Legal Subject: Proof

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Mudie v. John Ouchterlony 1766 Mandate, Debt, Rent, Lease, Arrestment, Proof Pursuer Alexander Mudie claimed that Alexander Ouchterlony had verbally commissioned him to purchase a tenement in Arbroath without disclosing that Oucterlony was his principal. Mudie was sued in connection with the deal and, in turn, raised an action against Ouchterlony; however, Ouchterlony died while the litigation was pending. Mudie then renewed the process against Ouchterlony’s representatives. They denied any knowledge of the commission and argued that it could only be proved by a writing.
Allan v. Stewart 1771 Roads, Property, Servitude, Proof, Interlocutor, Heritor Sheep drovers commonly used a road through the properties of pursuers Joseph Allan and Alexander Morton to get to a sheep fair in Kilbride. Allan and Morton wanted to mitigate or stop the use of this road for the passage of sheep. Allan and Morton insisted that the sheep-drivers had no right to use this road because there were other routes available. They specifically alleged that another road to the west of Allan and Morton, called the "peat-road," was a suitable path. Defenders John Stewart and James Stewart were heritors of the lands that included this peat-road. John and James Stewart maintained that the peat-road is private, not public. They also claimed that Allan and Morton could not summon them into this case as defenders because Allan and Morton had no legal interest in the peat-road.
Allardice v. The Officers of State, and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews 1798 Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Stipend, Tack, Prescription Robert Barclay Allardice pursued the Officers of State and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews regarding the modification of the teinds of Hallgreen lands. The Reverend Robert Croll submitted that the teinds should be fixed at a fair and equitable rate, while Allardice argued they ought to be valued at a fifth of the rent prior to improvements rather than the current improved rent. The parties exchanged competing memorials on the proper basis for calculating the teind duty.
Anderson v. Richardson 1786 Defamation, Libel, Aliment, Proof, Interlocutor, Prescription John Anderson, Professor of Natural Philosophy, as pursuer, alleged that William Richardson, Professor of Humanity, as defender, uttered defamatory invectives against him in a public classroom at the College of Glasgow. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Arbutnott, et al. v. Scott, et al. 1794 Proof, Res judicata, Interlocutor, Salmon Fishing, Mill, Aliment Arbutnott and others pursued Scott and others regarding a dam-dike that superior heritors claimed intercepted fish passage in violation of statutory regulations, while the defenders insisted the structure was a necessary check-dike for their mills. The petitioners sought alteration of a recent interlocutor, and the superior heritors informed the court that the dike was constructed to obstruct fish rather than supply water. The defenders maintained that alteration would injure their milling rights, and subsequently petitioned to be assoilzied, challenging the relevancy of the condescendence and the competency of the additional report and depositions.
Bellinger v. Monboddo's Interlocutor 1793 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Proof, Statute, Witness Reclaiming petition brought by William Bellinger challenging the interlocutor from the process of advocation and the judgment of the lower court finding for pursuer, Alexander Smith under the statute 9 of Queen Anne. The statute at cap. 14 sec. 2 states that "if any person shall, at any time or sitting, by playing at cards, dice or other games, lose in the whole, the value of 10 £, and shall pay or deliver the same, or any part thereof, the person losing, shall be at liberty, within three months, to sue for the money and goods lost, or any part thereof, from the winner, with costs, by action of debt founded on this act, in any of her Majesty's courts of record." The judgment orders payment to Smith by Bellinger of the sum lost by Mr. Smith to Mr. Bellinger in a dice game on December 24, 1789. Bellinger appeals on three points: 1. Does the act of 9th of Queen Anne apply to Scotland, as there are various Scottish statutes which conflict; 2. What does the statute mean by "one sitting," as the gambling happened over several hours; and 3. Was pursuer's oath in supplement properly admitted?
Burrell v. Lord Glenlee's Interlocutor 1798 Proof, Interlocutor, Servitude, Property, Aliment, Lease William George Burrell petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Glenlee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cadell v. Johnstone 1798 Defamation, Arrestment, Libel, Proof, Aliment, Interlocutor John Cadell of Cockenzie pursued John Johnstone, printer in Edinburgh. Johnstone petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and Cadell filed answers opposing the petition. The defender subsequently submitted evidence in support of his libel claim against Cadell, detailing alleged violence and misconduct during Tranent militia enforcement.
