AI-transcribed

An action for staying procedure on a decree of an inferior Court, or a decree of the Court of Session made in absence of the defendant. The decree itself comes to be reviewed in this form. It is commenced by the presenting of a note of suspension, or petition, in the Bill Chamber. The party who is plaintiff in this action is called the suspender. The defendant is called the charger, being the party whose charge is sought to be suspended or stayed.

Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Suspension

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Pagan and James Hunter v. Alexander Wylie 1792 Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Aliment, Fraud Alexander Pagan and James Hunter, as suspenders, resisted Alexander Wylie’s claim upon a bill of exchange that had been altered from £8 to £84 after execution. Wylie, agent for the Paisley Union Bank, had discounted the bill for the higher amount and argued that the suspenders remained liable for the altered sum, while Pagan and Hunter maintained that such a material change precluded any charge against the original acceptor and indorser. The litigation centered on whether parties to a bill could be held responsible for a sum materially increased after the instrument had been signed.
Barr v. Buchanan 1780 Suspension, Arrestment, Inhibition, Courts James Barr brought a bill of suspension seeking his release from prison. Barr alleged that he had been imprisoned because of the “groundless prejudice” of James Buchanan of Drumpellier, a justice of the peace. He also cited procedural irregularities. However, Buchanan alleged that Barr had caused a number of disturbances for reasons stemming from his mental illness. Buchanan argued that Barr’s friends should find security for the suspender’s future conduct and conduct him to a safe place.
Boyd (Provost of Linlithgow) v. Cunningham 1832 Interlocutor, Suspension, Expenses, Adjudication, Sist, Corporation Cuninghams & Bell, W.S., asked the Court to allow them to sist themselves as parties in the suspension between pursuer John Boyd and defender George Cunninghame, seeking to repeat the interlocutor in their favour. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Brebner v. Brebner 1767 Arrestment, Cautioner, Aliment, Executor, Suspension, Debt Helen Brebner, as executor for her deceased husband, gave her brother, Alexander Brebner, use of select estate funds. Helen won an action to retrieve this money from Alexander, and he challenged this judgment. Helen's husband, James Frigge, died in 1756, after naming Helen executor of his considerable finances, which consisted mainly of bills and bonds. When Helen received money for payments of debts due to her former husband, she allowed her brother Alexander use of these funds. Helen claimed that she put the money in Alexander's hands after he advised her that allowing him to invest the money in trade would increase the funds. Helen argued that as Alexander's credit declined and as he fell into debt, she sought to get back the money, which he refused. Alexander claimed, alternatively, that Helen had put the money in his hands for security as she drew on him for funds as needed. Eventually, Alexander argued, he became dissatisfied with Helen's management of the finances and refused to allow Helen any additional money. Alexander offered Alexander Ogilvie of Culvie as his cautioner, to which Helen did not consent based on the state of his finances.
Brenton v. Liddell 1796 Justices of Peace, Apprentice, Statute, Suspension, Expenses, Service Captain Brenton sought to justify his detention of the apprentice John Donaldson against suspender Liddell, maintaining that Liddell had failed to comply with statutory conditions for reclaiming the boy. Liddell responded that Donaldson had not been lawfully enrolled under the 1795 act, as no written notification of disqualification had been delivered prior to the apprentice’s entry on board ship. The dispute turned on the validity of the enrollment and the statutory prerequisites for reclaiming an apprentice.
Crawford, et al v. Wilson, et al 1794 Justices of Peace, Interdict, Statute, Common Law, Arrestment, Suspension
Duke of Atholl v. Robertson 1797 Contract, Servitude, Decreet-Arbitral, Interlocutor, Possession, Suspension James Robertson petitioned the Court of Session to challenge a 1761 arbitral decree affirming the Duke of Atholl’s ownership of seven shealings, arguing that the underlying 1716 contract was void under statute and contrary to public interest. The Duke defended the contractual and arbitral rulings, maintaining his title to the forest lands while acknowledging that the decrees reserved limited pasturage rights to Lude under specified conditions.
