| A. R. Henderson v. John Mackay |
1831
|
Diligence, Employment, Damages, Contract, Interlocutor, Breach of Contract |
|
| Attorney of Thomas Cullen & Co v. David Philp |
1792
|
Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Employment, Pactum Illicitum |
The attorney of Thomas Cullen and Company opposed David Philp, merchant in Boarhills, who as suspender pleaded that no action could lie upon bills alleged to have arisen from a smuggling transaction in which the pursuers were principals or accessories. The attorney replied that this plea of non-action for smuggled goods was unjust and unsupported by law or fact. |
| McKenzie v. Buchanan and Company |
1792
|
Arrestment, Debt, Contract, Aliment, Employment, Action |
Daniel M'Kenzie, a spinner, pursued James and Archibald Buchanans and Company, his masters, contending that they had unlawfully deducted from his wages without contractual authority. The Buchanans subsequently petitioned the Court to overturn an inner-house interlocutor that had been pronounced against them. |
| Ross v. Woodman |
1770
|
Employment |
Pursuer David Ross was the manager of the Theatre-Royal of Edinburgh. Defender Esther Woodman was an actress in the theatre's productions. Esther entered into an employment contract with Ross after receiving her husband's (Thomas Woodman) consent. Ross eventually fired Esther Woodman because she refused to take on certain roles in the plays and did not show up to rehearsals. Following her dismissal, Esther and Thomas Woodman brought an action against Ross before the sheriff of Edinburgh, seeking a weekly salary for the term of Esther's employment contract. Ross maintained that Esther was justly and properly dismissed based on her improper conduct, and that she was not entitled to her weekly salary under the employment contract. |
