imprisoned, he will lose his situation, and the creditors will be deprived of any chance of payment. The first and second objections, being of a preliminary nature, were repelled. The first, Because the objector did not offer proof of his averment; and the second, In terms of the Act of Sederunt. On the merits The The Lord Justice-Clerk had no doubt, that if the pursuer were a second time imprisoned, that he would be instantly removed from his office, and of consequence that the creditors would thereby be deprived of the only fund to which they could ultimately look for payment. It was the interest of the creditors, and of the objector amongst the rest, that the pursuer should be protected. He had no difficulty in seeing that parties sometimes insisted in their opposition for other purposes than obtaining payment of their debts. He considered the present opposition as suspicious. Nothing unfair had been attempted by the pursuer, who had offered £800 a-year out of his salary, in liquidation of his debts. Had the Court decided on the sum, he did not know if their Lordships would have set aside so much. The pursuer was Comptroller-General of the Customs, and obliged to keep up a certain status; and the sum offered from his salary was sufficiently large. He would not countenance a single creditor persisting in such opposition. The parties were at variance as to the amount of the debts, but there was no averment of fraud or concealment which rendered farther inquiry necessary. The Court was called on to interfere. He would grant the cessio. Lord Meadowbank was of the same opinion. There was no allegation of fraudulent or improper conduct against the pursuer, who merely wished his person protected, to enable him to retain his situation, and thereby ultimately to pay his creditors. The present opposition was extraordinary, and very suspicious; for if Hunter succeeded, he would not only cut out the body of creditors from payment, but also deprive himself of his debt-because the pursuer, if again imprisoned, would lose his situation. Lord Glenlee did not see any relevant averment which would require farther inquiry. Had there been such an averment of concealment or fraud, and the opposing creditor had been willing to supersede personal diligence against the pursuer, he would have agreed to delay granting the cessio till farther investigation. But as it was, he saw no reason for not granting it. Lord Cringletie concurred with all their Lordships, in thinking that there was no averment made by the opposing creditor which required farther investigation. It had been insinuated that the pursuer had got up fictitious debts. It would be time enough to settle that matter when they were ranked by the creditors. He thought the sum offered by the pursuer out of his salary was liberal, and he had heard nothing to induce him to withhold the benefit of the cessio. The Court then found the pursuer entitled to the benefit of the cessio, on his granting a disposition omnium bonorum, and assigning £300 per annum out of his salary. Second Division.-Act. Ad. Anderson.-Alt. Dean of Faculty (Hope) and Geo. Napier.-James Burness, and Deuchar and Knox, Agents.-Mr Thomson, Clerk. 9th March 1831. No. 314.-R. & A. CARSEWELL, Pursuers, v. JAMES MUNN, &c., Defenders. Compensation Re-compensation--Cedent-Assignec—– Circumstances in which assignees to a copartnery claim, held erposed to a plea of compensation on the one hand, and entitled to a plea of re-compensation on the other, in reference to the interests arising out of the connexion between their cedent and two sets of trustees for the same body of creditors. Robert Hunter and David Munn, were partners in ship-building at Montreal. At the termination of the contract in August 1816, Munn, from whom Hunter claimed £6000 balance, continued in business there. In 1818, during the dependence of a first submission regarding the above claim, and generally for the dis posal of the Company property, he consigned a vessel, the Duke of Richmond, to his brother, the defender. The creditors of David Munn, in November 1818, agreed upon the sale of the vessel, the distribution of the price and freight, and the setting apart of a share proportioned to £6000, to be consigned in name of the arbiters, to meet the contingent claims of Hunter against Munn. Before the sale, David Munn arrived in Scotland. And on the 27th of February 1819, he granted, in favour of the defenders, a vendition of the ship in security of their claims, and interest, for all the creditors who had entered into the