John Craig's Home (The Tobacco Merchant's House) [Novoje, Tobacco Merchant's House, 42 Miller Street, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 2018. Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 4.0. ]

Scots engaged in commerce on local, transatlantic, and global scales by forging numerous commercial relationships at home and aboard. Personal and financial connections helped artisans and farmers to sell their wares in Edinburgh's Grassmarket, allowed fishermen from the Isle of Lewis to send their catch to London, and enriched the Glasgow merchants who controlled large swaths of the American commodities trade. The Glaswegian streets of Virginia, Jamaica, and Tobago are testaments to the British Atlantic commercial networks that Scots and their partners built in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The Tobacco Merchant's House, the building shown here, is but one physical example of the many connections that entwined Scotland with the rest of the world. Built in 1775 by John Craig on land purchased from tobacco merchant Robert Hastie, the home on 42 Miller Street later became the property of Robert Finlay of Easterhill, another tobacco merchant invested in the American trade. It now serves as home to the Scottish Civic Trust.

Legal controversies often followed commercial entanglements. Litigants called on the Court of Session to arbitrate or resolve a variety of commercial disputes, including bankruptcy, suspected insurance fraud, and conflicts over the price of goods, among many others. The cases offered here illuminate the central role that commerce played in the Scottish economy and society. They pull back the curtain on commercial activity in the British Atlantic world and the people who participated in it. 

Related Cases

Case Date Legal Subjects Abstract
Competition Among the Creditors of Macfarlane Dec 1766 Debt, Arrestment, Shipping This case was a dispute among the creditors of David Macfarlane, a merchant of St. Christophers (St. Kitts). In 1764, Macfarlane sent a shipment of sugar from St. Croix to Port Glasgow, consigning it to James King. Macfarlane instructed King to sell the sugar and apply the proceeds to pay certain of Macfarlane’s creditors, who were set forth in a list. When the sugar arrived in Scotland, however, some of Macfarlane’s creditors sought an arrestment. This led to a competition among Macfarlane’s creditors. In the course of the proceeding, the Lord Ordinary ruled that the consigned sugar could not be arrested, and a group of joint petitioners sought review. In August 1766, the Court of Session ruled against them. In November 1766, Messrs. Greenshiels and Wardrope petitioned the court again, this time on their own, arguing that they should be treated differently from other creditors because they did not receive notice of the shipment. In December 1766 the Court adhered to its earlier interlocutor.
Kemloe v. Dun, Reid, and Company 15 Jan 1767 Debt In 1756, Gideon Kemloe, a merchant in Stonehaven (Stonehyve), cosigned as security on a load of cloth purchased by William Wise on credit from Dun and Company in Aberdeen. Wise could not sell the linen, and Kemloe became charged with making the payment to Dun and Company. Kemloe sought a suspension of this payment, claiming that since Dun and Company were already in debt to Wise, that debt should be settled first. Handwritten notation on case document says "refused."
John Steven and Company v. John Douglas 20 Dec 1774 Insurance, Deviation Defender John Douglas provided an insurance policy to pursuer John Steven and Company for a shipment of goods on the Belfast Trader. The planned shipment route was from Belfast to Greenock or Port Glasgow. Before the ship set sail, however, merchants in Stranraer requested that the ship transport some goods from Belfast to Stranraer. The owner of the Belfast Trader agreed to transport these goods. In the course of trying to reach Stranraer, the ship encountered a storm and sank off the coast of Girvan in Ayrshire. Douglas refused to reimburse Steven and Company. Douglas claimed that the voyage taken by the Belfast Trader was different than the voyage provided for in the insurance policy. Steven and Company sought reimbursement, arguing that the voyage to Stranraer on the way to Greenock or Port Glasgow was not a significant deviation from the original route.
Greenock Rope-Work Company v Donald, Donald, and Company 1773 Partnership, Dissolution The Greenock Ropework Company was a partnership formed to manufacture rope and sail-duck. Two partners, William Donald and Henry White (alternatively spelled Whyte), served as managers of the partnership. The partnership decided that only one manager was necessary, so it appointed Henry White as the sole manager of the partnership. This action offended William Donald as well as William's brother, James Donald, another partner of Greenock Ropework Company. With a strained relationship with two of its partners, William and James Donald proposed that the Company should be dissolved, which it did. The parties disputed the proper method of dissolution. To balance the books prior to dissolution, the partnership sought to collect a debt owed by James and Robert Donalds and Company (named as suspenders), the same James Donald who was a partner of the Greenock Rope partnership. Because the rope-work company furnished some goods to that company. James and Robert Donalds and Company sought to suspend the debt on the grounds that James Donald, as partner of the Greenock Ropework Company, was actually owed money in excess of the debt claimed by the partnership.
