Appeal, or removal as by certiorari, of an action from an inferior Court to the Court of Session.
Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.
Legal Subject: Advocation |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hill v. Abercromby | 1793 | Defamation, Advocation, Counsel, Interlocutor, Liferent, Jurisdiction | Robert Hill, tailor in Potterrow, pursued Charles Abercromby, writer in Edinburgh, asking the Court to remit a protestation taken out by Abercromby after the summons was called and appearance entered, and to inflict censure for malpractice. Hill presented replies to Abercromby’s answers, disputing the respondent’s conduct in filing the protestation at that procedural stage. |
| Inglis v. Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor | 1789 | Aliment, Oath, Arrestment, Creditor, Advocation, Sequestration | John Inglis petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| King and Scot v. MacIntyre | 1776 | Intrinsic and Extrinsic, Qualified Oath, Advocation, Libel, Adjudication, Lease | In 1774, John MacIntyre made a verbal agreement with David Scot and John King to rent a house belonging to them. A few days after this agreement, MacIntyre found the house inadequate for his needs and gave it back. Several months later Scot and King brought action against MacIntyre before the Magistrates of Glasgow for a half-year's rent. Because MacIntyre had acknowledged the facts of the set in his defense, the bailies found the libel against him relevant. MacIntyre brought an advocation before Lord Elliock, who ruled against him. He then petitioned the Court for review, arguing, first, that there had been no written obligation, merely a verbal one. Furthermore, he argued that his defense of the libel was intrinsic to his admission of the fact of the set, and the two could not be separated. The pursuers on the other hand, argued that MacIntyre's assertion of having given up the house was merely extrinsic to his acknowledgment of the libel. The Court assoilzied (absolved) the defender, and Scot and King brought a petition requesting an alteration of the Court's interlocutor. Handwritten marginalia notes that the Court likely adhered. |
| Lee Allen and Andrew Elder v. Elder and Others | 1832 | Poinding, Expenses, Interlocutor, Advocation, Sheriff, Security | John Lee Allen, Esq., and Andrew Elder presented a reclaiming note asking the Court of Session to alter Lord Medwyn's interlocutor in their action against Elder and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| Macausland and Others v. Montgomery and Others, and the Magistrates of Glasgow | 1792 | Aliment, Advocation, Teinds, Adjudication, Interdict, Interlocutor | John MacAusland and James Burns, for themselves and in behalf of the other members of the Convenery or Trades-House in Glasgow, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. James Montgomery and others answered, contending that the petition had been given in the name of, but without the authority of, the Deacon-Convener, Collector and Trades-House of Glasgow. |
| 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. |
| Palmer and Others v. Macmillan | 1794 | Interlocutor, Advocation, Contract, Property, Sequestration, Rent | Palmer and Others, as defenders, argued that the Court of Session should affirm a Sheriff's interlocutor prohibiting Macmillan from exposing butcher-meat in front of his house. They presented information maintaining that the prohibition ought to be upheld. |
| Reid v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor | 1794 | Advocation, Test, Debt, Action, Interlocutor, Sheriff | James Reid, as pursuer, petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Craig. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Skinner v. Bell | 1832 | Expenses, Trustee, Sist, Advocation, Tax, Feu | J. R. Skinner, pursuer, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter Lord Corehouse's interlocutor in the action against Bell. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Smyth v. Bushby | 1794 | Advocation, Process, Sist, Procurator, Adjudication, Court of Session | In the bill of advocation between Smyth and Bushby, the sheriff-clerks of Scotland moved the Court to recall an order that had permitted transmission of inferior court processes to the bill-chamber without warrant or security. The Clerks to the Bills opposed this relief, contending that the practice of granting two successive orders for production of inferior court process in such bills had been uniform since 1765. |
Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 186)
- A. R. Henderson v. John M'Kay — Revised, 4 Oct 1832
- Adam Allan v. James Dods — Note, 8 Mar 1827
- Adam Miller, Thomas Miller and James Roxburgh v. Robert Boyd — Memorial, 17 Nov 1768
- Alexander Gordon v. John Baddon — Reclaiming Note, 3 Mar 1848
- Alexander M'Ritchie v. Mrs Christian Pirnie — Information, 25 Feb 1819
- Alexander Stewart v. John Isat — Answers, 3 Aug 1775
- Alexander Stewart v. John Isat — Petition, 7 Jul 1773
- Alexander Stewart v. John Isat — Petition, 9 Feb 1774
- Allan Maclean v. Earl of Elgin — Answers, 28 May 1812
- Andrew Henry v. John Clark — Answers, 2 Aug 1768
- Andrew Watson v. John Scouller and Others — Answers, 29 Jun 1824 [2]
- Answers — Ans.—Mrs Christian Pirnie, to Pet.—Alexander Macritchie. Brodie & Imlach, W.S. Respondent's Agents
- APPENDIX. ANSWERS for Dr James Hare of Handaxwood, and for John Glasgow, residing at Breich Bridge Tollbar. TO THE BILL of ADVOCATION for George Ewing, Solicitor at Law, Edinburgh.
