AI-transcribed

Any decree or judgment of a Court.

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.
Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Crawford v. Boyd 1765 Debt, Shipping, Interlocutor, Oath, Creditor, Adjudication Hugh Crawfurd, James and William Aitkens, Hector Fairie, John Fisher, John Crawfurd, and Hugh Craig petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor finding them liable for goods shipped at the Isle of Man on their account. John Boyd and others, as executors-creditors of Patrick Ewing, answered, contending that the obligation letters were not probative of delivery or receipt. The litigation thus turned on the evidentiary sufficiency of the obligation letters to support the finding of liability.
Creditors of Hay v. Fleming 1793 Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy James Fleming, defender in the action by the creditors of Hay, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had excluded him from an adjudication upon the debtor’s Scottish property, maintaining that his claim was liquidated by bill and sufficiently authenticated by protest and affidavit notwithstanding the original instrument’s absence abroad. He sought to overturn the Inner-House ruling and obtain remit to the Lord Ordinary to lead further proof of his debt’s verity.
Creditors of Hynd v. M'Kechny 1777 Expenses, Adjudication, Rent, Interlocutor, Oath, Creditor In 1764, Alexander M'Kechny became a tenant of a dwelling-house and offices in Port-Glasgow, which had been the property of James Hynd. Hynd, a land-waiter, died in debt. In 1770 Hynd's son renounced his claim to his father's estate and Hynd's effects were then sold to pay his creditors. In June 1775, a remit was made to Lord Stonefield to divide the funds from the sale, and at this time Stonefield discovered that no rents had been paid on the property occupied by Alexander M'Kechny. The creditors of John Hynd brought action against M'Kechny, and various facts of the tenancy were disputed: The year M'Kechny took up residence in the dwelling-house, the yearly rent, and the sums expended by M'Kechny on repairs and legal defenses against encroachment. While M'Kechny was eventually vindicated in court, he argued that the verity of his claim had been known to his creditors from the beginning, and that they were therefore responsible for his legal expenses. The pursuers, on the other hand, argued that M'Kechny was at fault for providing incomplete records and making himself unavailable to be deponed.
Creditors of John Horn 1791 Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Statute George Wilson, trustee for the creditors of John Horn, petitioned to alter an interlocutor allowing individual creditors to adjudicate post-sequestration, citing statutory prohibition and the risk of confusion or penalty preference. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie v. His Children 1792 Creditor, Adjudication, Statute, Arrestment, Debt, Interlocutor The creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie, as pursuers, contended against his children, as defenders, that adjudications made without intimation were void and null, as set forth in the Information of John Peter du Rouvray and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Creditors of Moncreiffe v. Moncreiffe 1776 Multiple-Poinding, Ranking of Creditors, Debt, Interlocutor, Assignation, Creditor Sir Thomas Moncreiffe provided £1,000 to the younger children of his son, Thomas. A dispute between Thomas' two children, William and Patrick, was resolved in the latter's favor. William then became the target of several of Patrick's creditors, who brought action for payment before Lord Elliock. Sir William Moncreiffe responded with a process of multiple-poinding (claim adjudication), which Lord Kennet transferred to the process before Lord Elliock. Moncreiffe then petitioned the Court to affirm that the ranking must be fully adjusted before he be required to make payment. Cochrane, Murdoch, and Company, creditors in the ranking, answered that the ranking was indeed concluded. They also petitioned to be ranked on and to recover expenses from the draught of John Thain, another creditor of Moncreiffe, now deceased. John Thain's widow and children then submitted answers to this petition, asking the Court to refuse Cochrane, Murdoch, & Co.'s request. See also John Thain, Advocate in Aberdeen v. Sir William Moncrief of Moncrief, a related case that came before Lord Hailes.
Darling v. Landells 1796 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Interlocutor, Aliment Darling pursued Landells regarding the stipend of the parish minister of Coldingham. The defenders submitted information arguing that the stipend as modified by the Court's interlocutor was suitable and equitable given the parish's rental and living expenses. The petitioner subsequently petitioned the Court to alter that interlocutor modifying the stipend.
