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-

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: 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)