AI-transcribed

Alimony of a wife, or maintenance of a child or imprisoned debtor. (See Act of Grace.)

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: Aliment

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Mr John Snodgrass, Preacher of the Gospel, George Steel, John Beatson, and Others v. Mr John Logan and Others 1772 Ministers, Adjudication, Aliment, Contract, Election, Election contest This case concerns the selection of the second minister for the parish at South Leith. In the past, the second minister has been selected by a committee with representatives from the incorporations of different trades and the kirk-session (a group of elders in the local congregation). The defender John Logan and the pursuer John Snodgrass were set up as candidates. The incorporations and the kirk-session disagree about the candidates. Each side also points to errors in the selections and voting process. In an interlocutory ruling, Lord Kennet Ordinary found for Logan. Mr Snodgrass, and the voters on his side, brought a process of reduction and declarator against Mr Logan, and his adherents, before Court. Mr Logan and his party repeated a counter-process of a similar nature.
Addis v. Shaw 1788 Debt, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustee George and Henry Addis, creditors of Angus Shaw, pursued Shaw and Alexander Macpherson, trustee, reporting on new production and a minute required by the Court. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Agnes Watson v. Mary Rae 1773 Bonds, Debt, Aliment, Intromission, Adjudication, Succession This case was about the ability of minors, when choosing their own curators, to agree that those curators would not be liable for omissions (as opposed to active interference with the minors’ property). Greenock merchant James Watson, the father of pursuer Agnes Watson, died leaving three minor children. The children chose several curators to manage their affairs, including James’s business partner Robert Rae. The “act of curatory” that empowered these curators included a clause absolving them of liability for omissions. After the Watson children came of age, they sued the curators for mishandling the estate. The proceeding stretched over many years, and after the curators died, Agnes Watson continued the action against their representatives. One of these representatives was defender Mary Rae, daughter of Robert, who contested a number of Agnes’s claims. In particular, Mary argued that she could not be held responsible for the curators’ failure to collect certain debts, because the act of curatory shielded the curators from liability for omissions. In response, Agnes argued that minors could not elect curators subject to such a condition.
Agnes Watson, and James Taylor, her Husband v. Agnes Mathie, and James Weir, her Husband 1775 Debts to estate, Tutors and Curators, Debt, Intromission, Aliment, Arrestment Greenock merchant James Watson, the father of pursuer Agnes Watson, died leaving three minor children. The children chose several curators to manage their affairs, including two of James’s business partners, Robert Rae and Gabriel Mathie. Robert Rae took on primary responsibility for the curatorship. After the Watson children came of age, they sued the curators for mishandling the estate. The proceeding stretched over many years, and after the curators died, Agnes Watson continued the action against their representatives; one such representative was defender Agnes Mathie, daughter of Gabriel. Agnes Mathie initially failed to participate in the case, but after being held liable in a sheriff’s judgment, she raised several defenses. First, Mathie claimed that the pursuers had orally renounced any claims against her father. Second, Mathie argued that certain sums were received by Robert Rae without the authority of a quorum, and that the other curators should not be held responsible. Finally, Mathie argued that Rae had received certain payments in his private capacity as manager of a mercantile venture with James Watson. According to Mathie, Rae had good credit, so there was no reason to punish the other curators for failing to collect what he owed to Watson. In response, Agnes Watson argued that the curators were liable for failing to exercise diligence in collecting open debts.
Alexander Bruce v. The Representatives of John Stein 1792 Succession, Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Tack, Cautioner Alexander Bruce pursued the representatives of John Stein for a debt arising from a 1770 bond involving Robert Stein, with trustees and spouses' portions also forming part of the dispute. The defenders resisted the action, leading Bruce and his trustee Alexander Abercromby to argue that the defenders, as representatives of the deceased John Stein, remained liable for the bond obligation.
