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
Ramsay, et al v. Smith 1798 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Aliment, Interlocutor John Ramsay, Alexander Anderson, John Niven, and Andrew Simpson, heritors of the parish of Bourtie, presented a second reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The Reverend William Smith answered the petition, and subsequently lodged duplies in which he also asked the Court to alter the interlocutor. The parties thus submitted successive pleadings regarding the alteration of the interlocutor.
Reid v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor 1794 Advocation, Test, Debt, Action, Interlocutor, Sheriff James Reid, as pursuer, petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Craig. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Richardson and Co v. Stoner, Hunter, and Ker 1783 Jettison, Debt, Aliment, Insurance, Interlocutor, Fraud This case was about apportioning liability for a cargo of salmon that was partially jettisoned and partially sold for a lower-than-expected price before reaching its planned destination. The owners of the salmon raised an action for damages against their underwriters, as well as the merchants who sold the salmon and the shipmaster-owner of the vessel; they argued that the shipmaster lacked authority to make the sale. The underwriters argued that although the relevant policy covered the jettisoned cargo, it did not apply to a partial loss such as the allegedly premature sale.
Richardson and Tait v. Thomson 1775 Debt, Assignment, Interlocutor, Oath, Representation, Assignation David Thomson of Ingliston, defender, granted a bond to James Thomson, who conveyed shares of the bond to many different assignees. Several of these assignees made further assignments, and the pursuers, John Richardson and John Tait, came to possess a four-sixths share of the bond. Richardson and Tait sued David Thomson for payment. In the ensuing process, Thomson alleged that Tait and Richardson were merely trustees for certain assignees whom he had already paid. In response, Richardson and Tait claimed to be Thomson’s rightful creditors, having exchanged ready money for shares that the earlier assignees were unable to collect. Richardson and Tait also argued that David Thomson had missed a deadline for continuing to contest the case.
Riddell v. Hope 1796 Lease, Tack, Rent, Possession, Adjudication, Interlocutor Sir James Riddell pursued Robert Hope, petitioning the Court to find the defender not entitled to damages and to remit the cause to the Sheriff simpliciter. Hope subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
Riddell v. King 1796 Debt, Creditor, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Trustee, Representation Sir James Riddell of Ardnamurchan and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had found them personally liable for a debt due by the deceased Mrs Paterson, explaining that they had not yet recovered any executry funds. The deceased’s executors subsequently petitioned for permission to delay further the recovery of those funds, despite admitting liability and acknowledging that ample estate assets remained available.
Ritchie v. Patersons 1794 Succession, Aliment, Interlocutor, Liferent, Debt, Jus Relictæ Agnes Ritchie pursued the Patersons for one-fifth of her grandfather John Paterson’s moveable estate under his settlement, seeking to claim the share notwithstanding her mother’s predecease. The defenders maintained that she was entitled only to one-fifth of the dead’s part of the estate rather than one-fifth of the whole personal estate.
Robb v. Bogg 1794 Interlocutor, Agent, Clerks of Session, Mala Fides, Suspension, Act of Parliament In Robb v. Bogg, Thomas M'Grugar petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had turned a null decree into a libel and ordered him to plead the merits. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robert Armour v. James Young 1774 Contract, Debt, Sale, Interlocutor, Aliment, Fraud Defender James Young ordered a quantity of superfine black cloth from pursuer Robert Armour, who routinely sold fabric at fixed prices on behalf of a merchant in Worcester. Armour claimed that the parcel of cloth that was delivered to Young included an invoice specifying the price. However, Young refused to pay that price, and Armour brought suit before the magistrates of Glasgow. Young objected that he never agreed to a particular price, and further claimed that coarse cloth was delivered to him instead of superfine cloth. The magistrates admitted proof regarding the price of the disputed articles, and Armour appealed. The Lord Ordinary not only affirmed the price-related proof, but also directed that proof be allowed regarding whether or not Young had “complained of the bad quality of the cloth recently after delivery thereof.” Armour once again sought review, arguing that the case should be decided based on questions of law.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Lieutenant-General James Grant of Ballindalloch 1790 Freeholder, Possession, Election contest, Proof, Interlocutor, Wadset Robert Home-Gordon of Embo, George M'Kay of Bighouse, and other freeholders of Sutherland pursued Lieutenant-General James Grant of Ballindalloch to expunge him from the county roll of freeholders on the ground that his qualification rested upon a nominal and fictitious possession of wadset lands in the county. The pursuers alleged that Grant had not truly possessed the lands of Navidale since Whitsunday 1789 as required, while Grant defended his enrollment by asserting continuous possession from that date and denying any change in circumstances warranting removal. The litigation proceeded through successive pleadings, proof regarding payment and stewardship of the wadset lands, and repeated petitions by both sides to alter interlocutors or enlarge the record, with Robert Grant of Elchies also becoming enmeshed in the dispute over similar allegations of nominal qualification and electoral solicitation.
