Ordinary actions in the Court of Session are commenced by a "summons." This, besides being the writ citing the defender (defendant) to appear in Court, contains the "conclusions of the action" (prayer); a "condescendence," or statement of the facts on which the suit is founded, drawn up in separate paragraphs as in a bill in Chancery; and, lastly, a note of the "pleas in law," or legal propositions, which the pursuer (plaintiff) is prepared to maintain in support of his prayer. The summons is served on the defender (see Citation), and on expiry of the "induciæ" (period of notice) it is "called," i.e., entered in the "calling list," under the title of the Lord Ordinary to whom the cause is to be attached. The calling list is printed and published at fixed periods, generally once a week, and the defender must enter appearance within one day after the publication of the list in which the summons is entered. After appearing he must lodge (file) defences. These consist of "answers" in the form of a direct admission or denial of each assertion in the condescendence of facts in the summons, followed by a "statement of facts" on the part of the defender, and a note of his "pleas in law." Every species of defence, whether matter of demurrer, plea, or answer, must thus be at the first set forth. If satisfied that these pleadings correctly state their respective cases, the parties "close the record on summons and defences;" but if either desires to add to or alter his pleading, he obtains an order to "revise;" and after both parties have revised, the "record is closed," and the case set down for hearing. When heard, the Lord Ordinary pronounces an interlocutor (decree), disposing of the whole case. Either party may appeal against this to the Inner House by "reclaiming note." (See Court of Session.) Most cases are decided without the aid of a jury, either the facts not being in dispute, or the judge himself determining them on documentary evidence filed by the parties, or on evidence taken orally before himself, or by commission, on points on which he has directed proof to be adduced. But actions for libel, nuisance, and for damages must, and several others may, be tried by a jury. In such cases the issues to be laid before the jury are prepared by the parties after the record is closed, or settled by the Court if they cannot agree on the form. In some cases the parties are allowed by consent to select a few individuals to act as a jury. If the defender fails to appear, the pursuer may "take decree in absence." (See Absence.) If he fails to file any pleading or other docu-
Legal Subject: Action |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Davies, Jones, & Co. v. William Young | 1786 | Debt, Aliment, Oath, Interlocutor, Action, Bill of Exchange | William Young petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo, claiming expenses, and Davies, Jones, & Co. answered the petition. The merchants defended against Young's claim for expenses and asserted that he had commissioned and received the six hats in dispute. |
| Eliott v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor | 1797 | Trustees, Debt, Succession, Hypothec, Election contest, Action | Sir William Eliott petitioned to reclaim an interlocutor of the Lord Justice Clerk denying his claim to £50:10s. paid to the writer Thomas Tod, arguing that the account was not prescribed and fell outside the scope of triennial prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Goodall v. Fleming | 1766 | Contracts and Obligations, Debt, Security, Action, Bankruptcy, Succession | The Pursuer, Walter Goodall, claimed that the Defender, Robert Fleming, owed Goodall money for the work Goodall did in preparing a new edition of Fordun's History of Scotland for publication. Robert Fleming, a printer, was hired by Robert Freebairn in 1744 to publish this new edition, and Freebairn hired Goodall under contract to prepare the book for press. Goodall claimed that although his employment was arranged under contract, he is still owed money for the immense additional labor he put into the project that was not accounted for at the time of the original contract, including correcting the book for press, compiling the introduction, compiling the indexes, and working on the dedication and preface. After the project began, Robert Fleming acquired the right to the publication from Freebairn, believing that from the number of subscriptions that this would be a profitable