Wilson and Company v. Hamilton and Company 1773 Debt, Agent, Sell of goods James Wilson and Company of Kilmarnock manufactured woolen carpets for sale in London. Since 1762, Malcolm Hamilton and Company had served as James Wilson & Company's London agent . The dispute related to a large quantity of James Wilson & Company's carpets left in a wharf cellar in London for five years. James Wilson & Company argued that because of Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's negligence it suffered some loss. The pursuer claimed that the carpets had been significantly damaged due to Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's neglect. The defender disputed these claims.
William Richardson v. Martin Fenwick 3 Mar 1772 Debt, Competition between Creditors William Richardson, pursuer, and Martin Fenwick, defender, both sought to collect on payments originally from John Bedford and Son, an English firm. Due to financial trouble, checks endorsed by John Bedford and Son could not be cashed. Instead, Richardson and Fenwick sought to collect from several Scottish firms that owed money to John Bedford and Son, such as Gibson and Balfour, Colin Mclaren and Samuel Patron. Under a "letter of arrestment ad jurisdictionem fundandam," a creditor could bring a foreign debtor's property under the jurisdiction of the Scottish court. In this case, the foreign debtor's property was debt. Fenwick used two arrestments in the hands of Gibson and Balfour, as debtors to Bedford and Son, to establish jurisdiction. He afterwards obtained a decree against Bedford and Son for payment and recourse. On the other hand, Richardson, upon the registered protest of his bill, had taken out letters of arrestment against Gibson and Balfour, and M'Laren and others, as debtors to Bedford and Son. Richardson and Fenwick disputed who had priority to these debts. Fenwick alleged that Richardson's procedure for authorizing letters of arrestment was irregular and therefore ineffective. Richardson disputed Fenwick's claim, and further argued that Fenwick incorrectly identified the debtor as Bedford and Son instead of John Bedford and Son.
Clifford and Sons v. Mosman 1772 Poinding, Arrestment, Ranking of Creditors John Syme and Son, merchants in Leith, owed money to Clifford and Son, pursuer, merchants in Amsterdam. Due to the nature of the transaction, the money was required to pass through the hands of William Hogg and Son, merchants in Edinburgh. (In the transaction, another person, Archibald Maclean, advanced money to William Hogg and Son, which they in turn gave to John Syme and Son. McLean was then reimbursed by Clifford and Son). William Hogg and Son subsequently encounter financial problems, which raised the possibility that its creditors would to collect the money. Clifford and Son sought to avoid this possibility. Hugh Mosman, a writer in Edinburgh and creditor of William Hogg and Son, claimed an interest in the payment from John Syme and Son to William Hogg and Son. Clifford and Son disputed Mosman's claim by arguing that they were entitled to the payment because they provided the funds in the first place.
Francis Garbet and Company v. Their Creditors 1772 Bankruptcy, Sequestration Francis Garbet, Charles Gascoigne, and Peter Capper entered into a partnership under the name Francis Garbet and Company. The partnership was in the business of conveying goods to and from London and other places along the coast of England. Due to financial difficulty, Gascoigne applied to the court to sequester the whole personal estate belonging to the partners and to appoint a factor to manage the partnership's property so that timely payments could be made to the partnership's creditors. George Home was appointed factor on the sequestration. Gascoigne then sought to withdraw or amend the application by claiming that he was unaware of the effect of this sequestration under Scots law, having received his formal education and training in England. Under the law of Scotland, creditors of a company can claim not only the company's property, but the personal property of the individual partners as well. Under the law of England, in contrast, creditors of a company can only draw on the personal property of the individual partners after private creditors of the individual partners have been satisfied. The partners of Francis Garbet and Company sought to sequester the partnership's estate only, not the individual estates of the partners.
