Legal Subject: Jurisdiction

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Aitken and Others v. Wilson and Bannatyne	1779	Birly court, Jurisdiction, Riot	This case was about a “birly court”: a voluntary association of small proprietors and tenants that regulated property lines and common pasturages in their neighborhood. The birly court in Elsrighill (Elsrickle) levied a fine on one of its members, John Wilson. When Wilson refused to pay, the court’s elected officers seized two of his pewter plates. Wilson complained to the sheriff of Lanarkshire, alleging that the birly court lacked authority to take such an action. The sheriff-substitute, John Bannatyne, found that the officers were guilty of a riot and had them detained. In response, the officers sued both Wilson and Bannatyne for wrongful imprisonment.
Countess of Loudon, and Others v. The Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire	1792	Jurisdiction, Trustees, Appeal, Sequestration, Act of Parliament, Adjudication	The Countess of Loudoun and others pursued the Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire regarding the proposed suppression of the road by Crawfordland-bridge, while the Trustees and associated justices of the peace defended the road's continued operation. The Trustees initially challenged the Court's jurisdiction to review their proceedings, then argued in subsequent pleadings that the road served public convenience and must be kept open. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies contesting both the Court's authority to intervene and whether the road should remain open or be suppressed.
Craig and Hyslop v. Spence, et al	1793	Insurance, Ships, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Evidence, Jettison	James Craig and William Hyslop pursued John Spence and other Edinburgh underwriters for a partial loss on a cargo of wheat, petitioning the Court to address an interlocutor that had found the underwriters liable. The defenders answered, denying that the vessel had stranded and contending that the damage did not constitute general average. Hislop subsequently petitioned the Court regarding the policy’s exclusion of average loss for perishable goods and the applicability of the stranding exception to the loss.
Cunningham and Simpson v. Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith	1795	Debt, Arrestment, Statute, Common Law, Contract, Jurisdiction	Cunningham and Simpson petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Dreghorn, Ordinary on the bills, which had refused a bill of suspension in the matter of apprentices Dowie, Stewart, and Drysdale. They subsequently sought suspension of the judgment and interdict against Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith, and their officers, regarding the levying and carrying away of apprentices Dowie and Stewart.
Cunynghame v. Watson	1788	Jurisdiction, Freeholder, Retour, Charter, Sasine, Tax	Sir William Augustus Cunynghame petitioned the Court to overturn the freeholders' interlocutor admitting Charles Watson as a freeholder, challenging whether the heritable bailie office and lands qualified Watson for that status. David Williamson answered for the defender, responding to Cunynghame's objections regarding the extent of the office and lands.
Dame Robina Pollock, Spouse to Sir Hugh Crawford, and Sir Hugh, for his Interest v. Mary Porterfield, Widow of John Lockhart of Lee	1777	Jurisdiction, Female Succession, England	In 1708, an Act of Parliament was passed enabling Dorothy Luckyn and James Lockhart to sell some lands the former had inherited. Upon their deaths the money from the sale was held in trust on behalf of their young heir, John Lockhart. Rather than petition the Court of Chancery to remove the tailzie from the trust, Lockhart's trustee, Robina Lockhart, removed the money to Scotland and conveyed it to her pupil upon his coming of age. When John Lockhart died a number of decades later his unentailed estate passed to his wife, Mary. John Lockhart's niece and her husband then brought action against Mary Lockhart and other trust-disponees, claiming the above-mentioned money as heirs of entail. They argued that the money in question still remained entailed under English law. The defenders, on the other hand, argued that the trust-money, having been removed to Scotland and conveyed to Lockhart, was therefore a sum of money belonging to him. Furthermore, they argued that even if there had originally been a case against the trustee's actions, it was no longer viable due to the negative prescription. To support this second argument, the defenders cited the Court's decision on Boyd Porterfield of Porterfield v. Joanna, Margaret, and Lilias Porterfields. The Court of Session determined that the negative prescription had cut out the claim of the substitute heirs, and the House of Lords upheld this decision.
