| Andrew Wauchope and Others v. The Magistrates of Canongate |
1798
|
Prescription, Possession, Act of Parliament, Statute, Title, Burgh |
The Magistrates of Canongate, defenders, were authorized by statute to levy customs duties at the Water Gate with respect to certain articles at particular rates. For many years, the Magistrates had charged higher rates and levied duties on articles not mentioned in the statute. In 1795, the Magistrates published a new table of duties that served to increase rates and to add new articles. Pursuers Andrew Wauchope, the Trustees of the Post Road District, and William Scott (Procurator-fiscal of the County of Edinburgh) challenged the Magistrates’ authority to charge duties not specifically authorized by the statute. |
| Archers and Others v. Magistrates of Edinburg |
1797
|
Statute, Fraud, Act of Parliament, Sequestration, Trust, Tax |
James and Andrew Archers, John Hardy, and William Younger, brewers operating within the precincts of Holyroodhouse, pursued the magistrates of Edinburgh and Alexander Thomson to contest the legality of a two-penny duty imposed on ale brewed and consumed in the Abbey, maintaining that the magistrates lacked authority to levy the tax within that jurisdiction. The brewers claimed total exemption from the duty, which the chargers subsequently challenged as legally unsound and unjust. |
| Bakers of Dundee v. Magistrates of Dundee |
1803
|
Abstracted Multures, Burgh Royal, Mill, Rent, Lease, Statute |
Under Dundee's town charter of 1641, its bakers were placed under the servitude of thirlage when making use of the burgh's mills. In 1740, the Magistrates of Dundee converted these mills to other purposes, and purchased two mills upon the water of Dighty, two miles from town. Dundee's Incorporation of Bakers became lessees of the Dighty mills until 1799, when the Magistrates withdrew the lease. That same year they raised prosecution against members of the Incorporation for abstraction of multures. In response, the Incorporation brought action against the Magistrates, charging that they were liable for the great expense of transporting wheat to distant mills; for the legal expenses arising from the dispute over multures; and for other expenses related to the insufficient service of the Dighty mills. Furthermore, the Incorporation petitioned to be allowed to purchase their thirlage from the Magistrates of Dundee, as laid out in 39 Geo. III c. 35. The Sheriff of Fife heard the case, and appointed a jury to determine the price of thirlage. The cause was then moved to the Court of Session by advocation, and Lord Cullen made avisandum with the cause to the whole Lords. The Court sided with the Incorporation of Bakers, determining that they had the right to purchase an exemption from thirlage. |
| Bellinger v. Monboddo's Interlocutor |
1793
|
Debt, Aliment, Succession, Proof, Statute, Witness |
Reclaiming petition brought by William Bellinger challenging the interlocutor from the process of advocation and the judgment of the lower court finding for pursuer, Alexander Smith under the statute 9 of Queen Anne. The statute at cap. 14 sec. 2 states that "if any person shall, at any time or sitting, by playing at cards, dice or other games, lose in the whole, the value of 10 £, and shall pay or deliver the same, or any part thereof, the person losing, shall be at liberty, within three months, to sue for the money and goods lost, or any part thereof, from the winner, with costs, by action of debt founded on this act, in any of her Majesty's courts of record." The judgment orders payment to Smith by Bellinger of the sum lost by Mr. Smith to Mr. Bellinger in a dice game on December 24, 1789. Bellinger appeals on three points: 1. Does the act of 9th of Queen Anne apply to Scotland, as there are various Scottish statutes which conflict; 2. What does the statute mean by "one sitting," as the gambling happened over several hours; and 3. Was pursuer's oath in supplement properly admitted? |
| Blands v. Ewing and Company, and Dinwiddie |
1777
|
Debtor and Creditor, England, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Statute, Creditor |
This case was about the liability of individuals who endorsed a dishonored promissory note. Walter Ewing and Company purchased the note from Robert Dinwiddie, a bank cashier, and remitted it to Bland and Company in England. After the note’s maker, William Mowat, failed to pay, Bland and Company sued Robert Dinwiddie and Ewing and Company, both of whom had earlier endorsed the note. The defenders claimed that they could not be held liable because Bland and Company did not properly notify them that the note had been dishonoured. The cause came before Lord Monboddo, who assoilzied (absolved) the defenders. Bland and Company then submitted a petition to the Court asking them to overturn this decision. The Court adhered to Monboddo's interlocutor. |