Thomas and Alexander Peters, Merchants in Glasgow, v. Alexander Spiers, Andrew Blackburn, and Others, Trustees for James Dunlop, Merchant in Glasgow 27 Jan 1767 Debt In 1763, Glasgow merchant James Dunlop, whose affairs at the time were in a state of confusion, arranged for Alexander Speirs, Andrew Blackburn, and Andrew Syme to become his trustees. Under this agreement, Speirs et al agreed that all debts they recovered on Dunlop's behalf would go first to paying for the duties Dunlop owed on imported tobacco. In July 1763, the ship Betsy arrived in Greenock from Virginia with tobacco belonging to James Dunlop and 16 hogsheads of tobacco consigned to Thomas and Alexander Peters of Glasgow by Walter Peter and Company in Virginia. Dunlop traveled to Greenock to enter his tobacco. At the request of Thomas and Alexander Peters, Dunlop entered in their 16 hogsheads well and was repaid the import duties. When Thomas and Alexander Peters could not secure the delivery of their 16 hogsheads from Dunlop, they brought action against Dunlop in the Court of Session, and as a result the tobacco was arrested in the hands of Josiah Corthine, collector of the customs at Port Glasgow. In August 1764, Dunlop and his agents William Wallace and William King exported 89 hogsheads of tobacco in the ship Hero for Bourdeaux, and they were to receive payment from Corthine on this shipment as a drawback. The Pursuers claimed a right to this sum as repayment for their tobacco, and Speirs et al claimed a right to this sum under trust-right from Dunlop in bankruptcy.
Scrimgeour and Son v. Alexander and Sons 15 Jun 1769 Contract, Affreightment, Ships In March 1765, Edinburgh merchants Alexander & Sons contracted with the Borrowstounness merchant house of James Scrimgeour & Son to freight the ship the Duke of Athol for a voyage to Grenada—after considering a trip to Maryland or Virginia—with a cargo of herring, staves, and green linens. Due to a variety of accidents, the ship did not make it to Grenada until after the end of sugar season. Having no sugar to collect and bring back to Scotland, the agent at Grenada for Alexander & Sons convinced the ship’s captain to sail for (North) Carolina. Within days of the ship’s arrival in Wilmington, protests broke out over the Stamp Act, delaying the ship’s loading and departure for months. When the Duke of Athol finally returned to Leith, Alexander & Sons brought a legal dispute against James Scrimgeour & Son over the respective financial obligations of the parties due to the ship's delay.
John Finlay and Trustees v. Robert Finlay and Trustees 1772 Debt, Copartnership, Bankruptcy John Finlay, pursuer, was the son of Robert Finlay, defender. John and Robert operated a shoe factory in Glasgow as a partnership. Robert owned two-thirds interest and John owned one-third. The partnership experienced financial difficulty and was placed in trusteeship. John's trustees sued Robert's trustees to see if Robert owed any money to John from the venture. Robert insisted that he did not owe any money and sought certain documents and books from the partnership.
Messrs Mansfield, Hunter, and Company, and Others, creditors of John Nisbet of Northfield v. Thomas Cairns 15 Feb 1771 Creditor Pursuers Mansfield, Hunter, Cochran, Murdoch, and Rigg, were creditors of the late John Nisbet of Northfield. Defender, Thomas Cairns, became a preferred creditor of Nisbet through a loan to Nisbet in November 1769. (A preferred creditor had priority to the repayment of a debt over other creditors.) The money was put into Nisbet's hands through Cairns's trustee, William Kerr, who also entrusted William Hart. Nisbet granted Cairns a heritable bond. Nisbet later went bankrupt. The Pursuers challenged Cairns' status as a preferred creditor. They maintained that they were creditors of the debtor Nisbet before his arrangement with Cairns, and that they had claims at least on par with Cairns.
Thomas Manson, Writer in Edinburgh v. John Angus, Merchant in Edinburgh 16 Jul 1771 Debt Andrew Farquhar, a shopkeeper in Edinburgh, owed money to defender John Angus, a merchant in Edinburgh. To satisfy this debt, Farquhar indorsed to Angus a bill payable by pursuer Thomas Manson. Farquhar later went bankrupt and was committed to prison. Manson refused to pay the bill and alleged that the transaction between Farquhar and Angus was "fraudulent and usurious." Manson argued, for example, that Angus sold goods to Farquhar at exorbitant profits. Angus denied this claim and maintained that Manson must pay the bill.
