Legal Subject: Res judicata |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbutnott, et al. v. Scott, et al. | 1794 | Proof, Res judicata, Interlocutor, Salmon Fishing, Mill, Aliment | Arbutnott and others pursued Scott and others regarding a dam-dike that superior heritors claimed intercepted fish passage in violation of statutory regulations, while the defenders insisted the structure was a necessary check-dike for their mills. The petitioners sought alteration of a recent interlocutor, and the superior heritors informed the court that the dike was constructed to obstruct fish rather than supply water. The defenders maintained that alteration would injure their milling rights, and subsequently petitioned to be assoilzied, challenging the relevancy of the condescendence and the competency of the additional report and depositions. |
| Clark v. Macgill | 1773 | Res judicata, Title Dispute, Adjudication, Possession, Interlocutor, Reduction | This case was about the disputed ownership of a small piece of property on Jeffry's Close, Glasgow. In 1763, before pursuer Peter Clark purchased his property on the close, defender James Macgill petitioned the dean of guild for a warrant to enclose the disputed area. James Herbertson, Clark’s predecessor, failed to mount a challenge. However, by the time Macgill was ready to start work on the project, Clark had purchased Herbertson’s former property, which he understood to include the area proposed for enclosure. Clark complained to the dean of guild that the enclosure would be an encroachment. The dean-of-guild court ruled for Macgill, finding that the matter had been decided in the earlier proceeding, and Clark sought review. Case documents name numerous property owners and tenants in The Bridgegate (or Goosedubs) area of Glasgow. |
| 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. |
| Hon. Mrs Maria Hay Mackenzie and Hugh Munro v. Magistrates of Dingwall and Others | 1832 | Sequestration, Possession, Tack, Expenses, Interlocutor, Res judicata | Mrs. Maria Hay Mackenzie and Hugh Munro petitioned the Court for interim execution pending their appeal against the interlocutor of 11th July 1832 in their action against the Magistrates of Dingwall and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| John Krassaw v. Neil, Earl of Roseberie | 1769 | Res judicata, Bonds, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Disposition | This case was about competing claims to a heritable bond. Lieutenant-General George Preston granted the bond to Archibald Primrose, Earl of Rosebery; The Earl then conveyed the bond to his four younger children. Mr. John Primrose, one of those children, entered into several transactions concerning his share. After General Preston’s heir raised a process of multiplepoinding, it was determined that John’s share was due to four individuals: Neil Primrose, Earl of Rosebery; John Krassaw; Alexander Sinclair, Earl of Caithness; and Lady Margaret Primrose, Countess of Caithness. However, the Court did not delineate the interests of these individuals, so Sir George raised a second process of multiplepoinding, which was the subject of this case. Earl Neil argued that the other claimants’ interests had been extinguished by prior payments, while John Krassaw argued that this issue was res judicata. Krassaw also argued that his interest was preferable to Earl Neil’s, and that Earl Neil’s claims regarding prior payment were unfounded. |
| Loch, et al v. Lord Hailes' Interlocutor | 1789 | Suspension, Interlocutor, Res judicata, Inhibition, Reduction, Declinator | John Loch, Esq., and others petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Hailes concerning the quartering of soldiers in Caltonhill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Mackenzie v. Ross | 1792 | Interlocutor, Thirlage, Adjudication, Tack, Res judicata, Debt | Kenneth Mackenzie pursued Sir Charles Ross and others to enforce a thirlage over the defenders' lands, claiming an obligation covering all growing grains, while Ross contended the servitude was limited to grindable corn and raised res judicata. The litigation involved procedural disputes regarding expenses incurred since 1786 and reponing, with Mackenzie petitioning to alter interlocutors and Ross reclaiming against rulings on the thirlage's scope. The defenders also submitted information regarding Hugh Ross's enlistment as a soldier in 1791, arguing that his refusal to attest did not absolve him from its legal consequences, and Mackenzie answered Ross's petition, which denied thirlage and pleaded res judicata. |
| Mrs. Euphemia Innes v. Duke of Gordon | 1831 | Succession, Lease, Rent, Debt, Entail, Res judicata | Mrs. Euphemia Innes, relict and executrix of John Innes, presented a reclaiming note against George, Duke of Gordon, asking the Court to alter the interlocutor sustaining the Duke's defences. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Murdo Mackenzie of Ardross v. Thomas Houston of Creich | 1829 | Salmon Fishing, Interdict, Interlocutor, Res judicata, Possession, Aliment | Documents available. Full description coming soon. |
| 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. |
Documents discussing this subject (82)
- Alexander Duff of Echt v. James Brodie of Brodie, Alexander Penrose-Cumming of Altyre, Hugh Grant of Moy, John Gordon of Grievehop, John Innes of Leuchars and Francis Russell of Westfield — Answers, 12 May 1792
- Alexander Hamilton v. Dutch East India Company — Information, 5 Jan 1730
- Alexander Keay v. James Farquharson — Duplies, 12 Dec 1799 [2]
- Alexander Thomson v. John Reid — Answers
- APPENDIX PRINTED BY THE OBJECTORS, I.—OBJECTIONS for the Heritors and Common Agent, in the Locality of Kinnoull, TO THE RECTIFIED LOCALITY, prepared by the Teind Clerk, and craved
- APPENDIX. No. I. INTERLOCUTORS.
