1792–1793
PresbyteryJurisdictionAppealTeindsAdvocationInterlocutorM'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.AI-generated
Documents in this case (4)
- William Allan v. Michael M'Culloch — Memorial, 1 Dec 1792 [2]December 1, 1792 Memorial of the pursuers, arguing that the trial and censure of schoolmasters belong to civil courts, not ecclesiastical presbyteries.
- Michael M'Culloch v. William Allan — Memorial, 13 Dec 1792December 13, 1792 Memorial of Mr M'Culloch arguing that sentences of presbyteries regarding schoolmasters are subject to review by ecclesiastical courts alone, not civil courts.
- Petition M'Culloch, 31 May 1793May 31, 1793 Memorial of Mr Allan, arguing that the presbytery's trial of schoolmasters is subject to review in superior Church judicatories, not the Civil Court.
- William Allan v. Michael M'Culloch — Answers, 10 Oct 1793October 10, 1793 Memorial of the respondents, arguing that the jurisdiction over schoolmasters is civil and must remain with the Court of Session, not the church judicatories.
People & places in this case
People involved
- William Allan — Party
- John Knox — Party
- John Duncanson, of Maxpoffle — Party
- John Millar Jr. — Advocate for Party
- James Ferguson, 2nd Laird of Pitfour, Lord Pitfour — Lord Ordinary
- James Burnett, Lord Monboddo — Lord Ordinary
- Alexander Gordon, Lord Rockville — Lord Ordinary
- Henry Home, of Kames, Lord Kames — Lord Ordinary
Where this case took place
Published Reports
William Morison, The Decisions of the Court of Session (1811), pg. 7471
