| Alexander v. Ross |
1767
|
Debt, Aliment, Succession, Interlocutor, Contract of marriage, Representation |
In the action between Alexander, pursuer, and Ross, defender, Marjory Ross and John Baillie petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Barry, et al v. Incorporation of Weavers, et al |
1789
|
Possession, Prescription, Interlocutor, Damages, Representation, Kirk Session |
The Reverend Mr George Barry and the remanent members of the Kirk-session of Kirkwall and St Ola defended against a petition by the Incorporation of Weavers, Hammermen, Taylors, and Shoemakers of Kirkwall to alter Lord Henderland’s interlocutor. The incorporations sought to modify the court’s earlier decision, and the Kirk-session submitted answers resisting the proposed alteration. |
| Dr William Liechman, Principal of the College of Glasgow, and Others v. Dr Robert Trail, and Others |
1770
|
Powers of the Principal and Masters of the University, Deed, Deeds, Faculty, Patronage, Representation |
The pursuers called into question an attempt by Doctor Leechman and others to impose a rigid interpretation of the constitution of the University of Glasgow, which would bar the rector and faculty from participating in the university's fiscal administration. The parties called attention to the set of rules prescribed by King James VI in 1577 concerning the government of the College and its funds. The Lord Ordinary found that based on the charter granted by the king, the whole revenue and property of the university (excepting such mortifications for bursars and other uses which are otherwise conveyed) was vested in the Principal and Masters. The Defenders asked the Lord Ordinary to alter his interlocutor. |
| Forbes, Hunter, and Company v. Edinburgh Life Assurance Company |
1829
|
Insurance, Contract, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Representation, Aliment |
Sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Company, bankers, raised an action against the Edinburgh Life Assurance Company to recover £3000 sterling payable under a policy of assurance. The defenders resisted payment, asserting that the policy was void due to misrepresentation and the non-statement of material facts at the time of effecting the insurance. The cause subsequently proceeded to a Bill of Exceptions for the defenders. |
| Isabella Clerk, and her Tutor ad litem v. Sir George Clerk, and his Tutor-at-law |
1799
|
Aliment, Succession, Mala Fides, Marriage, Representation, Obligations |
Isabella Clerk sued for financial support from her brothers John and Sir George on the grounds that they were obligated to provide for her. Sir George claimed that natural law did not compel him to support siblings, but only his parents and children. |
| John Aitchison and others v. The Magistrates and Billet-Master of Haddington |
1795
|
Interlocutor, Burgh, Thirlage, Suspension, Representation, Magistrate |
|
| Lamb v. Neilson |
1784
|
Apprentice, Cautioner, Deed, Interlocutor, Penalty, Representation |
Andrew Lamb raised a charge to enforce an indenture executed by George Neilson, his apprentice, and William Neilson, a cautioner. The Neilsons sought a suspension of the charge, arguing that the indenture was void because it had not been properly stamped. Lamb argued that he could still obtain the stamp and pursue the action. |
| McKinnon v. William Gillies, James Robertson, Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of the City of Edinburgh |
1794
|
Debt, Aliment, Interlocutor, Advocation, Representation, Libel |
The Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Edinburgh petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor and assoilzie them from the action brought by McKinnon against them, William Gillies, and James Robertson. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Paisley v. David Erskine |
1770
|
Right to dispose a Parish, Appointment of Patrons, Patronage, Presbytery, Representation, Disposition |
In January 1769, the parish of Erskine, in the presbytery of Paisley became vacant, by the death of the Reverend Mr James Lundie. Mr. David Erskine alleged to have acquired the right to the patronage from Lord Blantyre, the patron of the parish, who was in Italy by the time the vacancy occurred. The Presbytery took some procedure in the church courts and appointed someone for the position, but it was not accepted. The Presbytery then brought a declaratory action to review and declare that the right had fallen to them. The defender invoked cannon law to claim that the Presbytery right was proscribed after the six months. |
| Ramage v. Charteris |
1782
|
Debt, Prescription, Interlocutor, Creditor, Aliment, Representation |
Mrs. Jean Charteris, a Scottish merchant, was engaged in trade with Joseph Ramage, a merchant in York. Ramage furnished articles of thread manufacture to Charteris, and Charteris paid him either in cash or in goods. In 1780, Ramage raised an action against Charteris for a balance that was allegedly due on her account. The account showed that Ramage had last furnished an article to Charteris in 1776, but Charteris had furnished goods to Ramage within the last three years. Charteris argued that the case was barred by the triennial prescription (i.e., the statute of limitations). Ramage responded that the prescription would not become effective until three years passed with no furnishing by either party. |
| Richardson and Tait v. Thomson |
1775
|
Debt, Assignment, Interlocutor, Oath, Representation, Assignation |
David Thomson of Ingliston, defender, granted a bond to James Thomson, who conveyed shares of the bond to many different assignees. Several of these assignees made further assignments, and the pursuers, John Richardson and John Tait, came to possess a four-sixths share of the bond. Richardson and Tait sued David Thomson for payment. In the ensuing process, Thomson alleged that Tait and Richardson were merely trustees for certain assignees whom he had already paid. In response, Richardson and Tait claimed to be Thomson’s rightful creditors, having exchanged ready money for shares that the earlier assignees were unable to collect. Richardson and Tait also argued that David Thomson had missed a deadline for continuing to contest the case. |
| Riddell v. King |
1796
|
Debt, Creditor, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Trustee, Representation |
Sir James Riddell of Ardnamurchan and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had found them personally liable for a debt due by the deceased Mrs Paterson, explaining that they had not yet recovered any executry funds. The deceased’s executors subsequently petitioned for permission to delay further the recovery of those funds, despite admitting liability and acknowledging that ample estate assets remained available. |
| Thomas Cranstoun, Common Agent in the Locality of Peebles v. Miss Elliot and Others |
1799
|
Teinds, Heritor, Representation, Stipend, Augmentation, Glebe |
Thomas Cranstoun, as Common Agent in the Locality of Peebles, pursued Miss Elliot and others regarding the liability of lands known as the Vicar's Glebe to pay teind. He petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor by Lord Dunsinnan, and subsequently sought to overturn an Inner-House interlocutor that had upheld an exemption from teind for the lands. |
| 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. |
