Appeal. Appeals in Sheriff Courts are now regulated by 16 and 17 Vict., c. 80. It is competent to appeal to the Sheriff any interlocutor disposing in whole or in part of the merits of the cause. But by § 19, it is enacted that, until such an interlocutor has been pronounced, it shall not be competent to appeal against any interlocutor, not being one—(1.) Disposing of a dilatory defence; or (2.) Sisting process; or (3.) Allowing a proof; or against any interlocutor on the admissibility of evidence pronounced during the leading of a proof, except as provided for in §§ 17 and 18; but that it shall be competent, in every case in which an appeal against an interlocutor is taken, also to appeal against all or any of the interlocutors previously pronounced.
Legal Subject: Appeal |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Countess of Loudon, and Others v. The Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire | 1792 | Jurisdiction, Trustees, Appeal, Sequestration, Act of Parliament, Adjudication | The Countess of Loudoun and others pursued the Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire regarding the proposed suppression of the road by Crawfordland-bridge, while the Trustees and associated justices of the peace defended the road's continued operation. The Trustees initially challenged the Court's jurisdiction to review their proceedings, then argued in subsequent pleadings that the road served public convenience and must be kept open. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies contesting both the Court's authority to intervene and whether the road should remain open or be suppressed. |
| M'Culloch v. Allan | 1792 | Presbytery, Jurisdiction, Appeal, Teinds, Advocation, Interlocutor | M'Culloch, as pursuer, argued that the trial and censure of schoolmasters belonged to the civil courts rather than ecclesiastical presbyteries. He subsequently maintained that sentences of presbyteries regarding schoolmasters were subject to review by ecclesiastical courts alone. Allan, as defender, contended that the presbytery's jurisdiction over schoolmasters was subject to review only in superior Church judicatories and not in the Court of Session. |
| Marquis of Lorne, et al v. Denny, et al | 1796 | Election contest, Interlocutor, Election, Reduction, Burgess, Appeal | The Marquis of Lorne and others pursued John Denny and others regarding the Michaelmas 1796 burgh election in Dumbarton, seeking to overturn the minutes that recorded John Dixon’s vote as valid and asserting a majority victory despite the contested proxy. The defenders answered that the pursuers’ voters lacked burgess qualification, and subsequently argued that Provost Lorne possessed no voting right and that key electors were not burgesses, ultimately demanding a poll election. |
| 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. |
