A borough holding a charter of incorporation from the Crown.
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: Burgh |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alexander Stewart v. John Isat | 1773 | Burgh, Tax, Thirlage, Jurisdiction, Tack, Interlocutor | This case was about the implementation of an act of Parliament that authorized the town of Glasgow to impose a duty on beer and ale. Alexander Stewart, the collector of the duty, sued John Isat over an alleged arrear. In response, Isat claimed that he was being charged more than other brewers. He argued that the magistrates could not force an individual to pay higher charges than others who were similarly situated. Stewart, defending Glasgow’s magistrates, argued that they were entitled to charge Isat the full amount authorized by statute. He explained that brewers were charged different rates because the magistrates generally reduced the duty on brewers who paid dry multure (i.e., a toll for milling) to the town. Isat disputed this as a factual matter and argued that the magistrates could not use the duty to compel individuals to accept a servitude to the town’s mills. |
| Andrew Wauchope and Others v. The Magistrates of Canongate | 1798 | Prescription, Possession, Act of Parliament, Statute, Title, Burgh | The Magistrates of Canongate, defenders, were authorized by statute to levy customs duties at the Water Gate with respect to certain articles at particular rates. For many years, the Magistrates had charged higher rates and levied duties on articles not mentioned in the statute. In 1795, the Magistrates published a new table of duties that served to increase rates and to add new articles. Pursuers Andrew Wauchope, the Trustees of the Post Road District, and William Scott (Procurator-fiscal of the County of Edinburgh) challenged the Magistrates’ authority to charge duties not specifically authorized by the statute. |
| Elisabeth Pierson v. Ninian Alexander | 1782 | Interdict, Adjudication, Servitude, Arrestment, Property, Burgh | This case was about a wall situated at the border of two adjoining properties in Dundee. One of the adjoining property owners, Ninian Alexander, began taking down a house on his lot, including the wall. In response, the other adjoining property owners, Elizabeth and Katharine Pierson, petitioned the dean of guild to enjoin Alexander's project. The dean of guild court ruled in Alexander’s favor, and the Piersons appealed to the Court of Session. While the case was pending in the Court of Session, the Lord Ordinary ordered Alexander not to proceed any further in taking down the house. However, the Piersons subsequently complained that contrary to the judge’s order, Alexander had continued to take down the house and wall. |
| Grieve and Others v. Incorporation of Tailors | 1773 | Burgh, Corporate Privilege, Fine, Aliment, Succession, Privilege | John Grieve, suspender, was a member of the Incorporation of Tailors in Glasgow. He entered into a partnership with suspenders James Loudon and Robert Robb for the purpose of manufacturing stays, also known as corsets. The Tailors complained to the magistrates of Glasgow that staymaking was reserved exclusively for members of their trade; therefore, according to the tailors, Loudon and Robb had impermissibly engaged in the trade and Grieve had assisted them contrary to his oath. The suspenders argued that staymaking was not included in the tailors’ trade monopoly and should not be added by implication. |
| John Aitchison and others v. The Magistrates and Billet-Master of Haddington | 1795 | Interlocutor, Burgh, Thirlage, Suspension, Representation, Magistrate | |
| John Ure, and other Heritors within the Royalty of the Burgh of Forfar v. Patrick Carnegy, and Others, Heritors of the Landward District of the Parish of Forfar | 1792 | Decreet-Arbitral, Heritor, Burgh, Teinds, Contract, Debt | John Ure and the other heritors within the royalty of the burgh of Forfar pursued Patrick Carnegy and the other heritors of the landward district of the parish regarding the method of dividing the church. The pursuers argued that the church ought to be divided in proportion to population, while the defenders maintained that it should be divided according to valued rent as settled by Lord Coalston's decree. Both parties presented informations to the Court setting forth these competing claims. |
| Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. M'Dowal et al | 1792 | Trustees, Assignation, Burgh, Debt, Trustee, Creditor | The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor in their action as pursuers seeking indemnity for road repairs executed under the 1753 turnpike act. The defenders William M'Dowal, George Houston, Robert Fulton, Robert Corse, Boyd Porterfield, Boyd Alexander, Archibald Speirs, and the assignees to the tolls answered the petition, resisting the magistrates' request for alteration of the court's prior order. |
| Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Pittenweem v. Robert and William Alexanders, Thomas Martin, and Others | 1771 | Elections, Corruption, Burgh, Election contest, Aliment, Bribery | Robert Alexander and his brother, William, attempted to take over the burgh magistracy of Pittenweem in the mid-1760s, after the death of Sir Harry Erskine. They were successful and assumed power in 1765. Former magistrates of the burgh of Pittenweem filed suit against the Alexanders, alleging that the Alexanders and their agents engaged in undue influence and corruption during the election process. They alleged that some of these corrupt transactions were between the Alexanders and bailie Thomas Martin, defender. During the lawsuit, the Alexanders apparently used burgh funds to cover the costs of the litigation. The magistracy of Pittenweem also took out a loan from Robert Alexander. The former magistrates won the lawsuit, returned to power, and then challenged the burgh debt to Robert Alexander in the Court of Session, arguing that it was not validly procured. |
| Magistrates of Dunfermline v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor | 1789 | Tack, Interlocutor, Thirlage, Possession, Onus Probandi, Burgh | The Magistrates and Town-Council of Dunfermline petitioned the Court to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Shaw v. Fleming | 1775 | Elections, Burgh, Election contest, Election, Voting rights, Aliment | This case concerns a disputed election in the burgh of Rutherglen. Different trades (including deacons, masons, and weavers) would meet with members of their industry and submit lists of candidates for the elections, a common election practice of the period. Pursuers George Shaw et al. lodged a complaint against the town council of the burgh of Rutherglen. Apparently the town council adopted a practice of restricting voting to resident masons and wrights, and disallowed non-resident masons and wrights from voting. Shaw et al. alleged that this attempt to disenfranchise the non-resident masons and wrights was unlawful. |
| Sir James Boswell v. Alexander Hamilton | 1830 | Succession, Burgh, Aliment, Teinds, Feu, Parish | |
| Stephen and others v. Duff and other Magistrates and Counsellors of the Burgh of Elgin | 1771 | Election contest, Burgh, Debt, Aliment, Sequestration, Bankruptcy | This case concerns disputed elections for council in the Burgh of Elgin. John Duff, defender, and his group controlled the Burgh council up to the election in the Michaelmas 1770 term. Duff was provost of the burgh, with members of his group serving other positions on the council. In that 1770 election, Thomas Stephen, pursuer, won and became provost of the burgh of Elgin. Stephen was a member of a rival group. In the next election, the Michaelmas 1771 term, Duff and his group won the election and regained their positions on the council. Each group accused the other of resorting to riots, disturbances, bribery, and other improper means to affect the Michaelmas 1771 election. |
| The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. The Freeholders and Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew | 1792 | Arrestment, Burgh, Burgh of Barony, Charter, Debt, Aliment | The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley pursued the Freeholders and Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew regarding liability for expenses incurred in maintaining prisoners committed to the burgh's custody. Sir Michael Stewart and others, representing the defenders, argued that the magistrates were personally liable for costs arising from prisoners committed on their own warrants. The pursuers countered that, as a burgh of barony with a sufficient prison, they were entitled to be relieved of such expenses from the public rogue money fund. |
Documents discussing this subject (67)
- Adam Monteith, Alexander Drysdale, William Craig, David Stow, James Smith, Thomas Kennedy, Richard Kidston, and John Neill v. Robert M'Gavin — Bill of Suspension, 7 Nov 1837
- Alexander Buchanan v. Charles S. Parker — Report, 7 Sep 1826
- Alexander Buchanan v. Charles Stewart Parker — Answers, 20 Dec 1825
- Alexander Ferguson, Stephen Rowan, and others v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of the City of Glasgow and John Stevenson — Answers, 22 Apr 1785
- Alexander Fergusson and others v. Magistrates and Town-Council of the City of Glasgow and John Stevenson Tackman of Fish and Potatoes Duties of that City — answers, 31 Jan 1786
- Alexander Fergusson, and Others v. The Magistrates of Glasgow — Petition, 29 Jul 1783
- Alexander Kay and John Morton v. Alexander Balfour, Thomas Bell, James Smith, John Symers, Andrew Brown, William Lindsay, Patrick Whitson, George Thoms, and Alexander Reid — Answers, 8 Dec 1827
- Andrew Wauchope and Others v. The Magistrates of Canongate — petition, 18 Dec 1798
- Andrew Wauchope and Others v. The Magistrates of Canongate — petition, 27 Jun 1799
- Appendix. No. I, COMMISSION to John Bell to the Parliament for the Burgh of Glasgow 1681.