Duncan Davidson and Charles Graham v. John Fraser and his Attornies	1798	Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Adjudication	Duncan Davidson and Charles Graham challenged an interlocutor dismissing their bond claim against George Gun Munro, contending that an English bankruptcy commission had not transferred their debt to assignees for enforcement in Scotland. They subsequently answered a petition by John Fraser, responding to the Court's interlocutor on questions of creditor ranking and the validity of diligence.
Forbes v. Magistrates of Canongate	1791	Arrestment, Debt, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Cautioner, Oath	Archibald Forbes, creditor of Alexander Robertson, pursued the Magistrates of Canongate for unlawfully releasing Robertson from imprisonment for debt, alleging the liberation contravened the 1671 Act because the health certificate was unsworn and granted unrestricted liberty. The magistrates answered that they had not breached the act, maintaining that Robertson’s health had been sufficiently established by certificates on soul and conscience.
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.
Home, et al v. Macknight	1797	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Fraud	The Common Agent in the Locality of Roxburgh filed answers on behalf of Macknight, defender, responding to objections by James Home of Carlfide and other pursuers to interlocutors concerning teind valuation and victual allocation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hugh Baillie and Archibald M'Harg v. John Bland	1772	Suspension, Jurisdiction	Actor George Anne Bellamy granted four promissory notes to pursuer Hugh Baillie but failed to make timely payments. Subsequently, Bellamy and actor West Digges granted Baillie a bond of corroboration, promising to pay the accumulated debt. Bellamy and Digges again failed to make all necessary payments, and Digges was charged with horning. Digges obtained a suspension of the charge, but while the suit was pending, Digges went to England, where Baillie had him arrested. Digges, Baillie, and defender John Bland then entered into an agreement in which Digges and Bland agreed to pay the remaining debt. Bland granted Baillie two notes for 50 l. each, but payment was refused on one of them. Baillie protested the note, and Bland brought a bill of suspension. Bland argued that Baillie’s decision to effect Digges’s imprisonment constituted contempt of the Scottish Court. He also argued that the agreement among Digges, Bland, and Baillie was obtained metu carceris—that is, in fear of prison—and therefore was not actionable at law.
James Henderson v. William Scott	1792	Arrestment, Sequestration, Aliment, Interlocutor, Jurisdiction, Damages	James Henderson raised an action against William Scott, alleging that the defender had unlawfully detained his property and imprisoned him without warrant. Scott, acting in his capacity as Procurator-Fiscal, laid an information contending that the defender had acted unlawfully in detaining a ring found in Berwick.
James Turnbull and Malcolm Macdonald v. Sir George Home, Baronet	1793	Jurisdiction, Suspension, Arrestment, Proof, Sequestration, Interdict	James Turnbull and Malcolm Macdonald, as suspenders, sought to compel their bound apprentice Alexander M'Kenzie to return to service and argued that he could not legally enter His Majesty's Fleet as a volunteer. Sir George Home, Baronet, maintained that a seaman formerly apprenticed to a slater might lawfully serve in the Fleet notwithstanding the opposition of his former masters. The dispute turned on whether an apprentice bound to a slater could voluntarily enter naval service or remained subject to his masters' claim for specific performance of the indenture.
Lamont v. Ewing	1792	Arrestment, Debt, Jurisdiction, Theft, Sequestration, Aliment	Thomas Ewing, defender, petitioned the Court to overturn the interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk, which found the water-bailie of Glasgow competent to hear the pursuer Lamont’s civil action for stolen goods. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
M'Crackan v. Pulline	1775	Jurisdiction	James M'Cracken, suspender, agreed to pay Richard Pulline, charger, for allowing twenty-five cattle to graze on Pulline's land. M'Cracken subsequently refused to pay on the ground that the cattle were inadequately fed. Pulline brought an action for payment before the justices of the peace, who found in his favor. M'Cracken then obtained a suspension, arguing that the justices lacked jurisdiction and that his contract with Pulline was explicitly conditioned on the cattle being given sufficient fodder.