Andrew Ross and Others v. John Glasford and Company 22 Feb 1771 Charter Party, Sailor's Compensation, Ships In the summer 1759, Charger Andrew Ross and others were sailors aboard the Ingram, a ship owned by suspender John Glassford. The planned route was Clyde to Newfoundland, then to Spain, Portugal, or any port in the Mediterranean, and then back to Clyde. During its voyage from Lisbon, Portugal to Clyde, the ship was captured by a French privateer (the Belleisle privateer), commanded by Thurot. The sailors on the Ingram, including Ross, were dropped off in Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland. When the sailors finally returned to Glasgow, they applied for the wages due to them at their arrival in Lisbon. These wages would cover the voyage from Clyde to Newfoundland, and then to Lisbon. Glassford refused to pay the sailors' wages. Glassford maintained that sailors were not entitled to their wages when the ship is taken or wrecked in its homeward voyage. Ross et al. disagreed, and argued that it was a custom among merchants in many places to compensate sailors, even in a situation where the ship is taken.
William and Henry Knox and Co Merchants in Dunbar v. William Law, Esq Sheriff-depute of Haddington, and Others 10 Dec 1771 Pursuers William Knox and Henry Knox, merchants in Dunbar, supplied barley to brewers in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Knox and Knox alleged that defender William Law, the sheriff of the county of East Lothian, had set the fiar (fixed price) of barley too high. An Act of Sederunt in 1723 established the process by which a sheriff of a given county in Scotland would set friars. The Act required the sheriff to appoint a jury of at least eight landowners in the county, with knowledge of the good at issue, to set the price. According to the pursuers, the sheriff's responsibilities were purely ministerial, setting a price agreeable with the verdict of the jury. Knox and Knox alleged that Law did not comply with the 1723 Act when he set the fiar for barley.
Kempt v. Liddell 1771 Debt, Evidence In the early 1750s, pursuer James Kempt and defender David Liddel entered into a co-partnership for distilling spirits in Leith. In 1752 Kempt sued Liddel for outstanding debts arising from the partnership. One piece of evidence in the litigation was a cash-book mostly written by Liddel. The suit was dormant until revived in 1766. By this time the original cash-book written by Liddel was missing. In its place Kempt supplied a cash-book written by him (Kempt) or another person. Liddel maintained that this newer cash-book did not contain the original records of the co-partnership and therefore cannot be used against him in the litigation.
Innes v. Stuart 1771 Insurance, Shipment Pursuer Robert Innes, a merchant in Elgin, purchased an insurance policy in September 1769 from defenders James Stuart and James Stodart, merchants in Edinburgh. The policy covered a shipment of oats and grain from Elgin to the Firth of Forth. During the trip, the ship sprang a leak and was forced to stop at the nearest port in the harbor of Montrose. The ship also touched upon a rock in the port. The goods in the ship were considerably damaged, so Innes sought payment from Stuart and Stodart under the insurance policy. Stuart and Stodart refused to pay, finding that neither the insurance policy nor the practice of merchants covered this ship's situation. The insurance policy at issue covered damage when the ship was stranded. Stuart and Stodart maintained that the damage to the ship occurred before the ship was stranded, when the ship sprung a leak. Innes disagreed, arguing that the damage to the cargo only occurred after the ship was stranded, thereby triggering coverage under the insurance policy.
Jones v. Smith 1771 Inspection of goods Pursuer David Jones, merchant in Glasgow, imported quantities of lint-seed from Philadelphia. The goods arrived in Greenock bound for Glasgow. Two dealers in Glasgow, whose business would be affected by the influx of lint-seed, lodged a complaint with the Trustees for the Improvement of Fisheries and Manufactures about the lint-seed's quality. The dealers maintained that the lint-seed was bad, and therefore should not be imported. Defender Hugh Smith was a surveyor for the Trustees. After receiving a report that some of the seed was bad, Smith ordered the condemnation of the seed. Jones challenged the grounds and process by which Smith sought to condemn his cargo.
Robert McNair v. James Coulter 13 Feb 1772 Policy coverage, Insurance Claim Charger Robert McNair and his son James were merchants involved in West Indies sugar trade. James traveled from Scotland to Barbados and Virginia on business. Robert McNair obtained an insurance policy from suspenders James Coulter and John Cross for cargo aboard the ship Jean, which was to carry James McNair and the goods from Barbados to Virginia. The cargo contained corn, pork, livestock, and other goods. The ship was lost near Bermuda on July 2, 1750, but James McNair and the crew survived. Coulter and Cross, suspenders, alleged that McNair overstated the value of the cargo on board. They also alleged that James McNair purposely wrecked the ship to fraudulently obtain the insurance proceeds.