endeavor. Goodall continued work on the project under the same conditions agreed upon with Freebairn. Goodall brought action against Fleming in the Court of Session to obtain the balance he claimed was due to him from Fleming. Fleming claimed that since Goodall's contract was with Freebairn, Fleming did not owe Goodall the additional balance. Further, Fleming argued that since Goodall carried out the work with significant delays and did not finish until 1759, Fleming lost many subscriptions and no longer owed Goodall the additional balance. Goodall claimed that he was sorry to lay this case before the Court of Session because "it publishes to the World at what a very low Price learned Labour is estimated in Scotland." |
| Hamilton v. Hunter and Co. | 1782 | Contract, Insurance, Interlocutor, Action, Debt, Bill of Exchange | This case was about the purchase of an insurance policy by a broker. Robert Hunter and Company, in Saltcoats, asked James Hamilton, an insurance broker in Glasgow, to procure an insurance policy for a ship sailing to the Firth of Clyde. Hunter and Co. specified that the policy should not cost more than eight guineas per cent. However, Hamilton was unable to find insurance at this price, so he procured a policy at nine guineas per cent, paying the difference himself. He then wrote Hunter and Co. to inform them of the action he had taken. In the letter, Hamilton stated that if Hunter and Co. did not approve of the policy, they could have it vacated by sending a return letter "in course of post." Hunter and Co. wrote back two days later to reject the policy; in the meantime, the ship in question had arrived safely. Hamilton sued for payment of the premium. In response, Hunter and Co. argued that their rejection of the policy was valid. |
| Inglis v. Bethune | 1798 | Cautioner, Debt, Assignation, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy, Action | William Inglis petitioned to reverse a court’s finding that defender William Bethune’s 1786 holograph bond was mere corroboration rather than new security, seeking to hold Bethune jointly liable for half the debt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Maxwell v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor | 1789 | Arrestment, Action, Sequestration, Creditor, Mala Fides, Citation | Charles Maxwell-Campbell petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| McKenzie v. Buchanan and Company | 1792 | Arrestment, Debt, Contract, Aliment, Employment, Action | Daniel M'Kenzie, a spinner, pursued James and Archibald Buchanans and Company, his masters, contending that they had unlawfully deducted from his wages without contractual authority. The Buchanans subsequently petitioned the Court to overturn an inner-house interlocutor that had been pronounced against them. |
| Mitchell v. Lord Alva's Interlocutor | 1787 | Contract, Debt, Damages, Action, Bargain, Interlocutor | Pursuer Thomas Mitchell petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in the dispute with Lord Alva. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Pringle v. Hamilton | 1793 | Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Debt, Oath, Action, Assignation | Pringle pursued Hamilton for payment of a bill of exchange drawn by David Cathcart in 1762, while Hamilton defended on the grounds that the instrument had not been duly negotiated and that the debt was prescribed. Pringle argued that Hamilton remained liable notwithstanding the alleged defect in negotiation and that the defense of prescription was inapplicable, but Cathcart answered that the debt had been discharged by payment made by his father. Hamilton subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. |
| Reid v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor | 1794 | Advocation, Test, Debt, Action, Interlocutor, Sheriff | James Reid, as pursuer, petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Craig. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Scott v. Steuart | 1795 | Interlocutor, Servitude, Property, Debt, Action, Arrestment | William Scott petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor of the Lord Justice Clerk regarding David Steuart. Steuart answered the procurator-fiscal's argument that his necessary-house constituted a public nuisance. Scott subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Steuart concerning the latter's obligation to clean a ditch adjoining a public road. |