Davies, Jones, & Co. v. William Young 1786 Debt, Aliment, Oath, Interlocutor, Action, Bill of Exchange William Young petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo, claiming expenses, and Davies, Jones, & Co. answered the petition. The merchants defended against Young's claim for expenses and asserted that he had commissioned and received the six hats in dispute.
Dick v. Drysdale 1800 Tailzie, Liferent, Lease, Sasine, Tack, Interlocutor Sir Alexander held Prestonfield and Corstorphine under several strict entails dating to 1720, one of which prevented any heir from setting tacks for more than one lifetime. Sir Alexander's father, Sir William, set a tack in Drysdale that John Dick, as tutor to his nephew, sought to have voided. An Act of Parliament allowed certain types of tacks in contravention of entail clauses, but Dick maintained that the statute did not apply in this case.
Dickson v. Irving 1796 Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor, Debt, Presbytery, Contract David Dickson, minister of the Gospel at St Mungo, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutors in a suspension process against William Bell Irving of Whitehill, a heritor of the parish, wherein Dickson acted as Charger and Irving as Suspenders. Irving answered the petition.
Donald Campbell v. John Johnston 1793 Tack, Lease, Interlocutor, Possession, Inhibition, Rent In an action of removing from Middle Craigs, Captain Donald Campbell petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo. John Johnston answered the petition, resisting Campbell's request to overturn the earlier decision.
Douglas v. Grierson 1793 Debt, Prescription, Oath, Interlocutor, Creditor, Aliment William Douglas, factor for the Representatives of the Leith Soperie Company, pursued payment from Mrs. Hislop, the widow, for soap furnished in 1782. When the court sustained the defender’s plea of triennial prescription, Douglas petitioned to alter and remit the interlocutor, arguing that written commission and receipt from 1782 provided sufficient proof of debt to overcome the prescription bar, and sought reconsideration of the ruling. Mrs. Hislop subsequently reclaimed against the interlocutor sustaining the defense of prescription.
Douglas v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1788 Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Interlocutor William Douglas of Luss, Esquire petitioned the Court of Session to alter a recent interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Justice Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Dr. John Roebuck, and Samuel Garbet v. William and Andrew Stirling 1772 Patent, Privilege, Sequestration, Improvement, Assignment, Interlocutor Roebuck and Garbet, pursuers, claimed that they obtained a patent in 1771 for a process that produced sulfuric acid in vessels of lead, instead of in vessels of glass. The patent allegedly gave Roebuck and Garbet the exclusive privilege of using this process in Great Britain for fourteen years. Roebuck and Garbet claimed that William and Andrew Stirling were constructing buildings in Glasgow for the purpose of using Roebuck and Garbet's patented process. Roebuck and Garbet applied for a bill of suspension, but Lord Hailes found no patent transgression in the construction of the buildings. Roebuck and Garbet applied for a second bill of suspension, but the court did not prohibit the Stirlings from producing sulfuric acid in vessels of lead while the case was pending. Because their patent only lasts fourteen years, Roebuck and Garbet sought to stop the Stirlings' activity immediately. They argued that the continued activity of the Stirlings causes Roebuck and Garbet material loss and rendered their patent ineffective.
Duff v. Freeholders of Elgin and Forres 1792 Interlocutor, Freeholder, Res judicata, Tack, Lease, Rent The Honourable Alexander Duff petitioned the Court to alter its prior interlocutor and restore him to the roll of freeholders for Elgin and Forres. Archibald Duff, Sheriff-clerk of Elgin, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter the same interlocutor. The petitions raised the question of whether the Court should reverse its order removing Alexander Duff from the freeholders' roll.
Duguid v. Hall, et al 1788 Debt, Interlocutor, Credit, Oath, Caution, Contract James Duguid petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor and suspend the letters simpliciter issued against him, challenging the enforcement of a Magistrates’ decree. John Hall, John Tenant, and William Sprott answered, asserting that the Magistrates’ decree had been properly enforced and the petitioner’s claims were groundless.