Forsyth v. Abercromby 1793 Suspension, Arrestment, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Witness Sir George Abercromby, James Urquhart, and George Forbes, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor of the Sheriff of Banffshire regarding the unlawful conduct of Alexander Gordon and Gavin Steuart. Robert Forsyth, as defender, answered the petition, responding to allegations that he had used improper language in his representation.
Graham v. Gillespie and Company 1794 Debt, Fraud, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Onerous Indorsation Archibald Graham, cashier to the Thistle Bank, pursued William Gillespie and Company for payment of bills of exchange that had been materially altered after acceptance. Graham contended that the defenders remained liable for the raised amounts, while Gillespie and Company maintained that the bills, originally accepted for £58 10s. and £50, had been fraudulently raised to £458 10s. and £450 by William Robb without their knowledge or authority. The case turned on whether acceptors are bound to pay increased sums when bills have been fraudulently altered without their consent.
Hugh Baillie and Archibald M'Harg v. John Bland 1772 Suspension, Jurisdiction, Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Actor George Anne Bellamy granted four promissory notes to pursuer Hugh Baillie but failed to make timely payments. Subsequently, Bellamy and actor West Digges granted Baillie a bond of corroboration, promising to pay the accumulated debt. Bellamy and Digges again failed to make all necessary payments, and Digges was charged with horning. Digges obtained a suspension of the charge, but while the suit was pending, Digges went to England, where Baillie had him arrested. Digges, Baillie, and defender John Bland then entered into an agreement in which Digges and Bland agreed to pay the remaining debt. Bland granted Baillie two notes for 50 l. each, but payment was refused on one of them. Baillie protested the note, and Bland brought a bill of suspension. Bland argued that Baillie’s decision to effect Digges’s imprisonment constituted contempt of the Scottish Court. He also argued that the agreement among Digges, Bland, and Baillie was obtained metu carceris—that is, in fear of prison—and therefore was not actionable at law.
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.
John Aitchison and others v. The Magistrates and Billet-Master of Haddington 1795 Interlocutor, Burgh, Thirlage, Suspension, Representation, Magistrate
John Reid and Richard Thomson v. United Incorporation of Mary's Chapel 1792 Aliment, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Encroachment, Penalty, Suspension John Reid and Richard Thomson, masons and builders, and others, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Henderland's interlocutor in their action against the United Incorporation of Mary's Chapel. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Liddel v. Melvine 1788 Debt, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Statute, Interlocutor, Suspension David Liddel, merchant in Leith and charger for behoof of Jacobinus and Adrianus Vanderburghs, merchants at Rotterdam, submitted answers responding to the petition of James Melvine, shipmaster in Borrowstounness. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Lindsay and Company v. Jones 1796 Debt, Arrestment, Contract, Interlocutor, Suspension, Caution James Lindsay and Company, wood-merchants in Glasgow, challenged suspension proceedings brought by George Jones, proprietor of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Amphitheatres, arguing that the suspender's pursuit was irregular and incompetent. Jones maintained that it was competent to expede letters of suspension after the sist had elapsed. The dispute turned on whether suspension remained available once the period of delay had expired.
Loch, et al v. Lord Hailes' Interlocutor 1789 Suspension, Interlocutor, Res judicata, Inhibition, Reduction, Declinator John Loch, Esq., and others petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Hailes concerning the quartering of soldiers in Caltonhill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
MacLaggan v. Heritors of Melrose 1780 Aliment, Heritor, Reduction, Glebe, Suspension, Interlocutor Digitization in Progress
Marquis of Abercorn v. The Magistrates of Edinburgh 1792 Tack, Interlocutor, Suspension, Jurisdiction, Lease, Rent The Marquis of Abercorn pursued the Magistrates of Edinburgh for damages, alleging that their diversion of Braid's Burn had injured his water and mills, and sought to join his claim to an existing damages action raised by William Laing. The Magistrates responded that the Marquis lacked standing to claim indemnification under the 1785 water statute without first exhausting the process before a sheriff's jury.