Alexander Cuming v. Alexander Macdonald, Esq. 1801 Minor, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Creditor In a process of ranking and sale, Alexander Cuming sought to be ranked on a bill that was signed by the decedent, James Macdonald, three months before James came of age. The common agent raised an objection based on James's minority, and the Lord Ordinary sustained it. Cuming sought further review, making several arguments for enforcing the bill: (1) the funds were advanced for James's benefit, (2) James accepted the bill while exercising a profession, and (3) James's father joined in accepting the bill.
Alexander Fyffe v. James John Fraser 1832 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Trust, Trustees Dr Alexander Fyffe, surgeon in Haddington and pursuer, presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter the interlocutor and remit the bill for suspension and interdict in his case against James John Fraser, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Grant v. James Grant 1768 Rent, Aliment, Lease, Succession, Possession, Tack Alexander Grant, Writer in Edinburgh, as pursuer, claimed the right to prolong a lease by years of delayed possession, and James Grant of Grant, Esq., as defender, answered the petition. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Grant v. Lewis Ray and others 1767 Election contest, Aliment, Corruption, Bribery, Interlocutor, Oath Sir Alexander Grant of Dalvey pursued Lewis Ray, Colonel Hector Munro, and other elected magistrates and counsellors of Fortrose, alleging that the Michaelmas 1766 election had been procured by bribery and corruption. The litigation involved repeated disputes over the competency of witnesses, as Grant sought to examine Colonel Munro and Captain William Douglas regarding electoral misconduct while the respondents petitioned against orders permitting testimony by Robert Logan and invoked privilege against self-incrimination. Grant also petitioned to prove that Douglas had fled the country to avoid examination, and the parties exchanged interrogatories, objections, and replies concerning the alleged corrupt practices.
Alexander Irvine of Drum v. The Earl of Aberdeen, &c 1772 Debt, Estate, Adjudication, Tailzie, Entail, Aliment The estate of Alexander Irvine of Drum was heavily burdened with debts at the time of his death. The estate went through a series of family members. Through this process, some debts were relieved but others were added. The estate was sold in 1736 to cover the debts. A small part of the estate was set aside for the Irvine family, but most of the estate went to the Earl of Aberdeen or Patrick Duff of Premnay. After John Irvine of Drum's death in 1737, the successor to the estate, Alexander Irvine of Crimond, mounted a legal challenge to the settlement of the estate. The pursuer in the present case was Alexander Irvine of Drum, grandson of Alexander Irvine of Drum. The 3rd Earl of Aberdeen, taking up a cause inherited from his father, and Patrick Duff argued that the Irvine family has no valid claims against them.
Alexander Kinloch and Others v. James Rocheid 1799 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Prescription, Teinds, Creditor Elizabeth Rocheid executed a strict entail of her one-half share of Inverleith and Darnchester. She conveyed the rest of her estate to the heirs of entail, conditioned on their paying Elizabeth’s debts and legacies, and using any surplus to purchase and entail the remainder of Inverleith and Darnchester. Alexander Kinloch, the institute, and James Rocheid, his son (represented by tutors), paid Elizabeth's debts and legacies, but they did not purchase the lands specified in Elizabeth’s deed. The next substitutes brought an action against James, seeking an accounting and enforcement of the deed. James responded that because Elizabeth had died more than forty years earlier, the action was barred by the negative prescription. Case documents refer to additional family members and other individuals. They also describe transactions relating to the creation of the South Bridge.
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.