Messrs Peters, Bogle, and Marshall, arresting Creditors of James Dunlop, late Merchant in Glasgow v. Messrs Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Trustees of said James Dunlop 27 Jul 1770 Trustees Pursuers Thomas Peter, William Bogle, and Robert Marshall were creditors of James Dunlop, merchant of Glasgow. Defenders Speirs, Blackburn, and Andrew Syme were Dunlop's trustees. Shortly after granting trust-rights to Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Dunlop went bankrupt. The pursuers refused to bind themselves to Dunlop's trust, preferring instead the ordinary remedies of law to collect their debts. The pursuers arrested quantities of tobacco and hogshead staves from Dunlop's ship, en route from Virginia to Port Glasgow. At issue in this case was the validity of the trust-deed granted by James Dunlop, and the effects of it. According to the pursuers' interpretation of The Bankrupt Act of 1696 the deed was void and ineffectual because it was granted in a foreign country. The trustees argued that the deed was effectual and a valid title in their favor.
Robert Arthur, Merchant in Irvine v. Messrs Hastie & Jamieson, Merchants in Glasgow 12 Dec 1770 Arrestment Two merchants in Virginia, Archibald Dunlop and David Ralston, owed money to James Dunlop, a merchant in Glasgow. James Dunlop, in turn, owed money to pursuer Robert Arthur. Arthur obtained a judgment against James Dunlop and arrestments for the debts Archibald Dunlop and Ralston owed to James Dunlop. Despite these arrestments, Archibald Dunlop then entered into a private contract with defenders Robert Hastie and James Jamieson, merchants in Glasgow. Archibald Dunlop sent from Virginia to Clyde a vessel with tobacco and goods consigned for Hastie and Jamieson. Arthur learned of this shipment, obtained letters of arrestment, and arrested the cargo before it came into the possession of Hastie and Jamieson. Hastie and Jamieson obtained letters of loosing to reclaim the cargo. Through a process of multiple poinding, the creditors of Archibald Dunlop disputed their respective rights and interests. Arthur claimed he has priority based on the outstanding debt Archibald Dunlop owed to James Dunlop. Hastie and Jamieson cited the private contract they executed with Archibald Dunlop.
More and Irvine v. Gibson 1770 Poinding, Deforcement Pursuers More and Irvine were merchants in Gottenburgh (Gothenburg), Sweden. William Duncan owed them money. Robert Monro also agreed to act as a cautioner for Duncan. More and Irvine obtained an order of poinding for Duncan's assets, allowing them to secure Duncan's assets for payment of the debt. Duncan's stepson, defender Walter Gibson, prevented More and Irvine's agents from entering Duncan's house. Gibson claimed that he, not Duncan, owned the house. When More and Irvine's agents later returned to the house with letters of open doors, they found the house emptied of its most valuable furniture. Gibson also claimed that he was the rightful owner of the furniture in the house. More and Irvine accused Gibson of obstructing the poinding.
Walker v. Gordon 31 Jul 1776 Bankruptcy, Trusteeship William Alexander and Sons agreed to enter a co-partnership with George and Cuthbert Gordon for the production of cudbear (dye). The Alexanders made advances to the Gordons over a number of years. Due to mismanagement and disagreement among the partners, the cudbear company was unsuccessful, leading William Alexander and Sons to dissolve the company and seek payment on its advances. Cuthbert Gordon, defender, retained ownership of the cudbear company. Imprisoned for a debt owed to a third party, Gordon sought to sequester his assets. At issue in this case was who should have served as trustee for the creditors. Pursuer John Walker, as trustee for William Alexander and Sons, argued that Ellies Martin, a merchant in Leith, was the proper trustee. At a meeting of the creditors, Ellies Martin was elected trustee by the majority in value of the creditors present at the meeting. Walker also found it improper for Gordon to supervise his own affairs, since Gordon's mismanagement led to the company's demise. Cuthbert Gordon, however, maintained that he was the proper trustee, because certain creditors at the creditors' meeting selected him as trustee.