M'Culloch v. Allan	1792	Presbytery, Jurisdiction, Appeal, Teinds, Advocation, Interlocutor	M'Culloch, as pursuer, argued that the trial and censure of schoolmasters belonged to the civil courts rather than ecclesiastical presbyteries. He subsequently maintained that sentences of presbyteries regarding schoolmasters were subject to review by ecclesiastical courts alone. Allan, as defender, contended that the presbytery's jurisdiction over schoolmasters was subject to review only in superior Church judicatories and not in the Court of Session.
Macindoe v. Cowley, Wallace, Crawford, and French	1777	Military, Optima Fide, Jurisdiction, Mala Fides, Damages, Wrongful imprisonment, Freemasonry	This case concerns the forced enlistment and imprisonment for desertion of John Macindoe, Glasgow hair-dresser. In February of 1777, while in a drunken state, John Macindoe pledged himself to the army in exchange for a shilling from Ensign Hugh Wallace. A few weeks later, upon the order of Captain William Cowley, Macindoe was seized by a group of soldiers and imprisoned for refusing to enlist. Macindoe applied to the Court by a bill of suspension and liberation, and Lords Covington and Kennet ordered Macindoe set at liberty. Macindoe then brought action for damages and expenses against Wallace and Cowley, and against the bailies who had ordered his imprisonment. He claimed that his false imprisonment had led to the ruin of his business, and that he had been forced to enlist in another regiment out of necessity. Bailies French and Crawfurd, on the other hand, argued that because Macindoe was presently a soldier, therefore "the only consequence of his not being found a soldier in one regiment, was, that he would soon be a soldier in another.” They also argued that as bailies they had merely judged erroneously, and not acted out of malice. The Court assoilzied Crawfurd and French, as well as Cowley. Ensign Wallace then petitioned the Court for assoilment as well, stating that he had "innocently and bona fide" believed that Macindoe's enlistment was legitimate.
Margaret Scruton v. John Gray	1772	Marriage, Jurisdiction, Alimony	Gray, defender, was a native of Cork, Ireland who attended university in Scotland. Scruton, pursuer, claimed that she and Gray married in Glasgow while he was attending college there. Scruton sought a "decree of declarator" from the Commissary Court of Edinburgh to find them to be husband and wife. (Commissary Courts were established in Scotland in the 1560s and had exclusive jurisdiction in marriage and divorce cases.) Scruton also sought alimony from Gray. Gray denied that any marriage took place. There was no public solemnization of the marriage, nor any cohabitation as husband and wife. According to Gray, there was only a "private interview" between the two. Gray also denied that the Commissary Court of Edinburgh has jurisdiction over him since he was a foreigner.
Marquis of Abercorn v. The Magistrates of Edinburgh	1792	Tack, Interlocutor, Suspension, Jurisdiction, Lease, Rent	The Marquis of Abercorn pursued the Magistrates of Edinburgh for damages, alleging that their diversion of Braid's Burn had injured his water and mills, and sought to join his claim to an existing damages action raised by William Laing. The Magistrates responded that the Marquis lacked standing to claim indemnification under the 1785 water statute without first exhausting the process before a sheriff's jury.
Marshall v. Youngson	1798	Procurator, Court of Session, Agent, Interlocutor, Clerks of Session, Jurisdiction	James Marshall, Writer to the Signet, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor respecting the offices held by Alexander Youngson. Youngson answered, defending his concurrent practice as procurator before the High Court of Admiralty and Writer to the Signet on the ground that the two roles were not incompatible. The dispute turned on whether the office of Writer to the Signet could be held consistently with acting as a procurator in the Admiralty Court.