previous arrangement, but Hunter, whose claims he strenuously contested. Soon after, the Prompt, part of the Company's estate, arrived in the Clyde. The register was produced with the clerk to the submission. The arbiters ordered, and then adjourned a sale. Hunter claimed a preference over her as Company property. Munn signed a vendition of his half, 25th June 1819, in favour of the other creditors-obtained possession of the register-completed the transference, and on the 30th of September 1819, executed a trust in favour of the defenders, for behoof of his creditors, which was intimated to Hunter in May 1820. But, thereafter, it was settled that Hunter should agree to the terms of the original transaction, in November 1818, in reference to both vessels-the former having been then also sold. In June 1820, Brown, acting truly for Hunter, obtained from the vendees, a vendition to their half of the Prompt, for £1400. Brown and Hunter granted for this price, two promissory-notes, which were dishonoured in March 1821. Hunter having, during a second submission of the same matters to Bain, borrowed from the pursuers, assigned them, in June 1821, his claim for £750, from the Duke of Richmond, sold for £2000. The assignation was duly intimated, and in August 1821, the venders of the Prompt took, in the room of the dishonoured bills, a new bill for £1464, in which the name of Hugh Brown was added to that of the former obligants. In October 1821, the arbiter found Munn indebted to them in £6000 at least. Hunter, and John and Hugh Brown, all became bankrupt in April 1822, before the renewed bill became payable. The defenders obtained from their estates about £640; and thereafter, while it was found by other arbiters, that Hunter had no right to Munn's share of the price of the Prompt, the pursuers brought an action against the defenders, for payment of the sum deposited to meet Hunter's share of the Duke of Richmond-the bank receipt for which had passed into the possession of the defenders. The latter founded mainly upon the ground of compensation on the above bill for £1464. On the 3d of February 1824, the Lord Ordinary found, "That the pursuers, as assignees, can be in no better situation than the assigner was in at the date of the assignation: Finds, that at the date of the assignation, the assigner, Robert Hunter, could not have prevailed in this action, while he refused to pay the price of the ship Prompt; therefore, sustains the defences, assoilzies the defenders, and decerns." On a reclaiming note from the pursuers, the Court found, (24th June 1825,) "That the pursuers, as assignees, can be in no better situation than the cedent was in at the date of the assignation; but recal the same quoad ultra, and remit to the Lord Ordinary to hear parties on the question, whether the respondents are bound to impute in part payment of their claim, any sums recovered by them, whether from Hunter's bankrupt estate, or that of his co-obligant Brown, or from the insurance on the Prompt, or other sources, and generally, on the state of accounts between the parties; and to do as he shall see cause.' " The Lord Ordinary, 7th February 1826, "Remits to Mr George Mylne, accountant in Edinburgh, to report a state of accounts between the parties in reference to this action, and particularly in the view, 1st, That the prices of both ships are to be held as one fund, divisible among the creditors of David Munn, and that as under one trust. 2d, That the defenders are entitled to set off the price of the Prompt against the pursuers' claim, as assignees of Hunter, for a dividend out of the said fund; and that, per contra, the pursuers are entitled to demand that it shall be so set off, with power to him to call for such documents and explanations as to him shall seem necessary for enabling him to report." Certain objections to the report were sustained, and on the whole case, the pursuers pleaded-That a depositary could not plead compensation against an assignee That as compensation had no effect till pleaded, and was not pleaded till after the assignment, it could not avail against such assignment: That such a plea, never urged at the time when the assignment was intimated, was contrary to law and good faith, after the bankruptcy of the cedent: That the defenders had lost any supposed right of compensation, by giving time to Hunter, and by receiving a composition from, and consenting to the discharge of the Browns and Hunter; and that the whole proceedings of the defenders were at variance with the existence of their