| Brenton v. Liddell |
1796
|
Justices of Peace, Apprentice, Statute, Suspension, Expenses, Service |
Captain Brenton sought to justify his detention of the apprentice John Donaldson against suspender Liddell, maintaining that Liddell had failed to comply with statutory conditions for reclaiming the boy. Liddell responded that Donaldson had not been lawfully enrolled under the 1795 act, as no written notification of disqualification had been delivered prior to the apprentice’s entry on board ship. The dispute turned on the validity of the enrollment and the statutory prerequisites for reclaiming an apprentice. |
| Brown v. Dundas |
1793
|
Adjudication, Statute, Fraud, Forfeiture, Penalty, Forgery |
Dundas, as defender, argued in an information that the statute under which Brown prosecuted them did not authorize the seizure of unstamped starch without prior notice or opportunity to comply. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Campbell and Others, posterior Adjudgers v. The Common Agent for the Postponed Creditors in the Ranking of the Creditors of Charles Maclean of Kinlochaline |
1801
|
Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Debt, Statute, Decree of adjudication |
The creditors of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Maclean, of Kinlochaline, proceeded to attach his estate. One adjudication was initiated by George Andrew; a subsequent adjudication was initiated by Henry Butter of Pitlochry. Additional creditors were conjoined in both Mr. Andrew’s proceeding and Mr. Butter’s. However, the common agent objected that the bankrupt act only authorized creditors to be conjoined in the first adjudication. After some creditors argued that Mr. Andrew’s adjudication not actually the first, an additional objection was raised to the conjoined creditors in that proceeding. |
| Campbell v. Stein |
1786
|
Bribery, Corruption, Forgery, Common Law, Debt, Statute |
This case was about a criminal charge of bribery. Distiller James Stein allegedly gave a package containing £500 to a Solicitor of Excise. Stein was prosecuted for attempted bribery. In response, he argued that the charged offense did not constitute a crime at common law. Additionally, Stein argued that the prosecution’s indictment was insufficient to support the charge, because it did not contain any facts demonstrating a corrupt intention. |
| Charles Addison and Sons v. William Duguid and Others |
1792
|
Insurance, Adjudication, Statute, Contract, Act of Parliament, Debt |
In February 1791, the ship Leviathan, sailed from Borrowstounness for Greenland on a whaling expedition. The vessel's owners, Charles Addison and Sons, took out an insurance policy with William Duguid, Andrew M'Kenzie, George Robertson, and James Hunter for 90 butts of blubber, with a provision that the underwriters would pay for whatever portion less than 90 the vessel returned with. The Leviathan was delayed at Stromness, Orkney for several weeks, and when the ship returned to its home port with only 3 or 4 butts, Addison and Sons sought to collect on the insurance. Their attempt to cash in the policy led to litigation in the Admiralty Court where the Judge Admiral initially ruled for the underwriters, before subsequently ruling against them on the Addisons' appeal. Duguid, M'Kenzie, Robertson, and Hunter asked the Court of Session to reverse the Judge Admiral's ruling, arguing that the Leviathan's delay in the Orkney's voided the insurance policy. Addison and Sons in turn argued that their reading of 26 Geo. III, cap. 41 and 29 Geo. III supported their claims, and further argued that the insurance policy was actually a wager, an illegal gambling contract violative of 19th Geo. II. |
| Crawford, et al v. Wilson, et al |
1794
|
Justices of Peace, Interdict, Statute, Common Law, Arrestment, Suspension |
|
| Creditors of John Horn |
1791
|
Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Statute |
George Wilson, trustee for the creditors of John Horn, petitioned to alter an interlocutor allowing individual creditors to adjudicate post-sequestration, citing statutory prohibition and the risk of confusion or penalty preference. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie v. His Children |
1792
|
Creditor, Adjudication, Statute, Arrestment, Debt, Interlocutor |
The creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie, as pursuers, contended against his children, as defenders, that adjudications made without intimation were void and null, as set forth in the Information of John Peter du Rouvray and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| Davidson v. Hill |
1802
|
Retour, Charter, Statute, Election contest, Freeholder, Sasine |
