Britain fears for the loss of her American colonies [James Gillray, The State Watchman discoverd by the Genius of Britain studying plans for the Reduction of America, 1781. National Galleries of Scotland. ]

The Session Papers in the collections of the UVA Law Library and the Library of Congress span the era of the American Revolution and the emergence of the United States. So, too, do many of the documents held in Edinburgh libraries and archives.  

Between the 1750s and the 1820s, the members of the College of Justice witnessed the expansion of the British Empire in North America, the formation of a new republic out of thirteen rebellious British colonies, and the rise of American democracy. The close ties that Scots and Scotland maintained with North America before the War for Independence persisted long after the Atlantic combatants agreed to peace in 1783. These connections sometimes resulted in legal disputes between individuals, families, and corporations who circulated throughout the British Atlantic in this war. Trade, war, and rebellion led to many legal battles in the Court of Session

The cases listed below explore the British Atlantic in the era of the American Revolution. New imperial policies, trade, war, and rebellion led to many legal battles in the Court of Session. These documents illuminate how people in the British Atlantic struggled to adapt to new economic and political frameworks in a period of rapid change.  

Related Cases

Case Date Legal Subjects Abstract
Competition Among the Creditors of Macfarlane Dec 1766 Debt, Arrestment, Shipping This case was a dispute among the creditors of David Macfarlane, a merchant of St. Christophers (St. Kitts). In 1764, Macfarlane sent a shipment of sugar from St. Croix to Port Glasgow, consigning it to James King. Macfarlane instructed King to sell the sugar and apply the proceeds to pay certain of Macfarlane’s creditors, who were set forth in a list. When the sugar arrived in Scotland, however, some of Macfarlane’s creditors sought an arrestment. This led to a competition among Macfarlane’s creditors. In the course of the proceeding, the Lord Ordinary ruled that the consigned sugar could not be arrested, and a group of joint petitioners sought review. In August 1766, the Court of Session ruled against them. In November 1766, Messrs. Greenshiels and Wardrope petitioned the court again, this time on their own, arguing that they should be treated differently from other creditors because they did not receive notice of the shipment. In December 1766 the Court adhered to its earlier interlocutor.
Thomas and Alexander Peters, Merchants in Glasgow, v. Alexander Spiers, Andrew Blackburn, and Others, Trustees for James Dunlop, Merchant in Glasgow 27 Jan 1767 Debt In 1763, Glasgow merchant James Dunlop, whose affairs at the time were in a state of confusion, arranged for Alexander Speirs, Andrew Blackburn, and Andrew Syme to become his trustees. Under this agreement, Speirs et al agreed that all debts they recovered on Dunlop's behalf would go first to paying for the duties Dunlop owed on imported tobacco. In July 1763, the ship Betsy arrived in Greenock from Virginia with tobacco belonging to James Dunlop and 16 hogsheads of tobacco consigned to Thomas and Alexander Peters of Glasgow by Walter Peter and Company in Virginia. Dunlop traveled to Greenock to enter his tobacco. At the request of Thomas and Alexander Peters, Dunlop entered in their 16 hogsheads well and was repaid the import duties. When Thomas and Alexander Peters could not secure the delivery of their 16 hogsheads from Dunlop, they brought action against Dunlop in the Court of Session, and as a result the tobacco was arrested in the hands of Josiah Corthine, collector of the customs at Port Glasgow. In August 1764, Dunlop and his agents William Wallace and William King exported 89 hogsheads of tobacco in the ship Hero for Bourdeaux, and they were to receive payment from Corthine on this shipment as a drawback. The Pursuers claimed a right to this sum as repayment for their tobacco, and Speirs et al claimed a right to this sum under trust-right from Dunlop in bankruptcy.
Scrimgeour and Son v. Alexander and Sons 15 Jun 1769 Contract, Affreightment, Ships 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.