Duke of Atholl v. Robertson 1797 Contract, Servitude, Decreet-Arbitral, Interlocutor, Possession, Suspension James Robertson petitioned the Court of Session to challenge a 1761 arbitral decree affirming the Duke of Atholl’s ownership of seven shealings, arguing that the underlying 1716 contract was void under statute and contrary to public interest. The Duke defended the contractual and arbitral rulings, maintaining his title to the forest lands while acknowledging that the decrees reserved limited pasturage rights to Lude under specified conditions.
Duke of Gordon v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1787 Patronage, Charter, Succession, Act of Parliament, Interlocutor, Conveyance Alexander, Duke of Gordon petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Dumfries v. Campbell 1795 Heritor, Tailzie, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Non-Entry, Rent Dumfries, as heir to his mother and petitioner, sought to alter an interlocutor of December 1792 that had permitted the transference of an action of non-entry against him. Campbell responded that a declarator of nonentry commenced against the mother could be transferred in statu quo against her son and heir without requiring that he first take a passive title.
Duncan Stewart v. Lieutenant Alexander Graeme 1796 Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Interlocutor, Creditor, Liferent While working abroad in the service of the East India Company, Lieutenant Duncan Stewart remitted £1000 to Scotland. He assigned a power of attorney to William Stewart and John Taylor, allowing them to manage the money. Lieutenant Stewart directed the men to invest his money in heritable securities and give the interest to certain family members. He died in India, leaving a holographic memorandum of a will that provided for the money in Scotland to be “applied in the manner already directed.” Lieutenant Stewart’s executors initiated a court proceeding to determine who was entitled to the £1000. The court determined that the fund was heritable property that should pass to Lieutenant Stewart’s heir-at-law, his sister Elizabeth Stewart Bowman. Bowman then died, leaving the residue of her estate to her natural son Lieutenant Alexander Graeme. Lieutenant Graeme claimed that he was entitled to the £1000 based on Mrs. Bowman’s will. However, Duncan Stewart, Lieutenant Stewart’s cousin in Jamaica, claimed that he was the Lieutenant’s heir-at-law and should inherit the money because the £1000 was a heritable subject and Bowman never made up a title to it. Case documents include a reproduction of Lieutenant Stewart's detailed memorandum disposing of his personal effects.
Dundas v. Thomson 1 of 2 1793 Teinds, Valuation, Rent, Heritor, Tack, Interlocutor
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.
Earl of Cassillis v. James Finlay, Common Agent for carrying on the Locality of the Stipend of the Parish of Dalrymple 1795 Teinds, Rent, Tack, Stipend, Interlocutor, Valuation
Earl of Mansfield v. The Duke of Queensberry, and other Heritors of the Parish of Dornock 1797 Teinds, Stipend, Interlocutor, Heritor, Valuation, Augmentation During a process of locality in the parish of Dornock, the Earl of Mansfield initiated a legal proceeding to obtain a heritable right to his teinds. This case examined whether he could obtain such a right during the process of locality, so as to affect the order of allocation.
Eden, et al. v. Anstruther, et al 1792 Debt, Cautioner, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Credit, Interlocutor Messrs Eden, Ridley, and Co. pursued Sir John Anstruther, Dr Steuart Threipland, George Oswald, and the representatives of John Mackay for £2,000 under bonds of credit granted in 1776. The defenders denied liability, Anstruther contending that his bond was never operated upon by Robert Fall individually and that no money had been drawn under it, while Threipland, Oswald, and Mackay asserted that no account had been opened on their bond and that the claim exceeded its scope. The litigation involved petitions to alter interlocutors and to remit to the Lord Ordinary, together with arguments that the formation of a new copartnery following Charles Fall's death rendered prior interlocutors open to reconsideration and requests to lodge replies regarding cash-account practice.
Eden, Ridley, and Company v. Threipland, et al 1798 Debt, Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Interest, Creditor, Interlocutor Eden, Ridley, and Company, as chargers, sought enforcement of a bond to recover interest calculated on each individual advance, disputing the position of Dr Stewart Threipland of Fingask and George Oswald of Auchincruive, as suspenders, that liability extended only to principal and interest accruing from the date of bankruptcy. The suspenders maintained that the chargers' demand for additional interest ran contrary to prior interlocutors and established accounting practices.
