Election. In the law of England one is said to have an election when it is optional to him to make his choice of two or more alternatives; but having made his election, he is bound by it, and cannot act inconsistently with his own determination. So also, in the law of Scotland, where a party has an election, and has made it, he must abide by it. He cannot approbate and reprobate according to the Scotch law expression; that is, he cannot take the benefit conferred, and reject or evade the corresponding burden or privation.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Election.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Election |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anstruther-Paterson v. Rutherfurd | 1791 | Election contest, Election, Oath, Aliment, Collusion, Feu duties | Documents available Full description in progress. |
| Chrystie and Chrystie v. Ferguson, et al | 1788 | Election contest, Decreet-Arbitral, Reduction, Election, Bribery, Corruption | Alexander Chrystie and another pursued Ferguson and others to reduce and set aside the election of the Magistrates and Counsellors of Burntisland, alleging bribery, corruption, and invalid form. The defenders answered, maintaining the validity of the 1789 election and arguing that a majority of uncorrupted votes sustained the result. |
| Counsellors of the Burgh of Burntisland | 1789 | Election contest, Magistrate, Election, Aliment, Decreet-Arbitral, Reduction | The Provost, magistrates, and counsellors of Burntisland defended the validity of the burgh’s 1789 election of counsellors against complaints alleging bribery and seeking voidance or partial relief. Alexander Pitcairn petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor that had ruled against his election as a counsellor, while William Muir and James Davidson also pursued complaints regarding the election, prompting answers from the magistrates and subsequent duplies. The magistrates later submitted a memorial arguing that Muir and Davidson’s election was void due to their non-residence and foreign status. |
| Crawford, et al v. Morrison, et al | 1787 | Election contest, Aliment, Election, Mala Fides, Adjudication, Inhibition | Thomas Crawford, Charles Pirrie, Alexander Paterson, and John Gardner pursued John Morrison and others to have Morrison’s election as Deacon of the Incorporation of Wrights in Glasgow declared void. The respondents defended the 1787 election as having proceeded by lawful procedure and majority vote, and further averred that the complainants had themselves accepted office under the contested appointment. |
| Fraser v. Lord Woodhouselee | 1802 | Election, freeholder right | Simon Fraser, a freeholder of Inverness-shire, filed a complaint with the Court of Session objecting to Alexander Fraser Tytler’s claimed eligibility to vote for a knight of Inverness-shire. Tytler’s claim rested on his wife’s status as a freeholder of that county. In the course of the proceedings, Simon Fraser died, and William Fraser, another of the freeholders of Inverness-shire, took up the complaint. The debate centered on the 7th clause of the 12th of Queen Anne and the meanings of the words "property" and "superiority." In the end the Court repelled the complaints of the pursuers and upheld Lord Woodhouselee's enrollment and vote. |
| High v. Main | 1788 | Election contest, Election, Oath, Corporation, Adjudication, Voting rights | Thomas High and Robert Main contested the deaconship of the Kinghorn Weavers' Incorporation, Main having petitioned to alter the council's decision admitting High to the office in his place. The central question was whether town-servants under the magistrates held voting rights in such elections, with the complainers citing precedents from Inverkeithing, Cupar, Perth, and Haddington to support their position. James Donaldson and others raised parallel challenges to the election of the deacon of the bakers, and the parties submitted answers and petitions seeking alteration of the Court's interlocutors. |
| 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. |
| Nisbet, et al v. The kirk-session of West-kirk | 1773 | Election contest, Heritor, Session-Clerk, Election, Salmon Fishing, Succession | Sir John Nisbet and other heritors petitioned the Court against the kirk-session of West-kirk (St Cuthberts) for unilaterally electing a schoolmaster-clerk to serve as session-clerk and precentor without heritor consent. The kirk-session answered, admitting that it possessed no right to elect these parish officers without the consent of the heritors. |
| Robert Munro v. John Baxter, Provost of Cupar, and Other Burgesses | 1772 | Election | This case stems from a disputed election for the Dean of Guild of Cupar in 1766. Robert Munro and John Stewart stood as candidates. Munro claimed to have won the election. The town council decided that the other candidate, Stewart, had actually won. On appeal to the Court of Session, however, the court determined that Munro had won the election. The court did not award Munro costs and fees related to the litigation. Munro then petitioned the town council for reimbursement of his expenses. The town council agreed to make a donation to Munro. A few members of the town council, objecting to this donation, sought to stop the payment in court. Munro contended that the Court of Session did not have jurisdiction over the royal burrows with respect to administrative and revenue matters. |
| Stewart v. Magistrates and Town Council of St. Andrews | 1792 | Election contest, Suspension, Reduction, Interdict, Election, Interlocutor | Robert Stewart, claiming to be the duly elected Deacon of the Incorporation of Wrights in St Andrews, petitioned the Court to set aside the election of John Edie and declare his own title valid, alleging that Edie’s election was voided by a court interdict and insufficient legal votes. The Magistrates and Town Council of St Andrews defended Edie’s election as lawful and accused Stewart of unlawful usurpation of the office. The litigation proceeded through successive petitions and answers, with Stewart additionally moving the Court to alter interlocutors regarding expenses and other procedural orders. |
