| Archers and Others v. Magistrates of Edinburg |
1797
|
Statute, Fraud, Act of Parliament, Sequestration, Trust, Tax |
James and Andrew Archers, John Hardy, and William Younger, brewers operating within the precincts of Holyroodhouse, pursued the magistrates of Edinburgh and Alexander Thomson to contest the legality of a two-penny duty imposed on ale brewed and consumed in the Abbey, maintaining that the magistrates lacked authority to levy the tax within that jurisdiction. The brewers claimed total exemption from the duty, which the chargers subsequently challenged as legally unsound and unjust. |
| Cunynghame v. Watson |
1788
|
Jurisdiction, Freeholder, Retour, Charter, Sasine, Tax |
Sir William Augustus Cunynghame petitioned the Court to overturn the freeholders' interlocutor admitting Charles Watson as a freeholder, challenging whether the heritable bailie office and lands qualified Watson for that status. David Williamson answered for the defender, responding to Cunynghame's objections regarding the extent of the office and lands. |
| Fleshers of Glasgow v. Magistrates of Glasgow |
1802
|
Tax, Rent, Duty (Tax), Magistrate |
In 1744, the Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow erected a slaughterhouse for the city's butchers use, and an act of council decided that those who used the slaughterhouse would pay a rate proportionate to the amount of cattle slaughtered. In 1755, public markets were erected for the butchers to use, and the Magistrates made regulations that rents and duties should be paid by those who used these markets. In 1799, the Magistrates raised the dues of the beef and mutton markets one-third more than the former rate, and reserved the right to themselves to adjust this rate after a year's time. The Incorporation of Fleshers brought a case against the Magistrates, and the case was decided in their favor, holding that the Magistrates of a royal burgh have no right to impose a tax upon the inhabitants without the consent of the Legislature--they have as little right to increase any duties that have been previously imposed, and as the Sovereign himself has no power of levying such taxes, any reservation of such a right in the articles of the Union is altogether mefiectual. (Scot's digest) |
| Gardner v. Corporation of Goldsmiths in Edinburgh |
1792
|
Tax, Debt, Corporation, Aliment, Interlocutor, Statute |
Alexander Gardner and David Downie, goldsmiths in Edinburgh, pursued the Corporation of Goldsmiths regarding the incorporation’s resolution to abolish the marking-money tax and its appropriation of marking money for private use. The Corporation defended its actions by citing the opulence of its funds and historical precedent for tax abrogation, while the pursuers contended that the assay office marking fees constituted wages rather than assessments and that the corporation bore no liability for such expense. The litigation proceeded through mutual petitions to alter interlocutors and answers exchanging these respective positions. |
| M'Leod v. Incorporation of Bakers |
1784
|
Tack, Thirlage, Possession, Aliment, Tax, Charter |
Malcolm M'Leod, tackman of the ladle-dues, pursued the Incorporation of Bakers of Glasgow for payment of ladle-dues on wheat and flour, including grain ground at the Partick mills. After M'Leod proved that such dues applied to all wheat entering Glasgow including that ground at Partick, the Bakers petitioned to alter the interlocutor and claimed immunity, whereupon M'Leod answered and produced a 1693 decree-arbitral between the Town and the Bakers. Following remits from the Lord Ordinary, the Bakers argued that the Magistrates had no right to levy dues on grain brought to Partick without entering the city, while the Magistrates maintained their entitlement to levy on such grain. |
| Ramsays v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh |
1792
|
Sequestration, Aliment, Trustees, Trust, Tax, Public Works |
John Ramsay pursued the Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh, contending that the defenders were bound by statute to take three shops and pay their value or assess recompense. The defenders answered that the pursuer's claim for damages was incompetent and premature under the statute. The case turned on whether the statutory provisions obliged the town to acquire the shops and compensate the pursuer, and whether the remedy was properly raised. |
| Skinner v. Bell |
1832
|
Expenses, Trustee, Sist, Advocation, Tax, Feu |
J. R. Skinner, pursuer, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter Lord Corehouse's interlocutor in the action against Bell. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| Thomas Laurie, Collector of the Poor's Rates for the City of Glasgow v. Robert Dreghorn |
1795
|
Tax, Aliment, Succession, Trade, Bankruptcy, Oath |
Robert Dreghorn of Ruch-hill petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the poor's rates for the City of Glasgow. Thomas Laurie, Collector of the Poor's Rates, answered for himself and on behalf of the Magistrates and Town-Council, responding to Dreghorn's arguments. |