Alexander Spiers and Others v. Thomas Dunlop and Others 1778 Spendthrift provision, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Disposition This case was about a father’s right to impose restrictions on his son’s inheritance under a marriage contract. James Dunlop, elder of Garnkirk, and his wife, Henrietta Maxwell, signed a marriage contract that settled the estate of Garnkirk on the two spouses and any heirs-male of their marriage. Dunlop and Maxwell’s eldest son, James Dunlop the younger, was a Glasgow merchant who contracted substantial debts, with James Sr. as a co-obligant. James Jr. eventually became insolvent and transferred his effects to Alexander Spiers, and others, as trustees for his creditors. The joint debts were purchased by friends of James Sr., including Thomas Dunlop. To secure these debts, James Sr. granted the friends a bond over his estate, and subsequently granted them a trust disposition. On September 17, 1764, James Sr. executed three additional deeds. First, he executed a bond providing a liferent to James Jr.; his wife, Mary Ritchie; and their children, provided that the liferent was an alimentary provision not subject to the son’s debts or to alienation. Second, he executed a provision for his younger children. And third, James Sr. executed a new deed empowering his trustees to sell his estate and apply the proceeds in the following order: (1) to the payment of James Sr.’s debts, (2) to the provision for his younger children, and (3) to the provision for James Jr. The pursuers, James Jr.’s trustees, sought to have these deeds set aside on the ground that the marriage contract barred the elder Dunlop from restricting his son’s inheritance. The defenders, James Sr.’s trustees, responded that a father had the right to provide for his other children and to shield the estate from being taken by creditors.
Alexander v. Beaumont 1772 Contracts and Obligations, Breach of Contract, Debt, Contract, Tack, Aliment Robert Alexander hired John Beaumont in 1770 to mine the coal on Alexander's property in Blackhouse and Boghall in Ayrshire. Under the contract, Beaumont was to deliver coal from Alexander's property to the harbor of Ayr. Beaumont brought the coal to the harbor, but he claimed that there were no people who could receive on Alexander's behalf. Beaumont applied to William Alexander, the brother of Robert, for instructions. According to Beaumont, William directed him to offer the coal to the Newton Company or a third party, or to "bing" the coals "on the hill." The parties disagreed over the expenses incurred for coal binged on the hill. Alexander also accused Beaumont of failing to separate the bings of great coal from the bings of pan wood. Alexander believed that some coal caught fire because of Beaumont's alleged failure to separate great coal from pan wood.
Alexander v. Ross 1767 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Interlocutor, Contract of marriage, Representation In the action between Alexander, pursuer, and Ross, defender, Marjory Ross and John Baillie petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Watson v. John Pyot 1800 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Entail, Contract This case concerned a father’s power to dispose of an estate that was the subject of a marriage contract, to the detriment of his son by that marriage. The son, Alexander Watson Jr., was the pursuer. A marriage contract between his parents, Alexander Watson Sr. and Jane Fulertoun, required Alexander Sr. to resign the estate of Turin to himself and the heirs-male of the marriage (and failing that, to certain substitutes). While still living, Alexander Sr. gave Alexander Jr. a portion of the lands included in the contract, along with certain lands that he acquired after making the contract. Subsequently, Alexander Sr. executed a series of deeds curtailing his son’s right to the estate, including a disposition of the remaining lands in favor of John Pyot, a distant relative. Alexander Jr. sought to have these deeds set aside on the ground that they violated the marriage contract. However, John Pyot claimed that Alexander Jr. had relinquished his claim by accepting the previous conveyance from his father.
Alexander Young and others v. Andrew Johnston and others 1767 Election contest, Debt, Aliment, Reduction, Succession, Election The pursuers alleged that Andrew Johnston Sr., bailie of Anstruther Easter, and his son Andrew Jr. accepted money to pay off the town's debt from men who wished to run for the borough's parliament seat. The pursuers therefore sought to have the election reduced.
Alexanders vs. Gordons 1773 Copartnership, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Bankruptcy This case involved a copartnery formed by members of the Alexander family and members of the Gordon family. The purpose of the copartnery was to manufacture dye using a method developed by George Gordon. After pursuing this business for a number of years, the Alexanders alleged that they had become substantial creditors of the copartnery. Accordingly, the Alexanders brought actions in Scottish court and eventually obtained a writ from the Court of King’s Bench in England. They also sought to dissolve the copartnery. In response, the Gordons raised an action for damages incurred as a result of the allegedly illegal proceedings instigated by the Alexanders; the Gordons also sought sums allegedly due to them in connection with the copartnery. As a result of this suit, the Gordons obtained an inhibition against the Alexanders. Robert and William Alexander petitioned the court to recall the inhibition, and later asked the court to sequester the assets of the copartnery.