- Charteris — Petition, 20 Dec 1792
- Clark v. Macgill — Petition, 16 Dec 1773
- Coalston v. Stewart — Petition, 13 Nov 1770
- Company of Proprietors of the Monkland Navigation v. James Merry — Answers, 2 Feb 1822 [2]
- Complainers' Case — Revised Case for General Sir James Duff, of Kinstair, Richard Wharton Duff, Esquire, of Orton, and Stewart Souter, Esquire, of Melrose, Trustees of the late James Earl of Fife in the Conjoined Processes of Declarator, Division of…
- CSP-253 unsorted seg070
- Cunynnghame v. Whitefood, et al — Petition, 20 Jun 1797
- Darlings v. Adamson — Answers, 5 Mar 1838
- David Balfour Hay, Esq. of Leys and Randerston, and his Curators v. Thomas Erskine, Esq. of Cambo, and others, Heritors of temporal lands in the Parish of Kingsbarns — Answers, 12 Feb 1799
- David Wemyss v. The Heritors of Newburn — memorial, 5 Jun 1799
- Duff v. Freeholders of Elgin and Forres — Petitionand Complaint, 17 Jan 1792
- Duncan Stewart v. Lieutenant Alexander Graeme — petition, 10 Mar 1797
- Duncan Stewart v. Mary, Jean, Patrick, Elizabeth, Alexander, Stewart, and William Watsons, George Wilkie, Duncan, Margaret, Mary, and Anne Stewarts, Duncan Stewart, Donald M'Queen, Donald M'Donald and Lieutenant John Alexander… — replies, 6 Apr 1797
- Earl of Fife's Trustees v. Lachlan Cuming — Revised Case, 5 Dec 1828
- Earl of Strathmore v. Sir John Dean Paul, Bart., John Dean Paul, Esq., and John Dundas, Esq. — Answers, 19 Dec 1832
- Elisabeth Millie and Husband v. David Millie — Answers, 4 Mar 1801
- Elizabeth Sinclair, Margaret Sinclair and Jean Sinclair v. Alexander Stark — Memorial, 6 Oct 1825
- George Robertson v. David Melville — Bill of Advocation
- George Robertson v. David Melville — State of the Process, 14 Dec 1858
- Godfrey Lord Macdonald v. Archibald Macdonald, Dudley Stewart Erskine Macdonald — Reclaiming Petition, 27 Jan 1831
- Henry Charles Rutherfurd v. John Nisbett, and his Tutors and Curators — 1 Dec 1829
- Henry, Duke of Buccleugh, J. K. Anderson, Henry Grieve, Alexander Carlisle and Joseph MacCormick v. Robert Hay and Others — Answers, 4 Dec 1798
- Heritors and Minister of Eyemouth v. Heritors and Minister of Swinton — Memorial, 1756
- Hugh Hamilton and others v. Mess. Potts, Cooke, and Potts — Answers, 12 May 1812
- Hugh Macmorran and Company, and their Trustees v. The Newcastle-upon-Tyne Fire Insurance Company — Information, 3 Oct 1816 [2]
- James Baikie v. James Stewart — Rev, 20 Jan 1832
- James Joseph Hope Vere v. Heirs of Entail of Craigiehall — Defences, 27 May 1829
- James Scott of Brotherton, Charles Fullarton of Kinnaber, and John Webster v. John, Viscount of Arbuthnott, and other Superior Heritors on the River North Esk — Answers, 25 Feb 1794
- James Smith v. John Hunter, John Swinton, Peter Halket and Others — Answers, 21 Nov 1822
- James Trail v. Thomas Trail — Answers, 18 Jan 1791
- Janet or Jessie Kyle v. Adam White — Preliminary, 10 Feb 1830
- Jean Coalston, Pursuer v. Archibald Stewart, Merchant in Queensferry, Defender — Petition, 13 Nov 1770
- John Clark v. Marion Kilpatrick — Answers, 25 Apr 1793
- John Gordon of Achanachy, and Alexander Gordon of Whiteley his Trustee v. Mrs. Grizel Ogilvie — Observations, 21 Jan 1761
- John Krassaw v. Neil, Earl of Roseberie — Petition, 7 Feb 1769