At a meeting of the freeholders of Stirlingshire, Robert Hill claimed to be enrolled upon the lands of Western Glenboig. He produced two extracts of retours which he claimed proved his title. Harry Davidson, one of the freeholders, objected to Hill's enrollment, arguing that Hill’s retours were insufficient. The Court found that the 16th Act of George II required an old extent of lands to be established by a retour, but that this could be done by one or more retours, and that, accordingly, a freeholder who produced two separate retours of two parcels of land had a right to be enrolled (Morison's Decisions of the Court of Session). |
| Duff v. Chalmers |
1769
|
Aliment, Succession, Statute, Jurisdiction, Teinds, Glebe |
Archibald Duff of Drummuir answered the petition of Alexander Chalmers, Minister of Cairny, responding to the argument that the presbytery possessed authority to designate moss for peats beyond the minister's immemorial privilege. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company v. Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet, Baronet, and Others, Trustees of the deceased Da… |
1835
|
Debt, Statute, Contract, Partnership, Interest, Succession |
The Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company raised an action against Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet and others, as trustees of the deceased shareholder David Clyne, to enforce statutory calls for unpaid shares under the Edinburgh Oil Gas Company Act. The defenders denied liability, contending that the company had abandoned its oil-gas operations and improperly transferred its assets to a coal-gas concern, thereby invalidating the demands. The pursuers maintained their statutory right to recover expenses from the estate, while the defenders persisted in their challenges and ultimately reclaimed against the interlocutor, seeking to sustain their defences and be assoilzied from the action. |
| Fraser, Reid and Sons v. Lancaster and Jamieson |
1793
|
Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Citation, Horning, Statute |
Fraser, Reid and Sons claimed preferential rights to goods held in Coats’s custody, asserting priority based on protested bills for specific cargoes and challenging arrestments later laid by Lancaster and Jamieson. The defenders lodged duplies disputing the validity of the arrestments and the question of preference, responding to the pursuers’ replies. |
| Gardner v. Corporation of Goldsmiths in Edinburgh |
1792
|
Tax, Debt, Corporation, Aliment, Interlocutor, Statute |
Alexander Gardner and David Downie, goldsmiths in Edinburgh, pursued the Corporation of Goldsmiths regarding the incorporation’s resolution to abolish the marking-money tax and its appropriation of marking money for private use. The Corporation defended its actions by citing the opulence of its funds and historical precedent for tax abrogation, while the pursuers contended that the assay office marking fees constituted wages rather than assessments and that the corporation bore no liability for such expense. The litigation proceeded through mutual petitions to alter interlocutors and answers exchanging these respective positions. |
| George Dempster and Others v. Charles Lyel, Sr. |
1790
|
Freeholder, Statute, Jurisdiction, Tack, Disposition, Adjudication |
George Dempster and others sought to remove Charles Lyell from the freeholder roll for Forfar, contending that his valuation improperly included Easter Glenquharity lands not held in his title, thereby reducing his qualification below the requisite 400l Scots. The respondents initially denied the allegations and asserted that statutory limits restricted the court’s jurisdiction, while the complainants maintained that the court possessed authority over all wrongful freeholder enrolments and cited precedent. Lyell subsequently answered the petition and complaint, denying that he had been wrongfully retained on the roll. |
| Incorporated trades of Aberdeen v. The Magistrates, Council, & Guildry of Aberdeen |
1793
|
Decreet-Arbitral, Foreign Trade, Trade, Interlocutor, Statute, Monopoly |
|
| Incorporation of Goldsmiths v. Cunningham, White, Marshall and Sons |
1801
|
Statute, Privilege, Corporation, Disuse |
The Incorporation of Goldsmiths brought a claim against jewelers and metal workers who were not part of their incorporation for selling jewelry and metal works. The Incorporation of Goldsmiths argued that Parliament had conferred exclusive privileges to the incorporated goldsmiths to search for, manufacture, and sell metal works, and that the defendants had been doing the same illegally since they were not properly incorporated. The non-incorporated defendants argued that after a certain practice has been maintained for a substantial time, i.e. their selling metal works despite their non-incorporated status, the statute conferring the privileges falls into disuse and becomes moot. |