Cadell v. Morthland and Johnstone 1799 Witness, Defamation, Evidence, Perjury, Proof, Interlocutor John Cadell pursued John Morthland, Advocate, and John Johnstone, Printer in Edinburgh, for damages and libel arising from a false newspaper account that attributed inflammatory statements to him regarding militia officials at Tranent in 1797. During the course of the litigation, Morthland and Johnstone petitioned the court alleging judicial misconduct by Cadell as pursuer, including intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of proof, which Cadell denied while countering that the defenders had engaged in witness tampering and dilatory conduct. The cause also involved Morthland’s explanation of bills of exchange relating to property of the Scots Chronicle, and Cadell subsequently sought reimbursement for legal, printing, and clerical expenses incurred in the damages action.
Cameron v. McAlpin 1773 Rent, Lease, Proof, Possession, Tack, Interlocutor Defenders Robert M‘Alpin and William Grierson answered the petition of pursuers John Cameron of Callart and Mary Stewart his wife, responding to claims of breach of lease agreement. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Colquhoun v. Murdoch 1788 Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Insanity, Succession, Proof Humphry Colquhoun, formerly of Port-Glasgow and then residing in Edinburgh, pursued George Murdoch, late Comptroller of the Customs at Port-Glasgow, leading proof by his witnesses in November 1788. Murdoch subsequently petitioned the Court in August 1789, seeking alteration of an interlocutor that had allowed the evidence of James Carmichael and Mary Campbell to be received.
Colvill v. M'Ewan 1793 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Proof, Jurisdiction, Oath Lieutenant George Colvill petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor finding him liable to M'Ewan for damages and expenses for allegedly harbouring an apprentice who absconded. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Condie of Strowie v. United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard 1796 Rent, Proof, Teinds, Tack, Teind, Valuation Thomas Condie of Strowie, as pursuer, sought valuation of the teinds of Strowie and Pitquhanatrie against the United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard, disputing the defenders' higher valuations which rested upon hypothetical grass cultivation unsuited to the local conditions. The defenders maintained that the annual value of the teinds should be set at ninety-nine pounds sterling.
Copland v. Ireland 1786 Proof, Interlocutor, Tack, Diligence, Rent, Sequestration William Ireland petitioned the Court for leave to adduce additional proof and to renew diligence against William Birtwhistle, alleging that William Copland of Gregory had failed to report proof regarding Birtwhistle. Copland answered, responding to the claim that he had neglected to report the proof concerning Birtwhistle.
Cowan v. Mac Candlish 1770 Paternity, Suit, Aliment, Proof, Defamation, Interlocutor Mary Cowan had alleged before the sheriff of Kirkcudbright that MacCandlish had fathered her son in 1765. She obtained an order compelling him to pay child support. MacCandlish claimed that her case was unproven, and that the sheriff had acted improperly in taking depositions from two witnesses when neither MacCandlish nor his procurator were present.
Creditors of Newlands v. Mackenzie 1792 Creditor, Debt, Proof, Arrestment, Reduction, Bill of Exchange Andrew Mackenzie petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor requiring him to produce title-deeds before receiving payment of his account. The creditors of Newlands answered that Mackenzie ought to be paid without producing the writings.
Douglas v. Carnegie 1782 Rent, Freeholder, Proof, Sasine, Infeftment, Oath George Carnegie of Pittarrow submitted answers to the petition and complaint of William Douglas of Bridgetown and Robert Graham of Fintray, Esquires, responding to their objections to his freeholder inrolment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
George Anderson v. James Stephen, Andrew Jamieson, and others 1766 Election contest, Aliment, Proof, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Property 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.
George Earl of Tyrconnel v. Sir Archibald Grant 1777 Debt, Assignment, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Lease, Proof Sir Archibald Grant defended an action by George Earl of Tyrconnel and the Representatives of Richard Shergold concerning annuity bonds, maintaining that the defeasance of the bonds was valid notwithstanding suppressed indorsements. The pursuers thereafter petitioned the Court to resume consideration of the competition.
