Appeal. Appeals in Sheriff Courts are now regulated by 16 and 17 Vict., c. 80. It is competent to appeal to the Sheriff any interlocutor disposing in whole or in part of the merits of the cause. But by § 19, it is enacted that, until such an interlocutor has been pronounced, it shall not be competent to appeal against any interlocutor, not being one—(1.) Disposing of a dilatory defence; or (2.) Sisting process; or (3.) Allowing a proof; or against any interlocutor on the admissibility of evidence pronounced during the leading of a proof, except as provided for in §§ 17 and 18; but that it shall be competent, in every case in which an appeal against an interlocutor is taken, also to appeal against all or any of the interlocutors previously pronounced.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Appeal.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Appeal |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brodie v. Grant | 1767 | Interlocutor, Adjudication, Possession, Tack, Reduction, Appeal | Alexander Brodie of Lethen, as pursuer, sought to retain possession of the pool of Stockiebanks on the River Findhorn until the boundary of his fishing rights against Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant, Sir Alexander Grant of Delvey, Sir William Dunbar of Durn, Captain Duncan Urquhart of Burdieyards, and others, as defenders, could be finally ascertained. The defenders disputed Brodie’s fishing rights, leading to answers, replies, and duplies. In 1769, the respondents petitioned against the Lords’ affirmation of an amended interlocutor defining the Findhorn boundary, alleging contradictory judgments and complaining that the boundary had been expanded unexpectedly through judicial admission. |
| 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. |
| Jones v. Smith | 1771 | Inspection of goods, Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Forfeiture, Penalty, Appeal | 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. |
| M'Culloch v. Allan | 1792 | Presbytery, Jurisdiction, Appeal, Teinds, Advocation, Interlocutor | M'Culloch, as pursuer, argued that the trial and censure of schoolmasters belonged to the civil courts rather than ecclesiastical presbyteries. He subsequently maintained that sentences of presbyteries regarding schoolmasters were subject to review by ecclesiastical courts alone. Allan, as defender, contended that the presbytery's jurisdiction over schoolmasters was subject to review only in superior Church judicatories and not in the Court of Session. |
| Marquis of Lorne, et al v. Denny, et al | 1796 | Election contest, Interlocutor, Election, Reduction, Burgess, Appeal | The Marquis of Lorne and others pursued John Denny and others regarding the Michaelmas 1796 burgh election in Dumbarton, seeking to overturn the minutes that recorded John Dixon’s vote as valid and asserting a majority victory despite the contested proxy. The defenders answered that the pursuers’ voters lacked burgess qualification, and subsequently argued that Provost Lorne possessed no voting right and that key electors were not burgesses, ultimately demanding a poll election. |
| Michael M'Culloch v. William Allen | 1791 | Presbytery, Jurisdiction, Appeal, Heritor, Aliment, Statute | The Reverend Mr M'Culloch pursued William Allan, schoolmaster of Bothwell, regarding a Synod sentence that had found Allan unqualified for his office. Allan petitioned the Court to remit the sentence, and M'Culloch responded with information arguing that sentences of Presbyteries on schoolmasters were subject to review by superior ecclesiastical courts. |
| William McDouall v. Synod of Galloway | 1756 | Stipend, Sasine, Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Appeal | William McDouall, as appellant, asserted a right to present to united parishes under a later conveyance, but the Synod of Galloway, as respondents, defended the Crown's right to present and rejected McDouall's claim for lack of proven title. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 175)
- Adam Miller, Thomas Miller and James Roxburgh v. Robert Boyd — Memorial, 17 Nov 1768
- Adam Monteith, Alexander Drysdale, William Craig, David Stow, James Smith, Thomas Kennedy, Richard Kidston, and John Neill v. Robert M'Gavin — Bill of Suspension, 7 Nov 1837
- Alexander Brodie of Lethen v. Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant Baronet; Sir Alexander Grant of Dalvey, Baronet; Sir William Dunbar of Durn, Baronet; Captain Duncan Urquhart of Burdsyards — Answers, 10 Mar 1767
- Alexander Brodie of Lethen v. Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant, Sir Alexander Grant of Dalvey, and Captain Duncan Urquhart of Burdsyards — Answers, 29 Jul 1769
- Alexander Brymner v. Robert Crawford Riddell — Memorial, 22 May 1809
- Alexander Earl of Caithness v. Margaret Countess of Caithness — Answers, 14 Dec 1762
- Alexander Gordon v. John Baddon — Reclaiming Note, 3 Mar 1848
- Alexander Hamilton v. Dutch East India Company — Information, 5 Jan 1730
- Allan Maclean v. Thomas Earl of Elgin and others, Heritors of the Parish of Dunfermline, and John Sutherland of Todbank — Replies, 9 Jun 1812
- Andrew Heron v. Patrick Heron — Petition, 7 Mar 1774
- Andrew Steele v. John Thomson, Alexander Pratt, Sym Rollo and William Walker — Defences, 26 May 1814
- Angus Sinclair v. James Hamilton of Aikenhead, Captain James Roberton, James Gilchrist, Alexander Stewart, and John Doug — Information, 23 Sep 1768
- Anna M'Kenzie and Richard Paterson v. George Forbes — Answers, 21 Dec 1775
- Answers — Ans.—James Allan, Esq. to Min.—Dr Cleghorn
- Answers — The Commissioners for making the Caledonian Ca-NAL; to the Petition of Lieut.-Colonel Alexander Grant of Redcastle
- Appeal for David Duff, Trustee duly elected by a majority of Creditors in value, and claiming to be Trustee on the Sequestrated Estates of Archibald Menzies, Hotel-Keeper, Aberfeldy, and for Robert Kennedy, Distiller, Ballechin; Robert Grant, Hotel-K
- APPENDIX. EXTRACT LETTER, J. Vans Agnew, Esq. to H. S. Vans, Esq. EXTRACT LETTER, H. S. Vans, Esq. to J. V. Agnew, Esq.
