| Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire |
1790
|
Freeholder, Election contest, Freehold Qualification, Penalty, Interlocutor, Disposition |
Alexander Milne pursued the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire, represented by George Skene of Skene, to reverse his expungement from the county freeholder roll following the Michaelmas meeting of 1790. The defenders answered that Milne’s freehold qualification was nominal and fictitious, contending that the statutory four-month limitation did not bar objections to fraudulent claims, while Milne asserted his independent acceptance of the wadset and denial of political obligation. The litigation proceeded through reclaiming petitions against adverse interlocutors, condescendences regarding the qualification’s validity, and Milne’s objections to the defenders’ account of expenses. The cause culminated in disputes over the award of statutory penalties and the allocation of costs between the parties. |
| Creditors of David Currie v. William Hannay |
1791
|
Debt, Penalty, Damages, Creditor, Contract, Forfeiture |
The creditors of David Currie pursued William Hannay regarding whether articles of roup imposed a binding obligation. Hannay petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and John Currie, as eldest son and apparent heir of David Currie, and Hugh Corrie, Writer to the Signet, answered, maintaining that the articles created no binding obligation. |
| Knox v. Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow |
1798
|
Procurator, Charter, Faculty, Penalty, Interlocutor, Contract |
Hugh Knox, Writer in Glasgow, petitioned the Court against the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, seeking to remit their regulation that imposed £30 of entry money upon him on the grounds that his apprenticeship had ended before the regulation was enacted and the charge was therefore retrospective and oppressive. The Faculty answered, defending the regulation against his claims. |
| Loch v. Tweedie |
1798
|
Arrestment, Aliment, Trespass, Poinding, Interlocutor, Penalty |
John Loch pursued Alexander Tweedie regarding damages caused by Tweedie’s trespassing sheep, defending his poinding of the flocks and asserting statutory rights to distrain while disputing the defender’s allegations as to penalties and damages. Tweedie repeatedly petitioned the Court to alter interlocutors, first regarding Lord Craig’s order and later challenging subsequent decisions, while Loch reclaimed against an Inner House interlocutor and submitted defenses supported by witness testimony. Tweedie answered Loch’s reclaiming petition and continued to seek alteration of the Court’s interlocutors through November 1799. |
| Macadam v. Creditors of Campbell and Company |
1787
|
Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Penalty, Adjudication, Debt, Infeftment |
John Macadam of Craigingillan petitioned the Court to alter Lord Alva's interlocutor, which had restricted his right to rank for penalty in his heritable bond against Campbell and Company. The heritable creditors of the firm answered, opposing his claim for penalty beyond the expenses of recovery. |
| Robertson v. McClure |
1779
|
Roup, Penalty, Removing, Sist |
In 1758, John McClure commissioned William Robertson to offer £112 for a house and yard at a public roup (auction). According to McClure, Robertson purchased the property at a higher rate than authorized. McClure refused to pay the price. Robertson then became subject to penalties and other expenses, which compelled him to bring a process against McClure before the Magistrates of Ayr. The Magistrates granted a decree in absence, against which McClure then obtained a (sist) judicial stay. Despite this stay, Robertson then made the debt over to James Fergusson. In August 1775, Fergusson obtained a decree of adjudication against McClure on account of the above-mentioned decree and some debts that had been owed by McClure's father. Fergusson then assigned this adjudication to Robert Robertson, the son of William Robertson. Robert Robertson took possession of some property owned by McClure after which he successfully brought a process of removing against him. McClure applied by bill of suspension to the Court of Session, which was refused by Lord Gardenstone. McClure then petitioned the Court for review, arguing that both debts were invalid: one, because there was a sist on it, and the other, because it had been extinguished by a decree of mails and duties obtained by Robertson. Furthermore, he argued that because his property were jointly owned by him and his four siblings, the charger's decree of moving was erroneous in regard to four-fifths of the property. |
| Sir Robert Pollock v. Thomas Paton |
1777
|
Penalty, Rent |
In 1770, Sir Robert Pollock of Pollock let the lands of Floak and Floakside to Thomas Paton, a tenant of some years. The missives of the new agreement contained an additional clause that if Paton were to plough any land in addition to what he had ploughed the previous year, he would pay £100 Scots for each additional acre. After Paton had quit Floak and Floakside, Pollock brought action before the Sheriff of Renfrewshire, requesting the requisite payment on a newly-ploughed acre and a half. The sheriff-substitute initially ruled in Pollock's favour, however after consulting with the sheriff-depute he declared the extra provision to be a penalty that must correspond with real damages. Sir Robert, the pursuer, then applied to the Court by bill of advocation, claiming to have undertaken many costly improvements of his land, which would come to nought should tenants such as Paton be allowed to plough a meadowland of rich soil. He pointed out that Paton had been under no obligation to enter into the tack, and under no obligation to plough the extra land. The defender, on the other hand, stated that Pollock was severely exaggerating the quality of the land in question; he described it as a bare moor farm whose sole improvement was a stone dike on the common march. Furthermore, he claimed that in previous years he had been allowed to plough the land in question at no additional cost. The Court found in favour of the pursuer, determining the money asked for to be a form of rent. |
| Steuart v. Ramsden |
1793
|
Sequestration, Penalty, Arrestment, Jurisdiction, Forfeiture, Debt |
Steuart pursued Ramsden to remit the seizure of effects from the sequestrated premises of James Hill, contending that Ramsden's poinding of the goods was illegal. Hill separately sought remission of penalties and forfeiture awarded by the Edinburgh Justices of Peace for alleged accounting breaches, which Ramsden defended as clear statutory violations warranting the assessed amounts. Ferguson petitioned to challenge both the legality of Ramsden's poinding and the jurisdiction of the Justices to impose penalties beyond the statutory limit, while Ramsden additionally sought review of an interlocutor regarding preference over the poinded effects in Hill's bankruptcy. |
| Young, and Husband v. Sinclair, et al |
1796
|
Debt, Creditor, Assignation, Penalty, Succession, Aliment |
Mrs Janet Young and James Riddoch, her husband, sought recovery of the net expenses they had incurred in enforcing payment of an annuity due under a heritable bond. Mrs Janet Sinclair, her husband James Smith, William Innes, and William Innes as Administrator-in-Law resisted, contending that they ought not to be subjected to the expenses of process under a general decerniture for penalty. |