Anderson v. Richardson 1786 Defamation, Libel, Aliment, Proof, Interlocutor, Prescription John Anderson, Professor of Natural Philosophy, as pursuer, alleged that William Richardson, Professor of Humanity, as defender, uttered defamatory invectives against him in a public classroom at the College of Glasgow. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Anderson v. Saunders 1829 Sasine, Interdict, Aliment, Feu, Interlocutor, Possession James Anderson and others raised an action of suspension and interdict against Robert Saunders concerning Saunders’ obstruction of a common stair leading to Anderson’s cellars and back-green, which Saunders used to access a sunk storey via a locked spar-door. Saunders answered the reasons of suspension and interdict, resisting the claims of nuisance and exclusive use. Following an interlocutor by Lord Medwyn, Ordinary, Anderson reclaimed against the decision, and Saunders subsequently appealed the interdict and suspension order barring his access. Both parties then submitted Cases arguing their competing rights to the stair, with Anderson contending that Saunders had no right to shut up the common passage and Saunders seeking alteration of the interlocutor granting the interdict against him.
Andrew Gray and Others vs. David Wilson and Others 1790 Election contest, Election, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Aliment, Sequestration Andrew Gray and others pursued David Wilson and others regarding the contested election of magistrates and counsellors in Anstruther Easter, seeking to void the defenders' election and obtain a declaration that the pursuers were the lawfully chosen officers. The defenders maintained the validity of their election and the proper exercise of voting rights, while the parties disputed whether the presiding magistrate possessed an ordinary vote or merely a casting vote to be exercised only in cases of equality. The pursuers contended that the magistrate had no ordinary vote and could only break ties, whereas the defenders argued that Baillie Chalmers had no right to vote unless an equality of votes existed.
Andrew Heron v. John Vining Heron 1766 Succession, Debt, Deed, Disposition, Tailzie, Aliment Doctor Andrew Heron pursued John Vining Heron in a dispute concerning the validity of deeds executed in 1715, 1726, and 1728, arguing that the 1715 deed was never delivered or completed while upholding the later deeds as valid settlements. After petitioning twice in July 1766 to alter a recent interlocutor, Heron replied in February 1767 regarding the deeds' validity, and John Vining Heron subsequently submitted duplies in April 1767 in obedience to the Court's interlocutor of March 4, 1767.
Andrew Ross and Others v. John Glasford and Company 1771 Charter Party, Sailor's Compensation, Ships, Sequestration, Aliment, Interlocutor 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.
Anstruther-Paterson v. Rutherfurd 1791 Election contest, Election, Oath, Aliment, Collusion, Feu duties Documents available Full description in progress.
Arbutnott, et al. v. Scott, et al. 1794 Proof, Res judicata, Interlocutor, Salmon Fishing, Mill, Aliment Arbutnott and others pursued Scott and others regarding a dam-dike that superior heritors claimed intercepted fish passage in violation of statutory regulations, while the defenders insisted the structure was a necessary check-dike for their mills. The petitioners sought alteration of a recent interlocutor, and the superior heritors informed the court that the dike was constructed to obstruct fish rather than supply water. The defenders maintained that alteration would injure their milling rights, and subsequently petitioned to be assoilzied, challenging the relevancy of the condescendence and the competency of the additional report and depositions.
Archbishop of York, and Others v. Haldane 1769 Highways, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Property, Sequestration After purchasing the estate of Airthrey, Captain Robert Haldane sought to close a road that crossed the property. Residents and property owners in the parishes of Callender, Kincardine, Kilmadock, Dunblane, Leckropt, and Logie objected that the road was a necessary public highway that provided the most expedient route to coalfields in the vicinity of Alloa. The case materials refer to many locations in the affected countryside, describe the history of the road, and name numerous deponents who discussed their use of the road and other matters relevant to the case.