Robert Wark v. William Wotherspoon 1830 Expenses, Assignation, Tack, Rent, Interlocutor, Irritancy William Wotherspoon sought suspension of a decree obtained by Robert Wark ordering him to pay £9, 13s. 5½d. and extract dues. Wotherspoon defended the suspension on the ground that an assignation of lease from Mr Young was necessary for debt recovery, while denying Wark’s allegations of arrears and encroachment. He subsequently lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to recall the interlocutor and suspend the letters simpliciter, and obtained an additional appendix allowing him to print the defences, replies, condescendence, and answers from the inferior court process.
Ross v. Forbes, Hunter, and Company 1792 Agent, Interlocutor, Insurance, Creditor, Debt, Statute Donald Ross petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in an action against Forbes, Hunter, and Company regarding liability for damages. The defenders answered petitions by Catharine Ross and Alexander Mackenzie by arguing that they were not liable because the broker and underwriters were directly responsible. The litigation thus turned on whether the defenders could avoid liability by attributing responsibility to these third parties.
Ross, et al. v. Aglianby 1796 Debt, Terce, Jus Relictæ, Deed, Succession, Interlocutor Ross and others pursued Aglianby in a dispute over estate distribution involving competing claims to terce and conventional provisions. Mrs Lowthian challenged an interlocutor voiding her conventional provisions and sought to retain funds and claim terce from her late husband's estate, prompting the respondents to answer regarding the exclusion of terce and the effect of obligations to George Mackenzie's trustees. Mrs Sarah Aglianby subsequently petitioned the court to alter its recent interlocutor respecting her own claim to terce from her husband's Scottish lands.
Scotlands v. Thomson 1775 Defamation, Aliment, Election contest, Interlocutor, Creditor, Libel John, Robert, and David Scotland sought damages from James Thomson, minister of Dunfermline, after Thomson preached two sermons accusing them of lying and corruption in connection with the Dunfermline election. Thomson claimed that it was his duty to censure wrongful behavior, and that the second sermon was justified by a provocative letter to the editor written by Robert Scotland.
Scott v. Steuart 1795 Interlocutor, Servitude, Property, Debt, Action, Arrestment William Scott petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor of the Lord Justice Clerk regarding David Steuart. Steuart answered the procurator-fiscal's argument that his necessary-house constituted a public nuisance. Scott subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Steuart concerning the latter's obligation to clean a ditch adjoining a public road.
Scott v. Stonefield's Interlocutor 1793 Interlocutor, Caution, Possession, Suspension, Security
Scrimgeour and Son v. Alexander and Sons 1769 Contract, Affreightment, Ships, Interlocutor, Proof, Reduction In March 1765, Edinburgh merchants Alexander & Sons contracted with the Borrowstounness merchant house of James Scrimgeour & Son to freight the ship the Duke of Athol for a voyage to Grenada—after considering a trip to Maryland or Virginia—with a cargo of herring, staves, and green linens. Due to a variety of accidents, the ship did not make it to Grenada until after the end of sugar season. Having no sugar to collect and bring back to Scotland, the agent at Grenada for Alexander & Sons convinced the ship’s captain to sail for (North) Carolina. Within days of the ship’s arrival in Wilmington, protests broke out over the Stamp Act, delaying the ship’s loading and departure for months. When the Duke of Athol finally returned to Leith, Alexander & Sons brought a legal dispute against James Scrimgeour & Son over the respective financial obligations of the parties due to the ship's delay.
Scrimgeour and Son v. Alexander and Sons 1772 Adjudication, Affreightment, Interlocutor, Oath, Reduction, Interest Documents available. Rich description in progress.
