Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Stein v. Marshall 1803 Proof, Bankruptcy, Defamation, Debt, Aliment, Interlocutor After he obtained a discharge from his creditors, the pursuer brought an action against James Marshall, alleging that he had defamed the pursuer’s character. The defendant sustained that the pursuer was fraudulently bankrupt and thus, he affirmed that the pursuer's creditors were defrauded. The pursuer's petition was refused, because he based his claim on a private conversation between the defendant and Robert Jaimeson, one of his creditors. The Court held that conversation was not relevant to prove the claim of the pursuer.
Stobie v. Morison, et al 1788 Succession, Debt, Proof, Aliment, Collation, Action David Stobie, writer in Edinburgh, as pursuer, disputed Catharine Morison's claim to half the executry of her deceased brother Adam Morison. Morison and her husband, John Wilson, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Stonefield in the cause. Stobie answered the petition, resisting her claim to the executry.
Thomas Beattie v. Thomas Tod 1793 Infeftment, Charter, Disposition, Proof, Sasine, Title Petition and Complaint entered by Mr. Thomas Beattie regarding his claim to join the roll of Freeholders. Mr. Beattie bought the rights to the lands of Hartsgarth and Langhaugh from Mr. Sharp. He then purchased the superiority of the lands from the Duke of Buccleugh, the superior of the lordship of Liddiesdale and most of the parish of Castleton, original owner of Hartsgarth and Langhaugh.
Mr. Tod, Writer to the Signet, denied admission to the roll of Freeholders on the grounds that Mr. Beattie had not provided adequate proof that the lands of Hartsgarth and Langhaugh lie within the lordship of Liddiesdale, meaning that the Duke of Buccleugh could not sell the superiority to Mr. Beattie.
Mr. Beattie petitions the court to stipulate that the burden of disproving his claim lies with the the Freedholders, or alternatively, to rule that the additional documents provided by Mr. Beattie establish proof.
Thomas Wright v. John Ure 1766 Deathbed, Succession, Witness, Proof, Deed, Evidence James Ure of Shirgarton, W.S., executed a settlement of his estate in favor of his nephew James. The settlement also named a series of substitutes, including any heirs-male born of John Wright of Easter Glinns and Christian Ure, Shirgarton’s sister. After Shirgarton died, his brother John challenged the settlement on the ground that it was executed on deathbed. With the settlement’s validity in question, John and young James came to an agreement that gave John a life rent and promoted Mary Ure, young James’s sister, in the line of succession. Mary eventually succeeded to her brother’s fee. After many years, however, Thomas Wright, the son of John Wright and Christian Ure, sought to void the titles held by John and Mary. In response, John renewed his action to void the alleged deathbed deed. Case documents discuss issues relating to the proof of certain facts, including Shirgarton’s health when the settlement was executed and alleged efforts to influence witnesses.
Viscount of Arbuthnott v. Gilles 1793 Reduction, Aliment, Proof, Tack, Debt, Lease John, Viscount of Arbuthnott pursued Colin Gillies regarding leases granted by the late Viscount, alleging that the deceased had lacked capacity and acted under Gillies’ undue influence when granting long leases of his estates. The defender maintained the late Viscount’s competence and business acumen, producing witness testimony and sixty-eight letters to establish the fairness of the contractual terms and rebut claims of lesion, while the pursuer petitioned to renew commissions for proving incapacity and sought to compel Gillies to produce books and evidence regarding a farm-victual transaction. The litigation involved disputes over procedural delays, the sufficiency of proof regarding the Viscount’s mental state, and the production of financial records and correspondence relating to rent payments and lease obligations.
Waugh v. Trustees for Ruecastle's Creditors 1789 Agent, Trust, Process, Proof, Witness, Arrestment Thomas Waugh, writer in Jedburgh, petitioned against a Lord Alva interlocutor, objecting to the admissibility of Andrew Reid as a witness. The Trustees for Ruecastle's Creditors, together with Richard Tod, merchant in Leith, and other creditors of Walter Ruecastle and John Scott, answered the petition, defending Reid's qualification to testify.
Wylie v. Johnstone and Jardine 1794 Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Proof Alexander Wylie pursued Johnstone and Jardine regarding a bill whose date had been altered, contending that the change did not vitiate the instrument and that the defenders were not present at Langholm when the alteration was made. The respondents denied fraud, asserting that the date had been modified only after they had signed the bill, and they challenged the credibility of the witnesses upon whom Wylie relied.
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.
[MERGED → 4141] Stein v. Marshall 1804 Proof, Bankruptcy, Defamation After he obtained a discharge from his creditors, the pursuer brought an action against James Marshall, alleging that he had defamed the pursuer’s character. The defendant sustained that the pursuer was fraudulently bankrupt and thus, he affirmed that the pursuer's creditors were defrauded. The pursuer's petition was refused, because he based his claim on a private conversation between the defendant and Robert Jaimeson, one of his creditors. The Court held that conversation was not relevant to prove the claim of the pursuer. [This case appears twice in the SCOS database. See ID #4141 for additional documents.]

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 538)