Andrew Ross and Others v. John Glasford and Company 22 Feb 1771 Charter Party, Sailor's Compensation, Ships In the summer 1759, Charger Andrew Ross and others were sailors aboard the Ingram, a ship owned by suspender John Glassford. The planned route was Clyde to Newfoundland, then to Spain, Portugal, or any port in the Mediterranean, and then back to Clyde. During its voyage from Lisbon, Portugal to Clyde, the ship was captured by a French privateer (the Belleisle privateer), commanded by Thurot. The sailors on the Ingram, including Ross, were dropped off in Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland. When the sailors finally returned to Glasgow, they applied for the wages due to them at their arrival in Lisbon. These wages would cover the voyage from Clyde to Newfoundland, and then to Lisbon. Glassford refused to pay the sailors' wages. Glassford maintained that sailors were not entitled to their wages when the ship is taken or wrecked in its homeward voyage. Ross et al. disagreed, and argued that it was a custom among merchants in many places to compensate sailors, even in a situation where the ship is taken.
Jones v. Smith 1771 Inspection of goods Pursuer David Jones, merchant in Glasgow, imported quantities of lint-seed from Philadelphia. The goods arrived in Greenock bound for Glasgow. Two dealers in Glasgow, whose business would be affected by the influx of lint-seed, lodged a complaint with the Trustees for the Improvement of Fisheries and Manufactures about the lint-seed's quality. The dealers maintained that the lint-seed was bad, and therefore should not be imported. Defender Hugh Smith was a surveyor for the Trustees. After receiving a report that some of the seed was bad, Smith ordered the condemnation of the seed. Jones challenged the grounds and process by which Smith sought to condemn his cargo.
Clark v. Stuart 10 Mar 1779 Bonds, Sist, Maryland In August 1770, Hugh Macbride, Charles Philipshill, and the petitioner Peter Clark granted a bond for £150 sterling to Elisabeth Macbride. Charles Philipshill was the receiver of the money while the petitioner cosigned the loan at the request of Marion Philipshill and James Stewart. Both Marion Philipshill and James Stewart signed a promissory document, certifying they would indemnify Clark £75 each should repayment be requested. In June 1777, the heirs of Elisabeth Macbride called in the loan and Peter Clark paid her the money. The other two signers of the loan having relocated to Maryland. Marion Philipshilll reimbursed Clark her half of the loan but James Stewart did not. The Magistrates of Glasgow ruled that Stewart should pay Clark, but Stewart brought action to the Court of Session. In a previous judgment Lord Stonefield pronounced that the case be put on hold until the principal debtor, Charles Philipshill, be sued for repayment. Peter Clark then petitioned the court to have this decision overturned. On March 3, 1779 the Court remitted the cause to the Magistrates of Glasgow. Stewart then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. Handwritten marginalia on this document indicates that the Court refused Stewart's petition.
John and Ursula Smith v. James Marshall 21 Jul 1780 Disposition Upon the sale of Drongan to Mungo Smith in 1765, the children of the late John Smith and Ursula Hamilton had right to one eleventh of the price. Their uncles and tutors, Thomas Hamilton of Overtoun and John Hamilton of Dowan, lodged this sum in Virginia with their firm John Hamilton and Company. In 1775 this money was lost when the firm's assets were locked up, and the Smith siblings brought action against John Hamilton of Dowan; Archibald Hamilton, the son of the late Thomas Hamilton of Overtoun; and the children of the late John Marshall, for recovery of this sum. John Marshall had served as cautioner to the 1763 bond for Drongan granted by the Hamiltons to their pupils. He died in 1774, having conveyed the bulk of his subjects to his younger children, William and Jean, although his eldest son, James, held the general disposition. The action came before Lord Braxfield, who repelled James Marshall's defenses but then reported the case. In December of 1779 the Court ruled that James Marshall was liable to the pursuers for the debt, but only in proportion with the other onerous debts of his father. Upon receiving a petition and answers, the Court ruled again in July of 1780, adhering to their previous interlocutor.