- APPENDIX. DECLARATION of GEORGE RATHIE, 4th December 1816.
- APPENDIX. I. EXTRACT from LETTER—Messrs Weir and Gardiner to Wm. Scott, Junr., 27th November 1843. II. EXCERPT from LETTER—Mr Gardiner to Mr Gavin Scott, 12th November 1844.
- APPENDIX. No. I. INTERLOCUTORS of the Lord Ordinary in Causa. Act. D. McNeill.—Alt. Solicitor-General. Act. D. McNeill.—Alt. Solicitor-General.
- APPENDIX. No. I. INTERLOCUTORS.
- APPENDIX. PROOF referred to in the foregoing Petition.
- APPENDIX. REPORT by Archibald Davidson, Esq. Advocate, under remit for taking the Oath of the Pursuer in Supplement.
- Archibald Forbes v. Magistrates of Canongate — Condescendence, 28 Jun 1791 [2]
- Archibald Hamilton v. Thomas Hart — Reclaiming Note, 29 Jun 1829
- Archibald Lyle v. Peter Robertson — 23 Jun 1827
- Bushby — Representation, 28 Jan 1794
- Charles Grant v. George Smith — Bill of Advocation, 11 Apr 1836
- CLAIM FOR DAVID YOUNG.
- Company of Proprietors of the Monkland Navigation v. James Merry — Answers, 2 Feb 1822 [2]
- Copy of the Bill of Suspension and Interdict for Hugh Inglis.
- Cristopher Smith v. Hugh Maxwell — Report, 11 Feb 1794
- Dr. Thomas Walker, &c. v. Earl of Zetland, &c. — Appendix to Reclaiming Note, 19 Jun 1848
- Duncan MacDougal, junior v. Robert Brown, junior — Replies
- Duncan Macdougall jun. v. James Inglis, James Watson and Robert Watson — Answers, 17 Jan 1809
- Duncan Macdougall junior v. Robert Brown junior, Niell Marquis, and James Marquis — Answers, 15 Feb 1810
- Elias Gibb and Others v. Gillon and Rule and Others — Defences, 12 Dec 1835
- Fishwick Gibson v. John Scott — Answers, 8 Sep 1825
- Flora Mure-Campbell, Countess of Loudoun v. Trustees of High Roads, Ayrshire — Duplies, 11 Apr 1793 [2]
- Flora, Countess of Loudoun v. Trustees upon the High-Roads in Ayrshire — Answers, 6 Sep 1792
- Francis Humberston-Mackenzie v. Hugh Ross — Information, 2 Dec 1793
- George Clapperton v. Margaret Hope — Answers, 6 Dec 1780
- George Dundas of Dundas v. Thomas Dundas of Fingask and Thomas Dundas of Quarole — Information, 16 Jan 1759
- George Dundas of Dundas v. Thomas Dundas, elder and younger, of Fingask — Information, 11 Jan 1759
- George Sinclair v. Charles William Thornton Erskine — Reclaiming Note, 4 Jan 1831
- Helen Weir v. Samuel Birnie & Co. — answers, 28 Nov 1799
- Henry Black Stewart v. Robert Sangster, Alexander Whitson, Thomas Hunter Whitson, and Malcolm Stewart Riach — Reclaiming Note, 15 Feb 1848
- Hill — Petitionand Complaint, 26 Feb 1793
- Houston v. Hunter and Edmund — Petition, 29 Nov 1782
- Inglis v. Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor — Petition, 10 Aug 1789
- Inhabitants of the Parish of Crailing v. Hunter — Petition, 18 May 1791
- J. H. Alexander v. J. Cloup, Pélissie, and Mandatory — Reclaiming Note, 4 Jan 1831
- Jackson & M‘Cowan v. William Taylor — Reclaiming Note, 10 Jun 1847
- Jackson and M‘Cowan, Thomas Jackson and Robert M‘Cowan v. William Taylor — Bill of Advocation
- James Lawson v. Peter Burman — Reclaiming Note, 4 Jan 1831
- James Lawson, Tenant in Castle-Nairne,— Pursuer and Respondent ; in the Process of Advocation at the instance of Mrs Margaret Halliburton, or Cochran, residing in Dundee, Executrix-dative, qua nearest-in-kin, decerned and confirmed to the deceased Ge
- James Lyall v. Robert Cooper — Answers, 7 Apr 1831
- James M'Adam v. Alexander M'William — Information, 18 Jan 1787 [2]
