Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Perhaps we should wait until you have sorted out the Dixon lineage because some of the information I have noted below does not exactly agree with your data.
For example, while it has been alleged that John M’Aulay, town clerk of Dumbarton, acquired part of the old Ferryland of Cardross known as Leven Grove, and how he built the opulent mansion-house associated with that estate, where he lived and reared his large family. It has further been alleged that in 1787, when Robert Burns visited Dumbarton, he is said to have been a guest of the town clerk at Leven Grove, noting a ticket prepared on the occasion when Burns was admitted a Burgess and Guild Brother of Dumbarton.
“At Dumbarton the Twenty Ninth day of June Seventeen hundred and Eight Seven years—
In Presence of James Colqhuoun of Newlands Es::quire Provost of the Burgh of Dumbarton Neil Camp::bell and Robert Gardner Esquires Bailies Robert McLintock Dean of Guild and John Jarden Treasurer thereof Compeared Mr Robert Burns of Ayrshire who was admitted and received an Burgess and Guild Brother of the said Burgh with power to him to use and enjoy all the priviledges and Immunities thereto belonging. Extracted by – John McAulay”
http://www.dumbartonburnsclub.com/Burgess%20ticket%201.html
According to the above article, Burns would have been given his Ticket in the Tolbooth but this was demolished in 1830, yet, what do we read according to his biographer Robert Chambers (1896) but how:
“His chief entertainer, there is every reason to believe, was John M’Auley, at that time town-clerk of Dumbarton. M’Auley, who had helped to secure subscriptions for the Edinburgh edition, then resided in Levengrove House,* which he had built on a little property he had bought— known as the Ferrylands of Cardross, and separated from Dumbarton by the river Leven. It is highly probably that Burns remained over one night at Levengrove House. There is a tradition in Dumbarton that he paid a visit to the Freemasons’ Lodge, and colour is given to it by the fact that Robert Lindsay, Master of the lodge, and a number of other active members, were subscribers to the Edinburgh edition."
Footnote: *Levengrove House no longer exists. The site on which it stood forms part of Levengrove Park. One of the descendants of John M’Auley resided, within the memory of old folk still alive, in the ‘Half-way House,’ Dumbarton. The Half-way House has been demolished, and its site included in the shipbuilding yard of Mssrs William Denny & Bros. [The Life and Works of Robert Burns (1896) Edited by Robert Chambers, vol. ii, p131].
“From Inveraray, Burns and his two companions rode by way of Clachan, Cairndow [at the head of Loch Fyne], through Glen Kinglas to the summit of the Rest and be Thankful, Arrochar and Tarbet on Loch Lomond. At Bannachra our travellers became ensconced in a party which certainly brightened Burns mood. There was Scottish dancing and singing until the ladies retired at 3 a.m. when a punch bowl was filled. This kept them going till 6 a.m. when they all went outside to pay homage to the sun as it arose over Loch Lomond. Presumably after some sleep, they spent that same day sailing on Loch Lomond, prior to dining that night at Arden. After leaving Arden, Burns and Jenny Geddes had an impromptu race with a highlander which left Burns in a sorry state because of a fall. Burns appeared to be winning until "Donald" wheeled his horse and brought them down. Donald ended in a hedge and Burns received a skinful of cuts, bruises and wounds. They reached Dumbarton by way of Balloch and Renton. On 29th June, the magistrates of the town presented the poet with his Burgess Ticket.”
http://www.dumbartonburnsclub.com/Dumbarton%20Connect.html
As Burns later admitted to a friend in a letter how he had no recollection of where he spent the evening because he was drunk by the time he arrived at Dumbarton, having earlier in the day participated in a drunken race with a highlander resulting in both men being spilled on the ground when their steeds fell. According to Burns, who was injured in his fall, much of his recollection about the town of Dumbarton was hazy owing to his drinking heavily that night to ease his pains from the fall. Despite the absence of any historical accuracy, the story of how Burns was entertained by the town clerk was retold and subsequently published by various Burns biographers and no doubt through which it has been passed down how Leven Grove had formerly been the home of John M’Aulay when in actuality it was built by John Dixon, senior, one of the partners in the Dumbarton Glass Works Company from 1816 until his death in 1828.