| Incorporation of Weavers in Glasgow v. James Freeland and Others |
1777
|
Charter, Weaving, Silk, Statute, Corporation, Prescription |
In 1528, the Crown granted the Incorporation of Weavers in Glasgow an exclusive charter to practice weaving in that burgh. In 1681, however, they lost the exclusive privilege of weaving linen and hemp. Around 1760, a number of craftsmen in Glasgow began operating as silk-weavers despite being neither freemen of the Incorporation of Weavers nor, in some cases, freemen of Glasgow Burgh. In 1775, after the Incorporation of Weavers brought a complaint against a number of them, Bailie Duncan Niven had them imprisoned and fined. After obtaining a bill of suspension and liberation, these silk-weavers brought an action of oppression and damages against certain members of the Incorporation, and against Bailie Niven. At the same time, the Incorporation of Weavers requested a declaration that only members of their guild could practice silk-weaving within Glasgow. These actions were conjoined and came before Lord Gardenstone, who reported the case. The Court found that if the silk-weavers wished to practice their craft, they must join the Incorporation of Weavers. The case reports only cover the action of declarator brought by the Incorporation of Weavers. |
| Isabel Howie, Martha Buik, and the Kirk-Session of Alyth v. The Kirk-Sessions of Arbroath and St Vigean's |
1799
|
Aliment, Statute, Interlocutor, Thirlage, Estate Settlement, Heritor |
This case was about how to determine which parish should pay for the maintenance of an impoverished child. The child, Anne Coathill, was born in Arbroath, but she and her parents, James Coathill and Janet Buik, soon moved to St Vigeans. After Janet died, Anne was sent to live with relatives in Alyth, including pursuers Martha Buik and Isabel Howie. Joined by the Kirk-session of Alyth, these relatives sought maintenance from the parishes of Arbroath and St Vigeans. Case documents include several depositions. |
| John Gardner v. Smith and Wardrobe |
1773
|
Tutor and Pupil, Penalty, Aliment, Statute, Interlocutor, Creditor |
John Smith entered into an indenture to be an apprentice to John Gardner, a wright. Smith’s grandfather John Wardrop also was a party to the agreement, having agreed to provide board and washing for his grandson. The agreement had a term of three years and would be enforced by a £5 Sterling penalty if either side failed to perform its obligations. Smith entered into Gardner’s service, but he left the apprenticeship after about a year. Gardiner charged Smith and Wardrop for payment of the £5 Sterling penalty. However, Smith and Wardrop argued that the indenture agreement was void because it lacked a stamp signifying payment of a statutory duty. They also alleged that Gardner had taken up smuggling and was deficient in providing instruction. |
| John Gray v. John M'Aulay |
1791
|
Election, Election contest, Penalty, Statute, Witness, Mala Fides |
John Gray, writer in Dumbarton, pursued John M'Aulay, town clerk of Dumbarton, to enforce statutory penalties for allegedly making a commission to George Ferguson contrary to the Act of 16 George II c. 11. M'Aulay denied issuing any commission, maintaining that the document was merely an extract of minutes, while Gray contended that the clerk's affixing of the burgh seal to the extract of election rendered it a legal commission. Following an Inner-House interlocutor that dismissed his complaint, Gray reclaimed against that decision. |
| John Kelly v. John Smith |
1780
|
Statute, Property, Sequestration, Tack, Regalia, Heritor |
John Kelly, huntsman to Major Blair of Blair, brought a complaint against John Smith for hunting without the proper qualification. Smith argued that he satisfied the only statutory qualification that was currently in effect. The dispute raised a question of first impression as to the correct interpretation of certain statutes. |
| Liddel v. Melvine |
1788
|
Debt, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Statute, Interlocutor, Suspension |
David Liddel, merchant in Leith and charger for behoof of Jacobinus and Adrianus Vanderburghs, merchants at Rotterdam, submitted answers responding to the petition of James Melvine, shipmaster in Borrowstounness. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Lord Frederick Campbell, Lord Clerk-Register of Scotland v. Andrew-Stuart, Keeper of the General and Particular Register of Sasines at Edinburgh |
1792
|
Register, Teinds, Prescription, Sasine, Reversion, Statute |