Archer v. Donaldson 1793 Debt, Cautioner, Poinding, Sequestration, Bankruptcy, Aliment Andrew Archer and Margaret Low petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had assoilzied them from a process of reduction. On the same day, David Guthrie, James Ker, and others, trustees for the creditors of William Fullarton, likewise petitioned the Court to alter the same interlocutor.
Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird 1790 Adjudication, Arrestment, Aliment, Inhibition, Insurance, Defamation Thomas Cochran, weaver in Leith, filed answers to the petition of Margaret Clark, spouse of James Greig, sailor in Leith, responding to allegations of riot and damage. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Archibald Cooper v. Sir William Maxwell 1775 Tack, Rent, Aliment, Interlocutor, Lease, Arrestment In this case, the parties disputed the boundaries of tack that included a lime-work. Archibald Cooper alleged that Sir William Maxwell of Calderwood had encroached on his tack, and therefore sought to have Maxwell's work enjoined.
Archibald Craig v. Emilia Brodie 1773 Succession, Debt, Adjudication, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Archibald Craig obtained a court order for payment of a debt owed to him by Emilia Brodie. After Emilia died, Craig sought to collect the funds from her daughter, Margaret Brodie, who had intromitted with the estate.
Archibald Douglas of Douglas v. Douglas, Duke of Hamilton 1778 Deed, Aliment, Succession, Liferent, Sequestration, Contract This case constitutes an appeal to the House of Lords and Court of Session regarding an infamous earlier case, dubbed "The Douglas Cause." That case, which was settled by the House of Lords in 1769, revolved around the contested inheritance of the vast wealth of the Duke of Douglas, who died in 1761. The heir-male to the Duke of Douglas, the Duke of Hamilton, contested the property claims of Archibald Douglas, the son of the Duke of Douglas' sister, from many angles. In this last-ditch appeal, brought before the Court of Session and House of Lords, the Duke of Hamilton asserted that a 1744 deed of revocation put forth by the late Duke of Douglas was in fact a settlement of succession that disinherited his sister, Lady Jane Douglas, from all properties that had been passed to the family through investiture. On December 19, 1778 the Court of Session found that the Duke of Hamilton had no claim under the deed of October 16th, 1744, declaring it a deed of revocation and not of settlement. On March 27, 1779 the House of Lords dismissed an appeal of the Duke of Hamilton. The memorials submitted to the Court of Session in October of 1778 contain a history of the Angus and Douglas families and their investitures, and an overview of similar cases to "The Douglas Cause."
Ballantyne v. Malcolm 1793 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Defamation, Interlocutor, Fraud Alexander Malcolm, defender, petitioned against an interlocutor issued by Lord Monboddo in the action raised by Ballantyne, pursuer. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bannerman v. Shaw and Ritchie 1795 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Interest, Interlocutor The Reverend Mr. James Bannerman, as executor of Mrs Beatrix Goldie, petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor ordering him to condescend on a bond granted by his late husband. David Shaw of Jamaica and his attorney Alexander Ritchie answered, responding to claims under a bond dated 1771. Bannerman then petitioned to alter the interlocutor and be assoilzied, whereupon Shaw and Ritchie answered again, this time responding to the claim for a bond due from Bannerman’s late uncle Patrick Bannerman.
Bayne and Miller v. Wisheart-Belshes 1792 Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Reduction, Fraud, Cautioner Margaret Bayne and David Miller, baker in Perth, objected to the examination of James Dick Junior as a witness for Sir John Wisheart-Belshes in the process against him, arguing that Dick was disqualified by interest and relation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bayne v. Belshes 1793 Aliment, Succession, Trust, Deed, Trustee, Reduction Margaret Bayne and David Miller pursued Sir John Wishart-Belsches and James Knox to challenge the validity of a settlement executed by Thomas Ruthven. Sir John Wishart-Belsches defended the action by asserting that the deed constituted a valid deathbed settlement which Mrs. Bayne had ratified.
