| King and Scot v. MacIntyre |
1776
|
Intrinsic and Extrinsic, Qualified Oath |
In 1774, John MacIntyre made a verbal agreement with David Scot and John King to rent a house belonging to them. A few days after this agreement, MacIntyre found the house inadequate for his needs and gave it back. Several months later Scot and King brought action against MacIntyre before the Magistrates of Glasgow for a half-year's rent. Because MacIntyre had acknowledged the facts of the set in his defense, the bailies found the libel against him relevant. MacIntyre brought an advocation before Lord Elliock, who ruled against him. He then petitioned the Court for review, arguing, first, that there had been no written obligation, merely a verbal one. Furthermore, he argued that his defense of the libel was intrinsic to his admission of the fact of the set, and the two could not be separated. The pursuers on the other hand, argued that MacIntyre's assertion of having given up the house was merely extrinsic to his acknowledgment of the libel. The Court assoilzied (absolved) the defender, and Scot and King brought a petition requesting an alteration of the Court's interlocutor. Handwritten marginalia notes that the Court likely adhered. |
| Mary Muir v. Isobel Buchanan |
1771
|
Debt, Estate, Compensation, Oath of Party, Intrinsic and Extrinsic |
In connection with the marriage of James Taylor and Mary Muir, Mary’s brother James Muir agreed to pay a tocher, or dowry, of 2000 merks. The debt went unpaid for several years. However, shortly after James Muir’s death, Taylor sought payment from Muir’s widow, Isobel Buchanan, and her children. (James Taylor died during the litigation, and the case was taken up by Mary Muir acting as his executrix.) As defender, Buchanan claimed that the tocher debt was more than offset by various sums that James Muir had advanced to his sister and brother-in-law over the years. In considering the parties’ competing claims, the court addressed a number of questions about which debts could properly be used to offset each other and what evidence was competent to prove those debts. Case documents discuss various commercial pursuits by the parties, including Mary Muir. |