“Deaths. Oct 6, 1828, at Levengrove, John Dixon, Esq. of Levengrove” [Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, Vol. XXIV, July-Dec 1828, p809, printed William Blackwood, Edinburgh and T. Cadell, Strand, London].
“Below Succoth, and nearer the Leven, is the farm of Dalmoak, a charter of which was obtained from James V by John Palmer, on payment of a feu-duty of five pounds. It was conveyed by his grandson Matthew Palmer, to John Sempill of Fulwood, in 1509, who settled it upon a younger son, in whose family it continued for many generations. It was acquired during the last century by Bontine of Ardoch, and afterwards by Graham of Gartmore, who sold it to the late John Dixon, Esq. of Levengrove.”
Footnote: “Levengrove, originally a portion of Ferrylands, was acquired from Richard Dennistoun of Kelvingrove by John Dixon, Provost of Dumbarton, who erected a residence there, lately removed, and otherwise improved the property.”
[J. Irving (1879) History of Dumbartonshire, p316]
In a plan of Dumbarton by John Wood, published at Edinburgh in 1818, and featured as an illustration in Irving’s History of Dumbartonshire (1924), p286, Leven Grove House is identified as belonging to “John Dixon, Esqr” just as is the adjoining estate of Dalmoak, and much of Dumbarton’s Bridgend community. Upon the east side of the river Leven, lying opposite the “Old Ferry Quay,” lies a large compound on the High Street identified as belonging to “Jacob Dickson, Esqr” together with another lot on the opposite side of the High Street extending to form a lane connecting to “property of the Glass Work Company.” The Glass-Work which properly occupied a tract on the old Broad Meadow was in 1792 feued out to the late William Dixon, Esq. (1753-1822), one of the partners in the Glass-work up until his death. Situated on the east side of the High Street, and about six lots farther east of Jacob Dickson’s lane is the town house identified as belonging to “J. McAulay” and he is the only McAulay appearing in the survey of Dumbarton, 1818.
http://www.nls.uk/maps/early/record.cfm?id=328
For a comparison, below is another interactive map showing of the Town of Dumbarton, as surveyed 1859 with zoom features also courtesy of the National Library of Scotland’s Map Room:
http://www.nls.uk/maps/townplans/dumbarton.html
“The extant records of the Dumbarton Glass Work Company, which was in existence from 1777 to 1850, with the exception of six years between 1832 and 1838, provide an almost unique insight into a business which was during the first three decades of the nineteenth century the largest concern of its type in Scotland and probably the pre-eminent glass undertaking in Britain. From its humble beginning in 1777, when it provided a convenient outlet for the output of the Knightswood colliery, the company quickly expanded, in the process absorbing the parent concernt until between 1814 and 1826 it was producing 92.5 per cent of all crown glass made in Scotland and the equivalent of 35.4 per cent of all English productions.
The company also provides an interesting analysis of entrepreneurial activity, which has been described in full elsewhere. From 1776 until 1793, when he was declared bankrupt, the company was controlled by James Dunlop of Garnkirk, wealthy businessman, tobacco merchant and landowner, assisted by a group of lesser men who could best be described as investors and / or managers. Between 1793 and 1816 financial control was wielded by Alexander Houston of Clerkington. However, of greater interest during this period was the rise to prominence of the Dixon family who, by 1816, had established beyond all doubt their control which was to last until 1832. From 1838 until 1850 the company was owned by James Christie, ironmaster and partner in the Calder Iron Works, but it never regained its economic leadership and when it ultimately closed 1850 the undertaking was a mere shadow of its former self.