alleged trust. The defenders pleaded-That, by the final interlocutor of the Court, the pursuers could be in no better situation than their cedent was in at the date of the assignation: That while Hunter, the cedent, was entitled to claim the sum assigned by him, he owed the defenders, before the date of the assignation, a larger sum for the half of the Prompt: That the defenders acted with the cognisance of Hunter, as trustees for the creditors generally, and in that character held the deposit in the Glasgow Bank, under their controul, with his knowledge and consent. The Lord Ordinary, (12th May 1830,) "Having considered the remit from the Court, dated the 12th day of November last, and advised the revised cases for the parties, and whole process: Finds, that the defenders are entitled to plead compensation against the pursuers, and that the pursuers are entitled to maintain a plea of re-compensation against the defenders: Finds, that the effect of these pleas, in the circumstances of this case, is, that nothing was due to the pursuers by the defenders at the date of raising the present action, and that even now, nothing is due to the pursuers by the defenders: Therefore, and upon the whole circumstances of the case, assoilzies the defenders, and decerns; finds neither party entitled to expenses.-Note. It is fixed by the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, in so far as adhered to, that the question with the pursuers is to be the same as it would have been with Hunter. Then, the view of the Lord Ordinary in regard to compensation is, that David Munn being insolvent, and contemplating his own bankruptcy, made both of these trusts for the interest of his creditors generally, not intending to exclude any; that Hunter was not included, like the other creditors, in the first, only because David Munn denied his right of credit entirely; and was not included, like the other creditors, in the second, only because he, Hunter, wholly denied David Munn's right to make that trust; but that, in both cases, a provision was made for Hunter's interest; and that, though, in the case of the Prompt, this provision was too narrowly expressed, submitting only the alleged right of Hunter as a partner to oppose the trust, not his contingent claim as a creditor, in case the trust was found good; yet, that Hunter could not equitably be excluded from the benefit of his claim as a creditor. As to the other creditors not named in the trust of the Duke of Richmond, the Lord Ordinary thinks these claims so trifling, that it never could be intended to exclude them, so as to bring the trust into question, and he thinks that they cannot equitably be excluded. It is said, that these trusts could not be opened to creditors not expressly named in them without reduction. But as there is no denial of the equitable right of these creditors to be admitted to the benefit of these trusts, there seems no occasion for reduction; and if the creditors interested in both trusts come to be the same, the variation in the name of one trustee seems immaterial. In these views, there appears room both for compensation and re-compensation. But farther, although the Lord Ordinary has decided the questions remitted to him, he does not think the case necessarily depends on them. He thinks there is another view, dependent not strictly on compensation, but retention, and wholly independent of the connection of the two trusts, as both trusts for the same creditors. To explain this, it seems best to put an extreme case. Suppose, then, that A. executes two trusts, one vesting a subject in B. to sell, and pay his (A.'s) creditor C.; the other vesting another subject in D. to sell, and pay E., another creditor; the residue, (if any,) of course, being in himself A., under both trusts. Suppose, then, that the first creditor C. buys the subjects vested in D. for payment of E., the second creditor, and after obtaining the subject, withholds the price of that subject; and while so withholding, claims the price or payment of his debt, out of the price of the other subject vested in trust for payment of himself C.; in such case, it appears to the Lord Ordinary, that it would be the right and the duty of the trustee B., to withhold that payment from C., till he paid the price of the other subject which he had bought; for C. could not state himself to be a pure creditor of A., and entitled to payment out of A.'s estate as such, while he unjustly withheld in his own hands part of that very estate, or the price of part of it. It does not seem to