Edie, Laird, and Others v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor 1794 Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Disposition, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Teinds Edie, Laird, and others challenged Lord Craig's interlocutor ranking creditors' claims on Kerse lands, contending that objections to Elizabeth Dickie, Janet Gray, and Elizabeth Weir were wrongly omitted and that representation was valid under the Act of Sederunt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edmonstone v. Tweedale 1772 Debt, Disposition, Deed, Interlocutor, Mala Fides, Rent In 1766, Robert Tweedale, defender, owed money to James Edmonstone, pursuer. Tweedale could not repay Edmonstone at that time. As security for the eventual payment, Tweedale granted Edmonstone the right to "infeft," or take possession of, some old houses in Mid-Calder. Edmonstone agreed to delay seeking payment provided that Tweedale delivered possession of the houses to him. Despite this agreement, Edmonstone did not take possession of the houses and allowed Tweedale to continue living in them. Edmonstone grew tired of the delays in payment and found that the homes were in such a poor state of repair that their sale would not cover the cost of the debt. Edmonstone brought a process against Tweedale before the sheriff-depute of Edinburgh seeking to collect payment. He argued that the homes stood as security for future payment of the debt, and did not constitute the payment itself. Tweedale, however, countered that his infestment to Edmonstone satisfied the debt, an argument that the sheriff-depute accepted. In the Court of Session, the Lord Ordinary initially found for Edmonstone, but later reversed his own ruling. The documents here represent Edmonstone's attempts to convince the full court to rule in his favor.
Erskine v. Hay-Balfour 1766 Bonds, Debt, Adjudication, Succession, Title, Interlocutor In 1717, James Balfour of Randerstoun and Thomas Hay of Edinburgh granted bond to Thomas Erskine. Upon Erskine's death, his three daughters each inherited a one third share of the bond. Janet, the youngest daughter, died without issue. This case involved a dispute over whether or not the other two sisters had a lawful claim to the full bond payment, including Janet's third and its interest. The defender, John Hay-Balfour and his Tutors, claimed that the two living sisters failed to take the legal steps required to vest in them Janet's share of the bond. Handwritten note on front page reads "refused."
Findlay v. Graham 1772 Debt, Copartnership, Aliment, Creditor, Arrestment, Interlocutor In 1739 James Findlay entered into a partnership with John Graham, James Stirling, Alexander Wotherspoon, and John Buchanan for slaughtering and selling cattle. Wotherspoon was appointed clerk, bookkeeper, and cashier of the partnership. Findlay was responsible for purchasing cattle and selling live cattle that were not fit for slaughter. Findlay was illiterate so he relied on Wotherspoon to keep proper accounts of the business. In February 1740, the partnership dissolved. The partners sought to settle all the accounts of the business. Findlay alleged that Wotherspoon was negligent in maintaining the company's accounts and argued that the partnership owed him money for the fifty cows he purchased in 1739 on partnership's behalf. The defenders claimed that Findlay was actually in debt to the company. They argued that Findlay was reimbursed for the fifty cows, or that he made this payment using company funds rather than his own funds.
Folsetter and Wright v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1786 Apprentice, Contract, Theft, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Fraud William Folsetter and James Cobban petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Justice Clerk's interlocutor on the bills. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Forrester v. Wright 1785 Witness, Debt, Rent, Arrestment, Possession, Interlocutor This case was about the admissibility of a witness’s testimony in a dispute between Thomas Forrester of Inchlees, the landlord of some property in Kilsyth, and Daniel Wright, a tenant on the property. An important fact in the dispute was the date of a letter handwritten by William Bow of Cairnoch; the letter stated that in granting a new lease on the property, Thomas Forrester would prefer Wright over other prospective tenants. Forrester sought to have Bow testify as to the date of the letter, but Wright objected on the ground that Bow had given partial counsel to Forrester in the matter. After the Lord Ordinary excluded Bow’s testimony, Forrester petitioned the Lords of Session to alter the interlocutor.
