Sir Joshua Reynolds' portrait of John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, who served as Governor of New York and then Governor of Virginia, (1765) [Sir Joshua Reynolds, John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, 1765. Scottish National Portrait Gallery. ]

The man shown here, John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, served as the last royal governor of Virginia. Dunmore’s tenure as colonial Virginia’s final chief executive highlights both the major role Scots played in administering Britain’s American empire and the close links between Virginia and Scotland. By the mid-eighteenth century, commerce bound Glaswegian merchants to Virginia planters as Scots took control of the Chesapeake tobacco trade. Scots settled in Virginia to work this trade, where they often acquired land and slaves of their own. Scottish place names such as “Dumfries” and Midlothian” litter the Virginia landscape. And the University of Edinburgh later inspired Thomas Jefferson as he designed the curriculum for the University of Virginia in the early nineteenth century.

The cases offered here illuminate the myriad of ways in which Scotland and Virginia were bound together in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Commerce served as a central artery linking the two places, giving rise to disputes over property, inheritance, and contracts. Yet, the documents as a whole offer a compelling portrait of how Scots and Virginians together helped to build the Atlantic world.

Related Cases

Case Date Legal Subjects Abstract
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.
Robert McNair v. James Coulter 13 Feb 1772 Policy coverage, Insurance Claim Charger Robert McNair and his son James were merchants involved in West Indies sugar trade. James traveled from Scotland to Barbados and Virginia on business. Robert McNair obtained an insurance policy from suspenders James Coulter and John Cross for cargo aboard the ship Jean, which was to carry James McNair and the goods from Barbados to Virginia. The cargo contained corn, pork, livestock, and other goods. The ship was lost near Bermuda on July 2, 1750, but James McNair and the crew survived. Coulter and Cross, suspenders, alleged that McNair overstated the value of the cargo on board. They also alleged that James McNair purposely wrecked the ship to fraudulently obtain the insurance proceeds.
Messrs Peters, Bogle, and Marshall, arresting Creditors of James Dunlop, late Merchant in Glasgow v. Messrs Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Trustees of said James Dunlop 27 Jul 1770 Trustees Pursuers Thomas Peter, William Bogle, and Robert Marshall were creditors of James Dunlop, merchant of Glasgow. Defenders Speirs, Blackburn, and Andrew Syme were Dunlop's trustees. Shortly after granting trust-rights to Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Dunlop went bankrupt. The pursuers refused to bind themselves to Dunlop's trust, preferring instead the ordinary remedies of law to collect their debts. The pursuers arrested quantities of tobacco and hogshead staves from Dunlop's ship, en route from Virginia to Port Glasgow. At issue in this case was the validity of the trust-deed granted by James Dunlop, and the effects of it. According to the pursuers' interpretation of The Bankrupt Act of 1696 the deed was void and ineffectual because it was granted in a foreign country. The trustees argued that the deed was effectual and a valid title in their favor.
Clay v. Coulter 1770 Insurance Pursuers Clay and Midgley, merchants in Liverpool, purchased tobacco on several occasions from McKittrick and Company, located in Virginia. To pay a balance due to Clay and Midgley, McKittrick and Company sent a shipment of tobacco to them in November 1761. Clay and Midgley obtained insurance on this shipment from defender James Coulter, a merchant in Glasgow. The ship sailed from Virginia for Liverpool, but it was captured by a French privateer in February 1762. Learning of the capture, Clay and Midgley sought to recover their losses from the insurance policy. Coulter insisted on retaining the sums he underwrote in the insurance policy, claiming that he was also a creditor of the McKittrick Company. Coulter argued that the insurance payments were debt payments to him. He contended that the cargo remained the property of McKittrick and Company until it was delivered at Liverpool to the consignees. As such, the cargo was claimable by creditors. Clay and Midgley respond that, under the established law of merchants, the consignees had an exclusive interest in the goods that the consignor's creditors could not defeat.
Robert Arthur, Merchant in Irvine v. Messrs Hastie & Jamieson, Merchants in Glasgow 12 Dec 1770 Arrestment Two merchants in Virginia, Archibald Dunlop and David Ralston, owed money to James Dunlop, a merchant in Glasgow. James Dunlop, in turn, owed money to pursuer Robert Arthur. Arthur obtained a judgment against James Dunlop and arrestments for the debts Archibald Dunlop and Ralston owed to James Dunlop. Despite these arrestments, Archibald Dunlop then entered into a private contract with defenders Robert Hastie and James Jamieson, merchants in Glasgow. Archibald Dunlop sent from Virginia to Clyde a vessel with tobacco and goods consigned for Hastie and Jamieson. Arthur learned of this shipment, obtained letters of arrestment, and arrested the cargo before it came into the possession of Hastie and Jamieson. Hastie and Jamieson obtained letters of loosing to reclaim the cargo. Through a process of multiple poinding, the creditors of Archibald Dunlop disputed their respective rights and interests. Arthur claimed he has priority based on the outstanding debt Archibald Dunlop owed to James Dunlop. Hastie and Jamieson cited the private contract they executed with Archibald Dunlop.