- APPENDIX. Minutes of the Presbytery of Stirling relative to the Glebe of Dollar, 9th December 1761, and 2d March 1762.
- Appendix. No. I. Copy Petition & Appeal of James Campbell, Esquire of Bedlay
- APPENDIX. No. I. EXTRACT ACT Concerning the Stipend of the Ministers of the Canongate.
- APPENDIX. PURSUER'S PROOF.
- APPENDIX. REPORT by Archibald Davidson, Esq. Advocate, under remit for taking the Oath of the Pursuer in Supplement.
- APPENDIX. SECTIONS OF THE POLICE ACTS. 3 Geo. IV. cap. 78.
- Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird — Petition, 24 Jan 1793
- Archibald Douglas v. Douglas Duke of Hamilton and Brandon — memorial, 10 Oct 1778
- Campbell and Attorney v. Yelton and Others — 31 Jan 1810
- Clay v. Coulter — Petition, 7 Jul 1770
- Colonel Gordon of Cluny v. John Anderson and Others — Revised, 1 Feb 1833
- Countess of Loudon, and Others v. The Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire — Replies, 11 Dec 1792
- David Balderston v. Bruce Richardson — Note of Appeal, 26 Nov 1840
- David Limond v. The Road Trustees of the District of Ayr and Alexander Murdoch — Answers
- Dr William Sommerville v. John Rutherfoord — Answers, 8 Jul 1814
- Earl of Wemyss v. Sir Archibald Hope — Answers, 15 Jan 1793
- Edward Hoggan, Esq. Writer to the Signet,— Defender ; in the Action of Declarator of Marriage against him at the instance of Elizabeth Craigie, now or formerly residing in Albany Street, Edinburgh,—Pursuer
- Elizabeth Craigie v. Edward Hoggan — Report, 18 Jan 1838
- F-XXXIII-1741-42 doc0007
- F-XXXIII-1741-42 doc0010
- F-XXXIII-1741-42 doc0011
- F-XXXIII-1741-42 doc0012
- Flora Mure-Campbell, Countess of Loudoun v. Trustees of High Roads, Ayrshire — Duplies, 11 Apr 1793 [2]
- Flora, Countess of Loudoun v. Trustees upon the High-Roads in Ayrshire — Answers, 6 Sep 1792
- Francis Charteris Douglas, Earl of Wemyss and March v. Sir James Montgomery, of Stanhope, Baronet, and Others, Trustees and Executors of the late William, Duke of Queensberry — Information, 11 Jun 1821
- Francis Smyth v. James Forbes and Others — Answers, 3 Jul 1824
- George Harley Drummond v. William George Adam — Memorial, 10 Sep 1812
- George Milne v. George Leys — Note, 7 Mar 1851 [3]
- George Peat v. Robert Neil and David Muckle — Memorial, 5 Sep 1822
- George Trail v. Thomas Lyell — Memorial, 2 Jan 1767
- Godfrey Lord Macdonald v. Archibald Macdonald, Dudley Stewart Erskine Macdonald — Reclaiming Petition, 27 Jan 1831
- Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v. Andrew Thomson of Kinloch and James Wylie of Airleywight — Answers, 4 Apr 1822
- Ilay Campbell v. Thomas Hall — Information, 17 Jan 1789
- Inglis, Ellice and Company v. David Paterson — Answers, 20 Dec 1810
- Isobel Dickson or Roughead v. James Hunter — Answers, 22 Feb 1827
- James Adamson v. Darling and Others — Appendix, 1842
- James Brown v. Robert Crawford Cumming — Note of Advocation, 12 Nov 1857
- James Dougal v. Alexander Macartney — Reclaiming Note, 8 Dec 1829
- James Gammell v. William Weir and John Barr — Answers
- James Giffen v. James Orr — Minute, 21 Jun 1824 [2]
- James M'Clelland v. Robert M'Cowan — Reclaiming Note, 9 May 1849
