Persons not fewer than seven may now form themselves into an incorporated company, with or without limited liability, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association in the form A, annexed to the Act, and by having such memorandum registered in terms of that act. A partnership of more than twenty persons cannot now carry on any trade or business having gain for its object, unless it is registered as a company under the act, or are authorized to do so by some private act of Parliament, or by royal charter or letters patent. The memorandum of association sets forth (1.) The name of the company; (2.) The place of the registered office in which the company is to be established; (3.) The objects of the company; (4.) The liability of the shareholders, whether it is to be limited or unlimited; (5.) The amount of the nominal capital of the company; (6.) The number of shares, and the amount of each share.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Partnership.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Partnership |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Campbell v. Laidlaw | 1796 | Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Partnership, Interlocutor | Robert Campbell, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor suspending his charge for a bill of exchange he had accepted without value in the action against Laidlaw, the defender. Robert Corbet thereafter informed the Court that the bill had been accepted for the accommodation of Archibald M'Ausland rather than Milligan and Co. |
| Corse, et al v Kibble | 1793 | Copartnership, Contract, Sale, Debt, Dissolution, Partnership | James Kibble, defender in an action raised by Robert Corse, John Black, James Buchanan, and Archibald Buchanan, petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, arguing that a resolution of 11 July binding the partners to dissolve their firm at Candlemas 1793 violated the partnership’s unanimity clause. Corse and his co-pursuers answered, maintaining that Kibble acted against his own interest and sought injurious terms. |
| Cunninghames v. Dougal | 1775 | Society, Partnership, Debt, Bankruptcy, Succession, Creditor | Desiring to engage in the Maryland tobacco trade, several merchants formed a partnership known as Alexander Cunninghame and Company. These merchants included Alexander Cunninghame, the firm’s managing partner, and James Dougal, the eventual pursuer in this case. After Cunninghame died in December of 1772, a dispute arose over the appropriate treatment of his shares under the partnership agreement. Cunninghame’s heirs (defenders Elizabeth and Barbara Cunninghame) sought to withdraw his shares based on the firm’s most recent balance, which had been completed in July of 1772. However, James Dougal claimed that the heirs were only entitled to any proceeds available after discharge of the firm’s debts. Two factual circumstances colored the parties’ arguments. First, one of the firm’s tobacco stores had been destroyed by fire in April of 1772, but the loss was not included in the July balance. Second, also in 1772, the firm’s factors in America purchased tobacco at a price that could not be recovered in the European market, resulting in a substantial loss. Case documents include correspondence between the firm’s Glasgow partners and its factors in America. (The firm continued under the management of Alexander’s brother William Cunninghame, and after assuming Robert Findlay as a new partner, took the name of Cunninghame Findlay and Company. It went on to became a significant player in the tobacco trade.) |
| Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company v. Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet, Baronet, and Others, Trustees of the deceased Da… | 1835 | Debt, Statute, Contract, Partnership, Interest, Succession | The Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company raised an action against Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet and others, as trustees of the deceased shareholder David Clyne, to enforce statutory calls for unpaid shares under the Edinburgh Oil Gas Company Act. The defenders denied liability, contending that the company had abandoned its oil-gas operations and improperly transferred its assets to a coal-gas concern, thereby invalidating the demands. The pursuers maintained their statutory right to recover expenses from the estate, while the defenders persisted in their challenges and ultimately reclaimed against the interlocutor, seeking to sustain their defences and be assoilzied from the action. |
| Gillespie and Company v. Milligain | 1796 | Contract, Fraud, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Succession, Partnership | William Gillespie and Company petitioned the Court of Session against Lord Stonefield’s interlocutor refusing a bill of advocation. Thomas Milligain answered, maintaining that he was a partner rather than a mere servant and denying the petitioners’ accusations as baseless and malicious. |