- John Scoular v. Thomas Megget — Reclaiming Note, 28 Feb 1833
- John Viscount of Arbuthnott and others v. James Scott of Brotherton and Charles Fullerton of Kinnaber — Answers, 5 Jun 1794
- Kenneth Mackenzie v. Sir Charles Ross, Captain David Macculloch, Charles Munro, and Mrs Jean Ross — Answers, 7 Jan 1794
- Lachlan Cuming v. Trustees of the late James Earl of Fife — Complainers' Case, 5 Dec 1828
- LC Volume 02 — Petition, 22 Jan 1790 [2]
- Loch, et al v. Lord Hailes' Interlocutor — Petition, 1 Aug 1789
- Lord Spencer Chichester v. Sir William Maxwell of Monreith, Bart. and others, Free-holders of the County of Wigton — Replies, 17 Feb 1807
- Mackenzie — Petition, 12 Dec 1832
- Matthew Wyllie, &c. v. Niel Snodgrass, &c. — Information, 13 Aug 1797
- MEMORIAL FOR Thomas Gordon, Writer to the Signet, Common Agent in the Locality of Elgin.
- Montgomery — Petition, 19 Jun 1795
- Mrs Euphemia Innes v. His Grace George, Duke of Gordon — Reclaiming, 9 Mar 1831
- Mrs Magdalene Barberie De La Motte v. Sir William Jardine — Information
- Murdo Mackenzie v. Johnston & Sime — Case, 24 Feb 1831
- Murdo Mackenzie v. Thomas Houston — Revised, 24 Feb 1831
- Petition — Dr. Robert Auld against Inner House Interlocutor
- Petition — First Minister of Dunfermline, to Apply a Judgment of the House of Lords
- Petition — First Minister of Dunfermline, to Apply a Judgment of the House of Lords [2]
- Petition — Hugh Stevenson, Merchant in Oban
- Petition — Jean Coalston, and Patrick Walker, her Husband for his Interest
- Petition — Monkland Canal Company against Lord Meadowbank's Interlocutor
- Petition — Mrs. Oliphant Murray against an Inner-House Interlocutor
- RECLAIMING NOTE FOR SIR JOHN DEAN PAUL, Bart., JOHN DEAN PAUL, Esq. Banker in London, and JOHN DUNDAS, C. S., Trustees of the late JOHN EARL of STRATHMORE and KINGHORN ; IN THE ACT
- Reid, Irving and Company against James Buchanan — Respondents' Case, 15 Nov 1837
- RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT of FACTS, and Pursuer's ANSWERS thereto.; Pursuer's COUNTER STATEMENT of FACTS, and Defender's ANSWERS thereto.
- Robert Home Gordon v. Lieutenant-General James Grant — Answers, 6 Dec 1791
- Robert Home-Gordon v. Lieutenant-General James Grant of Ballindalloch — Petition, 16 Nov 1791
- Ross — Petition, 20 Jun 1793
- S32-1840s doc0027
- Scott — Petition, 12 Feb 1794
- Scott — Petition, 3 Jul 1794
- Sir Charles Ross and Others v. Kenneth M'Kenzie — Answers, 19 Feb 1793
- Sir James Colquhoun v. Walter Dickson — Replies, 8 Apr 1824
- Strathmore's Trustees v. Strathmore — Reclaiming Note, 4 Apr 1833 [2]
- The Magistrates and Town-council of the borough of Culross v. The Earl of Dundonald, and other trustees of the deceased Charles Cochran, Esq; of Culross — Memorial, 21 Feb 1769
- Thomas Currie and Others v. The Kirk-Session and Landward Heritors of Lanark, and Others — Interlocutor, 3 Dec 1840
- Viscount of Arbuthnott v. James Scott, Charles Fullerton and John Webster — Condescendence, 28 May 1794
- Wemyss v. Hope — Petition, 1 Feb 1793
- William Cunningham v. Matthew Wyllie — Memorial, 24 Jan 1797
- William Montgomerie v. Sir Andrew Cathcart and Richard Alexander Oswald — Answers, 11 Jan 1813
- William Montgomerie v. Sir Andrew Cathcart and Richard Alexander Oswald — Duplies, 11 Feb 1813