James Edmonstone v. William Jackson 1 Feb 1780 Abandonment, Ships In April 1776, John Walker & Company freighted the Duntreath with a load of coal, deliverable to Alexander-John Alexander of Grenada. Upon the Duntreath's arrival in Grenada, Bartlet, Campbell, & Company freighted it for a journey to Florida. In August 1776, after stopping on the St. Johns River, the Duntreath's captain James Edmonstone was captured by rebels and carried to Savannah. Now under the command of James Crichton, on its journey back to Grenada, the Duntreath was captured by the privateer ship Tyrannicide, but then recaptured and brought to New York for repairs. In January 1778, the Duntreath set out for Grenada again, but was captured by another rebel ship, the Three Sisters, before being recaptured and brought to Grenada. When no appearance was made to reclaim the Duntreath, Grenada's Vice-Admiralty Court had it auctioned. The owners of the Duntreath then made a claim to its insurance underwriters for a total loss, however the underwriters argued that because the auction money was deposited with Grenada's Vice-Admiralty Court, it was merely a partial loss. After the High Court of Admiralty found their case ineffectual, the ship's owners appealed to the Court of Session. Lord Gardenstone reported their bill, but the Court ruled it outside of their jurisdiction. Their bill was later remitted to Lord Braxfield, however, who reported it again; the Court then determined that the pursuers could only claim a partial loss.
Jean Colville v. William Lauder 15 Jan 1800 Conflict of Laws Shortly after marrying Pursuer Jean Colville, David Lauder left Scotland under indenture to work on the island of St. Vincent. He subsequently traveled to New York and then to Canada, where he drowned while bathing in the Saint Lawrence River. Before his death, David sent a bill for £200 to his father, Defender William Lauder, with instructions to secure the money in case of David’s return to Scotland. David wrote that if he was not heard from again, “the money is either at [William’s] or my dear mother’s disposal.” William Lauder kept the money after David’s death, and Jean Colville brought suit to secure a share of it. The legal dispute turned on a choice of law issue: whether the Pursuer’s claim was governed by the law of Scotland or the law of England, which regulated British territories. Under Scots law, Jean Colville would be entitled to half of David Lauder’s moveable estate as her jus relictae—a widow’s right in the movable estate of her deceased spouse. Under English law, a valid will could exclude the widow from any share of the movable estate. The parties agreed that succession was governed by the law of the decedent’s domicile but disputed where David Lauder was domiciled at the time of his death. The pursuer argued that David was domiciled in Scotland, where he intended to return, while the defender argued that David had established a domicile abroad.
William Cunninghame and Co. v. James Craig of Baidland 1778 Aliment, Maryland In July 1769, John Craig, son of James Craig of Baidland, contracted with Cunninghame and Co. to serve for five years as an indentured servant in "any of their stores in Virginia or Maryland." Towards the end of his contract, he allegedly became gravely ill. Cunninghame and Co. advanced money to cover his medical bills. Cunninghame & Co. brought action against Craig of Baidland for repayment of this debt, claiming that they had extracted a guarantee from his son to accept the bill provided they released him from his contract. The cause came before Lord Ankerville, who assoilzied (absolved) the defender. The pursuers then petitioned the Court for review, arguing that it was the "natural obligation" of parents to pay for their children's support. Furthermore, the pursuers claimed that they had been obliged to advance the money in question as a result of the "duty incumbent on every man to save his neighbour's life." In his answer, James Craig wrote that he could not afford to cover the expenses of his adult son who had supported himself for years. Furthermore, Craig noted that after settling in North America his son "acquired habits of dissipation and extravagance" and that most or all of the sum advanced by the pursuers was likely to sustain this spendthrift lifestyle, and not to cover medical bills. After all, “It may likewise be observed, that if the assistance may not be had, of the most skilled, even for a less sum than the salary due to John Craig, very miserable must be the situation of numbers, both in America and elsewhere.” Craig's answers concluded by asking what would happen if every parent were compelled to accept the bills of their children who, living in far-off lands, made unverifiable claims of sickness as the cause of their debt.