Lord Frederick Campbell, Lord Clerk-Register of Scotland, sued Andrew Stuart, Keeper of the General and Particular Register of Sasines, to recover authority over the sasine registers. Stuart, together with John Davidson and Andrew Steele, had claimed that a Crown commission conferred upon them lawful authority over the general Register of Seisins and custody of the particular register books. Campbell challenged the validity of that commission and asserted his own statutory authority under the 1617 Act, demanding surrender of the unmarked books. |
| Lord William Gordon and Others v. Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod and Others |
1791
|
Freeholder, Statute, Possession, Election contest, Title, Court of Session |
Lord William Gordon, Vice-Admiral of Scotland, presented a petition and complaint against Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod, Arthur Forbes of Culloden, and others regarding the removal of his name from the Inverness-shire freeholders' roll. The complainer alleged that the respondents had acted irregularly in striking off liferent-voters, while the respondents contended that the four-month limitation period did not bar the removal of nominal or fictitious voters and that their conduct was legally justified. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies addressing the procedural regularity of the expunging and the applicability of the limitation period, followed by speeches on whether objections of nominality were competent after four months. Thereafter, Lord William Gordon and Lieutenant Alexander Godsman petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and award expenses, prompting further answers from the respondents defending their freeholder status and maintaining the validity of their prior objections. |
| Martin and Ker v. Robertsons |
1792
|
Debt, Prescription, Statute, Statute of limitations, Creditor, Aliment |
Martin and Ker pursued a debt claim against Robert Robertson, a minor, and his tutors, who defended by asserting that prescription barred the action under the 1579 statute, requiring the creditors to prove the debt and its unpaid status beyond three years. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| Mitchell v. Douglas and Baillie 1 of 2 |
1796
|
Teinds, Stipend, Aliment, Valuation, Heritor, Statute |
Archibald Lord Douglas and Dame Elisabeth Baillie of Lamington, defenders, petitioned the Court to alter its 1793 interlocutor modifying the minister's stipend in victual. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Murdoch et. al v. Magistrates of Port-Glasgow |
1778
|
Duty (Tax), Public Works, Act of Parliament, Statute, Jurisdiction, Contract |
In 1693, an Act of (Scotland's) Parliament granted Glasgow a duty of two pennies Scots per pint of ale or beer "brewed, in-brought, vended, tapped, or sold within the city, suburbs, or liberties thereof." In 1762, when Murdoch, Warroch, and Company founded a brewery at Anderston, they began paying this duty to Glasgow upon importing their beer into the city. In 1774 Port-Glasgow was separated from Glasgow and joined with Newark, and was granted a similar duty by the British Parliament. Shortly afterward Murdoch, Warroch, and Company were forced to pay this duty upon importing some ale and beer into Port-Glasgow. In response they withheld their customary payment from Glasgow. The collector of impost for Glasgow brought action before the magistrates of that city, which ruled in his favor. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company then brought the cause by advocation to the Court of Session, asking to be found liable for only one impost payment. After Lord Stonefield found them liable for both duties they submitted his interlocutors to the Court for review. See a later case, Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow v. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company, for further attempts on the part of this brewery to evade impost. |
| Mures, et al v. Hannay, et al. |
1793
|
Agent, Debt, Sale, Interlocutor, Creditor, Statute |
Sir Samuel Hannay and his co-defenders petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, requesting either that the Court fix a time and place for creditors to elect a common agent for the sale and ranking or that it appoint Archibald Swinton or another person to that office. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Palfrey v. Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor |
1796
|
Debt, Rent, Lease, Trust, Statute, Tack |
Alexander Wight, Writer to the Signet, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that permitted proof by witnesses in the trust action between Palfrey, the pursuer, and Lord Dreghorn, the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Petition and Complaint of William Macewan |
1792
|
Debt, Freeholder, Arrestment, Statute, Jurisdiction, Election contest |