- James Marshall v. Alexander Youngson — Answers, 19 Apr 1798
- James Saunders and John Galletly v. David Hunter — Answers, 5 Feb 1829
- Janet Houston Mathieson v. John Weems — Reclaiming Note, 4 Jan 1859
- Janet Stedman v. James Stedman — Respondents' Case, 6 May 1742
- John Denny, &c. v. George Marquis of Lorne, &c. — Memorial, 7 Feb 1797
- John Dougall and Others v. Hutchison and Others — Bill of Advocation, 2 Apr 1824
- John Ifat, James Baird, John Shiells, Robert Corbet, John Mann, John Black, Andrew Hozie, Malcolm Macleod, James Pollock, and Peter Tait v. William Porteous — information, 12 Nov 1781
- John Mair v. John Mill — Answers, 25 Apr 1821 [2]
- John Mair v. John Mill — Bill of Suspension, 13 Apr 1819 [2]
- John Samson v. Donald Campbell — Reclaiming Note, 31 May 1849
- John Watt v. David Blair — Condescendence, 21 Jun 1825
- John Wright and Others v. Walter Logan, J. M. Logan and William Carrick — Minute, 19 Jan 1831
- Kemble — Petition, 8 Mar 1793
- LC Volume 01 — Answers, 13 Nov 1810
- LC Volume 01 — Petition, 10 Sep 1812 [2]
- LC Volume 01 — Petition, 6 Jul 1810 [2]
- LC Volume 04 — Petition, 10 Sep 1812 [2]
- LC Volume 07 — Petition, 25 Nov 1830 [2]
- LC Volume 07 — Petition, 29 Nov 1832 [2]
- LC Volume 07 — Petition, 5 Mar 1834 [2]
- Lord Macdonald v. The Honourable Archibald Macdonald, the Honourable Dudley Stewart Erskine Macdonald, and the Honourable Lady Diana Sinclair — 8 Dec 1830
- Lord William Gordon v. Colonel Norman M'Leod — Replies, 14 Apr 1791
- Lord William Gordon v. Colonel Norman M'Leod — Replies, 14 Apr 1791 [2]
- Loudoun — Petition, 19 Jun 1792
- Mackay and Fullerton v. Dalrymples et al — Petition Complaint, 7 Feb 1797
- Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow v. Anderston Brewing Company — Petition, 3 Dec 1785
- Magistrates, Town-Council and Community of the City of Glasgow v. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company
- Magistrates, Town-Council and Community of the City of Glasgow v. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company — Answers, 21 Feb 1786
- Marquis of Lorne v. John Denny — Petition, 9 Nov 1796
- Memorial Jones, 5 Dec 1771
- Michael M'Culloch v. William Allan — Information, 26 Apr 1792
- Michael M'Culloch v. William Allan — Memorial, 13 Dec 1792
- Michael M'Culloch v. William Allen — Petitionand Complaint, 21 May 1791
- Mill v. Glanville — Note, 18 Dec 1821
- Miss Mary Gordon v. Mrs Anne Ogilvie alias Barclay — Minutes, 13 Feb 1790
- Mrs Ann M'Cartney Hill or Lang v. Peter Lang — Reclaiming Note, 25 Apr 1849
- Mrs Elizabeth Mitchell &c. v. Captain John Duguid — Petition, 16 Jun 1824
- Mrs Elizabeth Mitchell and Others v. Captain John Duguid — Appendix to Petition, 22 Jun 1824
- Mrs. Margaret Stormonth or Darling and James Darling v. Thomas Watson and James Adamson — Answers, 8 Apr 1824
- Mrs. Marion M'Mikin Torrance and George M'Mikin Torrance v. Archibald Craufurd — Answers, 6 Feb 1822
- Myles v. Lyall — Petition, 24 Nov 1797
- No XIX. EXTRACT JUDGMENT of the GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the CHURCH of SCOTLAND, in the Case of the Rev. John Hunter.