Although the extant records of this firm refer almost exclusively to the major works at Dumbarton, the company, by a process of horizontal and vertical integration, owned at various stages in its life, five coal works, four of which had connecting tramways to two company wharves on the River Clyde, from where company barges transported coal to the Dumbarton works; two bottle works; a brewery and a farm; seven sea-going vessels providing transport services to other parts of Scotland, and also England and Ireland; wholesale and / or retail facilities at Dumbarton, Glasgow, London, Liverpool, New York and other places; and finally two other companies whose functions remain unknown. Thus, the company was a complex business unit, largely self-sufficient, not only able to provide its most costly raw material, namely coal, but also able to make provision for the relatively scarce service of transport facilities. Such input and output independence was reinforced by financial independence in the form of reinvestment of profits. By the time the company's capital had reached its zenith of £98,400 in 1814, re-investment of profits previously earned accounted for £75,264.24, or 76.49 per cent, of that total sum. Such general independence was, undoubtedly, partly responsible for the economic leadership of the undertaking on a national scale. This inherent strength, however, is also indicative of the calibre of the businessmen responsible for the Dumbarton concern.”
[Source: http://www.dumbarton-online.com/glass.htm]
Note: Alexander Houston of Clerkington died 22 March 1822, without issue. [W.H. Dunbar (1842), The Scottish Jurist, p434].
http://books.google.com/books?id=6aoDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA434&lpg=PA434&dq=Alexander+Houston+of+Clerkington&source=web&ots=unI0851TJ7&sig=vl7Hd5dw0lYUiIrQqKFXQgmyQ0E&hl=en
Coeval to the county history by James Dennistoun of Colgrain (1803-1855), who was also a great nephew to Richard Dennistoun of Kelvingrove, and whose history of the county of Dumbarton was afterwards published by Irving (1860), another county history was published by John Glen (1847) History of the Town and Castle of Dumbarton, from the Earliest Period Till the Present Time in which are found the following notes:
[Page 142]
1782, March 11.— John M’Auley, Town Clerk, appointed Collector of the revenue of the Burgh, in place of William Hunter, Treasurer, who had absconded with all the funds.
[page 143]
1792, Feb. 11— Offer from the late William Dixon, Esq., to feu the Broad Meadow, and other lands belonging to the Burgh; referred to the Town’s Agent at Edinburgh for his advice.
[page 144]
1815, March 31— Offer of the lands of ‘Capon Acre’ and ‘Boll of Meal,’ both belonging to the town, accepted of; purchased by John Dixon, Esq. of Levengrove, for £525.
[page 144]
Dumbarton Glass and Chemical Works.
These works, it would appear, were founded in the year 1777. They were carried on for a long period of years, to a very great extent, for the manufacture of crown glass and bottles, and for chemical preparations therewith connected. In consequence of two of the active partners, which happened in the year 1831, they were placed, shortly after, under the judicial authority of the Court of Session, and a judicial factor appointed over the estate. The remained in operation for about five or six years, and they were afterwards publically sold upon the 3d of October, 1838, and became the property of the present proprietor, Mr. Christie. The manufacture of crown glass and bottles was again immediately put in operation. From this manufacture, since the recommencement, duties to the amount of from 20 to £30,000 per annum have been paid to government by the present Proprietor. In the spring of the year 1845 the making of bottles: and in the year 1846, commenced the manufacture of German Sheet Glass, principally by French workmen, the only manufacture of the kind in Scotland, which may be convenient and of advantage to parties who use this description of glass in this country.
Although other writers assumed that Alexander Houston had retired in 1822 (rather than had died) and this had affected a change in the copartnery of the Glass-works, a new partnership was formed between John Dixon, senior, his brother, Jacob Dixon, senior, and Jacob’s eldest son, Jacob Dixon, junior. Then tragedy struck and on Oct 6, 1828, John Dixon, Esq. of Levengrove died [Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, Vol. XXIV, July-Dec 1828, p809], and the copartnery was again changed, but rather than attempt to narrate all that occurred, below is some of the record of the Court of Session and the House of Lords:
“9th February 1841. House of Lords.— (W.H.D.)
No. 80.— Anthony Dixon, Joseph Dixon, and Others, four of the nearest kin of the late Jacob Dixon, senior, Merchant in Dumbarton, Appellants, v. Mrs Brown or Dixon, Relict, and Joseph Dixon and Others, Children of the late Jacob Dixon, junior, and Daniel Brown, as Curator and Factor to the said Children, Respondents.