| Greenock Rope-Work Company v Donald, Donald, and Company | 1772 | Partnership, Dissolution, Debt, Company, Sasine, Compensation | The Greenock Ropework Company was a partnership formed to manufacture rope and sail-duck. Two partners, William Donald and Henry White (alternatively spelled Whyte), served as managers of the partnership. The partnership decided that only one manager was necessary, so it appointed Henry White as the sole manager of the partnership. This action offended William Donald as well as William's brother, James Donald, another partner of Greenock Ropework Company. With a strained relationship with two of its partners, William and James Donald proposed that the Company should be dissolved, which it did. The parties disputed the proper method of dissolution. To balance the books prior to dissolution, the partnership sought to collect a debt owed by James and Robert Donalds and Company (named as suspenders), the same James Donald who was a partner of the Greenock Rope partnership. Because the rope-work company furnished some goods to that company. James and Robert Donalds and Company sought to suspend the debt on the grounds that James Donald, as partner of the Greenock Ropework Company, was actually owed money in excess of the debt claimed by the partnership. |
| Mather v. Cunnison | 1786 | Slavery and enslaved people, West Indies and Atlantic trade, Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Partnership | Documents uploaded. Full description in progress. |
| Philips v. Buchanan | 1797 | Debt, Oath, Interlocutor, Partnership, Aliment, Suspension | Pursuer John Phillips petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor reversing a ruling by Lord Armadale in his case against defender Buchanan. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Ralston and Lamont v. Lamont | 1800 | Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Bill of Exchange, Partnership | Petitioner William Henry Ralston advanced substantial sums to Hugh Lamont while both were serving with the 100th regiment of foot in India. After Hugh Lamont died, Ralston sought payment from Hugh’s widow. John Lamont, Hugh’s brother, also sought payment of certain debts. Because the available funds were not adequate to pay both claims, multiplepoindings were raised to adjudicate them. Case documents include several financial accounts. |
| Simpson v. Malcolm | 1793 | Debt, Interlocutor, Aliment, Creditor, Partnership, Citation | Captain William Simpson of Brunton pursued John Malcolm, butcher in Dunnikier, in a dispute involving allegations of partnership and challenges to interlocutory orders. Simpson petitioned to overturn Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor suspending the letters simpliciter, prompting Malcolm to answer and deny the partnership while citing procedural irregularities. Malcolm subsequently petitioned to alter the Inner-House interlocutor, to which Simpson replied by raising claims of prescription and improper citation. |
| Wilson and Company v. Carrier | 1795 | Debt, Arrestment, Partnership, Contract, Aliment, Bill of Exchange | William Wilson and Company, manufacturers in Glasgow, pursued John Scott, a carrier, seeking to hold him liable for the delivery of goods to London. The defender contended that his responsibility was limited to carriage between Glasgow and Manchester and did not extend to London, while the pursuers argued that he was responsible for safe delivery to London within sixteen days. Both parties adduced proof regarding the scope of the carrier's liability. |
Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 206)
- A. and W. Thom v. North British Bank and Andrew Tennent — Answers [3]
- Adam Christie and Others v. Royal Bank of Scotland — Answers, 16 Nov 1835
- Adam Christie and Others v. Royal Bank of Scotland — Reclaiming Note
- Adam Christie and Others v. The Royal Bank of Scotland — Condescendence
- Agnes Watson and James Taylor v. Agnes Mathie — Duplies
- Alexander Anderson v. John Matheson and James Pedie — Answers, 1 Dec 1821
- Alexander Anderson v. John Matheson — Answers, 1822
- Alexander Buchanan v. Charles Stewart Parker — Answers, 20 Dec 1825
- Alexander Cunison v. John Mather — Memorial, 7 Oct 1790
- Alexander Dewar v. Robert Munnoch — Reasons
- Alexander Mein v. James Hardie — Condescendence, 24 Feb 1826
- Answers for Mrs Thomson, VII. Answers for Trustees, VII. Condescend. VIII.
- Answers — Ans.—Archibald Fyfe to the Pet.—John Ferguson
- Answers — Answers—John Telford, Esq. to Pet.—James, Wood, & James and Mandatory. Answers for John Telford, Esq. Cashier of the Stirling Banking Company, to the Petition of James, Wood, and James, Merchants in London, and James Lawson, W.S. their Man…
- APPENDIX. ARTICLES of Agreement between Mr. Robert Freebairn and Mr. James Watson Printers in Edinburgh, and Mr. Richard Watkins for Mr. John Basket of London, Merchant.
