| Dr. John Roebuck, and Samuel Garbet v. William and Andrew Stirling |
1772
|
Patent, Privilege |
Roebuck and Garbet, pursuers, claimed that they obtained a patent in 1771 for a process that produced sulfuric acid in vessels of lead, instead of in vessels of glass. The patent allegedly gave Roebuck and Garbet the exclusive privilege of using this process in Great Britain for fourteen years. Roebuck and Garbet claimed that William and Andrew Stirling were constructing buildings in Glasgow for the purpose of using Roebuck and Garbet's patented process. Roebuck and Garbet applied for a bill of suspension, but Lord Hailes found no patent transgression in the construction of the buildings. Roebuck and Garbet applied for a second bill of suspension, but the court did not prohibit the Stirlings from producing sulfuric acid in vessels of lead while the case was pending. Because their patent only lasts fourteen years, Roebuck and Garbet sought to stop the Stirlings' activity immediately. They argued that the continued activity of the Stirlings causes Roebuck and Garbet material loss and rendered their patent ineffective. |
| Incorporation of Goldsmiths v. Cunningham, White, Marshall and Sons |
1801
|
Statute, Privilege, Corporation, Disuse |
The Incorporation of Goldsmiths brought a claim against jewelers and metal workers who were not part of their incorporation for selling jewelry and metal works. The Incorporation of Goldsmiths argued that Parliament had conferred exclusive privileges to the incorporated goldsmiths to search for, manufacture, and sell metal works, and that the defendants had been doing the same illegally since they were not properly incorporated. The non-incorporated defendants argued that after a certain practice has been maintained for a substantial time, i.e. their selling metal works despite their non-incorporated status, the statute conferring the privileges falls into disuse and becomes moot. |
| Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing v. Graham |
1789
|
Lease, Tack, Rent, Charter, Sequestration, Privilege |
The Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing pursued George Graham of Kinross for payment of £23 sterling yearly for the customs of the town under the roup of January 1785. They also reclaimed an interlocutor that had granted Graham the sole right to the fairs and markets customs, asserting the burgh’s historic entitlement to levy those same dues. |
| The Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh v. The Faculty of Advocates, and the Society of Writers to the Signet, in behalf of the College of Justice |
1787
|
Jurisdiction, Aliment, Privilege, College of Justice, Tax, Debt |
The Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh pursued the Faculty of Advocates and the Society of Writers to the Signet, acting on behalf of the College of Justice, for payment of poor's rates assessed upon the College. The suspenders maintained that the College enjoyed an established legal exemption from such assessments by virtue of statute, usage, and judicial acknowledgment, while the magistrates contended that no such privilege existed in law. Both parties submitted informations setting forth their respective positions on whether the College of Justice was liable to contribute to the maintenance of the city's poor. |
