AI-transcribed

Frequently signifies deposition on oath; or affidavit. (See Reference to Oath.)

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: Oath

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Duncan, and Others v. The Magistrates of Aberdeen 1783 Debt, Adjudication, Tax, Interlocutor, Oath, Process The pursuers challenged a regulation passed by the magistrates of Aberdeen, which raised the dues required to become a burgess.
Alexander Grant v. Lewis Ray and others 1767 Election contest, Aliment, Corruption, Bribery, Interlocutor, Oath Sir Alexander Grant of Dalvey pursued Lewis Ray, Colonel Hector Munro, and other elected magistrates and counsellors of Fortrose, alleging that the Michaelmas 1766 election had been procured by bribery and corruption. The litigation involved repeated disputes over the competency of witnesses, as Grant sought to examine Colonel Munro and Captain William Douglas regarding electoral misconduct while the respondents petitioned against orders permitting testimony by Robert Logan and invoked privilege against self-incrimination. Grant also petitioned to prove that Douglas had fled the country to avoid examination, and the parties exchanged interrogatories, objections, and replies concerning the alleged corrupt practices.
Anstruther-Paterson v. Rutherfurd 1791 Election contest, Election, Oath, Aliment, Collusion, Feu duties Documents available Full description in progress.
Appendix for Durham 1791 Perjury, Witness, Trial, Oath The pursuers alleged that Alexander Durham perjured himself in a trial before the Circuit Court of Justiciary at Perth by falsely swearing that James Brown was present during Durham's examination. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Benson, &c. v. Stark, &c. 1793 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Tack, Interlocutor, Oath Reuben Benson, William Benson, John Murdoch, and John M'Pherson, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in their action against Stark and the other defenders. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbells v. Macneil 1798 Debt, Prescription, Execution, Bankruptcy, Oath, Citation Colin Campbell and Duncan Campbell junior, as trustees on the sequestrated estate of Alexander M'Corquodale, pursued John Macneil of Gigha to alter an interlocutor of Lord Armadale regarding an account libelled against him. Macneil answered, pleading that the account was prescribed and the execution false. The parties thereafter debated the proper interpretation of Macneil's oath and the validity of the citation.
Colvill v. M'Ewan 1793 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Proof, Jurisdiction, Oath Lieutenant George Colvill petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor finding him liable to M'Ewan for damages and expenses for allegedly harbouring an apprentice who absconded. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Craig v. Anderson 1776 Trustees, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Inhibition, Oath Joseph Heatly was an engineer who became insolvent before he could complete a projected coal-work outside of Glasgow. His estate being sequestered. His trustees put Heatly's funds and their own private capital into completing this coal work, projecting that the profits from the venture would more than pay back Heatly's debts and the expenses of its founding. John Anderson, one of Heatly's creditors, believed the trustees had neither the background nor the aptitude to manage a coal-work, and did not expect that this undertaking would result in him receiving the debt owed to him. He brought a summons and executed an inhibition against the trustees. In response the trustees petitioned the Court to have this inhibition suspended. Lord Kennet granted a sist (judicial stay) on the inhibition, "till the bill and answers should be advised." Because of this sist the inhibition was not recorded or executed within forty days, but the trustees feared that Anderson would file another one. They petitioned the Court to rule that Anderson could not execute an inhibition against the trustees of Heatly's estate. The Court dismissed this petition.
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 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.
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.
Douglas v. Carnegie 1782 Rent, Freeholder, Proof, Sasine, Infeftment, Oath George Carnegie of Pittarrow submitted answers to the petition and complaint of William Douglas of Bridgetown and Robert Graham of Fintray, Esquires, responding to their objections to his freeholder inrolment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Duff v. Fyfe 1796 Freeholder, Aliment, Succession, Election contest, Oath, Libel Patrick Duff of Carnousie, with concourse of His Majesty's Advocate, charged Lieutenant James Fyfe with perjury, alleging that Fyfe had falsely sworn to possessing a nominal and fictitious freehold qualification for parliamentary voting. Fyfe defended by arguing that the estate in question—a liferent superiority—constituted a true and real estate in law, and therefore was not nominal or fictitious for the purposes of qualifying to vote.
