AI-transcribed

Acts of the Parliament of Scotland before the Union are cited by year and chapter, thus Act 1686, c. 5.

Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Act of Parliament

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Andrew Wauchope and Others v. The Magistrates of Canongate 1798 Prescription, Possession, Act of Parliament, Statute, Title, Burgh 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.
Archers and Others v. Magistrates of Edinburg 1797 Statute, Fraud, Act of Parliament, Sequestration, Trust, Tax James and Andrew Archers, John Hardy, and William Younger, brewers operating within the precincts of Holyroodhouse, pursued the magistrates of Edinburgh and Alexander Thomson to contest the legality of a two-penny duty imposed on ale brewed and consumed in the Abbey, maintaining that the magistrates lacked authority to levy the tax within that jurisdiction. The brewers claimed total exemption from the duty, which the chargers subsequently challenged as legally unsound and unjust.
Baillie v. Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow 1796 Heritor, Prescription, Act of Parliament, Expenses, Possession, Interlocutor John Baillie reclaimed against an interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk in an action against the Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow concerning the liability for costs of repairing foot-pavements. The defenders submitted information arguing that adjacent proprietors, and not the public, must bear the cost of such repairs.
Balfour v. Earl of Moray 1796 Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Heritor, Collation, Act of Parliament Mr Andrew Balfour, Advocate, His Majesty's Solicitor of Tithes, petitioned the Court as pursuer against the Earl of Moray, as defender, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Charles Addison and Sons v. William Duguid and Others 1792 Insurance, Adjudication, Statute, Contract, Act of Parliament, Debt In February 1791, the ship Leviathan, sailed from Borrowstounness for Greenland on a whaling expedition. The vessel's owners, Charles Addison and Sons, took out an insurance policy with William Duguid, Andrew M'Kenzie, George Robertson, and James Hunter for 90 butts of blubber, with a provision that the underwriters would pay for whatever portion less than 90 the vessel returned with. The Leviathan was delayed at Stromness, Orkney for several weeks, and when the ship returned to its home port with only 3 or 4 butts, Addison and Sons sought to collect on the insurance. Their attempt to cash in the policy led to litigation in the Admiralty Court where the Judge Admiral initially ruled for the underwriters, before subsequently ruling against them on the Addisons' appeal. Duguid, M'Kenzie, Robertson, and Hunter asked the Court of Session to reverse the Judge Admiral's ruling, arguing that the Leviathan's delay in the Orkney's voided the insurance policy. Addison and Sons in turn argued that their reading of 26 Geo. III, cap. 41 and 29 Geo. III supported their claims, and further argued that the insurance policy was actually a wager, an illegal gambling contract violative of 19th Geo. II.
Countess of Loudon, and Others v. The Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire 1792 Jurisdiction, Trustees, Appeal, Sequestration, Act of Parliament, Adjudication The Countess of Loudoun and others pursued the Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire regarding the proposed suppression of the road by Crawfordland-bridge, while the Trustees and associated justices of the peace defended the road's continued operation. The Trustees initially challenged the Court's jurisdiction to review their proceedings, then argued in subsequent pleadings that the road served public convenience and must be kept open. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies contesting both the Court's authority to intervene and whether the road should remain open or be suppressed.
Duke of Gordon v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1787 Patronage, Charter, Succession, Act of Parliament, Interlocutor, Conveyance Alexander, Duke of Gordon petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gleig v. Stephen 1794 Stipend, Teinds, Heritor, Augmentation, Parish, Act of Parliament Gleig pursued Stephen to determine whether lands situated in the parish of St. Vigians were liable for stipend to the minister of that parish or subject to augmentation for the minister of Arbroath. The memorialists argued that the lands were liable to the St. Vigians minister and could not be subjected to augmentation for Arbroath, while the memorialist responded that lands locally situated in St. Vigeans but paying stipend to Arbroath belonged to that parish quoad stipend.
Marshall, et al v. Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow 1788 Interlocutor, Interdict, Suspension, Charter, Act of Parliament, Possession The Examinators of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow, including Dr Robert Marshall, petitioned the Court to continue an interdict restraining the Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow from quartering soldiers upon them, pending a determination of their claimed charter-based immunity from such burdens. The Magistrates answered, responding to the physicians' argument that their faculty charter rendered them exempt from the quartering of soldiers.
McNish v. Scougal and Ogilvy 1787 Witness, Deed, Reduction, Cautioner, Improbation, Act of Parliament John M'Nish pursued the reduction of a bond of caution he had granted to Messrs Scougal and Ogilvy, merchants in Leith, contending that the deed was void for lack of witnesses to his subscription and because he had not acknowledged his signature at the time of execution. Scougal and Ogilvy argued that the bond remained valid despite M'Nish's denial and the absence of attesting witnesses. The parties filed opposing informations regarding the formal validity of the instrument.
Murdoch et. al v. Magistrates of Port-Glasgow 1778 Duty (Tax), Public Works, Act of Parliament, Statute, Jurisdiction, Contract In 1693, an Act of (Scotland's) Parliament granted Glasgow a duty of two pennies Scots per pint of ale or beer "brewed, in-brought, vended, tapped, or sold within the city, suburbs, or liberties thereof." In 1762, when Murdoch, Warroch, and Company founded a brewery at Anderston, they began paying this duty to Glasgow upon importing their beer into the city. In 1774 Port-Glasgow was separated from Glasgow and joined with Newark, and was granted a similar duty by the British Parliament. Shortly afterward Murdoch, Warroch, and Company were forced to pay this duty upon importing some ale and beer into Port-Glasgow. In response they withheld their customary payment from Glasgow. The collector of impost for Glasgow brought action before the magistrates of that city, which ruled in his favor. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company then brought the cause by advocation to the Court of Session, asking to be found liable for only one impost payment. After Lord Stonefield found them liable for both duties they submitted his interlocutors to the Court for review. See a later case, Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow v. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company, for further attempts on the part of this brewery to evade impost.
Robb v. Bogg 1794 Interlocutor, Agent, Clerks of Session, Mala Fides, Suspension, Act of Parliament In Robb v. Bogg, Thomas M'Grugar petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had turned a null decree into a libel and ordered him to plead the merits. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Sir Alexander Ramsay Irvine v. The Honourable William Maule 1794 Teinds, Heritor, Valuation, Statute, Act of Parliament, Charter
The Magistrates, Town-Council, and Community of Dumbarton v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of the City of Glasgow 1771 Interpretation of acts of Parlament, Act of Parliament, Contract, Sequestration, Arrestment, Privilege In 1770, Parliament passed legislation for improving the navigation of the River Clyde to the city of Glasgow. The act empowered the Magistrates and Town-Council to repair and enlarge the quay on the north side of the river, and build a new one on the south side. The legislation allowed the Glaswegian magistrates to levy a duty on river traffic, to which the Magistrates and Community of Dumbarton claimed exemption based on a 1770 contract between the two burgs.
The Procurator-Fiscal of the Town of Stirling v. John Gillies and Others 1793 Salmon Fishing, Jurisdiction, Act of Parliament, Tack, Trespass, Statute
Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads v. Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick 1793 Trustees, Thirlage, Mala Fides, Statute, Interdict, Act of Parliament The Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads defended the placement of a toll-bar on the Eyemouth road against the Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick, who sought suspension of the tolls under a 1793 turnpike act. The Corporation argued that the trustees had violated the statute by situating the gate closer to Eyemouth than to Berwick, thereby creating unequal distances prohibited by the act. The Trustees maintained that the gate was properly positioned as near as may be to the required distance from Berwick and that the Corporation's bill of suspension lacked legal foundation.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 242)