Testament— Parent and Child—Provision to Children—Legacy—Lapsing—Conditio si sine liberis—Trust— Where a father, in a family trust-settlement, left special legacies to his younger children and their heirs, and the residue of his means and estate to his eldest son, but without mention of his heirs; although it was provided in his favour that his share of the succession should amount to a sum greater than the largest provision of any of the younger children; the eldest son having predeceased his father some hours, leaving children— Held share of his father’s succession did not lapse, but went to his children, nothwithstanding the distinction made in the terms of the settlement between him and the younger children of the testor, and that his children were alive at its date.
Jacob Dixon, senior, succeeded in 1822, as sole surviving partner, to the whole property, works, and trade of the Dumbarton Glass-Work Company, and thereupon formed a new copartnery with a stock of £98,400, divided into forty-one shares, of which he retained to himself twenty-one shares, giving ten shares to his nephew John Dixon, junior, of Leven Grove (who paid up £24,000, the price of his stock, besides allowing a sum to lie in the hands of the company) and the remaining ten shares to his eldest son Jacob Dixon, junior, who advanced no capital— his proportion being put to his debt in the company books. In November 1824, Jacob Dixon, senior, executed a family trust-settlement, in which he provided for his children in the following manner:
“In the second place, my said trustees shall pay the several provisions following, viz:-- To Anthony Dixon, my second lawful son in life, and the heirs of his body, the sum of £2800, which with £1200 which I have already paid and advanced for my said son, for outfitting and putting him in business, makes up the sum of £4000 Sterling, which I intended to be the amount of his provision as one of my children, payable for the said sum of £2800 to the said Anthony Dixon and his foresaids, as follows,’ &c: ‘To Joseph Dixon, my third lawful son now in life, and to the heirs of his body, the sum of £1500, which, with the sum of £2500 already advanced to him, or paid by me on his account, makes up the sum of £4000 Sterling, which I intend to be the amount of his provision as one of my children, payable the said sum of £1500 to the said Joseph Dixon and his foresaids, as follows,’ &c ‘To Elizabeth Dixon, my eldest lawful daughter, spouse to the Reverend William Jaffray, minister of the gospel at Dumbarton, and to the heirs of her body, the sum of £1500, which, with the sum of £1500 which I have already paid and advanced to my said daughter and her husband, makes the sum of £3000 Sterling, which I intend to be the amount of her provision as one of my children, payable the said sum of £1500 to the said Elizabeth Dixon or Jaffray and her foresaids, as follows, ‘ &c ‘To Louisa Dixon my second lawful daughter, the sum of £3000 Sterling, and to Catherine Ann Sophia Dixon, my youngest lawful daughter, the like sum of £3000 Sterling, payable the said sums to my said daughters at the expiry of one year after their respective majorities or marriages, whichever of these events shall first happen after my decease, or in the event of my surviving these periods, or either of them, then to be payable as follows, ‘&c ‘In the third place, I appoint my said trustees to make payment of the provisions, annuities, and others, and sustain delivery made by me of the effects specified, and contained in a separate or supplementary trust-deed executed by me in favour of the said trustees, of even date with these presents, to the persons hereinafter mentioned. Lastly, I appoint my said trustees to convey, deliver, and make over to Jacob Dixon, my eldest son, the residue of my said means and estate, after satisfying the provisions and others above mentioned, and that so soon after my death as my said trustees may have recovered and laid aside sums sufficient for satisfying the provisions, annuities and others provide by this deed, and the relative supplementary deed before mentioned; care being always taken that my said eldest lawful son shall not receive less out of my means and estate than the sum of £6000 Sterling, or the value thereof.”