- APPENDIX. LETTERS from John Agur to the Petitioners.
- APPENDIX. No. I. DECLARATION OF MALCOLM MUNRO. No. II. PURSUER'S PROOF. Copy ACKNOWLEDGMENT referred to in Alex. Leitch's Deposition.
- APPENDIX. No. II. PURSUER'S PROOF.
- Archibald M'Ausland v. William Dick, William Brown, and John Cameron — Information, 23 Sep 1786
- Archibald Newall v. John M'Kenzie — Answers, 8 Apr 1824
- Armstrong v. Armstrong and Warner — Report
- Campbell — Petition, 1 Sep 1796
- Captain William Simpson of Brunton v. John Malcolm — Answers, 28 Nov 1793
- Carron Company v. Mess. Francis Garbet and Company, and Peregrine Cust — Condescendence
- Catherine Moir or Laurie, Mr Stevenson and Martha Stevenson v. Henry Reid Sen., John Wilson and John Gardner — Defences, 30 May 1832
- certain Partners of Douglas, Heron, and Company v. Archibald Cockburn — Answers, 22 Apr 1780
- Charles Sanderson and David Chalmers v. William Drysdale — Answers, 8 Apr 1817
- Charles Sanderson and David Chalmers v. William Drysdale — Answers, 8 Apr 1817 [3]
- Charles Stewart Middleton v. Gilbert Sanders — Duplies, 5 Jan 1824
- Christian Howden v. Francis Howden — Reclaiming Note, 14 Nov 1840
- Colin Dunlop, Esq., of Tollcross, and Others, Trustees of the deceased Alexander Waddell of Stonefield v. Thomas Scott, Farmer at Townhead, and William Scott, Farmer at Adderston — Reclaiming Note, 3 Jan 1833
- Court upholds interlocutor dismissing appeal, finding objections to title valid and petition incompetent; — undated
- Cunninghames v. Dougal — Petition, 1 Aug 1775
- Cunninghames v. Dougal — Petition, 6 Mar 1776
- David Clyne against Lord Fullerton's Interlocutor
- David Staig v. John Bryden and Others — Answers
- David Staig v. John Bryden, William Robson, and Alexander Robson — Answers, 17 Jun 1824
- Defences 1833
- DEFENDER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS and Pursuers' ANSWERS THERETO.
- Donald Campbell v. Wilson and Macintyre — Answers, 19 Nov 1825 [2]
- Duncan Campbell v. John and Malcolm Munro — Condescendence
- Duncan Campbell v. Malcolm Munro — Answers, 21 Sep 1811 [2]
- Duncan Campbell v. Malcolm Munro — Answers, 6 Apr 1815
- Duncan Campbell v. Malcolm Munro — Appendix to Petition, 29 Jan 1813 [2]
- Dunmore v. Trustee for Buchanans — Petition, 15 Feb 1797
- Earl of Dunmore v. Robert Gray, Esq. and Others — Answers, 13 Feb 1824
- East Lothian Banking Company of Dunbar and William Paul v. Matthew Turnbull — Answers
- Eden — Petition, 12 Dec 1793
- Edinburgh Oil Gas-Light Company v. Sir William Baillie, &c. — Revised Case, 27 Jun 1837
- Edinburgh Oil Gas-Light Company v. Trustees of David Clyne — Complainers' Case, 27 Jun 1837
- Edward Bell and Others v. Andrew Willison and Others and Archibald Warden — Condescendence, 20 May 1829
- Edward Bell and Robert Bell and Others v. Bell and Others — Summons, 12 Dec 1822
- Elizabeth and Barbara Cunninghames v. James Dougal — Information, 8 Feb 1775
- Elizabeth and Barbara Cunninghams v. James Dougal — Answers, 10 Jul 1775
- Findlay v. Graham — Petition, 16 Dec 1772
- Francis Marshall v. William Marshall — Petition, 15 Jan 1814
- General-Collection-of-Session-Papers-1831-12-FEB--23-FEB-221-224-257 doc0110
- George Crichton v. Downe, Bell, and Mitchell — Reclaiming, 8 Jun 1833