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.
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.
George Dalziel v. Lockhart of Cleghorn 1765 Rent, Lease, Tack, Arrestment, Oath, Decreet-Arbitral George Dalziel, innkeeper at Linton, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor in his dispute with Allan Lockhart of Cleghorn regarding a lease agreement. Lockhart answered, denying allegations of deception and false averments in the lease, and Dalziel replied defending his possession and disputing claims of fraud and misrepresentation.
High v. Main 1788 Election contest, Election, Oath, Corporation, Adjudication, Voting rights Thomas High and Robert Main contested the deaconship of the Kinghorn Weavers' Incorporation, Main having petitioned to alter the council's decision admitting High to the office in his place. The central question was whether town-servants under the magistrates held voting rights in such elections, with the complainers citing precedents from Inverkeithing, Cupar, Perth, and Haddington to support their position. James Donaldson and others raised parallel challenges to the election of the deacon of the bakers, and the parties submitted answers and petitions seeking alteration of the Court's interlocutors.
Hunter v. Monboddo's Interlocutor 1794 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Caution, Oath James Hunter petitioned the Court to alter the Sheriff's warrant for his incarceration issued on grounds of meditatio fugæ. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Inglis v. Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor 1789 Aliment, Oath, Arrestment, Creditor, Advocation, Sequestration John Inglis petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Jack and Others v. Murdoch, Fearns and Company 1795 Insurance, Bill of Exchange, Adjudication, Debt, Sequestration, Oath Digitization and description in progress.
James Russel v. James Fairie 1791 Debt, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Statute of limitations, Oath Documents uploaded. Full description in progress.
James Sellars v. Ninian Anderson 1778 Emotion, Oath, Injury, Security (Physical and Mental), Lawburrows, Security At the beginning of 1777 James Sellars, Robert Sellars, and Marion Sellars brought action against Ninian Anderson for having brought a "causeless" action of lawburrows (a warrant for extracting legal security to keep the peace) against them. They charged Anderson with malicious and vexatious intent in bringing this action, while the defender replied that he could prove the grounds upon which he had brought it, although he was not required by law to do so. The case came before Lord Covington, who ruled that because the defender had originally offered proof, he was required to provide it. Anderson petitioned the Court to alter Covington's interlocutor, arguing that Scots law was clear that a person taking out lawburrows was only required to swear that he dreaded harm from the recipients of the action. He further argued that the pursuers could not make a claim to damages, as repercussions would only follow if they were to commit unlawful harm. The pursuers answered that the lawburrows against them had indeed caused harm, for their forced march from Meikle Govan to the Glasgow town-house to provide caution had led to public humiliation. The Court altered Covington's interlocutor, finding that the defender was not required to justify the grounds of his application for lawburrows. Upon receiving a reclaiming petition from the pursuers, the Court adhered. Lord Barskimming remarked, "We will not cut a man out of his just right because he hastily offered to prove before an Ordinary what he was not obliged to prove."
John Beadie v. The Other Creditors of Thomas Heggie 1748 Debt, Sequestration, Oath, Creditor, Arrestment, Trustee Thomas Heggie, joined by a group of his creditors, obtained a sequestration of his bankrupt estate. As required by statute, the sequestration was based on the oaths of creditors whose debts amounted to a specified sum. Subsequently, a different creditor petitioned the court to recall the sequestration, on the ground that one of the oaths had been false. The creditors who obtained the sequestration argued that it could not be recalled on that basis.