the Lord Ordinary that it would be a good answer for him to say, that this part of the estate had been conveyed by A. in trust, for payment of another creditor. A. would retain still sufficient interest in this subject, to warrant him or his trustee pleading retention against C. This is an extreme case; and, of course, the rule must be applicable here a fortiori to the claim of Hunter for payment of a dividend out of the Duke of Richmond, and while he withheld payment of the price of the Prompt." The pursuers reclaimed on the merits, the defenders on expenses. At advising, Lord Glenlee was clear that the pursuers could be in no better situation than Hunter. At the same time, the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor on the point of re-compensation must be sustained. And the question remained, how the interests of parties were to be ascertained? The trustees ought to give in an account of their intromissions. Lord Cringletie was at a loss to see from what premises the Lord Ordinary had drawn the conclusion, that if compensation and re-compensation were both sanctioned, there would be nothing due. Lord Meadowbank agreed with the Lord Ordinary in the general principle. The Lord Justice-Clerk held it a settled point, that the pursuers were in no better situation than Hunter. The Lord Ordinary had justly found that compensation and re-compensation applied. And, with the voluminous report of the accountant, in process, concluding that was then or since due, it could not be held that such was not the case. The Court "Adhere to the two first findings of the interlocutor complained of, as to the competency of the pleas of compensation and recompensation; and in so far refuse the desire of this note; and, before answer, quoad ultra, remit to the accountant (Mr George Mylne,) to report as to the true state of accounts between the parties, keeping in view the effect of the objections already sustained by the Lord Ordinary, reserving all questions as to expenses of process." Authorities for Pursuers.-Stair, I. 13, 8. Ersk. III. 1. 27. Authorities for Defenders.-Paton v. Barclay, 11th January 1627; M. 2601. Bell Com. II. 134; 4th Edit. Thomson on Bills, p. 580. Second Division.-Lord Ordinary, Mackenzie.-Act. Solicitor-General (Cockburn), Forsyth, Cuninghame.-Alt. Skene, M. P. Brown.-W. Young, W.S., and James Dunlop, W. S., Agents. Mr Thomson, Clerk. 10th March 1831. No. 315.-JAMES M'GAVIN, Trustee for STEWART & COMPANY, a correspondence took place between the Lord President and the Lord Chancellor, the parties were directed (without this correspondence being communicated to them,) to apply to the Lord Chancellor for an explanation ; and the Court refused to write on a note, praying them to apply the judgment, or to pronounce some other interlocutor. In this case (which is reported ante, Vol. III. p. 7,)— The Lord President said, (on 4th curt.) This is the case in which a difficulty occurred in applying the judgment of the House of Lords, as requiring a mode of procedure not recognis ed in the law of Scotland. I have had correspondence on the subject with Lord Lyndhurst, who, having gone out of office, said he could do nothing, and also with Lord Brougham, who sees the difficulty; but the petitioner must make his solicitor apply to his Lordship for explanation. The petitioner having presented a note, (which was in the roll to-day,) praying the Court either to apply the judgment as it stood, or to pronounce an interlocutor refusing to do so, or, at least, requesting the Lord President to communicate to the parties the nature of the correspondence which had passed between him and the Lord Chancellor on the subject, as the petitioner was at a loss how to proceed. The Lord President said, The petitioner has only to instruct his solicitor to apply to the Lord Chancellor for an explanation. The thing is done every day. The petitioner says he has received no official notice what to do; but, is not the communication which I am now making to him official? I cannot communicate to him the correspondence between myself and the Lord Chancellor. Jameson, for Petitioner.-Then I understand your Lordships refuse to write on the note. Lord President.—Yes. First Division.-Act. Greenshields; Charles J. F. Orr, W. S., Agent.-Alt. Dean of Faculty (Hope); W. Patrick, W.S., Agent.-S. Clerk. 