William Galdie, Factor on the Sequestrated Estate of James Anderson v. William Gray 16 Jun 1774 James Anderson formed a partnership with John Brown, Robert Carrick, and William Gray for the purpose of manufacturing linens in Glasgow. The partnership was known as Brown, Carrick, and Company. Although the firm was successful, Anderson became insolvent, and his personal estate was sequestered by the court. William Galdie was appointed factor. Partner William Gray, who was a creditor to Anderson, sought to attach Anderson’s interest in Brown, Carrick, and Company; two other creditors named Archibald and John Coates did the same. In response, the firm raised a process of multiplepoinding. In that proceeding, Gray claimed a preference, asserting that as a partner in Brown, Carrick, and Company, he had a common law right of retention with respect to Anderson’s interest. Additionally, Gray claimed a preference based on a clause in the firm’s partnership agreement. As factor, William Galdie opposed these claims, arguing that any right of retention was held by the partnership, not by the partners as individuals. Galdie further argued that the cited clause in the partnership agreement did not apply. Gray’s claims were initially rejected by the court; thus, Gray became the petitioner and Galdie the respondent in subsequent phases of litigation.
Parish, &C v. Khones 7 Aug 1776 Foreign-creditors This case was about the effect in Scotland of foreign bankruptcy proceedings involving Joseph Turner, a merchant in Bremen, Germany. After Turner became bankrupt, creditors John Parish and John Henrich Schreiber & Co. arrested (i.e., attached) some yarn belonging to Mr. Turner, which had been consigned to merchants in Scotland. The yarn was subsequently released to three men who claimed to be trustees for Turner’s creditors: Jacob Khone, John Khone, and John Andrew Uhtoff Ludson, all merchants in Bremen. These trustees disposed of the yarn and initiated a court proceeding in Scotland to determine who was entitled to the proceeds. They claimed that Parish and Schreiber had acceded to the trust and therefore could not assert a preference based on their earlier arrestments. In support of this argument, the trustees relied on laws of Bremen which, they alleged, provided for the effects of a bankrupt to be taken into the management of the senate; some number of senators were then chosen as trustees by the creditors. The trustees also provided certificates from the Bremen senate describing the defenders’ participation in this process. The petitioners argued that this was not sufficient evidence of the trust, and that the trust had no effect in Scotland.
Dunlop, and Other Trustees of Carlyle and Co v. Spiers and Others 8 Aug 1776 This case was about the ability of creditors to recover debts from an individual member of a partnership. The debtor in question, James Dunlop, was a partner in John Carlyle and Company. After Carlyle and Company failed, trustees were appointed to represent two separate but related interests: the partnership itself (for the purpose of unwinding the firm) and the partnership’s creditors. These trustees lodged two types of claims with the trustees of James Dunlop, who had also become insolvent. First, on behalf of the partnership, the trustees pursued claims for debts owed by Dunlop to the firm. Second, on behalf of the firm’s creditors, they claimed that Dunlop was personally liable for the firm’s debts. When Dunlop’s trustees refused these claims, the Carlyle trustees sued. Dunlop’s trustees, as defenders, argued that the pursuers could not be ranked on Dunlop’s estate for both categories of debt.
Glover and Others v. Vasie 7 Aug 1776 Commission of Bankruptcy In England, Assignees In 1770, John Bedford and Son, Leeds merchants, went bankrupt. One of their English creditors, Martin Fenwick, laid arrestments (judicial security) upon Colin Maclaren, a Scottish debtor of Bedford and Son. Fenwick recovered what he was owed, and then a second English creditor of Bedford and Son, Robert Vasie, laid an arrestment upon the remainder of MacLaren's debt. Vasie had previously received a dividend under an English commission of bankruptcy. During the process, Lord Hailes gave preference to Vasie. Benjamin Glover and other assignees of Bedford and Son objected to this preference on account of the dividend Vasie possessed. They also argued that as an Englishman Vasie could not compete with their claim upon Bedford and Son’s Scottish effects. Vasie, in turn, argued that the pursuers, having been made assignees by an English commission of bankruptcy, had no right of action in Scotland. The Court ruled that Messrs. Glover, etc. had a right of action to recover Bedford and Son's Scottish effects, and barred Vasie from competing.