| Stobie v. Morison, et al | 1788 | Succession, Debt, Proof, Aliment, Collation, Action | David Stobie, writer in Edinburgh, as pursuer, disputed Catharine Morison's claim to half the executry of her deceased brother Adam Morison. Morison and her husband, John Wilson, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Stonefield in the cause. Stobie answered the petition, resisting her claim to the executry. |
| Tait v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor | 1796 | Debt, Aliment, Succession, Tack, Factor, Action | John Tait, as factor for Spens’s executors, pursued the Gillons for payment of a debt arising from a 1780 holograph account, claiming £82 8s 9d and rejecting the defenders’ assertion of £106 17s 3d. Walter Spens subsequently petitioned the Court to alter Lord Stonefield’s interlocutor, which had found him subsidiarily liable for the debt should the executors’ estate prove exhausted. |
| Thomas Stoddart v. M'Quan, Beck, and Company | 1779 | Foreign Merchant, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Action, Bankruptcy | 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. |
| Williamson v. Hay | 1832 | Trustees, Assignees, Title, Expenses, Interlocutor, Action | Alexander Williamson, the pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter its interlocutor which found no expenses due to either party. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 450)
- 180-1785-1800 doc0101
- A. & W. Thom v. The North British Bank and Andrew Tennent — Reclaiming Note, 18 Feb 1848
- Adam Scott v. Thomas and Helen Scotts — Answers, 25 Jul 1780 [2]
- Additional Appendix 1832
- Advocation for the Hamilton New Gas Light Company, Incorporated by Act of Parliament, 10th Victoria, chapter 118, and Walter Black, Baker in Hamilton, present Chairman; James Granger, Lace Man
- Agnes Mabon v. David Walker — Revised Minute of Debate, 28 Jun 1836
- Agnes Watson v. Agnes Mathie and James Weir — Answers, 22 Feb 1776
- Agnes Watson v. Agnes Mathie — Answers, 18 Jul 1775
- Alexander Anderson v. John Burnet — Information [2]
- Alexander Blair of Dunrod, James Murray of Broughton, Alexander Copland of Coliston, John Newall of Barskeoch, William Rorison of Ardoch, Patrick Brown of Barharrow and John Syme Writ... v. William Maxwell of Dalfwinton — Answers, 23 Apr 1774
- Alexander Buie v. Sir James Gordon and Lady Gordon — Answers, 1 Jul 1826
- Alexander Campbell v. Colin Arrott — Condescendence, 5 Mar 1834 [2]
- Alexander Charles Maitland v. Dame Helen Maitland Gibson and Sir Alexander Charles Maitland Gibson — Reclaiming Note, 27 Dec 1830
- Alexander Dewar v. Robert Munnoch — Bill of Suspension, 12 Nov 1829
- Alexander Dick, Junior v. William Richardson — Reasons, 13 Dec 1839
- Alexander Duthie v. William Adam — Duplies, 9 Jun 1809
- Alexander Earl of Galloway v. James Earl of Morton — Answers, 18 Jul 1759
- Alexander Earl of Galloway, James Traill younger of Hobister, John Traill of Westness, and others v. James Earl of Morton — Memorial, 12 Jun 1758
- Alexander Ferguson, and others v. John Stevenson — Answers, 3 Jan 1782
- Alexander Hamilton v. Dutch East India Company — Information, 5 Jan 1730
- Alexander Innes v. Dame Georgina Lamont — Reclaiming Petition, 12 May 1859
- Alexander Laurence v. George Gordon and Alexander Stewart — Mutual, 26 Apr 1832
- Alexander P. Henderson v. Michael Gilfillan — Answers, 23 Nov 1832
- Alexander Thomson v. John Reid — Duplies, 11 Feb 1809
- Alexander Walker and Peter Herd v. Alexander Thomson of Banchry and Andrew Thomson of Crawtoun — Memorial
- Alexander Williamson v. Sir John Hay of Smithfield and Hayston, Baronet, and Others — Reclaiming, 27 Feb 1832
- Alexander Young, Alexander Milne, George Gordon and others v. Donald Calder — Answers, 15 Jul 1784
- Allan Jack v. James Elder — Answers
- Allan v. Stewart — Objections, 3 Aug 1773
- Andrew Miller v. Charles Steuart — memorial, 12 Dec 1799
- Andrew Ross, and others, Sailors of the Ship Ingram of Glasgow v. John Glassford and Company, Merchants in Glasgow — Depositions, 1771
- Anna M'Kenzie and Richard Paterson v. George Forbes — Answers, 21 Dec 1775
- ANS.—Colin Gillies, TO OBJECTIONS for the Viscount of ARBUTHNOT. ANSWERS FOR COLIN GILLIES, Merchant in Brechin, TO THE OBJECTIONS for the VISCOUNT of ARBUTHNOT to the Account of E
- ANS.—John Morthland, Esq; TO THE COND.—John Cadell, Esq; A. Ritchie, W. S. Agent. H. Clerk. ANSWERS
- ANSWERS for ALEXANDER M'ALISTER, Esq. of Strathaird,—Defender; TO THE MINUTE of REFERENCE for John Nicolson, Junior,—Pursuer.