Beck v. M'Clone 1785 Factor, Agent, Debt, Damages, Bargain, Aliment This case was about a contract dispute. The defenders, Samuel Macclone Jr. and Samuel Macclone Sr., lived on the farm of Ross. The pursuer, John Beck, alleged that Samuel Jr. had agreed to sell him the farm’s entire output of oats. The Macclones responded that Samuel Jr. had no authority to make the bargain on behalf of his father, who was the sole tenant, and that Beck had known this when he allegedly entered into the transaction.
Bell v. Edgar 1769 Liferent, Aliment, Lease, Succession, Deed, Trustee Andrew Bell, Tackman of Spylaw, and his assignees, as pursuers, argued that a bond granted by Richard Edgar was valid and not subject to reduction. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bell v. King 1794 Witness, Aliment, Adultery, Divorce, Mala Fides, Defamation James Bell, Sheriff-Clerk of Berwickshire, pursued an action of divorce against his spouse Isobel King, alleging she had committed adultery with their lodger Thomas Purves. King denied the charge and sought to lead evidence from Purves himself and from her own mother and siblings, while Bell objected that Scots law rendered both the alleged adulterer and near relations incompetent witnesses for the defender. The litigation involved petitions to alter interlocutors, competing memorials on witness competency, and Bell’s answers to King’s bill of advocation regarding the separation and adultery allegations.
Bell v. Magistrates of Glasgow 1776 Property, Sasine, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Aliment, Arrestment Pursuer Patrick Bell was the proprietor of a piece of land called Bellshaugh or Provost Haugh, situated along the River Clyde near Glasgow Green. Additionally, Bell claimed to own a small strip of land that was used for access to Bellshaugh. The magistrates of Glasgow purchased property on either side of this strip and sought to enclose the entire area. Bell protested, and the magistrates proposed two possible solutions. First, citing an Act of Parliament, they offered to build a fence on either side of the road and charge Bell for half of the construction cost. Alternatively, they proposed to erect a gate that could be used to access the road. Bell refused both proposals, claiming that the cited statute did not apply and that he had an absolute right to exclude the magistrates. The magistrates maintained that either accommodation—the fence or the gate—would be reasonable and equitable; they also suggested that Bell might only hold a servitude.
Bell v. Rutherford 1793 Debt, Lease, Tack, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment Suit over fees for repairs of houses on the lands of Scraesburgh, part of the estate of Hunthill. In 1787, James Bell (Petitioner) signed a tack to lease the lands in Scraesburgh from Captain Rutherford (Defender/respondent). He signed a clause which stipulated that he accepted the houses “in a habitable and tenantable condition” as they were left by Robert Dickieson, the previous tenant. Mr. Bell argues that this clause was fraudulent because Mr. Dickieson did not leave the homes in a habitable condition. Bell received a judgment against Mr. Dickieson to pay for the repairs, but Dickieson went bankrupt, Dickieson’s trustees refused to pay, and the houses remained in disrepair for three years. In February, 1790, Captain Rutherford sold his estate to Benjamin Bell, who then sued James Bell for the condition of the houses. James Bell sued to hold Captain Rutherford liable for the repairs. In 1792, Lord Dunsinnan found for defender, and James Bell appeals.
Bellinger v. Monboddo's Interlocutor 1793 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Proof, Statute, Witness Reclaiming petition brought by William Bellinger challenging the interlocutor from the process of advocation and the judgment of the lower court finding for pursuer, Alexander Smith under the statute 9 of Queen Anne. The statute at cap. 14 sec. 2 states that "if any person shall, at any time or sitting, by playing at cards, dice or other games, lose in the whole, the value of 10 £, and shall pay or deliver the same, or any part thereof, the person losing, shall be at liberty, within three months, to sue for the money and goods lost, or any part thereof, from the winner, with costs, by action of debt founded on this act, in any of her Majesty's courts of record." The judgment orders payment to Smith by Bellinger of the sum lost by Mr. Smith to Mr. Bellinger in a dice game on December 24, 1789. Bellinger appeals on three points: 1. Does the act of 9th of Queen Anne apply to Scotland, as there are various Scottish statutes which conflict; 2. What does the statute mean by "one sitting," as the gambling happened over several hours; and 3. Was pursuer's oath in supplement properly admitted?