- George Ord v. Miles Barton & Mandatory — Revised Case, 26 Jun 1849
- George Ord v. Miles Barton — Answers
- H. J. Williams and others v. Caledonian Iron and Foundry Company — Answers, 7 Dec 1829
- H. J. Williams and others v. Caledonian Iron and Foundry Company — Answers, 7 Dec 1829 [2]
- Hamilton — Petition, 28 Feb 1792
- Henry Cockburn v. George Richardson and Others — Answers, 2 Feb 1819
- Hog and Others v. Creditors of John Stewart &c — Petition, 21 Feb 1792
- Hope v. Cust — Case, 1774
- Horne v. Ryrie — Report, 4 Mar 1851 [2]
- Howden, Sanderson, and Company v. Robert Forrester — Information, 29 May 1802
- Howe v. Bland — Petition, 16 Jul 1782
- Hugh Rose v. Trustees of the deceased Kenneth M'Leay — Additional Appendix, 22 Jun 1830
- INTERLOCUTOR ordering Condescendence and Answers. ADJUSTED REVISED CONDESCENDENCE for Patrick Milne, Junior, residing at Logie Feus, Lochee,—Objector and Condescender, WITH ADJUSTE
- J. and W. Crum and Company v. Alexander Mein — Petition and Complaint, 7 Dec 1840
- James Carrick v. James Martin and Company — Duplies, 17 Dec 1818
- James Dougal v. Elisabeth and Barbara Cunninghams — Add Observations
- James Dougal v. Elizabeth and Barbara Cunninghams — Answers, 14 Oct 1775
- James Dougal v. Representatives of Alexander Cunningham — Information, 4 Mar 1775
- James Henderson v. John Rowat — Condescendence [2]
- James Hunter Robertson v. Trustees of the late George Robertson — Condescendence
- James Hunter Robertson v. Trustees of the late George Robertson — Condescendence, 1 Feb 1832
- James Logan v. William Brown, Gilbert Hazle, and Others — Bill of Suspension, 4 Jul 1823
- James M'Grigor, and others, Trustees for the Creditors of William Bogle v. John Ballantine — Answers, 28 Apr 1791
- James Stevenson & Others v. John Munro & Others — Revised Condescendence and Answers, 17 Jun 1829
- John Archibald Bertram v. William Mackintosh — Answers, 5 Feb 1822
- John Boyd v. Alexander Napier — Reasons, 26 Jun 1828
- John Duffus v. George Smith — Reasons, 15 Oct 1827 [3]
- John Emslie and Son v. Charles Jamieson and Company — Respondents' Case, 4 Aug 1777
- John Geddes v. Glasgow Glasswork Compy — Report, 1801
- John Holliday v. James Auchinleck Cheyne and Lindsay Mackersy — Answers, 9 Dec 1829
- John Kippen v. John Laird — Information, 20 Apr 1787 [2]
- John Lawrie v. Dunlop, Hamilton, and Co., Hercules Scott, James Crocket Robertson, and Scheviz, Robertson, and Co. — Duplies, 22 Jun 1811
- John M'Goun v. Andrew Gairdner — Replies, 25 Jun 1821
- John Macghie v. Messrs Douglas, Heron, and Company — Information, 20 Apr 1780 [2]
- John Marshall v. Macmillan & Macarthur and Archibald Macarthur — Bill of Advocation, 10 Sep 1813 [2]
- John Mather v. Alexander Cunnison — Answers, 23 Apr 1789
- John Mather v. Alexander Cunnison — Memorial, 19 Jan 1791
- John Mather v. Alexander Cunnison — Proof, 20 Feb 1789
- John Mathieson v. Robert Simpson — Answers, 7 Oct 1819
- John Minto and John Gavin v. John Kirkpatrick — Reclaiming, 3 Jan 1833
- John Ure, John Miller and George Taylor v. John Shearer and Others, Trustees of the late James Dunlop — Answers, 2 Feb 1825
- John Wilkinson v. Alexander M'Whann — Answers, 5 Jan 1813 [2]