- Answers for David Cleghorn, Writer to the Signet, Trustee for the Creditors of Thomas Kyle, late of Fens; to the Minute for Miss Janet Kyle, residing in Lessudden, with the Concurr
- ANSWERS FOR JAMES Earl of Morton, TO THE PETITION of Alexander Earl of Galloway, and fifteen other Persons, Proprietors in Orkney.
- ANSWERS for Mr JOHN MORTHLAND, Advocate, to the CONDESCENDENCE given in in name of JOHN CADELL, Esq;
- Answers—Jean Brown, or Monkhouse, TO THE Petition—Michael Gilfillan, FOR RECALL OF INHIBITION. ANSWERS FOR JEAN BROWN, alias MONKHOUSE, Spouse of Richard Monkhouse, formerly residi
- Appendix for John Cameron, to Reclaiming Note, Roderick and Thomas M'KENZIES against Lord Cockburn's Interlocutor
- APPENDIX.
- APPENDIX. ACCOUNT—John Lillie, Forres,—in Account with the British Linen Company, on Bond of Credit per £500.
- APPENDIX. BILL of LADING of Iron by Messrs THOMSON BONAR and Company.
- APPENDIX. I. CORRESPONDENCE between the Insurance Brokers, Mr Baird, and Hay Smith. No I.—LETTER, Thomas Kinnear & Sons to James Baird. No. 2.—LETTER, Thomas Kinnear & Sons to Jame
- APPENDIX. LETTER, ALEXANDER MAIN to Provost Young.
- APPENDIX. No. I. Copy from the EXTRACT REGISTERED PROTEST, No. 2. in Process.
- APPENDIX. N° I. AGREEMENT betwixt Alexander Anderson of Bourtie, and William Forbes, and Thomas and James Arbuthnots.
- APPENDIX. RECEIPT and DISCHARGE by Messrs STORIE & BAILLIE, W.S., Agents for the London, Leith, Edinburgh, and Glasgow Shipping Company, 28th March 1850.
- Archibald Affleck v. Provost, Magistrates, and Town-Council of the Burgh of Kirkcudbright — State of the Process, 13 May 1803 [2]
- Archibald Campbell and Paul Fraser v. Dugal M'Dugal — Answers, 28 Feb 1792
- Barry, et al v. Incorporation of Weavers, et al — Answers, 3 Mar 1789
- Binning v. Binning — Petition, 31 Jan 1767
- Brodie v. Grant — Petition, 7 Mar 1767
- Buchanans — Petition, 27 Feb 1793
- Cadell v. Johnstone — Petition, 14 Jun 1798
- Callum M'Gregor, alias John Grant v. His Majesty's Advocate — Information, 6 Aug 1773
- Campbell Mackintosh v. Lockhart Kinloch — Answers, 4 Apr 1822 [2]
- Charles Elder v. John Croall — State of the Process, 12 May 1848
- Charles Irvine v. Catharine Campbell — Information, 2 Jul 1794
- Charles Tennant and Company, Manufacturers at St Rollocks, near Glasgow, and Others v. Thomas Stewart of Glasgowfield — Answers, 4 Oct 1821
- Charteris — Petition, 26 Feb 1782
- Chisholm v. Lord Gardenston's Interlocutor — Petition, 8 Jun 1791
- CLOSED RECORD. CONDESCENDENCE and CLAIM for Alexr. Craig, Esq., AND ANSWERS thereto for Mr Bell's Executors.
