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 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.
John Krassaw v. Neil, Earl of Roseberie 1769 Res judicata, Bonds 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.
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.