Jacob Dixon, junior, died on the 25th of September 1831, predeceasing his father, who died the day following, and leaving several children, who were alive at the date of the foresaid settlement. The other children of the testator survived their father. Mr. Dixon, senior, left some heritable property, but it was burdened with debts and provsions to a greater amount than its value. His moveable property was very considerable. The pursuers, as the nearest of kin of Mr Jacob Dixon, senior, now brought the present action of declarator against the widow and children of Jacob Dixon, junior, narrating the assumption of Mr. Dixon, as a partner of the Dumbarton Glass Company, without contribution of funds, whereby he had been made independent by his father,-- that he had formed an illicit connexion with, and subsequently recognized a person of low rank as his wife, by whom he had a family, and the consequent displeasure of Mr Dixon, senior, whi never intended to benefit that family; and concluding,-- That Jacob Dixon, junior, having predeceased his father, the testator, the legacy in his favour had lapsed and became void, and did not transmit or accrue to his children or representatives, nor was there ground for implying in their favour any conditional institution: That Jacob Dixon, senior, having by the lapse of this legacy, died intestate, as to the residue of his estate, that residue, which, both in respect of the testator’s directions to realise by sale the whole of his funds, and because the heritable property he left was exhausted by heritable debt, consisted entirely of moveable succession, belonged to the pursuers and others, the next of kin of Jacob Dixon, senior, and must be accounted for to them by his trustees; That the pursuers, though taking their specific provisions under the said deed, were not barred from maintaining that the said legacy had lapsed, or from claiming their share of their father’s intestate succession.
The defenders answered,-- That the testator was on good term with his eldest son’s family at the date of the settlement, and pleaded, that the provisions made in the trust-deed and settlement of Mr Jacob Dixon, senior, in favour of his eldest son, Mr Jacob Dixon, junior, did not lapse by his predeceasing his father, but implied a conditional institution in favour of his children; and consequently, that the defenders were entitled to claim the said provisions: That the pursuers were, by the trust-deed, expressing debarred from making any other claims against the estate and effects of Mr Jacob Dickson, senior, except for the special provisions bequeathed to them.”
[Reports of Cases decided in the Court of Sessions, February 1841, p158-62].
A. & J. Dixon v. Dixon et al.
Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Anthony Dixon Esquire, Merchant in Dumbarton, and Joseph Dixon Esquire, Advocate, Member of Parliament for the Dumbarton District of Burghs, Trustees nominated and appointed by the Settlement of the late Jacob Dixon senior, Esquire, of the Dumbarton Glassworks, their Father; complaining of an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the First Division, of the 24th of December 1831; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Appellants may have such Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that William Dixon, Mrs. Jane Isabella Dixon or Campbell, Mrs. Mary Dixon or Buchanan, Mrs. Ann Margaret Dixon or Napier, Miss Elizabeth Frances Dixon, Humphrey Walter Campbell, Robert Buchanan, David Napier, Jane Dixon, Elizabeth Dixon and Mrs. Jacob Dixon, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"
It is Ordered, That the said William Dixon, and the several other Persons last named, may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the 14th Day of February next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondents, or upon any One of their known Agents respectively in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service. [From: 'House of Lords Journal Volume 64: 17 January 1832', Journal of the House of Lords: volume 64: 1831-1832, pp. 17-20. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=19249]
A. & J. Dixon v. Dixon et al.
Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Anthony Dixon Esquire, Merchant in Dumbarton, and Joseph Dixon Esquire, Advocate, Member of Parliament for the Dumbarton District of Burghs, Trustees nominated and appointed by the Settlement of the late Jacob Dixon senior, Esquire, of the Dumbarton Glassworks, their Father; complaining of an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the First Division, of the 24th of December 1831; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Appellants may have such Relief in the Premises, as to this House, in their Lordships great Wisdom, shall seem meet; and that William Dixon, Mrs. Jane Isabella Dixon or Campbell, Mrs. Mary Dixon or Buchanan, Mrs. Ann Margaret Dixon or Napier, Miss Elizabeth Frances Dixon, Humphrey Walter Campbell, Robert Buchanan, David Napier, Jane Dixon, Elizabeth Dixon and Mrs. Jacob Dixon, may be required to answer the said Appeal:"
It is Ordered, That the said William Dixon, and the several other Persons last named, may have a Copy of the said Appeal, and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the 14th Day of February next; and Service of this Order upon the said Respondents, or upon any One of their known Agents respectively in the Court of Session in Scotland, shall be deemed good Service. [From: 'House of Lords Journal Volume 64: 17 January 1832', Journal of the House of Lords: volume 64: 1831-1832, pp. 17-20. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=19249]
