Mesne or final process against the person or estate. Applied to witnesses, &c., it signifies a judge's order in the nature of a subpœna. To do diligence on a bill is to issue execution upon it, which may be done without an action.

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: Diligence

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
A. Keltie v. R. Wilson	1827	Debt, Poinding, Sist, Inhibition, Diligence, Arrestment	Andrew Keltie of Gelvan petitioned the Court against Robert Wilson, writer in Edinburgh, seeking relief from an illegal poinding executed in violation of a court-ordered stay. Keltie alleged that Wilson had poinded during a sist on a bill of suspension, breaching procedural protections and amounting to contempt of court. The litigation proceeded from an initial petition for redress to a Revised Case arguing that such poinding during suspension constituted contempt.
A. R. Henderson v. John Mackay	1831	Diligence, Employment, Damages, Contract, Interlocutor, Breach of Contract
Copland v. Ireland	1786	Proof, Interlocutor, Tack, Diligence, Rent, Sequestration	William Ireland petitioned the Court for leave to adduce additional proof and to renew diligence against William Birtwhistle, alleging that William Copland of Gregory had failed to report proof regarding Birtwhistle. Copland answered, responding to the claim that he had neglected to report the proof concerning Birtwhistle.
Dunn v. Johnston, et al	1796	Creditor, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Ranking of Creditors, Ranking and Sale, Diligence	Mr Johnston of Carnfalloch petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary that postponed his interest in the ranking, on the basis that the adjudication had been led after certification. The respondents answered, disputing the argument that an adjudication obtained after certification should be ranked with preference.
Elliot v. Romanis	1790	Bill of Exchange, Execution, Debt, Prescription, Creditor, Diligence	Helen Elliot pursued Robert Romanis, a Lauder writer, for loss resulting from an officer’s conduct and the negligence of others. Romanis petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor to deny liability, and subsequently raised an action against John GrahamsLie. GrahamsLie petitioned to be assoilzied from that action, and Romanis answered that his own liability arose from his own omission rather than GrahamsLie’s conduct, noting that the execution had been obtained by others.
Fraser, Reid and Sons v. Lancaster and Jamieson	1793	Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Citation, Horning, Statute	Fraser, Reid and Sons claimed preferential rights to goods held in Coats’s custody, asserting priority based on protested bills for specific cargoes and challenging arrestments later laid by Lancaster and Jamieson. The defenders lodged duplies disputing the validity of the arrestments and the question of preference, responding to the pursuers’ replies.
Hart v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor	1787	Debt, Creditor, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Bankruptcy, Diligence	James Hart, as pursuer, petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Eskgrove. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Huggan v. Gray	1794	Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Debt	Huggan petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against the suspender George Jardine and to find the letters orderly proceeded. Gray responded, arguing that Huggan lacked proper title to proceed in diligence and that no due notification of dishonour had been made to him.
Hunt v. Wilson and Robb	1786	Arrestment, Diligence, Sist, Sequestration, Debt, Lis Alibi Pendens	John Wilson and James Robb, as present Provost and Jailor, argued that they were not liable to William Love because a lis pendens barred diligence from the pursuer Hunt’s bill-chamber appearance. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Kincaid v. Lord Justic Clerk's Interlocutor	1808	Sequestration, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Oath, Cautioner, Fraud	Kincaid sought suspension of a charge brought against him upon a bill, alleging that the drawer had already paid the debt and that the charger and drawer had fraudulently attempted to extort double payment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Lamb, et al v. Duncan	1797	Debt, Creditor, Cessio Bonorum, Aliment, Diligence, Assignation	James Lamb, John Robertson, and Alexander Orr petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Glenlee, and James Duncan answered the petition. The dispute concerned whether the Court would vary the prior order, with the petitioners seeking alteration and Duncan resisting the application.
Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline v. Wilson, et al	1786	Debt, Arrestment, Election contest, Creditor, Aliment, Diligence	The Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline, as defenders, filed answers to the petition of Thomas Wardlaw and others, responding to claims of electoral corruption. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ramsay v. Lister	1787	Arrestment, Creditor, Diligence, Sequestration, Debt, Assignation	James Lister, Tackman of Pitlessie Mill, as defender, answered the petition of John Ramsay, Brewer in Letham, pursuer, responding to claims of dereliction and mora in arrestment diligence. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Simpson v. Morison, and Glass and Son	1786	Debt, Creditor, Reduction, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Aliment	Elisabeth Simpson, spouse of James Davidson, petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor of Lord Alva that had allowed the reduction of her husband's land disposition. William Morison, late maltman in Stirling, and John Glass and Son, merchants there and Morison's assignees, answered the petition on behalf of themselves and Davidson for his interest.
Stewart V. Ireland	1796	Conveyance, Disposition, Mandate, Diligence, Freeholder, Election contest	Charles Stewart petitioned to overturn the freeholders' refusal to enroll him on the roll of freeholders, resting his claim upon titles and a valuation certificate, and William Ireland answered that the qualification was nominal and fictitious and that no mandate had been produced. The parties exchanged replies and duplies disputing the validity of the claim and seeking commission to recover material writings, after which Ireland petitioned against an Inner-House interlocutor that had found the freeholders erred in refusing admission. Stewart subsequently moved the court to apply a recent judgment of the House of Peers and to modify the account of expenses.