1794
ProofRes judicataInterlocutorSalmon FishingMillAlimentArbutnott 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.AI-generated
Documents in this case (7)
- Scott — Petition, 12 Feb 1794February 12, 1794 Petition of the petitioners asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
- 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 1794February 25, 1794 Information of the superior heritors, arguing that the petitioner's dam-dike is constructed to intercept fish passage, not to supply mills with water, and must be altered to comply with statutory regul…
- Viscount of Arbuthnott v. James Scott, Charles Fullerton and John Webster — Condescendence, 28 May 1794May 28, 1794 Memorial of the defenders, arguing that the check-dike is necessary for mill operation and any alteration would injure their rights.
- John Viscount of Arbuthnott and others v. James Scott of Brotherton and Charles Fullerton of Kinnaber — Answers, 5 Jun 1794June 5, 1794 Petition of the respondents asking the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor and to sustain the defence of a res judicata, and assoilzie
- John, Viscount of Arbuthnott, Patrick Cruikshank of Stracathro, and others v. James Scott of Brotherton, Charles Fullerton of Kinnaber, and others — Answers, 5 Jun 1794June 5, 1794 Information of the respondents, arguing that a dike with an opening is compatible with mill water supply and fish passage under act 1696
- Scott — Petition, 3 Jul 1794July 3, 1794 Petition of James Scott and others asking the Court to alter its interlocutor and assoilzie them, finding the condescendence irrelevant and the additional report and depositions incompetent
People & places in this case
People involved
- James Scott, of Scalloway — Party
- John Webster — Party
- Robert Blair, of Avontoun, Lord Avontoun — Advocate for Party
- John Taylor, of Blackhouse — Advocate for Party
- John MacLaurin, Lord Dreghorn — Lord Ordinary
- Sir James Fergusson, of Kilkerran, Lord Kilkerran — Lord Ordinary
- George Taylor — Named in case documents
- John Home — Named in case documents
- George Reid — Named in case documents
