Legal Subject: Res judicata

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Clark v. Macgill 1774 Res judicata, Title Dispute This case was about the disputed ownership of a small piece of property on Jeffry's Close, Glasgow. In 1763, before pursuer Peter Clark purchased his property on the close, defender James Macgill petitioned the dean of guild for a warrant to enclose the disputed area. James Herbertson, Clark’s predecessor, failed to mount a challenge. However, by the time Macgill was ready to start work on the project, Clark had purchased Herbertson’s former property, which he understood to include the area proposed for enclosure. Clark complained to the dean of guild that the enclosure would be an encroachment. The dean-of-guild court ruled for Macgill, finding that the matter had been decided in the earlier proceeding, and Clark sought review. Case documents name numerous property owners and tenants in The Bridgegate (or Goosedubs) area of Glasgow.
John Krassaw v. Neil, Earl of Roseberie 1769 Res judicata, Bonds This case was about competing claims to a heritable bond. Lieutenant-General George Preston granted the bond to Archibald Primrose, Earl of Rosebery; The Earl then conveyed the bond to his four younger children. Mr. John Primrose, one of those children, entered into several transactions concerning his share. After General Preston’s heir raised a process of multiplepoinding, it was determined that John’s share was due to four individuals: Neil Primrose, Earl of Rosebery; John Krassaw; Alexander Sinclair, Earl of Caithness; and Lady Margaret Primrose, Countess of Caithness. However, the Court did not delineate the interests of these individuals, so Sir George raised a second process of multiplepoinding, which was the subject of this case. Earl Neil argued that the other claimants’ interests had been extinguished by prior payments, while John Krassaw argued that this issue was res judicata. Krassaw also argued that his interest was preferable to Earl Neil’s, and that Earl Neil’s claims regarding prior payment were unfounded.