Shepherd v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1787 Arrestment, Interlocutor, Cautioner, Debt, Sequestration, Citation James Shepherd petitioned the Court to remit the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors pronounced against him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Shiells v. Bayne 1788 Adjudication, Sasine, Interlocutor, Diligence, Exhibition, Reduction John Shiells, Helen Waldie Carrier, and James Breaden, as pursuers, presented a reclaiming petition against an interlocutor issued by Lord Dunfinnan in their action against Bayne, the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Shiells v. Lord Duncan's Interlocutor 1788 Suspension, Reduction, Citation, Interlocutor, Caution, Exhibition Shiells, as petitioners, challenged Lord Dunfinnan’s interlocutor, arguing that a suspender could proceed as pursuer without awaiting the charger’s mora and that a late protestation could not invalidate prior steps. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Simpson v. Malcolm 1793 Debt, Interlocutor, Aliment, Creditor, Partnership, Citation Captain William Simpson of Brunton pursued John Malcolm, butcher in Dunnikier, in a dispute involving allegations of partnership and challenges to interlocutory orders. Simpson petitioned to overturn Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor suspending the letters simpliciter, prompting Malcolm to answer and deny the partnership while citing procedural irregularities. Malcolm subsequently petitioned to alter the Inner-House interlocutor, to which Simpson replied by raising claims of prescription and improper citation.
Simsons v. Nasmyth 1797 Lease, Tack, Possession, Rent, Interlocutor, Locus Poenitentiae William and Walter Simsons petitioned against Lord Ankerville's interlocutors to assert their right to possess the lands of Easter Dawick and Newholmhope under a minute of tack. Sir James Nasmyth rejected their claim, contending that the alleged lease rested upon an unsigned and undated offer deficient in essential terms, and further alleging that the tenants' misconduct warranted their removal.
Sir James Grant v. Simon Fraser 1785 Debt, Adjudication, Cautioner, Interlocutor, Multiple-Poinding, Security Sir James Grant of Grant, Baronet, as pursuer, petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his case against Simon Fraser, the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Skirving and Young v. Vernor 1796 Tack, Lease, Rent, Teinds, Interlocutor, Heritor Skirving and Young, as tenants of Monktonhall lands under the Earl of Wemyss, claimed a proportional share of the church seats in Inveresk parish against Vernor, who asserted that his title to the aisle derived from a direct and express missive of 1763. The pursuers sought to compel a division of the seats, while the defender argued that they possessed no legal right to enforce such a partition. The case turned on whether tenants could claim proportional seating against an express title and compel division of the church accommodation.
Smart v. Beattie 1771 Aliment, Sasine, Tack, Interlocutor, Thirlage, Suspension In Smart v. Beattie, Alexander Smart, James Croal and his Curators, and David and John Croals petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding thirlage obligations at the mill of Halkerton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Smart v. Interlocutor of Court 1793 Hypothec, Debt, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy, Collusion, Contract John Smart presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Smith v. Baker 1772 Debt, Adjudication, Contract, Interlocutor, Damages, Aliment Messrs Alexander and John Smiths and Company, merchants in Aberdeen, and Francis Baker, manufacturer at Turriff, disputed the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors regarding damages for waste lees. The Smiths petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor awarding damages to Baker, while Baker petitioned to alter the interlocutor refusing his claim for damages and costs. The Smiths subsequently answered Baker's petition.
Smith v. Procurator Fiscal 1795 Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Statute Smith pursued the Procurator Fiscal to challenge the Justices of the Peace's prohibition on fares charged by the postmasters. The postmasters argued that the justices lacked jurisdiction to regulate their charges and that economic hardship entitled them to increase rates according to market conditions. They initially submitted a memorial asserting these claims and subsequently petitioned the Court of Session to overturn the fare ban on grounds of jurisdictional overreach.
Sommerville v. Weir 1781 Bill (Financial Instrument), Prescription, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Factor Charger James Sommerville sued William Weir for payment of a bill accepted by William's late father, George Weir. William challenged the suit based on the sexennial prescription (i.e., the statute of limitations). Sommerville argued that the prescription did not apply because it had been interrupted by partial payments or, alternatively, by the acknowledgements of William's agents.
Stein v. Marshall 1803 Proof, Bankruptcy, Defamation, Debt, Aliment, Interlocutor After he obtained a discharge from his creditors, the pursuer brought an action against James Marshall, alleging that he had defamed the pursuer’s character. The defendant sustained that the pursuer was fraudulently bankrupt and thus, he affirmed that the pursuer's creditors were defrauded. The pursuer's petition was refused, because he based his claim on a private conversation between the defendant and Robert Jaimeson, one of his creditors. The Court held that conversation was not relevant to prove the claim of the pursuer.
Stewart v. Graham 1782 Impress Service, Slavery and enslaved people, Freedom suits, Enslaved people named as property, Adjudication, Interlocutor This case addressed whether a standard press-warrant, which authorized the impressment of seamen, applied to a man who had worked aboard ships while enslaved. The man in question, James Graham, accompanied a slaveholder on voyages between Scotland and the Caribbean, performing duties such as steering and reefing. However, when Graham’s enslavement ended, he became apprenticed to Grant, Wood, and Company, a carpet manufacturing company in Glasgow. The petitioner in this case, Lieutenant William Stewart, subsequently attempted to press Graham into naval service based on his sailing experience. Grant, Wood, and Company petitioned the magistrates of Glasgow to prevent Graham’s impressment, and Graham appeared on his own behalf. After allowing the parties to gather proof, the magistrates found that Graham could not be impressed because he did not voluntarily choose a seafaring life. Lieutenant Stewart appealed to the Court of Session.