George Taylor v. Mrs. Taylor, or Binnie 1831 Aliment, Divorce, Adultery, Libel, Proof, Agent George Taylor, as pursuer in a divorce action against Mrs. Taylor, or Binnie, reclaimed against Lord Newton's interlocutors and requested that the Court recall them. The Court resolved to obtain the opinions of the judges on whether proof of remissio was prejudicial and should precede proof of the adultery. The consulted judges returned answers to the questions posed by the Lords of the First Division regarding the plea of remissio in the divorce action.
Graham and Rowland v. Dundas and Richardson 1792 Libel, Theft, Verdict, pannels, Proof, Evidence Robert Graham and James Rowland, as pursuers, filed an information against Dundas and Richardson arguing that the jury's verdict against them was unintelligible and therefore could not support a sentence of condemnation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Greig v. Johnston 1782 Aliment, Proof, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Tack, Witness Helen Greig sued Archibald Johnston for maintenance of a child alleged to be his. Johnston argued that Greig had already discharged her maintenance claim as part of a settlement agreement. Greig denied having discharged the claim, and challenged the evidence offered by Johnson.
Henry v. Caldwell 1765 Aliment, Tack, Adjudication, Rent, Arrestment, Proof Hector Henry, bleacher in Loanhead, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. John Caldwell, mason in Beith, and Elizabeth Swan, daughter to Robert Swan, answered the petition.
Inglis v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor 1789 Fraud, Contract, Damages, Aliment, Interlocutor, Proof William Inglis presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court of Session to alter its interlocutor on damages for non-implementation of a bear-delivery agreement with Lord Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
J. and P. Duguid and Others v. W. Duguid and Others 1823 Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Trustees, Proof, Marriage The children of John Duguid claimed a share in William Duguid’s estate against the trustees, who had sought exoneration after distributing legacies while residuary beneficiaries remained unidentified, filing a condescendence that opposed the executors’ objections to their evidence. The claimants’ entitlement required proof of John Duguid’s life, death, and family in America, leading to the granting of commissions for taking evidence abroad, which the respondents moved to recall or restrict to major American cities while seeking permission to participate. Proof was subsequently taken abroad regarding John Duguid’s circumstances and the claimants’ right to the estate.
James Coutts v. Sir Francis Blake 1775 Lease, Arrestment, Property, Proof, Jurisdiction, Possession This case addressed the court's jurisdiction to resolve a dispute over fishing rights in the river Tweed, where that river forms the border between Scotland and England. Pursuer James Coutts claimed that defender Sir Francis Blake of Twizell, who possessed a fishing right on the English side of the Tweed, had demolished a portion of Coutts’s dam, causing severe harm to his fishery. Blake claimed that the alleged demolition site was on the English side of the border, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts. Many local residents are mentioned in case documents.
James Turnbull and Malcolm Macdonald v. Sir George Home, Baronet 1793 Jurisdiction, Suspension, Arrestment, Proof, Sequestration, Interdict James Turnbull and Malcolm Macdonald, as suspenders, sought to compel their bound apprentice Alexander M'Kenzie to return to service and argued that he could not legally enter His Majesty's Fleet as a volunteer. Sir George Home, Baronet, maintained that a seaman formerly apprenticed to a slater might lawfully serve in the Fleet notwithstanding the opposition of his former masters. The dispute turned on whether an apprentice bound to a slater could voluntarily enter naval service or remained subject to his masters' claim for specific performance of the indenture.
Janet Barber v. John Caddell 1789 Rent, Possession, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Proof Janet Barber, relict of James Renny, pursued John Caddell of Cockenzie in a suspension bill alleging he had unlawfully sold her crop and seized her land without authority. Caddell petitioned the Court to remit the suspension, asserting claims of possession and rent arrears against her. Barber answered, defending her suspension and responding to Caddell’s allegations regarding possession and arrears.