A. & J. Dixon v. Dixon et al.
The Answer of William Dixon, residing at Leven Grove; Mrs. Jane Isabella Dixon or Campbell, Wife of Humphry Walter Campbell, Sheriff Substitute of Dumbartonshire; Mrs. Mary Dixon or Buchanan, Wife of Robert Buchanan, Surgeon in Dumbarton; Mrs. Ann Margaret Dixon or Napier, Wife of David Napier, Merchant, late of Singapore, presently residing at Breandam, in the County of Perth; and Miss Elizabeth Frances Dixon, residing at Levengrove, all Children of the deceased John Dixon of Levengrove, and Personal Representatives of their deceased Brother John Dixon junior, last of Levengrove, who was the Executor Nominate of his Father John Dixon senior, both of whom were Partners of the Dumbarton Glass Work Company, with Concurrence of the said Humphry Walter Campbell, Robert Buchanan and David Napier, and of them for their Interest, to the Petition and Appeal of Anthony Dixon Esquire and Joseph Dixon Esquire, was this Day brought in. [From: 'House of Lords Journal Volume 64: 11 April 1832', Journal of the House of Lords: volume 64: 1831-1832, pp. 161-163. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=19304.]
13 August 1832
No. 16— Anthony Dixon & Joseph Dixon, Appellants, v. William Dixon & Others, Respondents
Sequestration— Factor Judicial— Copartnery— The partners of a Company having died— one of them intestate, and the other having left a settlement appointing trustees— Held, in the special cirumstances of the case, (affirming the judgment of the Court below), that the representatives of the partner who died intestate were entitled, in opposition to the trustees, to have the property sequestered, and a judicial factor appointed.
The Dumbarton Glass-Work Company carried on business during many years by a succession of partners. At length, the were reduced to three, viz. John Dixon, senior, father of William Dixon & others, her brother Jacob Dixon, and the late Alexander Houston. The copartnery expired; and Mr Houston having retired, the concern was conducted by John and Jacob Dixon, without any new contract. Before February 1822, John Dixon died, and Jacob assumed as partners his own nephew, Mr John Dixon, junior, brother of William Dixon & others, and his own son, Jacob Dixon, junior. The stock of the Company previously consisted of 41 shares; and on the assumption of his nephew and son, Jacob Dixon, senior, took 21 shares to himself, and allotted 10 to his nephew, and 10 to his son. In October 1828, John Dixon, junior, died, and his interest in the Company appeared to be upwards of £30,000. William Dixon, &c raised an action, as executors of their brother, to obtain a settlement, but before the record was made up, Jacob Dixon, junior and senior, died in October 1831, within twenty-six hours of each other. By the death of these parties, the Dumbarton Glass Company ceased to exist. Jacob Dixon, senior, left two sons and three daughters, all of age, and had executed a settlement, with certain codicils, conveying his property to Joseph and Anthony Dixon, the appellants, inter alios, as trustees. Jacob Dixon, junior, died without executing any settlement, and left two sons and two daughters— all of them minors. At this time, the effects of the Company were stated at £126,000. Anthony and Joseph Dixon, sons of the testator, Jacob Dixon, senior, commenced, as his trustees, to carry on the Glass-Works, and gave an inventory of their father’s personal effects. William Dixon &c, however, distrustful of their management, raised arrestments; and a writ of extent having been issued by the Crown in consequence, they presented a petition to the Court, praying their Lordships to appoint a person to act as “manager, with power to wind up the affairs of the Dumbarton Glass-Work Company, and other Companies composing the same partnership; or as curator bonis, or judicial factor, to protect the funds and estate of the said Companies, for behoof of the minors and the petitioners, and all others having interest.”
The petition was served, and Messrs Anthony and Joseph Dixon answered— I. That the petitioners had no title to apply for the appointment of a judicial factor, in respect that they stated themselves as creditors of the Dumbarton Glass-Work Company; and the respondents, in virtue of the trust-deed of Jacob Dixon, senior, were vested with the management. Both by law, and by the will of the deceased, the respondents, as executors, are entitled to the administration. The executors may be called to account, but ought not to be deprived of their office.— II. By the appointment of a judicial factor, an immense expense will be incurred in the collection of debts, &c., which would otherwise have been saved by the respondents, one of whom was bred to the business, and for many years conducted the Class-Work under his father.