Kempt v. Liddell 1771 Debt, Evidence, Copartnership, Interlocutor, Oath, Creditor In the early 1750s, pursuer James Kempt and defender David Liddel entered into a co-partnership for distilling spirits in Leith. In 1752 Kempt sued Liddel for outstanding debts arising from the partnership. One piece of evidence in the litigation was a cash-book mostly written by Liddel. The suit was dormant until revived in 1766. By this time the original cash-book written by Liddel was missing. In its place Kempt supplied a cash-book written by him (Kempt) or another person. Liddel maintained that this newer cash-book did not contain the original records of the co-partnership and therefore cannot be used against him in the litigation.
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.
McFarlane v. Meadowbank's Interlocutor 1796 Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Oath The suspender McFarlane petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Meadowbank, which had found the charger entitled to expenses and appointed an account thereof to be given in. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Michie v. Martin 1768 Divorce, Aliment, Adultery, Interlocutor, Oath, Process Margaret Michie, spouse to George Martin, petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Penrose-Cumming v. Lawson 1785 Freeholder, Perjury, Oath, Libel, Aliment, Election contest This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament, alleged that his opponent, James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was John Lawson, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Lawson argued that his oath was not false, because he was, in fact, entitled to vote. Lawson further argued that whether or not he was lawfully entitled to vote, he had reasonably believed that his oath was true.
Penrose-Cumming v. Rev. Leslie 1785 Libel, Oath, Perjury, Freeholder, Election contest, Disposition This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament and a freeholder in Moray, alleged that James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was Rev. William Leslie, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Leslie’s qualification to vote rested on a wadset (similar to a mortgage) of a superiority over part of the lands of Kinneddar. During the proceeding against him, Leslie raised a number of arguments against the charges. These included that Penrose-Cumming lacked the kind of specific injury that would give him title to pursue the case, that Penrose-Cumming had failed to allege sufficiently detailed facts, and that Leslie's rights were not, in fact, fictitious.
Peter Ramsay and Others, Councillors and Burgesses of Pittenweem v. Andrew Martin and Others 1765 Election contest, Aliment, Oath, Perjury, Mala Fides, Debt Petitioners sought to have a borough election nullified on the ground that it was conducted in a corrupt fashion by counsellors who were bribed by Robert Alexander, a candidate for the local parliament seat.
Philips v. Buchanan 1797 Debt, Oath, Interlocutor, Partnership, Aliment, Suspension Pursuer John Phillips petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor reversing a ruling by Lord Armadale in his case against defender Buchanan. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Pringle v. Hamilton 1793 Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Debt, Oath, Action, Assignation Pringle pursued Hamilton for payment of a bill of exchange drawn by David Cathcart in 1762, while Hamilton defended on the grounds that the instrument had not been duly negotiated and that the debt was prescribed. Pringle argued that Hamilton remained liable notwithstanding the alleged defect in negotiation and that the defense of prescription was inapplicable, but Cathcart answered that the debt had been discharged by payment made by his father. Hamilton subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
Procurator-Fiscal of the County of Edinburgh v. Wilson 1787 Mala Fides, Interlocutor, Oath, Libel, Arrestment, Lease David Wilson, gardener at Roslin, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his bill of advocation against the Procurator-Fiscal of Edinburgh’s complaint charging him with hunting without a licence. William Scott, as Procurator-Fiscal, answered the petition, defending the interlocutor and responding to Wilson’s allegation that the reference to his oath was incompetent.
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.
Robert Alexander v. James Chrystie 1766 Election contest, Aliment, Arrestment, Contract, Oath, Penalty The commissioners from five boroughs of the county of Fife gathered to elect a parliament-burgess, and on the first vote Robert Alexander was elected. Later, the presiding officer voted again so that Alexander's opponent won. Alexander sued the clerk and returning officer, James Chrystie, because of the way the voting was handled.