Thomas Dunlop and Others v. Alexander Spiers and Others 5 Feb 1779 Onerous Indorsation, In Solidum This is one of several cases resulting from the bankruptcy of James Dunlop, Jr. After the Court ruled decisively that the trustees of Dunlop, Sr., could be ranked among Dunlop, Jr.'s creditors, the surviving trustees of Dunlop, Sr., and others sued to recover payment of a bill for £1500 that Dunlop, Jr. owed to the Royal Bank of Scotland. They had been forced to pay it because Dunlop, Sr. had been a co-obligant on the bill. Although the bill had been partially paid, Dunlop, Sr.'s trustees requested that they be ranked for the full amount of the bill. The Court ruled that the pursuers were only entitled to be ranked for the remaining balance of the bill. See the case, Dunlop, and Other Trustees of Carlyle and Co v. Spiers and Others (1776) for more on the larger dispute.
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.
Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird 16 Nov 1790
Cunninghames v. Dougal 1776 Society, Partnership Desiring to engage in the Maryland tobacco trade, several merchants formed a partnership known as Alexander Cunninghame and Company. These merchants included Alexander Cunninghame, the firm’s managing partner, and James Dougal, the eventual pursuer in this case. After Cunninghame died in December of 1772, a dispute arose over the appropriate treatment of his shares under the partnership agreement. Cunninghame’s heirs (defenders Elizabeth and Barbara Cunninghame) sought to withdraw his shares based on the firm’s most recent balance, which had been completed in July of 1772. However, James Dougal claimed that the heirs were only entitled to any proceeds available after discharge of the firm’s debts. Two factual circumstances colored the parties’ arguments. First, one of the firm’s tobacco stores had been destroyed by fire in April of 1772, but the loss was not included in the July balance. Second, also in 1772, the firm’s factors in America purchased tobacco at a price that could not be recovered in the European market, resulting in a substantial loss. Case documents include correspondence between the firm’s Glasgow partners and its factors in America. (The firm continued under the management of Alexander’s brother William Cunninghame, and after assuming Robert Findlay as a new partner, took the name of Cunninghame Findlay and Company. It went on to became a significant player in the tobacco trade.)
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.
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.
Macredie v. Cunninghames 1778 Power of Attorney, Mala Fides, Plantation Thomas Macredie, a business associate of William Cunninghame, died intestate in July of 1753, leaving a 400-acre plantation in Augusta County, Virginia. Andrew and William Macredies, father and brother of Thomas, respectively, successively corresponded with William Cunninghame regarding the sale of "Macredie's Quarter," and when he returned to Glasgow in 1762, his brother, Alexander, took over the matter. Eventually the plantation was sold to Colonel Thomas Slaughter, who became bankrupt before making any payments on the land. In April of 1773, a few months after the death of Alexander Cunninghame, William Macredie brought action against William Cunninghame for the price of Macredie's Quarter, arguing that Cunninghame had spitefully withheld the bond for the land, following a dispute over Cunninghame's commission. William Cunninghame, on the other hand, argued that he had never been the official power of attorney, and therefore was not responsible for delivering the bond to Macredie. Lord Barskimming assoilzied (cleared) Cunninghame, and Macredie brought action against the heirs of Alexander Cunninghame. Cunninghame's heirs, the defenders, argued that the fault lay with Macredie, who had failed to seek out Alexander Cunninghame while he was still alive. After Barskimming assoilzied the defenders, Macredie reclaimed, and William Cunninghame was then ordained to exhibit all relevant correspondence on the matter. According to Macredie, these letters provided evidence of "collusion and artifice"; he therefore asked the Court to alter Barskimming's assoilment. Shortly afterward, however, for reasons not disclosed in the court documents, Macredie withdrew his objection to the Cunninghames' assoilment, and Lord Barskimming found Macredie liable for their legal expenses.
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.
Robertson v. Gray 1781 Fraud, Tack In this case, the trustees for the creditors of Richard Cameron asked the court to void a tack granted by Cameron to his brother-in-law Andrew Gray. The trustees alleged that Cameron had granted the tack while insolvent, and that he had agreed to a price that was lower than the land’s market value. Andrew Gray, the tacksman, disputed these points. He further argued that the tack was necessary because Cameron had planned to go to Virginia. Case documents include a proof containing numerous depositions.
Jack and Others v. Murdoch, Fearns and Company 1795 Digitization and description in progress.
Muirhead, Hay and Company v. Dunmore 1797 Digitization and description in progress.
Jeffrey & Co. and Scott & Co. v. Edmond (Case 1) 1806 Digitization and description in process.
Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird 1793 Documents available. Full description in progress.
Cunningham v. Cunningham 1793 Digitization and description in progress.
Scrimgeour and Son v. Alexander and Sons 1772 Documents available. Rich description in progress.
Jeffrey & Co. and Scott & Co. v. Edmond (Case 2) 1806 Digitization and Description in progress.
Robert Armour v. Gavin Young 19 Jan 1788