The Court, on 24th December 1831, pronounced this interlocutor:
Sequestrate the funds and estate of the Dumbarton Glass-work Company, and the other Companies composing the same partnership, as specified in the petition,-- and they, of consent, nominate and appoint Mr James Watson, accountant in Glasgow, to be interim judicial factor on the said sequestrated estate, with power to take the same under his charge, and to manage, and wind up the whole affairs of the said Companies, and with the other usual powers; the said James Watson, before extract, finding sufficient caution in terms of the Act of Sederunt.”
Thereafter, a petition was presented by, and on behalf of William Dixon and others, respondents, praying their Lordships to recall the said interlocutor, so far as it contains an appointment of an interim judicial factor; and to appoint Mr Robert Findlay of Easter Hill, merchant in Glasgow, judicial factor on the funds and estate sequestrated by the said interlocutor; upon which petition, their Lordships of the First Division pronounced the following interlocutor:--
“20th January 1832.— The Lords having resumed consideration of this petition, with the mutual minutes of report by Lord Cringletie, officiating on the Bills, and heard the counsel for the parties, the refused the desire of this petition: Find Mr James Watson entitled to the whole expenses incurred by him as interim factor: Appoint an account thereof to be put in; and remit to the Auditor to tax, and report.”
[The Scottish Jurist: Containing Reports of Cases Decided in the House of Lords (1833), Vol. V, 56-58].
William Dixon and Others (John Dixon’s Executors), Pursuers, Anthony, Joseph, and William Dixon (Jacob Dixon, Sr’s Trustees), Defenders.
Argument over the fate of the Dumbarton Glass Company, 19 June 1834
Previous to the death of John Dixon, last of Levengrove, the Dumbarton Glasswork Company consisted of three partners, Jacob Dixon, senior, Jacob Dixon, junior, and the said John Dixon. After the death of John Dixon, which happened on 6th October 1828, his representatives raised the present action against the two surviving partners, which was afterwards transferred to their representatives. On the expiry of the former contract of copartnery in 1822, a new contract had been prepared and entered in the sederunt-book, but never signed by the partners. This last contract contained, inter alia, the following clauses:
“4th, The said Jacob Dixon, senior, as sole manager aforesaid, hereby binds and obliges himself to cause fair and regular books to be kept of the said Company’s whole affairs, and to balance the same regularly at the 30th day of June in each year…”
“6th, In the case of the decease or insolvency of any of the partners, during the subsistence of this copartnership, the trade, stock, and estates of the said Company shall devolve, and are hereby assigned and disponed, and made over to the surviving partners, exclusive of the successors of the deceasing, or creditors of the insolvent partner or partners, who shall have no right to examine the books or accounts of the said Company, or the balance-sheet thereof; but those having right shall be obliged to withdraw, and the surviving and solvent partners shall, in every case, be bound to pay to those having right, the value of the deceasing or insolvent partner’s share and interest in the concern, as ascertained by the minute authenticating the last balance of the Company’s books preceding such decease or insolvency, by equal portions, with interest from the time of the preceding balance till payment; And further, the surviving and solvent partners shall be obliged to free and relieve all concerned of the whole debts owing by the said Companies, and to report discharges thereof within three years after such death or insolvency.”
It was concluded that a sum of £24,000 Sterling was the amount of the shares, as of the last balance report of 30 June 1828, with lawful interest bearing from 1 July 1828 until payment. On 26 June 1833, the Lord Ordinary (Fullerton) held that the partnership was dissolved by the death of John Dixon, and the contract having never been signed by him, and with no other means of authenticating the value of the partners shares, therefore, the court could not award the decedent’s estate with any portion of funds or shares as derived from the former partnership. No valid contract could be produced by the pursuers, and it found in favour of the defendants’ representatives.
[The Scots Revised Reports: Cases Reported Only in the Scottish Jurist, 1829-1865 by
(1907), p164-65].
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/macaulay/messages/1679.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|