Legal Subject: Election contest

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire	1790	Freeholder, Election contest, Freehold Qualification, Penalty, Interlocutor, Disposition	Alexander Milne pursued the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire, represented by George Skene of Skene, to reverse his expungement from the county freeholder roll following the Michaelmas meeting of 1790. The defenders answered that Milne’s freehold qualification was nominal and fictitious, contending that the statutory four-month limitation did not bar objections to fraudulent claims, while Milne asserted his independent acceptance of the wadset and denial of political obligation. The litigation proceeded through reclaiming petitions against adverse interlocutors, condescendences regarding the qualification’s validity, and Milne’s objections to the defenders’ account of expenses. The cause culminated in disputes over the award of statutory penalties and the allocation of costs between the parties.
Alexander Young and others v. Andrew Johnston and others	1767	Election contest	The pursuers alleged that Andrew Johnston Sr., bailie of Anstruther Easter, and his son Andrew Jr. accepted money to pay off the town's debt from men who wished to run for the borough's parliament seat. The pursuers therefore sought to have the election reduced.
Anstruther-Paterson v. Rutherfurd	1791	Election contest, Election, Oath, Aliment, Collusion, Feu duties	Documents available Full description in progress.
Carnegie v. Turnbull	1796	Freeholder, Election contest, Aliment, Sequestration, Disposition, Freehold Qualification	Carnegie complained of his removal from the roll of freeholders, arguing that he had departed the meeting before being called to take the trust oath and that no formal intimation had been given. Turnbull answered that Carnegie had been struck off for evading the oath after warning, and further asserted that Carnegie had divested himself of all land in the county prior to appearing at Forfar to assert a vote, thereby denying his qualification.
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.
David Fowler v. Andrew Reid	1765	Election contest	Complainers David Fowler and James Miller alleged that an election in Kilrenny was tainted by corrupt practices designed to instate officials who would support Robert Alexander for a seat in parliament. Fowler and Miller sued the burgh’s elected officials, seeking to have the election vacated or, at minimum, to be reinstated in their positions as counsellor and bailie. The officials denied these allegations and alleged that members of the opposing party, including Sir John Anstruther and complainer David Fowler, had themselves engaged in corruption.
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.
George Allan and Others v. Andrew Crambie and Others	1770	Election contest	Pursuers George Allan, Andrew Garnock, and Charles Cock challenged the September 1769 election of defender James Hunter as deacon of the Incorporation of Hammermen of the town of Kinghorn. There were 12 votes for Allan and 10 votes for Hunter, but Hunter was able to successfully challenge the qualifications of 6 of the 12 voters in favor of Allan. For example, two of the voters were apparently non-residents. Allan, on the other hand, sought to challenge 3 of the 10 votes for Hunter. One voter was struck from the rolls of the incorporation for failure to pay dues. Allan et al. sought to prove that Allan properly achieved a majority of votes in the election. The parties disputed who received the majority of votes to become the deacon of the incorporation.
George Anderson v. James Stephen, Andrew Jamieson, and others	1766	Election contest	The complainers in this case alleged that the counsellors of Crail were under the influence of Sir John Anstruther and that Sir John's representatives sold meal to the trades at a special price in order to bribe certain men before the borough's election.
Hay v. Watson	1832	Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor, Election contest	John Hay, stockbroker in Edinburgh, as pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against the interlocutor finding the defender, Ebenezer Watson, duly elected trustee on the sequestrated estate of Robert M'Laren. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Hunter v. Robb, &c	1765	Election contest	The complainants in this case protested the borough election held in September 1765; the respondents were counsellors of the borough. Each side accused the other of being bribed by Sir John Anstruther or Robert Alexander, contestants for a seat in parliament.
John Finlay and Others v. John Newbigging and Others	1792	Debt, Aliment, Corporation, Reduction, Succession, Election contest	John Finlay and other weavers petitioned the Court to overturn Lord Ankerville’s interlocutor, alleging that reformers within the Incorporation of Weavers in Lanark had illegally excluded them and misused funds in violation of the by-laws. John Newbigging and other members answered, maintaining that the respondents possessed no right to expel members for non-payment of assessments.
Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline v. Wilson, et al	1786	Debt, Arrestment, Election contest, Creditor, Aliment, Diligence	The Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline, as defenders, filed answers to the petition of Thomas Wardlaw and others, responding to claims of electoral corruption. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Peter Ramsay and Others, Councillors and Burgesses of Pittenweem v. Andrew Martin and Others	1765	Election contest	Petitioners sought to have a borough election nullified on the ground that it was conducted in a corrupt fashion by counsellors who were bribed by Robert Alexander, a candidate for the local parliament seat.
Robert Alexander v. James Chrystie	1766	Election contest	The commissioners from five boroughs of the county of Fife gathered to elect a parliament-burgess, and on the first vote Robert Alexander was elected. Later, the presiding officer voted again so that Alexander's opponent won. Alexander sued the clerk and returning officer, James Chrystie, because of the way the voting was handled.
Scotlands v. Thompson	1776	Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Damages, Election contest	The defender, the Reverend James Thomson, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The pursuers, Scotlands, opposed the petition in a memorial arguing that Thomson's accusations were malicious, politically motivated, and subversive of public order.
Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet v. David Ballingall	1791	Feu duties, Possession, Freeholder, Liferent, Election contest, Entail	Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet and others pursued David Ballingall, alleging that altered circumstances had affected his possession or right since enrollment and that his qualification was nominal or fictitious. Ballingall answered the condescendence and petition, denying any alteration of circumstances and maintaining that his qualification was genuine and valid. The dispute turned on whether Ballingall's enrollment remained effective given the alleged changes and the nature of his qualification.
Stephen and others v. Duff and other Magistrates and Counsellors of the Burgh of Elgin	1771	Election contest, Burgh	This case concerns disputed elections for council in the Burgh of Elgin. John Duff, defender, and his group controlled the Burgh council up to the election in the Michaelmas 1770 term. Duff was provost of the burgh, with members of his group serving other positions on the council. In that 1770 election, Thomas Stephen, pursuer, won and became provost of the burgh of Elgin. Stephen was a member of a rival group. In the next election, the Michaelmas 1771 term, Duff and his group won the election and regained their positions on the council. Each group accused the other of resorting to riots, disturbances, bribery, and other improper means to affect the Michaelmas 1771 election.
Stewart V. Ireland	1796	Conveyance, Disposition, Mandate, Diligence, Freeholder, Election contest	Charles Stewart petitioned to overturn the freeholders' refusal to enroll him on the roll of freeholders, resting his claim upon titles and a valuation certificate, and William Ireland answered that the qualification was nominal and fictitious and that no mandate had been produced. The parties exchanged replies and duplies disputing the validity of the claim and seeking commission to recover material writings, after which Ireland petitioned against an Inner-House interlocutor that had found the freeholders erred in refusing admission. Stewart subsequently moved the court to apply a recent judgment of the House of Peers and to modify the account of expenses.
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.