John Skeill v. Humphry-Bland Gardiner 1775 Debt, Estate, Proof, Prescription, Aliment, Arrestment John Skeill, pursuer, provided horses for Robert Gardiner, father of the defendant and Commissary for British forces in Scotland. Skeill contends that he was paid for the use of his horses in the summer of 1759 but not for the period of November 1759 to March 1760. Gardiner claims that he was very young when these transactions took place, but that there is ample evidence that the troops had been removed from their encampment by early November 1759, so that his father would no longer have needed Skeill's services. Case documents include depositions and accounts.
John Steven and Company v. John Douglas 1772 Deviation, Insurance, Debt, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Proof Defender John Douglas provided an insurance policy to pursuer John Steven and Company for a shipment of goods on the Belfast Trader. The planned shipment route was from Belfast to Greenock or Port Glasgow. Before the ship set sail, however, merchants in Stranraer requested that the ship transport some goods from Belfast to Stranraer. The owner of the Belfast Trader agreed to transport these goods. In the course of trying to reach Stranraer, the ship encountered a storm and sank off the coast of Girvan in Ayrshire. Douglas refused to reimburse Steven and Company. Douglas claimed that the voyage taken by the Belfast Trader was different than the voyage provided for in the insurance policy. Steven and Company sought reimbursement, arguing that the voyage to Stranraer on the way to Greenock or Port Glasgow was not a significant deviation from the original route.
Lindsay v. M'Laren 1780 Admiralty, Jettison, Arrestment, Cautioner, Proof, Interlocutor This case was about liability for goods jettisoned from a ship. Alexander Maclaren, master of the Diligence of Fortrose, caused goods belonging to David Lindsay to be thrown overboard during a storm. Lindsay sued Maclaren in the High Court of Admiralty, seeking compensation. Lindsay claimed that when goods were ejected to save a ship, it was the master’s duty to apportion liability among all owners of the ship’s cargo; according to Lindsay, Maclaren had failed to do this. Maclaren, in turn, brought an action against all the owners, including Lindsay, so that their liability could be calculated. Lindsay was successful in his action before the High Court of Admiralty, and Maclaren (together with his cautioner, Alexander Mackenzie) offered a bill of suspension in the Court of Session. Maclaren argued that the proceeding should be stayed until his action against the owners was concluded. However, Lindsay argued that Maclaren was liable because he failed to make up an average-bill apportioning liability to the other owners, and because he improperly stowed Lindsay’s goods above deck.
M'Crackan v. Pulline 1775 Jurisdiction, Debt, Proof, Contract, Rent, Aliment James M'Cracken, suspender, agreed to pay Richard Pulline, charger, for allowing twenty-five cattle to graze on Pulline's land. M'Cracken subsequently refused to pay on the ground that the cattle were inadequately fed. Pulline brought an action for payment before the justices of the peace, who found in his favor. M'Cracken then obtained a suspension, arguing that the justices lacked jurisdiction and that his contract with Pulline was explicitly conditioned on the cattle being given sufficient fodder.
M'Duff v. Murray 1792 Rent, Tack, Thirlage, Aliment, Proof, Prescription Alexander M'Duff of Bonhard, Esquire, and James Bell, his tenant, petitioned the Court as pursuers to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Henderland. John Murray of Murrayshall, Esquire, and Andrew Robertson, his tenant, appeared as defenders and answered the petition and an additional petition.
Macgregor, and Campbell v. Campbell 1793 Aliment, Marriage, Creditor, Debt, Succession, Proof This case was an action for declarator of marriage and legitimacy. Pursuer Katharine Macgregor lived with Lieutenant Duncan Campbell for a number of years prior to his death, and the two had a son. Macgregor initially served as Campbell’s housekeeper, but she alleged that during the year before his death, they traveled to Kinghorn and were married. Macgregor produced depositions from a number of witnesses who testified that people in the couple’s neighborhood commonly believed that they were married. However, the defenders, who were relatives of Lieutenant Campbell, argued that his statements to that effect were unserious, and that Macgregor had not required others—especially Campbell’s servants—to address her as the lady of the house.
McLean v. McArthur 1787 Aliment, Proof, Sequestration, Tack, Glebe, Interlocutor Allan M'Lean of Drimnin, Suspender, alleged the unlawful seizure of the Killean estate for glebe and manse on the false claim that the lands were church-lands, asserting that records showed Crown ward status and that the parish's centrality was disputed. 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.