Sibbald v. Mr William Wallace 27 Jul 1779 Foreign Merchant, Non-implement In June 1774, John Sibbald, a self-styled 'merchant in Gottenburg', brought action against William Wallace, advocate, with respect to two letters of guarantee Wallace had granted on behalf of Betty Irvine, an Edinburgh merchant and shopkeeper. In November 1772, Irvine had passed this surety to Sibbald in exchange for a bill of landing for four boxes of tea, which were ultimately seized and condemned by the Crown upon entering the Firth of Forth. On account of this failed adventure and the execution raised against her by the pursuer, Betty Irvine became bankrupt and left the country. Sibbald then pursued Wallace for the £80 pounds. The case came before the Lord Justice Clerk. Barskimming found the defender liable at first but later assoilzied him, and Sibbald petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. He argued that the conveyance in question was one that had occurred in Gottenburg, and as a foreign merchant his case was actionable. The defender argued that Sibbald was merely disguised as a foreign merchant, but he was truly a burgess of Kinghorn. Therefore, Wallace stated, "The point in the dispute, is, whether ought action to be sustained, upon a confessed smuggling contract, or rather upon a contract for doing an act prohibited by the public law, at the instance of one of the parties." He also argued his case based upon the principle of non-implement, for the transaction he had referred to in his letter of surety was different from what had occurred. The Court found in favor of the pursuer at first, but upon advising a second petition and answers, assoilzied (absolved) the defender.
Thomas Stoddart v. M'Quan, Beck, and Company 28 Jul 1779 Foreign Merchant Around 1765 MacWhan, Beck, and Company participated in a number of smuggling adventures with Currie, Park, and Company. In 1768, David Currie pressed upon John Beck to accept a bill for £163 on the account kept between the two companies while carrying out their illegal activity. Currie, Beck, and Company later endorsed the bill to Thomas Stothart (Stoddart), who brought action against MacWhan, Beck, and Company for payment. The case came before Lord Auchinleck, and the petitioners argued that they had merely accepted the bill as a favor, and that it was cancelled out by sums they had earlier advanced. Lord Auchinleck ruled in their favor. The defenders appealed, arguing that the bill was tied to smuggled goods. They took note of the Court's recent decision in MacClure and MacCree v. Paterson, but Auchinleck again rejected their arguments. MacWhan, Beck, and Company then applied to the Court, arguing again that the bill was for an amount not actually owed, which had been spent in implement of a smuggling contract. The pursuer replied that the bill itself was proof that the sum was indeed owed, and that as foreign merchants they had merely engaged in free commerce abroad. The Court determined that a bill associated with smuggling could not be enforced, and ruled in favor of the defenders.
James Edmonstone v. William Jackson 1 Feb 1780 Abandonment, Ships In April 1776, John Walker & Company freighted the Duntreath with a load of coal, deliverable to Alexander-John Alexander of Grenada. Upon the Duntreath's arrival in Grenada, Bartlet, Campbell, & Company freighted it for a journey to Florida. In August 1776, after stopping on the St. Johns River, the Duntreath's captain James Edmonstone was captured by rebels and carried to Savannah. Now under the command of James Crichton, on its journey back to Grenada, the Duntreath was captured by the privateer ship Tyrannicide, but then recaptured and brought to New York for repairs. In January 1778, the Duntreath set out for Grenada again, but was captured by another rebel ship, the Three Sisters, before being recaptured and brought to Grenada. When no appearance was made to reclaim the Duntreath, Grenada's Vice-Admiralty Court had it auctioned. The owners of the Duntreath then made a claim to its insurance underwriters for a total loss, however the underwriters argued that because the auction money was deposited with Grenada's Vice-Admiralty Court, it was merely a partial loss. After the High Court of Admiralty found their case ineffectual, the ship's owners appealed to the Court of Session. Lord Gardenstone reported their bill, but the Court ruled it outside of their jurisdiction. Their bill was later remitted to Lord Braxfield, however, who reported it again; the Court then determined that the pursuers could only claim a partial loss.
Ramage v. Charteris 19 Jul 1782 Mrs. Jean Charteris, a Scottish merchant, was engaged in trade with Joseph Ramage, a merchant in York. Ramage furnished articles of thread manufacture to Charteris, and Charteris paid him either in cash or in goods. In 1780, Ramage raised an action against Charteris for a balance that was allegedly due on her account. The account showed that Ramage had last furnished an article to Charteris in 1776, but Charteris had furnished goods to Ramage within the last three years. Charteris argued that the case was barred by the triennial prescription (i.e., the statute of limitations). Ramage responded that the prescription would not become effective until three years passed with no furnishing by either party.