Forsyth v. Abercromby 1793 Suspension, Arrestment, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Witness Sir George Abercromby, James Urquhart, and George Forbes, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor of the Sheriff of Banffshire regarding the unlawful conduct of Alexander Gordon and Gavin Steuart. Robert Forsyth, as defender, answered the petition, responding to allegations that he had used improper language in his representation.
Gardner v. Corporation of Goldsmiths in Edinburgh 1792 Tax, Debt, Corporation, Aliment, Interlocutor, Statute Alexander Gardner and David Downie, goldsmiths in Edinburgh, pursued the Corporation of Goldsmiths regarding the incorporation’s resolution to abolish the marking-money tax and its appropriation of marking money for private use. The Corporation defended its actions by citing the opulence of its funds and historical precedent for tax abrogation, while the pursuers contended that the assay office marking fees constituted wages rather than assessments and that the corporation bore no liability for such expense. The litigation proceeded through mutual petitions to alter interlocutors and answers exchanging these respective positions.
Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff 1792 Debt, Heritor, Aliment, Contract, Arrestment, Interlocutor James Gentle, writer in Edinburgh, pursued the Heritors of Crieff for exoneration from a bond of caution and relief from expenses arising from a church contract, contending that unpaid shares and material cost increases since 1778 rendered the Heritors liable for the losses. The Heritors answered that the loss was Gentle's own, and the cause proceeded through replies and duplies disputing the contractual responsibility. William Lumsdain separately petitioned for remit of answer expenses and delivery of his bond of caution, and after the Heritors petitioned to alter an Inner-house interlocutor, Gentle responded reaffirming his claim for exoneration based on the church cost claims.
George Binnie v. Neil M'Millan 1831 Aliment, Debt, Arrestment, Security, Expenses, Interlocutor George Binnie, mariner in Greenock, served as suspender against Niel M'Millan, grocer in Cartsdyke, reclaiming against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor which found that no expenses were due to the suspender. M'Millan argued in response that Binnie was not entitled to aliment because he had refused to sign an obligation for peace. The litigation turned on whether a suspender who declined to give security for the peace could recover expenses or maintain a claim for aliment.
Gibson v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1795 Tack, Interdict, Damages, Lease, Possession, Interlocutor Walter Scott petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor that found him liable for expenses only, seeking instead an award of damages for loss caused by an interdict against road access. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gibson v. Watson 1768 Interlocutor, Game, Caution, Heritor Gibson sought revision of an interlocutor against Watson, arguing that strict statutory interpretation, pre-Union hunting rights, magistrate authorization, and the 1768 Act's repeal of the 1734 statute justified the request. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gillies v. Carmalt 1783 Wager, Adjudication, Contract, Interlocutor, Forfeiture This case was about the interpretation of a wager. John Gillies, pursuer, entered into a wager with John Carmalt, defender, in which Carmalt bet that he could ride his mare from Glasgow to Dalkeith and back in one day. Gillies brought an action for payment, in which the Lord Ordinary found that Carmalt had thirty days remaining to perform the wager, and that he could lead his horse downhill. Gillies petitioned for reconsideration.
Gordon et al v. Abell 1792 Teinds, Augmentation, Interlocutor, Stipend, Valuation, Heritor The Duke of Gordon, the Trustees of Archibald Duff of Drummuir, and Alexander Milne of Chapelton petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The Reverend George Abell answered, arguing that the augmentation granted to him did not prejudice the heritors' rights.
Gordon of Cluny v. John Anderson 1801 Lease, Damages, Interlocutor, Tack, Sequestration, Arrestment Lieutenant-Colonel John Gordon of Cluny raised an action of damages against John Anderson and others, seeking reparation for their failure to use the fodder of the way-going crop in accordance with lease regulations. The defenders lodged additional defences maintaining that the action was incompetent, and subsequently argued that the pursuer had no equitable claim for straw lost due to interdict and that they were entitled to be assoilzied. The litigation concerned the application of lease regulations to the fodder of the last crop following a House of Lords judgment on the interpretation of the lease.