Messrs Aitchison, Brown, and Company v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor 1792 Bankruptcy, Debt, Intromission, Creditor, Proof, Fraud Messrs Aitchison, Brown, and Company petitioned the Court to alter Lord Monboddo's recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Oswald v. Grant 1772 Commonty, Common lands, Feu, Heritor, Valuation, Proof This case concerns the division of the commonty located in the barony of Preston, known as the "Fell of Preston," a hilly area lying in the Parish of Kirkbean. Richard Oswald, pursuer, and Andrew Grant et al., defenders, were heritors in the same district. Grant, et al, claimed that Oswald had no right to that land because he was excluded earlier when the Merse of Preston, a seaside area located in the same barony, was divided. Grant et al. argued that the division of the Merse of Preston was based on customary use. Grant et al. were not excluded from this division, which occurred in 1731. Grant et al. claimed that the division of the Fell of Preston should be similarly divided, based on customary use. Oswald countered that he had a right of common property in the Fell of Preston.
Philip Miller, Oculist in Edinburgh v. Francis Angelo Tremamondo, Master of the Academy, Edinburgh 1771 Obligations under contract of marriage, Aliment, Arrestment, Proof, Parole Evidence, Marriage Philip Miller performed a surgery on Francis Angelo-Tremamondo, which saved his sight. They became good friends. Francis Angelo-Tremamondo convinced Miller to marry his only daughter, Mary Tremamondo-Angelo. After the marriage, Mr. Millar brought an action against Francis Angelo-Tremamondo because he breached the marriage contract. He had agreed to give to the pursuer a diamond ring, to furnish a house for the new couple, among another things. The agreement and the promises were not in writing. The pursuer tried to enforce Mr. Angelo-Tremamondo's promises. The defender maintained that since the promises alleged were given verbally they could not be substantiated by other witnesses.
Robert Coldstream v. William Duncan of Stonnywind and Katherine Thomson 1783 Debt, Aliment, Stipend, Proof, Sasine, Tack Robert Coldstream pursued William Duncan of Stonnywind and Katherine Thomson in a dispute over the thirlage of the lands of Stonywind to the Parkmill for malt grinding and multure payment, with proof taken by John Graham of Greigston on 10 January 1783. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robert Hamilton Provost of Kinghorn, Pursuer v. James Rutherford, John Aitken, David Sibbald and Walter Rymer, in Kinghorn, Defenders 1771 Defamation, expenses of process, Aliment, Fine, Proof, Election The pursuer, the Provost of Kinghorn, one of the royal boroughs situated upon the Firth of Forth, brought an action of damages for defamation against the defenders. They accused Mr. Hamilton of having sold the burgh's interest and having been bribed at the last general election. The pursuer limited his demand to the expenses of the process and the following judgment was pronounced, "Repel the defences; find the attack made by the defenders, upon the character of the pursuer, was malevolent and injurious; and therefore find them, conjunctly and severally, liable in expenses of process, of which ordain an account to be given in; but not in damages, in respect the pursuer has passed from any.”