10th March 1831. No. 316. REID, Pursuer, v. HIS CREDITORS, Defenders. Cessio Bonorum-Excise Officer-Pension-An Excise officer, having a superannuated allowance of £80 per annum-Found entitled to the benefit of the cessio, without assigning any part thereof to his creditors. The pursuer applied for the benefit of the cessio, to which no objection was stated on the merits; but it was maintained that he ought to bind himself to pay part of his pension of £80 per annum to the creditors. Answered-The pursuer has a family of 10 children. Besides, being an officer of Excise, the enjoyment of his pension is secured to him by the Acts 7 and 8 Geo. IV. c. 45, sec. 121. Replied-The pursuer's pension is a superannuated allowance; he is not in the active service of the Excise, so that the Acts of Parliament referred to do not apply. No assignation is asked by the creditors, but merely security that some part of the pursuer's allowance shall be paid to them. Lord Balgray.-A decided declaration has been made by the presiding officers of the Excise in former cases, that if any part of the salaries allowed by the Excise is given to creditors, the allowance will be withdrawn. Lord Gillies.-The allowance given by the Excise is given as aliment. The Court found the pursuer entitled to the benefit of the cessio, (without assigning any part of his allowance.) First Division. Act. Boswell.-Alt, Patton. 10th March 1831. No. 317.-J. LIVINGSTONE, Complainer, v. MR & MRS MURRAY, Respondents. Judicial Examination-Petition & Complaint-Parties accused of abstracting a process from the chambers of an agent, ordered to be judicially examined. In this case (which is reported ante, Vol. III., p. 113,) the pursuer presented a petition and complaint against the respondent, setting forth-That they, or one or other of them, had abstracted from his chambers, the process, M'Larty v. Borland, which was in his possession as agent, and praying that the respondents might be ordained to restore the process, and be punished, by fine or imprisonment, &c. In their answers, both respondents denied the charge, and stated their readiness to be judicially examined. The criminal proceedings which had been instituted before the Sheriff against the respondents, in regard to this matter, had by this time been withdrawn. The Court remitted to the Lord Ordinary to take the judicial examination of the respondents. First Division. Act. Buchanan; Hugh Macqueen, W. S., Agent.-Alt. J. A. Murray, and T. Maitland; Daniel Fisher, S.S. C., and George Logan, W.S., Agents.-D., Clerk. 10th March 1831. No. 318.-JAMES BROOMFIELD & OTHERS, Petitioners, v. THOMAS SCOTT, Respondent. Inhibition-Expenses-An inhibition being recalled, of consent, on caution, the Court refused to give expenses, although caution had been offered extrajudicially, the inhibition not having been nimious. The petitioners applied for recal of an inhibition used at the respondent's instance, on the dependence of an action against them, in July 1822, in which action nothing had been done since December 1825. The petitioners stated, that they had offered extrajudicially to find ample caution, provided the inhibition was recalled, but this offer had not been acceded to; and they pleaded-I. That the respondent was not entitled to keep up an inchoate and incomplete inhibition against the petitioners for such a long period.II. That there was prima facie evidence that the claim for which inhibition was used had been satisfied or paid,—And, III. That having all along offered caution, the petitioners were entitled to the expenses of the present application. Answered-I. The process was remitted to Mr Roger Aytoun, to report on the accounts, and the respondent has repeatedly urged Mr Aytoun to complete his report, as is proved by the letters produced, but the petitioners, who are equally bound to force the matter to a close, have taken no steps for that purpose.-II. The respondent's claim rests on solid grounds, and there is no reason to think that it has been paid or satisfied.-III. The respondent has all along intimated that he had no objection to the inhibition being recalled by the Court (to which he now consents), but he was entitled to judicial caution, as the parties, considering their opposite views, could not have agreed as to the amount. Lord President.-Unless the diligence has been perfectly nimious, we don't give the expenses of getting an inhibition recalled on caution. The Court recalled the inhibition, on caution, but found no expenses due. First Division.-Act. J. A. Murray & Graham Bell; Walter Horsburgh, W. S., Agent.-Alt. Dean of Faculty (Hope), & J. D. Hume; J. Hatton, W. S., Agent.-H., Clerk. 