William Macewan petitioned the Court to overturn the determination of the freeholders of Perth that his qualification was nominal and fictitious. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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 v. Scott |
1793
|
Lease, Penalty, Trespass, Adjudication, Aliment, Statute |
James Scott, as pursuer, alleged that the defender Ross’s sheep had trespassed on his grounds and contended that the statute of 1686, cap. 11, entitled him to recover penalties. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Samuel Cole, &c v. Ephraim Flamare, &c |
1772
|
Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Sequestration, Statute, Mandate |
Samuel Cole, pursuer, was a silk-weaver based in London. Some of his silk (worth £3,000 Sterling) was stored in a warehouse in Canongate, a district of Edinburgh. Cole declared bankruptcy. Shortly after this, Flammare, defender and creditor of Cole, went to Edinburgh to seize Cole's silk in Canongate by using an admiral-precept. William Cole, brother and creditor of Samuel Cole, along with other creditors of Samuel Cole, also took out an admiral-precept on Samuel Cole's effects in Edinburgh. These other creditors sought an equal distribution of Cole's property among the creditors. Flammare alleged, among other procedural defects, that the other creditors' application for sequestration was ineffective under the applicable bankruptcy statute because the case involved an English, not Scottish, debtor. |
| Sir Alexander Ramsay Irvine v. The Honourable William Maule |
1794
|
Teinds, Heritor, Valuation, Statute, Act of Parliament, Charter |
|
| 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. |
| 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 Procurator-Fiscal of the Town of Stirling v. John Gillies and Others |
1793
|
Salmon Fishing, Jurisdiction, Act of Parliament, Tack, Trespass, Statute |
|
| The Right Honourable Lord Elibank and Others v. Patrick Murray |
1832
|
Land, Clause, Statute, Debt, Adjudication, Tailzie |
Lord Elibank and the Commissioners pursued Patrick Murray of Simprim to determine whether a 1776 entail deed prohibited Murray from selling the entailed lands. Murray answered, responding to the argument that the deed restricted his right to alienate the property. The Complainers subsequently submitted their case asserting that Murray was barred from alienating the lands under the terms of the settlement. |
| Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads v. Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick |
1793
|
Trustees, Thirlage, Mala Fides, Statute, Interdict, Act of Parliament |
The Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads defended the placement of a toll-bar on the Eyemouth road against the Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick, who sought suspension of the tolls under a 1793 turnpike act. The Corporation argued that the trustees had violated the statute by situating the gate closer to Eyemouth than to Berwick, thereby creating unequal distances prohibited by the act. The Trustees maintained that the gate was properly positioned as near as may be to the required distance from Berwick and that the Corporation's bill of suspension lacked legal foundation. |
| William Campbell v. Sir John Anstruther, of Anstruther |
1790
|
Election, Election contest, Representation, Aliment, Succession, Statute |
William Campbell petitioned the Court to overturn the election of Philip Anstruther in place of Sir John Anstruther and to sustain his own vote as a constituent member of the Council meetings. Sir John Anstruther answered, rejecting allegations of illegal council removal and election manipulation, while Inshie separately contested the forfeiture of his East Michaelmas seat on grounds of non-residency and want of notice near a general election. The parties thereafter exchanged replies and duplies debating the regularity of the April 1790 Council meeting and the legal right to challenge the election of Counsellors of Kilrenny. |
| William Sprott v. Patrick Frazer |
1796
|
Gambling, Common Law, Interdict, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Statute |
William Sprott, Solicitor-at-Law and Procurator-Fiscal for the City of Edinburgh, answered a bill of advocation in which Patrick Frazer, Walter Berry, and Henry Farquharson sought to have the Magistrates' interlocutor and interdict against their lotteries remitted on the ground that private lotteries were lawful. Sprott contested this argument, maintaining that private lotteries were illegal and defending the magisterial prohibition. The case thus raised the question of the lawfulness of private lotteries, with the defenders seeking to overturn the interdict and the pursuer supporting the magistrates' authority to enforce it. |