Stewart v. Magistrates and Town Council of St. Andrews 1792 Election contest, Suspension, Reduction, Interdict, Election, Interlocutor Robert Stewart, claiming to be the duly elected Deacon of the Incorporation of Wrights in St Andrews, petitioned the Court to set aside the election of John Edie and declare his own title valid, alleging that Edie’s election was voided by a court interdict and insufficient legal votes. The Magistrates and Town Council of St Andrews defended Edie’s election as lawful and accused Stewart of unlawful usurpation of the office. The litigation proceeded through successive petitions and answers, with Stewart additionally moving the Court to alter interlocutors regarding expenses and other procedural orders.
Stobie v. Scotland 1786 Tack, Interlocutor, Aliment, Lease, Possession, Sasine John Stobie, a writer in Edinburgh, petitioned the Court to overturn a sheriff’s interlocutor that had absolved John Scotland, tenant in Lufcar, from the complaint. The dispute concerned legal objections to a holograph agreement. Scotland answered the petition, responding to the pursuer’s challenges to the instrument.
Sutherland v. Caledonian Society of Edinburgh 1797 Jurisdiction, Arbitration, Interlocutor, Libel, Statute, Expenses John Sutherland, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to remit the interlocutor of Lord Glenlee dismissing his action against the Caledonian Society of Edinburgh, the defender, for wrongful expulsion and denial of burial money. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
The Heritors and Kirk-Session of the Parish of Dalmellington v. The Magistrates, Minister and Kirk-Session of Irvine 1800 Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor, Domicile, Parish, Succession This case determined which of three parishes—Irvine, Dalrymple, or Dalmellington—was required to provide for the maintenance of James Wallace, an insane pauper. The statutory obligation to aliment certain persons was assigned to parishes based on residency. However, Wallace was an itinerant worker, complicating the analysis. Before losing the ability to support himself, Wallace had been a dance master who spent winters in the town of Irvine but traveled in the summer to teach. He spent his early years in Dalrymple and later went to Dalmellington, where he was employed for a time. More than a dozen witnesses from the three parishes testified about Wallace’s whereabouts over the course of his life, giving sometimes contradictory evidence. The court found that the parish of Irvine was liable, comparing Wallace to tradesmen who travel to seek work in the summer.
The Society of Solicitors before the Court of Session, &c v. The Keeper, Commissioners, and Society of Clerks to the Signet 1799 Interlocutor, Agent, Libel, Debt, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange In 1796, the Society of Clerks (Writers) to the Signet passed a regulation increasing their fees for various writs. The Society also enacted rules designed to exclude other practitioners from privileges claimed by the Clerks. The Society of Solicitors of the Court of Session, an incorporated group of agents, filed a complaint against the new regulations.
Thomas Stoddart v. M'Quan, Beck, and Company 1779 Foreign Merchant, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Action, Bankruptcy Around 1765 MacWhan, Beck, and Company participated in a number of smuggling adventures with Currie, Park, and Company. In 1768, David Currie pressed upon John Beck to accept a bill for £163 on the account kept between the two companies while carrying out their illegal activity. Currie, Beck, and Company later endorsed the bill to Thomas Stothart (Stoddart), who brought action against MacWhan, Beck, and Company for payment. The case came before Lord Auchinleck, and the petitioners argued that they had merely accepted the bill as a favor, and that it was cancelled out by sums they had earlier advanced. Lord Auchinleck ruled in their favor. The defenders appealed, arguing that the bill was tied to smuggled goods. They took note of the Court's recent decision in MacClure and MacCree v. Paterson, but Auchinleck again rejected their arguments. MacWhan, Beck, and Company then applied to the Court, arguing again that the bill was for an amount not actually owed, which had been spent in implement of a smuggling contract. The pursuer replied that the bill itself was proof that the sum was indeed owed, and that as foreign merchants they had merely engaged in free commerce abroad. The Court determined that a bill associated with smuggling could not be enforced, and ruled in favor of the defenders.
Thomson v. Scott 1780 Rent, Arrestment, Hypothec, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Factor Documents available. For description in progress.