10th March 1831. No. 319. JAMES BARTON & WILLIAM M'LUCKIE, Complainers, v. JOHN EADIE, Respondent. Sequestration-Trustee-A trustee on a sequestrated estate removed from office, in respect he and his cautioner had become bankrupt. The complainers, two of the commissioners on the sequestrated estate of John M'Luckie, plasterer in Glasgow, applied for removal of the respondent from his office of trustee on that estate, on various grounds, and, inter alia, that he and his cautioner had both be-, come bankrupt, and that he had failed to grant new security. The respondent admitted the bankruptcy of himself and his cautioner, but denied all the other grounds of the complaint. He stated, however, that he was willing, and had all along been so, to find new security, if necessary; but that, in point of fact, the balance was in his favour, as would appear from an investigation of the accounts. Lord President.-If the respondent and his cautioner be bankrupt, it is plain that he cannot be allowed to remain trustee on the sequestrated estate. The Court removed the respondent from his office of trustee, and remitted to the Lord Ordinary to investigate into the state of his accounts, and to do thereanent as to his Lordship should seem just. First Division.-Act. Hopkirk; Hopkirk & Imlach, W.S., Agents.Alt. J. Paterson; William Guthrie, Agent.-H. Clerk. 10th March 1831. No. 320.-JOHN SCOTт, Pursuer, v. JOHN LEIPER & WILLIAM FLEMING, Defenders. Bill-Vitiation-Stamp Laws-Held, that a bill which had been circulated blank in the name of drawer and indorser, and thereafter re-issued with one name filled up, then scored out, and a new name inserted, was vitiated, and at any rate, required a new stamp, so as to be incapable of founding an ordinary action. This case, which was in Court in the various forms of suspension, multiplepoinding, reduction and ordinary action, was advised by the Second Division on the 8th of June 1830, (Scot. Jur. II. 454, No. 959,). when the Court assoilzied the defenders, i. e. the Paisley Bank, from an action of reduction on the act 1696; but appointed parties to be further heard in the ordinary action, at the instance of the Bank, against the acceptors of the bill in question. At advising, The Lord Justice-Clerk saw no ground to alter his opinion on the validity of this charge. But there was no sufficient evidence that Fleming and Leiper were the parties who went to Paisley. The bill appeared with the drawer's name filled up. It bore to have been discounted. To give it any operation, would be contrary to the words and the spirit of the stamp laws. This was no case of the correction of a mistake. The bill had not only been issued but circulated, and res non erant integræ. The libel in the reduction was merely not proven, for there would be little doubt that the monies had been applied to take the paper out of circulation. Lord Cringletie concurred, and that on two grounds-I. The vitiation.-II. The want of a new stamp for what was truly a new bill. Lord Glenlee observed, that whatever he might have thought, had the acceptors had no contrary claims, and had they merely pleaded that the bill was vitiated, yet, in the particular case before the Court, he agreed. The Court, "In the ordinary action, Sustain the defences, assoilzie the defenders from the conclusions of the action, Find them entitled to expenses of that action; allow an account to be given in, remit the same when lodged, to the auditor to tax, and report, and decern; and dismiss the action of multiplepeinding, as superseded by this judgment." Second Division.--Lord Ordinary, Cringletie.-Act. Lord Advocate (Jeffrey,) Penney.-Alt. Wood.-John Court, S. S.C., and Andrew Fleming, W.S., Agents.-Mr Ferguson, Clerk. 11th March 1831. No. 321.-CHISHOLM, Pursuer, v. HIS CREDITORS, Defenders. Cessio Bonorum-Liberation-A pursuer being found entitled to the benefit of the cessio at the end of the Session, when the oath could not be reported-allowed to be liberated on caution, although the opposing creditor refused to consent. Chisholm was yesterday found entitled to the benefit of the cessio, and it was moved, that, as the oath could not be reported this Session, he should be liberated, on caution to the extent of £50,-(Kirkpatrick, 10th May 1827, S. and D.); but, as the opposing creditor refused to consent, the Court thought they could not grant liberation. The case was, however, moved again to-day, and two cases quoted, in which liberation had been granted on caution, although the consent of the opposing creditors was not given. The Court allowed the pursuer to be liberated on caution, as craved. First Division.Act. George Moir.-Alt. Stoddart. 