Macindoe v. Cowley, Wallace, Crawford, and French 1780 Military, Optima Fide, Jurisdiction, Mala Fides, Damages, Wrongful imprisonment, Freemasonry This case concerns the forced enlistment and imprisonment for desertion of John Macindoe, Glasgow hair-dresser. In February of 1777, while in a drunken state, John Macindoe pledged himself to the army in exchange for a shilling from Ensign Hugh Wallace. A few weeks later, upon the order of Captain William Cowley, Macindoe was seized by a group of soldiers and imprisoned for refusing to enlist. Macindoe applied to the Court by a bill of suspension and liberation, and Lords Covington and Kennet ordered Macindoe set at liberty. Macindoe then brought action for damages and expenses against Wallace and Cowley, and against the bailies who had ordered his imprisonment. He claimed that his false imprisonment had led to the ruin of his business, and that he had been forced to enlist in another regiment out of necessity. Bailies French and Crawfurd, on the other hand, argued that because Macindoe was presently a soldier, therefore "the only consequence of his not being found a soldier in one regiment, was, that he would soon be a soldier in another.” They also argued that as bailies they had merely judged erroneously, and not acted out of malice. The Court assoilzied Crawfurd and French, as well as Cowley. Ensign Wallace then petitioned the Court for assoilment as well, stating that he had "innocently and bona fide" believed that Macindoe's enlistment was legitimate.
Duncan v. Maclintock and Smith 1778 Copartnership, Trade, Bill of Lading In November 1774, Robert Maclintock Jr. freighted the brigantine Rainbow to carry goods to Virginia and return a cargo of wheat. His father and David Smith joined in the adventure, and the three wrote Virginia merchants Charles Duncan and John Brown, empowering them to draw on Maclintock jr. for the price. According to the defenders of this action, Smith and Maclintock Sr., in the summer of 1775, when the Rainbow returned to Clyde with the cargo of wheat, Maclintock jJr. informed his co-adventurers that the cargo was not for them, but solely for himself. Two years later he stopped paying his bills and left the country, and the defenders received a demand from Charles Duncan for the unpaid value of the Rainbow's cargo. Duncan, the pursuer of this action, argued that as co-adventurers the defenders were liable for the price of the cargo, and that the bill had been drawn solely on Maclintock jr.'s account out of secrecy: Maclintock Sr. was a principal in the Merchant Bank, and it was convenient for him that his name did not appear on the bill. Duncan further accused the defenders of obliterating evidence of a copartnership contained in documents possessed by Betty Maclintock, the aunt of Maclintock Jr. The defenders argued, on the other hand, that they were not co-partners with the younger Maclintock, and were therefore not liable for his debts. The bailies of Glasgow, who first heard the case, repelled the defense, and Lord Braxfield refused the defenders' bill of advocation. They then petitioned the Court to compel Lord Braxfield to pass the bill.
Dunlop and Montgomery v. Peter 1781 Power of Attorney This case was about an individual’s authority to act as attorney for Walter Peter, a Virginia merchant, in a case pending in Scotland. Messrs. Dunlop and Montgomery, the pursuers, sued Peter for payment of a debt that he allegedly owed them. When George Anderson appeared on Walter’s behalf, the pursuers claimed that he had no authority to do so. Although Anderson produced a power of attorney from Peter, the pursuers argued that it existed for the limited purpose of allowing Anderson to handle Peter’s succession to a particular estate.
Stewart v. Graham 1782 Impress Service This case addressed whether a standard press-warrant, which authorized the impressment of seamen, applied to a man who had worked aboard ships while enslaved. The man in question, James Graham, accompanied a slaveholder on voyages between Scotland and the Caribbean, performing duties such as steering and reefing. However, when Graham’s enslavement ended, he became apprenticed to Grant, Wood, and Company, a carpet manufacturing company in Glasgow. The petitioner in this case, Lieutenant William Stewart, subsequently attempted to press Graham into naval service based on his sailing experience. Grant, Wood, and Company petitioned the magistrates of Glasgow to prevent Graham’s impressment, and Graham appeared on his own behalf. After allowing the parties to gather proof, the magistrates found that Graham could not be impressed because he did not voluntarily choose a seafaring life. Lieutenant Stewart appealed to the Court of Session.
Dunmore and Company v. Allan, et al 1786
Macdonald v. Macarthur 1791 Documents available. Full description in progress.
Muirhead, Hay, and Company v. Dunmore 1792 Documents available. Full description in progress.
Muirhead, Hay and Company v. Dunmore 1797 Digitization and description in progress.
Hugh Rose v. Macleay's Trustees 1837 Case documents digitized and available. Description in progress.