Robert Home-Gordon v. Alexander M'Kenzie 1790 Debt, Liferent, Succession, Proof, Freehold Qualification, Election contest Lieutenant Alexander Mackenzie, defender, answered the petition of Robert Home-Gordon and George Mackay, pursuers, asserting that the interlocutor dismissing the complaint was final and unalterable. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Captain Alexander Sutherland 1790 Rent, Freeholder, Lease, Proof, Possession, Election contest Robert Home-Gordon and others sought to expunge Captain Alexander Sutherland's name from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland, challenging the validity of his freehold qualification. Sutherland maintained that his qualification remained valid and argued the complaint was incompetent. The parties led proof regarding Sutherland's possession of wadset lands since Whitsunday 1789 and his receipt of rents from the tenants of Culmaily for the crops of 1789 and 1790. Home-Gordon subsequently petitioned for enlargement of proof, alleging that Sutherland's qualification was nominal and fictitious.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Captain Gordon Clunes 1790 Rent, Possession, Lease, Proof, Election contest, Teinds Robert Home-Gordon of Embo, George M'Kay of Bigbouse, and other freeholders of Sutherland petitioned to expunge Captain Gordon Clunes from the county roll of freeholders, challenging the validity of his freehold qualification. Clunes maintained that his qualification was valid and not subject to expungement, prompting replies from the complainers and the adduction of proof by both parties concerning possession of wadset lands since Whitsunday 1789. The complainers subsequently sought to enlarge the proof and to object that Clunes's qualification was nominal and fictitious.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Lieutenant-General James Grant of Ballindalloch 1790 Freeholder, Possession, Election contest, Proof, Interlocutor, Wadset Robert Home-Gordon of Embo, George M'Kay of Bighouse, and other freeholders of Sutherland pursued Lieutenant-General James Grant of Ballindalloch to expunge him from the county roll of freeholders on the ground that his qualification rested upon a nominal and fictitious possession of wadset lands in the county. The pursuers alleged that Grant had not truly possessed the lands of Navidale since Whitsunday 1789 as required, while Grant defended his enrollment by asserting continuous possession from that date and denying any change in circumstances warranting removal. The litigation proceeded through successive pleadings, proof regarding payment and stewardship of the wadset lands, and repeated petitions by both sides to alter interlocutors or enlarge the record, with Robert Grant of Elchies also becoming enmeshed in the dispute over similar allegations of nominal qualification and electoral solicitation.
Scott and Cruikshank v. New College of St. Andrews 1793 Tack, Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Rent, Lease The New College of St. Andrews defended an action by Scott and Cruikshank regarding deductions from rental, arguing that deductions based on old improvements and tenant accommodations were not legally or reasonably justifiable. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Scott v. Brodie 1802 Possession, tenant, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Proof John Scott purchased a farm in Ormiston, which was in possession of Mr. Brodie, as a tenant. As a result of landlord petitions, the Lord Ordinary issued a bill of suspension an interdict against the tenant. Parties discussed if Mr. Brodie was entitled to an away-going crop of that land or if the petitioner was entitled to the value of the crop, without allowance for feed and labour.
Scrimgeour and Son v. Alexander and Sons 1769 Contract, Affreightment, Ships, Interlocutor, Proof, Reduction In March 1765, Edinburgh merchants Alexander & Sons contracted with the Borrowstounness merchant house of James Scrimgeour & Son to freight the ship the Duke of Athol for a voyage to Grenada—after considering a trip to Maryland or Virginia—with a cargo of herring, staves, and green linens. Due to a variety of accidents, the ship did not make it to Grenada until after the end of sugar season. Having no sugar to collect and bring back to Scotland, the agent at Grenada for Alexander & Sons convinced the ship’s captain to sail for (North) Carolina. Within days of the ship’s arrival in Wilmington, protests broke out over the Stamp Act, delaying the ship’s loading and departure for months. When the Duke of Athol finally returned to Leith, Alexander & Sons brought a legal dispute against James Scrimgeour & Son over the respective financial obligations of the parties due to the ship's delay.
Sir John Ogilvie of Inverquharity v. Sir David Carnegie of Southesk 1795 Valuation, Charter, Disposition, Commissioners of Supply, Proof, Succession Sir John Ogilvie of Inverquharity pursued Sir David Carnegie of Southesk and other freeholders regarding their refusal to inroll him on the roll of freeholders for the county of Forfar in respect of the lands of Baldovan. The dispute centered on whether Ogilvie had sufficiently established the lands' valuation at £386:5:8 Scots through cess-book entries and receipts to qualify for the roll, or whether the freeholders had properly rejected his proof as insufficient. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies debating the adequacy of the valuation evidence and the applicability of precedents.
Spence v. Tennent 1765 Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Creditor, Proof William Spence, merchant in Linlithgow, pursued James Tennent, tobacconist in Glasgow, and William Maclaren, messenger there, for the unlawful seizure and detention of his watch and for extortion under false pretenses. Spence petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor, and thereafter answered petitions by Tennent and Maclaren, responding to allegations of illegal diligence and undue exaction.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 538)