Marshall, et al v. Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow 1788 Interlocutor, Interdict, Suspension, Charter, Act of Parliament, Possession The Examinators of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow, including Dr Robert Marshall, petitioned the Court to continue an interdict restraining the Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow from quartering soldiers upon them, pending a determination of their claimed charter-based immunity from such burdens. The Magistrates answered, responding to the physicians' argument that their faculty charter rendered them exempt from the quartering of soldiers.
Marshall, Hamilton, and Company v. John Crawford and John Barns 1786 Insurance, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Adjudication, Deviation, Sequestration This case was about the interpretation of two insurance policies taken out by Messrs Marshall, Hamilton, and Company on the ship Ceres. One of those policies covered the Ceres and its freight until the ship reached its “port or ports of discharge in the West Indies”; the other policy covered the Ceres and a subset of its freight, a load of fish, until the ship reached “a market in the West Indies.” In Spring of 1784, the Ceres sailed from Greenock, Scotland, carrying beef, coal, and dry goods. The ship went first to St. John’s, Newfoundland, where it picked up the load of fish, and subsequently to the Caribbean, where it discharged the fish. The shipmaster, George Jamieson, then began taking steps to obtain a return freight to Britain. In the course of his efforts to obtain a return freight, Jamieson sailed to Jamaica and moored the Ceres in Morant Bay. There, the ship was wrecked in a hurricane. At the time of the wreck, the Ceres still contained beef, coal, and dry goods. Based on these facts, a dispute arose between Marshall, Hamilton, and Co. and its underwriters about whether, prior to the hurricane, the ship’s outward voyage had terminated under the terms of each insurance policy.
Murdoch v. Lord Dunsinnan's Interlocutor 1787 Decreet-Arbitral, Arbitration, Reduction, Interlocutor, Intromission, Suspension Elizabeth Murdoch, Alexander Smith, Jean Murdoch, and Christian Murdoch petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dunsinnan's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Robb v. Bogg 1794 Interlocutor, Agent, Clerks of Session, Mala Fides, Suspension, Act of Parliament In Robb v. Bogg, Thomas M'Grugar petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had turned a null decree into a libel and ordered him to plead the merits. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Scott v. Stonefield's Interlocutor 1793 Interlocutor, Caution, Possession, Suspension, Security
Shiells v. Lord Duncan's Interlocutor 1788 Suspension, Reduction, Citation, Interlocutor, Caution, Exhibition Shiells, as petitioners, challenged Lord Dunfinnan’s interlocutor, arguing that a suspender could proceed as pursuer without awaiting the charger’s mora and that a late protestation could not invalidate prior steps. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Smart v. Beattie 1771 Aliment, Sasine, Tack, Interlocutor, Thirlage, Suspension In Smart v. Beattie, Alexander Smart, James Croal and his Curators, and David and John Croals petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding thirlage obligations at the mill of Halkerton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Stewart v. Magistrates and Town Council of St. Andrews 1792 Election contest, Suspension, Reduction, Interdict, Election, Interlocutor Robert Stewart, claiming to be the duly elected Deacon of the Incorporation of Wrights in St Andrews, petitioned the Court to set aside the election of John Edie and declare his own title valid, alleging that Edie’s election was voided by a court interdict and insufficient legal votes. The Magistrates and Town Council of St Andrews defended Edie’s election as lawful and accused Stewart of unlawful usurpation of the office. The litigation proceeded through successive petitions and answers, with Stewart additionally moving the Court to alter interlocutors regarding expenses and other procedural orders.
Trustees of Lady Douglas v. Hutchison 1782 Succession, Trust, Possession, Deed, Witness, Suspension The Trustees of Lady Douglas, as pursuers, submitted a memorial against Hutchison arguing that a deed from William Douglas to his wife Isobel Douglas was valid despite partial obliteration of the testing clause and precept of seisin. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
William Gilmour and Others v. William Finnie and Benjamin Greig 1832 Expenses, Assignation, Credit, Interest, Suspension, Interlocutor William Finnie and Benjamin Greig, defenders in the action raised by William Gilmour and others, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Corehouse. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 393)