Tod and Stoddart v. The Town of Edinburgh, and the Edinburgh Glass-house Company 1793 Feu, Charter, Property, Prescription, Tack, Interlocutor Tod and Stoddart pursued the Town of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh Glasshouse Company to block the Company’s proposed alteration of the road to the sands of Leith, arguing that the change would deprive them of access and injure public uses. The defenders maintained that the ground was validly feu’d for their use and not prejudicial to others, while the Justices of Peace of the County of Edinburgh supported the pursuers in insisting that public access to the sands could not be narrowed. Following an interlocutor of 4 July 1793, the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Glasshouse Company petitioned the Court to alter that order, and the Justices of Peace answered in opposition.
Walker v. Interlocutor 1802 Interlocutor, Alter, Bankruptcy The pursuer acted as agent of Smith, Johnstone and Company in Glasgow to buy some goods on its behalf. After one of the partners of the company died, it fell into a disorder and became bankrupt. Mr. Walker was appointed attorney to represent the company before the creditors’ meeting. The pursuer proposed certain measures to protect the creditors of Smith, Johnstone and Company; however, the agents of the creditors refused them. Then, the creditors agents wrote letters to discredit Mr. Walker. Therefore, he submitted an action against some creditors, as well as Mr. John Shiels and Robert Graeme, to recover damages incurred by their misrepresentations and illegal and oppressive acts. In the meanwhile, the pursuer entered into bankruptcy, so he brought the present petition to the lordship to modify the interlocutors with regards to his situation, to allow him to continue with the action of damages without the concurrence of the trustee and his creditors, and to submit some proof of the acts.
Walter Colquhoun v. Duke of Argyle 1766 Debt, Bill of Exchange, Prescription, Interlocutor, Creditor, Heritor Pursuer Walter Colquhoun sought payment of a bill that was allegedly owed to his father by the father of defender John Campbell, Duke of Argyll. Campbell raised a defense based on his status as heir of inventory, which meant that his liability was limited to the value of the estate. He also argued that the action was precluded by the bill's age.
Wemyss v. Hope 1792 Lease, Tack, Interlocutor, Interdict, Res judicata, Arrestment Francis Charteris, Earl of Wemyss, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Ankerville's interlocutor in his action against Sir Archibald Hope concerning coal rights in Woolmet and Hill. Hope answered, disputing Wemyss's arguments on the merits of the coal rights, and separately petitioned to alter the same interlocutor insofar as it repelled his objection of *res judicata*. The litigation thus involved competing petitions to alter the interlocutory judgment, presenting both substantive questions of mineral rights and procedural questions of claim preclusion.
White v. Innerhouse Interlocutor 1801 Aliment, Interlocutor, Creditor, Sheriff, Debt, Succession Mary Tait, spouse of William White, answered the petition of George White by asserting that the grandfather was legally liable to support his granddaughter during the father's absence. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
White v. Stalker and M'Ra 1788 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Interlocutor, Cautioner, Creditor John White petitioned to alter the interlocutor regarding the intromissions and discharge of John Stalker, the tutor who died in 1779, insisting upon his own posthumous call. Poor Isobel Stalker and Mary M'Ra answered, responding to the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor upon defects in the tutor’s accounts and inventory.
William Gilmour and Others v. William Finnie and Benjamin Greig 1832 Expenses, Assignation, Credit, Interest, Suspension, Interlocutor William Finnie and Benjamin Greig, defenders in the action raised by William Gilmour and others, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Corehouse. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
William Robertson v. David Miller 1781 Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Tack, Interlocutor In the case between William Robertson, pursuer, and David Miller, defender, William Craig petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Kames Ordinary, which had found him liable for expenses. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Williamson v. Hay 1832 Trustees, Assignees, Title, Expenses, Interlocutor, Action Alexander Williamson, the pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter its interlocutor which found no expenses due to either party. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Wilson and Company v. Hamilton and Company 1772 Debt, Agent, Sell of goods, Arrestment, Interlocutor, Libel James Wilson and Company of Kilmarnock manufactured woolen carpets for sale in London. Since 1762, Malcolm Hamilton and Company had served as James Wilson & Company's London agent . The dispute related to a large quantity of James Wilson & Company's carpets left in a wharf cellar in London for five years. James Wilson & Company argued that because of Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's negligence it suffered some loss. The pursuer claimed that the carpets had been significantly damaged due to Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's neglect. The defender disputed these claims.
Woddrop v. Finlay 1793 Decreet-Arbitral, Tack, Arbitration, Interlocutor, Reduction, Debt John Finlay, defender, answered the petition of William Woddrop, pursuer, arguing that the interlocutor should not be altered and that the arbiters’ explanation was necessary to ascertain material justice. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 2572)