Desiring to engage in the Maryland tobacco trade, several merchants formed a partnership known as Alexander Cunninghame and Company. These merchants included Alexander Cunninghame, the firm’s managing partner, and James Dougal, the eventual pursuer in this case. After Cunninghame died in December of 1772, a dispute arose over the appropriate treatment of his shares under the partnership agreement. Cunninghame’s heirs (defenders Elizabeth and Barbara Cunninghame) sought to withdraw his shares based on the firm’s most recent balance, which had been completed in July of 1772. However, James Dougal claimed that the heirs were only entitled to any proceeds available after discharge of the firm’s debts. Two factual circumstances colored the parties’ arguments. First, one of the firm’s tobacco stores had been destroyed by fire in April of 1772, but the loss was not included in the July balance. Second, also in 1772, the firm’s factors in America purchased tobacco at a price that could not be recovered in the European market, resulting in a substantial loss. Case documents include correspondence between the firm’s Glasgow partners and its factors in America. (The firm continued under the management of Alexander’s brother William Cunninghame, and after assuming Robert Findlay as a new partner, took the name of Cunninghame Findlay and Company. It went on to became a significant player in the tobacco trade.)
Documents in this case (7)
- Elizabeth and Barbara Cunninghames v. James Dougal — Information, 8 Feb 1775
- Information 1775
- James Dougal v. Representatives of Alexander Cunningham — Information, 4 Mar 1775
- Elizabeth and Barbara Cunninghams v. James Dougal — Answers, 10 Jul 1775
- Dougal — Petition, 1 Aug 1775 (Box 3)
- James Dougal v. Elizabeth and Barbara Cunninghams — Answers, 14 Oct 1775
- Dougal — Petition, 6 Mar 1776 (Box 3)
People involved
- Elizabeth Cunninghame — Defender
- Barbara Cunninghame — Defender
- James Dougall — Pursuer
- Robert Cullen, Lord Cullen — Advocate for Pursuer
- Sir Ilay Campbell, Lord Succoth, 1st Baronet of Succoth — Advocate for Pursuer
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Advocate for Defender
- Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville — Advocate for Defender
- Robert MacQueen, Lord Braxfield — Advocate for Defender
- Henry Home, of Kames, Lord Kames — Lord Ordinary
- Alexander Houston, of Jordanhill — Defender
- William Cunninghame, of Bridgehouse and Lainshaw — Defender
- Alexander Cunninghame — Named in case documents
- Robert Bogle — Defender
- John Craig — Named in case documents
- David Walker — Named in case documents
- Robert Findlay — Named in case documents
- Andrew Cochrane — Named in case documents
- Alexander Speirs, Esq., of Elderslie — Named in case documents
- Mr. James Dennistoun, of Colgrain — Named in case documents
- Matthew Blair — Named in case documents
- Richard Ponsonby — Named in case documents
- John Mason — Named in case documents
- John Ferguson — Named in case documents
- William Pender — Named in case documents
- William Winder — Named in case documents
- Robert Barclay — Named in case documents
- Robert Anderson — Named in case documents
- Miss Anderson — Named in case documents
- James Graham — Named in case documents
- John Macfarlane — Named in case documents
- Captain Dunlop — Named in case documents
- Major Bond — Named in case documents
- Henry Jackson and Company — Named in case documents
- Cunninghame Findlay and Company — Named in case documents
- Alexander Cuninghame and Company — Named in case documents
Desiring to engage in the Maryland tobacco trade, several merchants formed a partnership known as Alexander Cunninghame and Company. These merchants included Alexander Cunninghame, the firm’s managing partner, and James Dougal, the eventual pursuer in this case. After Cunninghame died in December of 1772, a dispute arose over the appropriate treatment of his shares under the partnership agreement. Cunninghame’s heirs (defenders Elizabeth and Barbara Cunninghame) sought to withdraw his shares based on the firm’s most recent balance, which had been completed in July of 1772. However, James Dougal claimed that the heirs were only entitled to any proceeds available after discharge of the firm’s debts. Two factual circumstances colored the parties’ arguments. First, one of the firm’s tobacco stores had been destroyed by fire in April of 1772, but the loss was not included in the July balance. Second, also in 1772, the firm’s factors in America purchased tobacco at a price that could not be recovered in the European market, resulting in a substantial loss. Case documents include correspondence between the firm’s Glasgow partners and its factors in America. (The firm continued under the management of Alexander’s brother William Cunninghame, and after assuming Robert Findlay as a new partner, took the name of Cunninghame Findlay and Company. It went on to became a significant player in the tobacco trade.)