- CLOSED RECORD. No. 41 of Process. CONDESCENDENCE and CLAIM for William Ramage, AND ANSWERS thereto for Mr Bell's Executors.
- CLOSED RECORD. SECOND RE-REVISED CONDESCENDENCE for William Moncreiff, Esquire, Accountant in Edinburgh, as Curator Bonis for Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet, Baronet; John Logan,
- Colin Dunlop, Esq., of Tollcross, and Others, Trustees of the deceased Alexander Waddell of Stonefield v. Thomas Scott, Farmer at Townhead, and William Scott, Farmer at Adderston — Reclaiming Note, 3 Jan 1833
- Court upholds interlocutor dismissing appeal, finding objections to title valid and petition incompetent; — undated
- D. & R. Cassells against Lord Newton's Interlocutor
- Dalglish, Dick, & Co. v. M'Kenzie's Executors — Summons, 11 Oct 1833
- Daniel Mackenzie v. Messrs James and Archibald Buchanans and Company — Information, 11 Oct 1792
- Daniel Midwinter and other Book-sellers in London v. The Book-sellers of Edinburgh and Glasgow — Answers, 21 Dec 1743
- Darlings v. Adamson — Answers, 5 Mar 1838
- David Allan v. John Allan — Condescendence
- David Hunter v. Magistrates of Dundee — 24 Jan 1840
- David Limond v. The Road Trustees of the District of Ayr and Alexander Murdoch — Answers
- David Lindsay v. Rebecca M'Kenzie alias Aird — Memorial, 25 Jan 1780
- David Miller in Path-head of Kirkaldy, and others v. Henry Belfradge of Wester Conland, and others — Information, 2 Jul 1763
- David Nicholson, and fifteen other journeymen-weavers in Glasgow and its neighbourhood v. George Brown, and twenty other master-manufacturers in Glasgow and its neighbourhood — Information, 23 Feb 1768
- David Nicolson, and others v. George Brown, and others — Information, 16 Feb 1768
- David Scott, James Reid and Others, and Alexander Wilson v. Alexander Morrice — Reclaiming Note, 9 Dec 1830
- David Smith v. Thomas Falconer and Others — Condescendence, 20 Nov 1829
- David Staig v. James Gracie — Memorial, 14 Apr 1812 [2]
- David Staig v. John Bryden and Others — Answers
- David Staig v. John Bryden, William Robson, and Alexander Robson — Answers, 17 Jun 1824
- David Staig v. Trustees of the deceased Joseph Gass — Condescendence, 6 Mar 1823
- David Wetherley v. Mathew Turnbull — Answers, 26 May 1823
- Davies, Jones, & Co. v. William Young — Petition, 24 Jan 1786
- Douglas v. Grierson — Petition, 20 Feb 1794
- Dugald Gilchrist v. William Swanson — Condescendence, 7 Sep 1820 [2]
- Duncan Campbell v. John Macewan and Daniel Macaulay — Information, 24 Jun 1788
- DUPLIES, Alex. Ure, TO THE REP.—M. Gilfillan and Spouse. William Guthrie, Respondent's Agent. A. P. Henderson, Petitioners' Agent. Mr Hamilton, Clerk. DUPLIES FOR ALEXANDER URE, Wr
- Earl of Galloway v. Earl of Morton — Petition, 5 Jul 1759
- Eleanor Allardyce (Lady Kennedy) and Archibald Lord Kennedy v. John Innes — Answers, 3 Apr 1823
- Eleonora Webster or M'Intyre v. Duncan M'Intyre — Answers, 3 Dec 1821
- Eliott v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor — Petition, 27 Jan 1797
- Elizabeth Chalmers v. David Hutcheson — Answers, 7 Oct 1780 [2]
- Elizabeth Pierson and Katharine Pierson v. Ninian Alexander — Replies, 2 Jan 1783
- Elliot v. Romanis — Petition, 10 Jun 1791
- EUL0281 doc0024
- EUL0281 doc0069b