11th March 1831. No. 322-REVEREND WILLIAM BROWN, Petitioner, v. JAMES HUNTER & OTHERS, Respondents. Arrestment-Minister-Stipend-Arrestments of a minister's stipend, which amounted to £150 per annum, recalled, on his executing a disposition omnium bonorum, in favour of his creditors, and consenting to assign to them £30 a-year out of his stipend. The petitioner presented an application to the Court, stating, That the stipend payable to him by his heritors, together with a small sum from Exchequer, amounted to no more than £150 per annum : That although he was proprietor of certain small feus, these were burdened to the full extent of their value, and his stipend, together with a small rent from his manse and glebe, which he had been allowed to let, formed his whole income. That being about 80 years of age, and in feeble health, he was obliged to pay an assistant to do the duty for him, leaving a very small sum for the support of himself and his family: That some time ago, the petitioner was induced to join in an action of reduction against the respondents, in which they had been assoilzied, with expenses; and for the sums thus found due to them they had raised letters of horning, and had poinded the petitioner's ef fects, and arrested the whole of his stipend; and therefore praying, as the petitioner was unable to find caution for the sums arrested, that the arrestments might be recalled, on the petitioner finding caution to make furthcoming to the creditors annually, such a portion of his stipend as the Court might think reasonable. Answered-The arrestments were used in consequence of the petitioner having withdrawn from an arrange ment to execute a disposition omnium bonorum, in fa vour of the respondent, Mr Hunter, for behoof of the creditors, under the reservation of a reasonable allowance to the petitioner out of his stipend, for aliment. The respondents do not admit that the petitioner has no other income than that condescended on by him ; but they are willing to allow him a reasonable aliment out of his stipend, on executing the disposition omnium bonorum. The Court recalled the arrestments, on the petitioner executing a disposition omnium bɔnorum in favour of such person as should be mutually agreed on; whom failing, in favour of the Sheriff-clerk of the county, and also (of consent) on the petitioner assigning £30 per annum out of his stipend to the creditors. First Division.-Act. Wilson; Adam & Brown, W. S., Agents.-Alt. Macallan; Ainslie & Macallan, W.S., Agents. -H. Clerk. 11th March 1831. No. 323.-MRS MARGARET KERR or GUTHRIE, Pursuer, v. The pursuer, the mother of the defenders, raised an action against them for aliment, out of the heritable property belonging to her late husband-the free rental of which, after deducting all burdens, was £64 per annum, and over which, as the property held burgage, the pursuer had no right of terce. A minute was lodged for the defenders, who were minors, and their curator ad litem, consenting to £25 per annum being modified as aliment. The pursuer agreed to this, on the defenders becoming bound to execute an heritable bond of annuity for that sum, within a year after they attained majority; and the Court decerned accordingly. First Division.-Act. Deas; Brown & Miller, W.S., Agents. -Alt. J. S. More; Robert Lockhart, S. S. C., Agent.-D. Clerk. 11th March 1831. No. 324.-JOSEPH HENRY FRIMBLING, Petitioner. Poors'-Roll-Cessio Bonorum-On a petition by a poor debtor, who was in jail, stating that he intended to apply for the benefit of the poors'-roll, to enable him to pursue a cessio bonorum-the Court remitted to the Sheriff-substitute to take his declaration, and to grant the necessary certificate, on 10 days' intimation to the incarcerating creditor. Frimbling presented a petition, setting forth-That he had been for several weeks incarcerated in the jail of Dumfries, for a small debt: That he intended to apply for the benefit of the poors'-roll, with the view of enabling him to pursue a process of cessio bonorum, but that, being in prison, it was ont of his power to comply with the third section of the Act of Sederunt, 16th June 1819, which required that the party should "appear personally before the minister and elders;" and that, from his poverty, the petitioner was unable to comply with the fourth section of the said Act of Sederunt, which required that intimation should be given to the adverse party, which, in the present case, would be the whole creditors of the petitioner; and therefore praying, that the Court would remit to the |