Legal Subject: Mala Fides

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Aitcheson v. Stalker	1777	Bill (Financial Instrument), Death - Presumption of, Mala Fides	In January 1770, Andrew Stalker accepted a bill for £42 sterling payable to his sister-in-law, Rebecca Spreull. Both of them died shortly afterward. Spreull's husband, John of Milton, sued Stalker's nephew, Samuel, for payment of this bill. The Sheriff of Lanark found Samuel Stalker liable, but around that time (March 1771) John Spreull died. The trustees of Spreull's son, who had been abroad, then obtained confirmation and charged Stalker upon the Sheriff's order. The case went dormant for several years, but in January 1777 Lord Kennet found Stalker liable. Stalker then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor, claiming several additional grounds of compensation. He also contended that the confirmation of John Aitcheson, the surviving trustee, was inept, for the person in whose name it was given - John Spreull, junior - had perished in a shipwreck shortly before his father's death. Furthermore, Stalker claimed that the original decreet charged on was null and void, for John Spreull, senior, had died shortly beforehand. John Aitcheson countered the suspender's various pleas of compensation, and declared that Stalker's contention regarding the death of Spreull, senior, was clearly false. He also claimed that there was no evidence that Spreull, junior, had been lost at sea, and that he was merely "abroad on business."
Bell v. King	1794	Witness, Aliment, Adultery, Divorce, Mala Fides, Defamation	James Bell, Sheriff-Clerk of Berwickshire, pursued an action of divorce against his spouse Isobel King, alleging she had committed adultery with their lodger Thomas Purves. King denied the charge and sought to lead evidence from Purves himself and from her own mother and siblings, while Bell objected that Scots law rendered both the alleged adulterer and near relations incompetent witnesses for the defender. The litigation involved petitions to alter interlocutors, competing memorials on witness competency, and Bell’s answers to King’s bill of advocation regarding the separation and adultery allegations.
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.
Crichton v. Mackay	1788	Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Creditor, Marriage, Succession	Alexander Crichton petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor. Defender Mary Mackay answered, responding to allegations of infamy and misconduct that Crichton had made against her.
Janet Calder v. John Wood	1798	Citation, Interlocutor, Aliment, Arrestment, Mala Fides, Witness	John Wood, defender, sought review of interlocutors rejecting his advocation bill in an action brought by Janet Calder, contending that the citation had been defective because it was left at a lodging house he no longer occupied. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Keltie v. Finlay	1776	Bill (Financial Instrument), Mala Fides, Expenses, Fraud, Class	In January 1770, John Finlay granted a bill to James Beveridge. Shortly afterward he made a partial payment to Thomas Beveridge, who had possession of the bill. A note of this partial payment was marked on the bill, but five years later David Keltie, the bill's endorsee, sued Finlay for its full amount. By this point the bill had been torn and the receipt of partial payment was disfigured. Finlay thus accused Keltie of bad faith ("pessima fide") and fraud, and petitioned the Court to exempt him from paying any additional part of the bill. After Keltie produced the torn-off section of the bill, Lord Barskimming decreed that Finlay would only have to pay the remaining balance, but that he was responsible for expenses. Finlay petitioned the court to overturn this ruling, arguing that Keltie was responsible for the court fees, having unjustly pressed him for more money than was due. Keltie in turn argued that Finlay's inconsistent testimony was to blame for the unnecessary expenses. He claimed that much of the confusion arose from whether the receipt was denominated in pounds Scots or sterling. Keltie argued that he was right to have insisted in favor of pounds Scots: likening the suspender to "the lower sort of people in this country," he claimed that "people of inferior rank in Scotland, to this day, generally count in Scots, and not in Sterling money."
Lydia Douglas, and her Husband v. The Trustees of Sir Charles Douglas	1791	Succession, Aliment, Marriage, Trust, Disposition, Mala Fides	Lydia Mariana Douglas and her husband pursued the Trustees of Sir Charles Douglas, arguing that a condition in her father's will was void as capricious and unjust. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Macindoe v. Cowley, Wallace, Crawford, and French	1777	Military, Optima Fide, Jurisdiction, Mala Fides, Damages, Wrongful imprisonment, Freemasonry	This case concerns the forced enlistment and imprisonment for desertion of John Macindoe, Glasgow hair-dresser. In February of 1777, while in a drunken state, John Macindoe pledged himself to the army in exchange for a shilling from Ensign Hugh Wallace. A few weeks later, upon the order of Captain William Cowley, Macindoe was seized by a group of soldiers and imprisoned for refusing to enlist. Macindoe applied to the Court by a bill of suspension and liberation, and Lords Covington and Kennet ordered Macindoe set at liberty. Macindoe then brought action for damages and expenses against Wallace and Cowley, and against the bailies who had ordered his imprisonment. He claimed that his false imprisonment had led to the ruin of his business, and that he had been forced to enlist in another regiment out of necessity. Bailies French and Crawfurd, on the other hand, argued that because Macindoe was presently a soldier, therefore "the only consequence of his not being found a soldier in one regiment, was, that he would soon be a soldier in another.” They also argued that as bailies they had merely judged erroneously, and not acted out of malice. The Court assoilzied Crawfurd and French, as well as Cowley. Ensign Wallace then petitioned the Court for assoilment as well, stating that he had "innocently and bona fide" believed that Macindoe's enlistment was legitimate.