Michael M'Culloch v. William Allen	1791	Presbytery, Jurisdiction, Appeal, Heritor, Aliment, Statute	The Reverend Mr M'Culloch pursued William Allan, schoolmaster of Bothwell, regarding a Synod sentence that had found Allan unqualified for his office. Allan petitioned the Court to remit the sentence, and M'Culloch responded with information arguing that sentences of Presbyteries on schoolmasters were subject to review by superior ecclesiastical courts.
Moray, et al. v. Scott	1795	Teinds, Stipend, Communion Elements, Jurisdiction, Aliment, Interlocutor	Moray and his co-petitioners petitioned the Court to alter Lord Ankerville Ordinary's interlocutor allocating communion elements upon their lands, arguing that the allocation violated established law and the Court's own decree. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Petition of the Magistrates of Dunfermline	1793	Expenses, Jurisdiction, Alter, Prisoner, Sheriff, Courts
Rebecca Hog v. Thomas Hog	1791	Succession, Jurisdiction, Legitim., Debt, Aliment, Collation	Rebecca Hog pursued Thomas Hog of Newliston regarding an estate that included moveables situated in England, and Thomas answered that the Court might apply English law to those assets. After the Court pronounced an interlocutor, Thomas reclaimed and presented an additional petition, which Mrs Lashley and her husband answered by alleging that he had failed to comply with the order to furnish full states of the estate.
Robert Forsyth v. Hon. Henry Erskine and the Members of the Faculty of Advocates	1790	Faculty, Jurisdiction, Presbytery, Trial	Robert Forsyth petitioned for admission to trial, and Henry Erskine and the Members of the Faculty of Advocates responded that his ecclesiastical status disqualified him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Steuart v. Ramsden	1793	Sequestration, Penalty, Arrestment, Jurisdiction, Forfeiture, Debt	Steuart pursued Ramsden to remit the seizure of effects from the sequestrated premises of James Hill, contending that Ramsden's poinding of the goods was illegal. Hill separately sought remission of penalties and forfeiture awarded by the Edinburgh Justices of Peace for alleged accounting breaches, which Ramsden defended as clear statutory violations warranting the assessed amounts. Ferguson petitioned to challenge both the legality of Ramsden's poinding and the jurisdiction of the Justices to impose penalties beyond the statutory limit, while Ramsden additionally sought review of an interlocutor regarding preference over the poinded effects in Hill's bankruptcy.
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 Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh v. The Faculty of Advocates, and the Society of Writers to the Signet, in behalf of the College of Justice	1787	Jurisdiction, Aliment, Privilege, College of Justice, Tax, Debt	The Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh pursued the Faculty of Advocates and the Society of Writers to the Signet, acting on behalf of the College of Justice, for payment of poor's rates assessed upon the College. The suspenders maintained that the College enjoyed an established legal exemption from such assessments by virtue of statute, usage, and judicial acknowledgment, while the magistrates contended that no such privilege existed in law. Both parties submitted informations setting forth their respective positions on whether the College of Justice was liable to contribute to the maintenance of the city's poor.
The Procurator-Fiscal of the Town of Stirling v. John Gillies and Others	1793	Salmon Fishing, Jurisdiction, Act of Parliament, Tack, Trespass, Statute
Wilkins v. Campbell	1798	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Sequestration, Cautioner	Miss Elizabeth Wilkins pursued William Campbell, Sheriff-Clerk of Ayr, seeking to hold him liable for a debt on the ground that he had rendered himself responsible by accepting an illegal bond of caution for Edmund Kelly. Campbell defended by denying liability, citing irregular bail procedures and absence of malversation, and challenged the sufficiency of Reverend Jones’s affidavit while seeking to introduce his own account of the Dublin security transactions. Both parties subsequently petitioned the Court regarding an interlocutor—Wilkins concerning her entitlement to expenses and Campbell seeking its alteration—to which Wilkins and Quintin Johnston answered maintaining their position on the bond’s improper acceptance.