- APPENDIX. No. I. SET OF THE BURGH OF QUEENSFERRY
- Bakers of Paisley v. Stent-Masters of Paisley — Minute, 16 Jun 1836
- Campbell Macintosh v. George Mackay — Memorial
- Charles Hay Carnegie, Esquire of Pitforthie, and Others, Heritors of Brechin v. James Speid and Charles Will — Case, 19 Mar 1846
- City of Edinburgh v. William Scott — Information, 24 Jan 1807
- David Fouler and James Millar v. Andrew Boyter, Andrew Reid, Alexander Reid, Alexander Paton, William Alexander, James Edie, Thomas Smart, James Boyter — Answers, 17 Jan 1767
- David Shaw, James Robertson, Thomas Shaw, John Hamilton, Michael Paterson, James Wark v. James Fleming, George Muir, Archibald Freebairn, John Urie, Robert Bryce, John Smith, Andrew Turnbull, John Harvie, John Muir, William Pa… — Answers, 19 Dec 1775
- Elizabeth Countess of Sutherland and others v. William Dunbar of Fulfordlees — Answers, 27 Sep 1783
- Elizabeth Pierson and Katharine Pierson v. Ninian Alexander — Replies, 2 Jan 1783
- Francis Ross v. Robert Carrick — Information, 12 Nov 1800
- Heritors for Purchasing and Repairing a Manse for the Minister of the First Charge of said Parish v. Earl of Haddington — Information, 13 Dec 1821
- Heritors of the Parish of Dundee v. Magistrates of the Town of Dundee — Condescendence and Answers
- Hislop — Petition, 22 May 1795
- Hugh Crawford and Others v. John Patrick and Others — Bill, 7 Mar 1794
- Incorporation of Bakers of Dundee v. Magistrates and Town-Council of Dundee — Information, 21 Jan 1803
- Incorporation of Bakers of Perth v. John Gloag, James Stewart and others — Answers, 23 Nov 1807
- Incorporation of Hammermen &c. v. Incorporations of Weaver &c. — Petition, 3 Mar 1775
- James Freeland, and Others v. The Incorporation of Weavers in Glasgow, William Bell, Deacon, and John Watson, Collector of the said Incorporation, and Duncan Niven, one of the Bailies of the said City — Information, 14 Nov 1777
- John Bain, Treasurer to the Bakers' Society of Paisley, and Others, Members thereof against Walter M'Farlane, Collector of the Poor's Rate for the Burgh of Paisley, Walter Symington, Merchant there, and Others, Stent-Mast… — Revised Case, 14 Jan 1836
- John Cormack Ship-master and others v. Magistrates and Town-council of Bruntisland — Information, 18 Nov 1751
- John Drummond and Company v. William Moffat — Additional Appendix to Reclaiming Note, 25 Jun 1849
- John Gray v. John M'Aulay — Replies, 26 May 1791
- John Hay v. The Edinburgh Water Company and Alexander Ramsay — Answers, 12 Dec 1849
- John Ker v. Magistrates of Kirkwall — 13 May 1823
- John Ker v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of Kirkwall — Revised Case, 5 Apr 1827
- John Ross v. Charles Earl of Haddington — Information, 24 Apr 1823 [2]
- John Ure and others v. Patrick Carnegy — Information, 13 Nov 1792
- John Ure, Charles Webster, and others v. Patrick Carnegie, Robert Fletcher, George Dempster, Charles Hunter, and others — Information, 11 Nov 1792
- John Wilson and Others v. James Scott and Others — Petition, 25 Jan 1793
- LC Volume 01 — Petition, 19 Jan 1808 [2]
- Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow and John Stevenson v. Alexander Fergusson and others — Memorial, 27 Nov 1784
- Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. M'Dowal et al — Petition, 1 Mar 1792
- Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. Sir Michael Stewart of Blackhall, Bart., William Hamilton of Wishaw, Esq., Robert Fulton of Hartfield, Esq., and others — Information, 11 Oct 1792
- Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. William M'Dowal, Esq. of Garthland and Others — Answers, 12 Apr 1792
- Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing v. George Graham of Kinrofs, Esq — Information, 20 Nov 1789
- Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Linlithgow v. Neil, Earl of Roseberry and other Heritors; and James Dobie — Memorial, 19 Sep 1801
- Magistrates of Canongate v. Andrew Wauchope — answers, 3 Jan 1800
- Magistrates of Dunfermline v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor — Petition, 25 Jun 1789
- Marquis of Lorne v. John Denny — Memorial, 20 Jan 1797
- Matthew Comb, &c. v. The Magistrates of Edinburgh — Information, 15 Jan 1793
- Petition — Alexander Bowie against Lord Eldin's Interlocutor
- Petition — Dr. Robert Auld against Inner House Interlocutor
- Rec. Note—Chas. H. Carnegie & Others, (Heritors of Brechin,) against Lord Ivory's Interlocutor
- Robert Munro v. John Baxter, Provost of Cupar, and Other Burgesses — Answers, 25 Apr 1772
- Roger Ramsay v. Burgh of Dundee — 12 Feb 1824
- Shaw v. Fleming — Replies, 9 Jan 1776
- Sir James Boswell v. Alexander Hamilton — Revised, 5 Apr 1832
- Sir Michael Stewart of Blackhall, Baronet, and William Cunningham of Craigends, Esq; v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Paisley, and Robert Fulton, Bailie and Delegate for the said Burgh — Answers, 11 Jan 1760
- Society of Barbers of Edinburgh v. Adam Vallange — Information, 8 Jul 1760
- The Earl of Wemyss and others v. The Magistrates and Trading Inhabitants of Canongate — Information, 1 Dec 1788
- The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. The Freeholders and Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew — Information, 6 Sep 1792
- The Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow v. The Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow — Information, 10 Dec 1793 [3]
- The Trades of Dalkeith v. John Alves — Answers, 6 Jun 1793
- Thomas Hopkirk and John M'Call v. James Hill, Collector of the Merchants-House in the City of Glasgow, and the Provost and Magistrates of the said City — Answers, 2 Dec 1779
- Thomas Leishman v. Magistrates and Council of Ayr — answers, 6 Mar 1800
- William Campbell v. Sir John Anstruther — Duplies, 29 Jan 1791
- William Campbell v. Sir John Anstruther, of Anstruther — Petition and Complaint, 13 Nov 1790