Macredie v. Cunninghames	1776	Power of Attorney, Mala Fides, Plantation, Slavery and enslaved people, West Indies and Atlantic trade, Enslaved people named as property	Thomas Macredie, a business associate of William Cunninghame, died intestate in July of 1753, leaving a 400-acre plantation in Augusta County, Virginia. Andrew and William Macredies, father and brother of Thomas, respectively, successively corresponded with William Cunninghame regarding the sale of "Macredie's Quarter," and when he returned to Glasgow in 1762, his brother, Alexander, took over the matter. Eventually the plantation was sold to Colonel Thomas Slaughter, who became bankrupt before making any payments on the land. In April of 1773, a few months after the death of Alexander Cunninghame, William Macredie brought action against William Cunninghame for the price of Macredie's Quarter, arguing that Cunninghame had spitefully withheld the bond for the land, following a dispute over Cunninghame's commission. William Cunninghame, on the other hand, argued that he had never been the official power of attorney, and therefore was not responsible for delivering the bond to Macredie. Lord Barskimming assoilzied (cleared) Cunninghame, and Macredie brought action against the heirs of Alexander Cunninghame. Cunninghame's heirs, the defenders, argued that the fault lay with Macredie, who had failed to seek out Alexander Cunninghame while he was still alive. After Barskimming assoilzied the defenders, Macredie reclaimed, and William Cunninghame was then ordained to exhibit all relevant correspondence on the matter. According to Macredie, these letters provided evidence of "collusion and artifice"; he therefore asked the Court to alter Barskimming's assoilment. Shortly afterward, however, for reasons not disclosed in the court documents, Macredie withdrew his objection to the Cunninghames' assoilment, and Lord Barskimming found Macredie liable for their legal expenses.
Magistrates of Perth v. Andrew	1797	Tack, Rent, Lease, Mala Fides, tenant, Possession	The Magistrates of Perth sought John Andrew’s removal from leased lands following the expiration of his lease, while Andrew claimed that permission from his brother to cultivate adjacent land constituted tacit consent to his continued possession. After Lord Armadale pronounced an interlocutor against him, Andrew petitioned the Court to alter that decision, prompting the Magistrates and Town-Council of Perth, along with Charles Bruce as Treasurer, to answer his petition and defend against the charge of horning.
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.
Merry v. Macrae	1791	Arrestment, Aliment, Defamation, Proof, Inhibition, Mala Fides	James Merry pursued James Macrae for assault with a stick, claiming damages and a fine. Alexander Young, Writer to the Signet, subsequently lodged an information contending that Merry's claim was unfounded and urging that the interlocutor against Macrae not be enforced.
Playfair v. Riddell and Riddell 2 of 2	1793	Possession, Bargain, Arrestment, Condition, Tack, Mala Fides
Principal Clerks of Session v. Charles Steuart	1788	Sequestration, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Mala Fides, Arrestment	The Principal Clerks of Session brought a penal action against Charles Steuart, as heir of the late John Steuart, seeking to hold him liable for his father’s neglect of duty in preserving extracted decreets and their warrants. Steuart argued that he ought to be assoilzied from the charge, while the pursuers maintained that he was bound as heir to indemnify them for the expenses and damages arising from his father’s failure.
Procurator-Fiscal of the County of Edinburgh v. Wilson	1787	Mala Fides, Interlocutor, Oath, Libel, Arrestment, Lease	David Wilson, gardener at Roslin, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his bill of advocation against the Procurator-Fiscal of Edinburgh’s complaint charging him with hunting without a licence. William Scott, as Procurator-Fiscal, answered the petition, defending the interlocutor and responding to Wilson’s allegation that the reference to his oath was incompetent.
Robb v. Bogg	1794	Interlocutor, Agent, Clerks of Session, Mala Fides, Suspension, Act of Parliament	In Robb v. Bogg, Thomas M'Grugar petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had turned a null decree into a libel and ordered him to plead the merits. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Rutherford v. Caverhill, et al	1787	Succession, Debt, Aliment, Deed, Mala Fides, Creditor	Mrs Helen Rutherford sought to reduce deeds of settlement executed by the deceased Archibald Jerdon in favour of Jerdon Caverhill, contending that the instruments were invalid owing to his dotage and undue influence. Archibald Jerdon of Bonjedward and his Tutors, with others, defended the deeds and argued that the Court should not reduce them.
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.
Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads v. Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick	1793	Trustees, Thirlage, Mala Fides, Statute, Interdict, Act of Parliament	The Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads defended the placement of a toll-bar on the Eyemouth road against the Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick, who sought suspension of the tolls under a 1793 turnpike act. The Corporation argued that the trustees had violated the statute by situating the gate closer to Eyemouth than to Berwick, thereby creating unequal distances prohibited by the act. The Trustees maintained that the gate was properly positioned as near as may be to the required distance from Berwick and that the Corporation's bill of suspension lacked legal foundation.
Young v. Hernderland's Interlocutor	1793	Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Oath, Proof, Creditor	Pursuer John Young, tenant in Upper Nisbet, petitioned the Court to remit Lord Henderland's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.