Richardson and Co v. Stoner, Hunter, and Ker 20 Nov 1783 Jettison, Insurance This case was about apportioning liability for a cargo of salmon that was partially jettisoned and partially sold for a lower-than-expected price before reaching its planned destination. The owners of the salmon raised an action for damages against their underwriters, as well as the merchants who sold the salmon and the shipmaster-owner of the vessel; they argued that the shipmaster lacked authority to make the sale. The underwriters argued that although the relevant policy covered the jettisoned cargo, it did not apply to a partial loss such as the allegedly premature sale.
Alexander Fergusson, and Others v. The Magistrates of Glasgow 29 Jun 1786 The pursuers, who were also suspenders in a related action, challenged the authority of the magistrates of Glasgow to impose a duty on potatoes.
Robert Fram and Others v. The Magistrates of Dumbarton 19 Jul 1786 This case was about the right of the residents of Dumbarton to receive fish from the rivers Clyde and Leven. Dumbarton’s crown charter conferred the right to certain salmon fishings on “the bailies, burgesses, counsellors, community, and inhabitants” of the town. For more than a century, the town had let the salmon fishings to tacksmen, who were required to sell their catch in the town market at a low rate. In 1783, the magistrates decided to issue tacks with no such restriction. Certain residents of Dumbarton sued, arguing that they had a personal interest in the salmon fishings. The magistrates responded that the new arrangement would benefit the town.
Marshall, Hamilton, and Company v. John Crawford and John Barns 15 Nov 1786 This case was about the interpretation of two insurance policies taken out by Messrs Marshall, Hamilton, and Company on the ship Ceres. One of those policies covered the Ceres and its freight until the ship reached its “port or ports of discharge in the West Indies”; the other policy covered the Ceres and a subset of its freight, a load of fish, until the ship reached “a market in the West Indies.” In Spring of 1784, the Ceres sailed from Greenock, Scotland, carrying beef, coal, and dry goods. The ship went first to St. John’s, Newfoundland, where it picked up the load of fish, and subsequently to the Caribbean, where it discharged the fish. The shipmaster, George Jamieson, then began taking steps to obtain a return freight to Britain. In the course of his efforts to obtain a return freight, Jamieson sailed to Jamaica and moored the Ceres in Morant Bay. There, the ship was wrecked in a hurricane. At the time of the wreck, the Ceres still contained beef, coal, and dry goods. Based on these facts, a dispute arose between Marshall, Hamilton, and Co. and its underwriters about whether, prior to the hurricane, the ship’s outward voyage had terminated under the terms of each insurance policy.
Alexander Pagan and James Hunter v. Alexander Wylie 19 Jun 1793 Documents available. Full description in progress.
Attorney of Thomas Cullen & Co v. David Philp 15 May 1793 Documents available. Full description in progress.
The York-Buildings Company v. Alexander Mackenzie 8 Mar 1793 Documents available. Full description in progress.
Andrew Wauchope and Others v. The Magistrates of Canongate 28 Jan 1800 The Magistrates of Canongate, defenders, were authorized by statute to levy customs duties at the Water Gate with respect to certain articles at particular rates. For many years, the Magistrates had charged higher rates and levied duties on articles not mentioned in the statute. In 1795, the Magistrates published a new table of duties that served to increase rates and to add new articles. Pursuers Andrew Wauchope, the Trustees of the Post Road District, and William Scott (Procurator-fiscal of the County of Edinburgh) challenged the Magistrates’ authority to charge duties not specifically authorized by the statute.
William Baxter v. Bell and Maxwell and Others 17 Dec 1800 The defenders in this case, a group of soap and candle makers, purchased wicks from James Hutchison Jr. In turn, they sometimes sold their goods to Hutchison. Rather than paying separately for each transaction, the merchants periodically settled their accounts and paid the balance in cash or by bill. Unbeknownst to the defenders, Hutchison was selling the wicks on commission from pursuer William Baxter. When Hutchison died, Baxter sued the defenders for the price of certain wicks that they had received. However, the defenders argued that Hutchison owed them a larger sum, and that Baxter must bear the risk of misconduct by Hutchison, his consignee.