Rose v. Duff 1796 Liferent, Freeholder, Sasine, Fiar, Oath, Wadset William Rose of Ballivat petitioned the Court to alter the freeholders' enrolment that recorded him as fiar of Gaval and to restore his right to vote in virtue of his original qualification as freeholder of Newton and Easter Gauldwal. Colonel Patrick Duff of Carnousie resisted the petition, asserting that Rose could not remain enrolled for those lands because he had refused to swear the qualifying oath upon them, and that the qualification was nominal and fictitious. Rose replied that Duff's answers were designed to prejudice the Court against his titles rather than meet the substance of the complaint, and subsequently sought to homologate a reversion granted by the Earl of Fife in 1790, while Duff continued to deny that Newton and Gauldwall could be included under the designation 'Gaval and others' in any trust-oath.
Scrimgeour and Son v. Alexander and Sons 1772 Adjudication, Affreightment, Interlocutor, Oath, Reduction, Interest Documents available. Rich description in progress.
Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet v. Peter Spiers 1790 Valuation, Oath, Reduction, Commissioners of Supply, Feu duties, Disposition Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet, as pursuer, sought admission to the roll of freeholders, while Peter Spiers of Culcroich, Esquire, as defender, argued in his duplies that the freeholders had rightly refused to admit him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Susanna Frances Tasker v. Richard Mercer 1800 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Oath, Meditatione Fugae Defender Richard Mercer contracted a substantial debt to pursuer Susanna Frances Tasker while both resided in Ireland. Mercer subsequently went to Scotland. Upon learning of this, Tasker’s attorney in Scotland petitioned the Magistrates of Edinburgh to imprison Mercer until he made bail, on the ground that he was “in meditatione fugae”—i.e., contemplating flight from the country. Mercer responded that he had gone to Edinburgh to seek medical treatment for his daughter and had no intention of fleeing the country. Case documents include depositions of individuals who witnessed events relevant to the case.
Thomas Laurie, Collector of the Poor's Rates for the City of Glasgow v. Robert Dreghorn 1795 Tax, Aliment, Succession, Trade, Bankruptcy, Oath Robert Dreghorn of Ruch-hill petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the poor's rates for the City of Glasgow. Thomas Laurie, Collector of the Poor's Rates, answered for himself and on behalf of the Magistrates and Town-Council, responding to Dreghorn's arguments.
Turnbull v. Rankines and Black 1794 Arrestment, Oath, Debt, Adjudication, Insurance, Sequestration David Turnbull, a baker in Glasgow, pursued James and John Rankines, merchants in Greenock, and John Black, master of the Sloop Clyde, for the loss of two tons of biscuit shipped in 1793, alleging that improper stowage and negligent navigation had caused the vessel's wreck. The defenders answered that the loss was occasioned by storm rather than improper loading, and subsequently petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced against them.
Young v. Hernderland's Interlocutor 1793 Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Oath, Proof, Creditor Pursuer John Young, tenant in Upper Nisbet, petitioned the Court to remit Lord Henderland's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Young v. Scotts 1777 Illness, Convalescence, Oath, Female Succession, Flesh Market, Aliment A month before his death, Jedburgh merchant John Young settled his heritage upon the daughters of his older sister, although his customary heir was Andrew Young, the eldest son of his younger brother. Andrew Young then sold his right to this heritage to his sister, Agnes, who raised an action of reduction of Young's disposition on the head of deathbed, because he had died within sixty days of its execution. The defenders asserted to Lord Covington that Young had recovered his health just before his death, and produced two witnesses who swore that they had encountered Young at the Flesh Market after he had executed the disposition. Covington pronounced that Young had indeed recovered. The pursuers then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. They asserted that numerous countervailing testimonies cast doubt on whether Young had really visited the Flesh Market in the weeks before his death. On July 3rd, 1777, the Court adhered to Lord Covington's interlocutor. The pursuers submitted another petition, emphasizing that the oaths of the two witnesses to Young's alleged convalescence were unreliable: "Robson is in low circumstances, and considerably in debt to the defender in this reduction; and Laidlaw is in a manner subsisted upon charity." Marginalia on the second petition indicates that the Court may indeed have altered their decision on August 6th, however reports of this case mention no such revision.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 484)