- James M'Millan v. Alexander Palmer — Information, 19 Feb 1794
- James Marshall v. Alexander Youngson — Answers, 19 Apr 1798
- James Murison v. the Incorporation of Tailors of Dundee — Note, 24 Jan 1833
- James Ross v. James Scott — Information, 14 Feb 1793
- James Russel v. James Fairie — Petition, 3 Jun 1791
- James Skinner v. Mrs. Isabella Ross or Bell — Reclaiming, 18 Dec 1832
- James Stewart Oliphant v. John Thomson, Walter Thomson, William Thomson, Margaret Thomson, Catherine Thomson, and Janet Thomson — Answers, 8 Dec 1821 [2]
- James Watson v. James Grindlay — Answers, 16 Nov 1824 [2]
- James Wilson and William Aikenhead v. Orlando Strang — Reclaiming Note, 7 Jan 1830
- James Wilson v. Miss Jean Alexander of Rosebank — Answers, 8 Jul 1779
- James Young v. Robert Armour — Answers, 2 Mar 1774
- Jean Hutchison v. Mathew Hutchison — Memorial, 3 Mar 1808 [2]
- John Brown and Mrs Agnes Mackie v. Charles Geddes and James Geddes — Answers, 25 Jun 1807
- John Campbell and Others v. Mrs Eliza Allen or Macalister — Answers, 3 Jul 1822
- John Clark v. Andrew Henry — Answers, 2 Dec 1768
- John Dalrymple v. William Gall and James Forbes — Note, 8 Dec 1836 [2]
- John Hamilton v. William Brown — Reclaiming Note, 15 Jan 1839
- John Hunter v. William Anderson — State of the Process, 17 Dec 1829
- John Lee Allen, Alexander Christie and Andrew Elder v. John Elder, Christian Elder and John M'Farlane — Reclaiming, 6 Sep 1832
- John Macausland & others v. James Montgomery & others — Information, 11 Oct 1792
- John Macintyre v. John King Flesher and David Scott — Answers, 20 Apr 1776
- John Miller of Millheugh v. Alexander Corse — Answers, 24 Nov 1760
- King and Scot v. MacIntyre — Petition
- King and Scot v. MacIntyre — Petition, 27 Feb 1776
- Lady Hannay v. Sir Samuel Hannay's Creditors — Memorial, 6 Feb 1796
- LAWSON v. BURMAN — Note, 29 Jan 1830
- Lawson v. Fairie & Company — Bill of Advocation
- LC Volume 04 — Bill of Advocation, 17 Jan 1809 [2]
- LC Volume 04 — Petition, 30 Dec 1811 [2]
- LC Volume 06 — Petition, 13 Jan 1818 [3]
- Lindsay and Allan v. John Campbell Junior — information, 3 Jan 1800
- M19-1780s doc0009
- Macausland and Others v. Montgomery and Others, and the Magistrates of Glasgow — Answers, 11 Apr 1793
- Macausland and Others v. Montgomery and Others, and the Magistrates of Glasgow — Petition, 29 Jan 1793
- Magistrates of Edinburgh v. William Scott — Information, 5 Jun 1806
- Malcolm Stewart v. William Gloag — Reclaiming Note, 8 Jun 1837
- Mary Brown and others v. Heritors and Kirk-Session of Mordington — Information, 12 May 1804
- Mary Rae v. Agnes Watson and James Taylor — Answers, 7 Jul 1773
- McKinnon v. William Gillies, James Robertson, Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of the City of Edinburgh — Petition, 1 Jul 1794
- Mess. Murdoch, Warrock, and Company v. The Magistrates of the United Towns of Port-Glasgow and Newark — Answers, 28 Jul 1778
- Messrs Spencer Sutherland and Company v. John Hay, Esquire of Letham — Pleas in Law, 22 Nov 1842
- Michael M'Culloch v. William Allan — Information, 26 Apr 1792
- Michael M'Culloch v. William Allan — Memorial, 13 Dec 1792
- Miss Mary Gordon v. Mrs Anne Ogilvie alias Barclay — Minutes, 13 Feb 1790
- Mr William Henderson To Robert Melville. Answers for William Henderson To Robert Melville.
- Mrs Ann M'Cartney Hill or Lang v. Peter Lang — Reclaiming Note, 25 Apr 1849