Gordon v. Kissock 1785 Landlord & Tenant, Rent, Tack, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Aliment Robert Gordon, the proprietor of Threave Grange, and John Kissock, a tacksman there, agreed that Kissock would renounce his existing tack and accept a new, smaller tack. The parties later negotiated for Kissock to renounce the substitute tack. They entered into arbitration concerning the price at which he would do so, and a decree arbitral was pronounced. After Gordon refused to turn over the amount established by the decree, Kissock charged him for payment. Gordon applied for a suspension, arguing that the charge should be offset by certain claims he made against Kissock.
Gordon v. Traill 1832 Debt, Creditor, Interest, Trust, Lease, Interlocutor William Gordon and others, as pursuers, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Mackenzie in their action against the defender Traill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gourlay v. Glen 1786 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Interlocutor, Promissory note, Sequestration David Gourlay of Kipdarroch, Deputy-Collector of Supply for the County of Stirling, pursued William Glen regarding competing claims to funds held by John Campbell. The dispute concerned priority between Gourlay’s revenue claim and Glen’s claim to a debt due from John Price. Gourlay initially petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor sustaining Campbell’s defence against Glen; Glen subsequently petitioned to reverse Lord Swinton’s interlocutor decerning against him, and Gourlay answered, maintaining his priority over the consigned funds.
Grant v. Duffus 1777 Debt, Bankruptcy, Rent, Aliment, Teinds, Interlocutor In the action between Grant, as pursuer, and Duffus, as defender, the Magistrates, Town Council, and Community of Glasgow petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor regarding the rate of impost on twopenny and small beer charged to brewers at Anderstoun. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gray v. Methven's Interlocutor 1795 Aliment, Prescription, Creditor, Debt, Succession, Interlocutor William Chambers petitioned the Court to remit the sheriff's interlocutor that held him liable for the aliment and expenses of Jean Wightman's child. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Halliday v. Craig's Interlocutor 1793 Tack, Interlocutor, Lease, Aliment, Succession, Heritor William Robertson petitioned the Court on behalf of Halliday to alter Lord Craig’s recent interlocutor against Messrs Riddell and Mr Davidson. The respondents opposed the removal petition, arguing that the lease allowed Ravenscroft to retake possession at Whitsunday after majority with nine months’ notice.
Hamilton v. Cunningham 1792 Debt, Bill of Exchange, Insurance, Prescription, Interlocutor, Creditor John Hamilton of Barns pursued Sir William Cunningham of Robertland, Baronet, and William Campbell of Fairfield, as representatives of the deceased Sir William Cunningham and William Campbell, together with William Ballantyne and James Hunter, for debts which the defenders contended were barred by prescription. Hamilton petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against an Inner-House interlocutor, and after the defenders answered, a report maintained that the defenders' books showed debts still owing despite the prescription plea. Hamilton subsequently answered the defenders' petition maintaining that his claims remained valid.
Hamilton v. Hunter and Co. 1782 Contract, Insurance, Interlocutor, Action, Debt, Bill of Exchange This case was about the purchase of an insurance policy by a broker. Robert Hunter and Company, in Saltcoats, asked James Hamilton, an insurance broker in Glasgow, to procure an insurance policy for a ship sailing to the Firth of Clyde. Hunter and Co. specified that the policy should not cost more than eight guineas per cent. However, Hamilton was unable to find insurance at this price, so he procured a policy at nine guineas per cent, paying the difference himself. He then wrote Hunter and Co. to inform them of the action he had taken. In the letter, Hamilton stated that if Hunter and Co. did not approve of the policy, they could have it vacated by sending a return letter "in course of post." Hunter and Co. wrote back two days later to reject the policy; in the meantime, the ship in question had arrived safely. Hamilton sued for payment of the premium. In response, Hunter and Co. argued that their rejection of the policy was valid.
Hamilton v. Scott 1797 Jurisdiction, Aliment, Interlocutor, Arrestment, Debt, Libel The Reverend John Scott petitioned against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Methven. Thomas Hamilton, Treasurer for the Poor of Avondale, answered the petition, asserting that the justices of the peace had jurisdiction and that the decree was regular.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 2572)