1794–1795
AlimentDebtArrestmentTheftCreditorEvidenceSword pursued William Auld, a carrier, for the loss of two boxes of muslins stolen from his carts in Glasgow in May 1789, claiming damages of L. 102:10:9 Sterling. Auld, who was no longer domiciled in Scotland, argued that a carrier was not liable for goods stolen while under his charge and that the pursuer’s proof of value was unsupported. After the Court suspended the decree against Auld, Sword petitioned for reconsideration of that interlocutor, and Auld replied that the goods had been safely delivered to Glasgow where the risk passed to Duncan, who agreed to take charge.AI-generated
Documents in this case (5)
- John Sword v. William Auld — Proof, 27 Jun 1791June 27, 1791 Information of the pursuer, arguing that two boxes of muslins were stolen from the defender's carts in Glasgow in May 1789, and that the value of the goods lost amounted to L. 102: 10: 9 Sterling.
- John Sword v. William Auld — Information, 9 Oct 1794October 9, 1794 Information of the charger, arguing that the suspender William Auld, no longer domiciled in Scotland, is liable for theft of muslins under his charge.
- William Auld v. John Sword — Information, 9 Oct 1794October 9, 1794 Information of the suspender, arguing that the carrier is not liable for goods stolen while under his charge, and that the pursuer's proof of value is defective and based on unsupported testimony.
- Sword v. Auld — Petition, 20 Feb 1795February 20, 1795 Petition of the pursuer, asking the Court to reconsider its interlocutor suspending the decree against William Auld, the carrier, for loss of muslins.
- John Sword v. William Auld — Answers, 23 Apr 1795Defendant Auld replies that goods were safely delivered to Glasgow, risk passed to Duncan who agreed to take charge.
People & places in this case
People involved
- William Erskine, Lord Kinneder — Advocate for Party
- James Turnbull — Advocate for Party
- William Baillie, Lord Polkemmet — Lord Ordinary