Bennet v. Gordon 1766 Rent, Tack, Aliment, Lease, Reduction, Debt Peter Bennet pursued Alexander Gordon of Cairnfield to challenge interlocutors of removing that Gordon had obtained against him. Bennet petitioned to have these orders remitted or altered, and replied to correct alleged errors in Gordon's answers regarding a nineteen-year lease agreement. He ultimately argued that Gordon had subjected him to unlawful oppression through repeated legal processes and fraudulent tacks.
Benson, &c. v. Stark, &c. 1793 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Tack, Interlocutor, Oath Reuben Benson, William Benson, John Murdoch, and John M'Pherson, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in their action against Stark and the other defenders. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bernard Love v. George Foster 1832 Arrestment, Sequestration, Rent, Caution, Aliment, Factor Bernard Love, as pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor in his action against George Foster, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Binning v. Binning 1766 Succession, Testament, Aliment, Debt, Deed, Legacy The Pursuer, Helen Binning, sought 500 merks (Scots) willed to her father as aliment by her grandfather in a 1733 deed of settlement. The Pursuer's father, Patrick Binning, died young, after marrying at age sixteen. The parties in this case disagreed over whether or not Patrick married with the consent of his father. Helen, the only child of the marriage, was raised in her grandfather's home after the death of her father. The Defender, James Binning, was Helen Binning's uncle, eldest son of James Binning the elder. The Defender claimed that since his brother, Patrick Binning, died before reaching majority and before his father's death, Helen Binning's claim to her father's aliment payment was invalid. Upon the death of Margaret Binning, Helen's grandmother, in 1762, Helen brought action before the sheriff of Linlithgow against her uncle for payment of the 500 merks.
Birnie and Co. v. Weir 1799 Warranty, Debt, Aliment, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Succession Samuel Birnie and Co. sold “British potashes” for use as a bleaching agent. In certain printed materials, the company claimed that these British potashes had been “found to answer every purpose in bleaching, &c. equal to the best American pot.” Helen Weir of Longloch, the Defender, ordered several casks of the potashes for her bleaching business; however, she was dissatisfied with the product and refused to pay her bill. Samuel Birnie and Co. brought suit to collect on the account. In response, Mrs. Weir argued that the British potashes were inferior to American potashes and contained a “radical” latent defect: Although materials bleached with the British potashes initially appeared white, they turned a reddish or bluish color after being exposed to the air. Based on the resulting harms to her business, Mrs. Weir raised a claim for damages. Samuel Birnie and Co. maintained that British potashes were suitable for use in certain stages of the bleaching process, that the company’s representations had been made in good faith, and that Mrs. Weir had used the British potashes unskillfully. The court found that Mrs. Weir was not liable for the price of the potashes and awarded her damages.
Blyth v. Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor 1789 Debt, Adjudication, Creditor, Arrestment, Aliment, Succession Walter Blyth, as pursuer, presented a petition challenging an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Dreghorn. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bowden and Gibson v. Esten and Bennett 1794 Contract, Parole Evidence, Debt, Arbitration, Defamation, Aliment Bowden and Gibson, as pursuers, maintained that the pursuer was entitled to his salary for eighteen nights under his engagement with Mrs. Esten, despite Esten and Bennett's refusal to allow him to perform as agreed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Braimer v. Innes and Lothian 1788 Aliment, Debt, Succession, Interdiction, Trustee, Trust John Braimer, late of Edrom, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, which maintained Braimer's interdiction and declared the trustees not bound to pay over the balance. Gilbert Innes of Stow and John Lothian, merchant in Edinburgh, as defenders, answered the petition, resisting Braimer's claim for reversion and discharge of the interdiction.
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.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 3450)