Legal Subject: Mala Fides

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Aitcheson v. Stalker 1777 Bill (Financial Instrument), Death - Presumption of, Mala Fides, Debt, Succession, Prescription In January 1770, Andrew Stalker accepted a bill for £42 sterling payable to his sister-in-law, Rebecca Spreull. Both of them died shortly afterward. Spreull's husband, John of Milton, sued Stalker's nephew, Samuel, for payment of this bill. The Sheriff of Lanark found Samuel Stalker liable, but around that time (March 1771) John Spreull died. The trustees of Spreull's son, who had been abroad, then obtained confirmation and charged Stalker upon the Sheriff's order. The case went dormant for several years, but in January 1777 Lord Kennet found Stalker liable. Stalker then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor, claiming several additional grounds of compensation. He also contended that the confirmation of John Aitcheson, the surviving trustee, was inept, for the person in whose name it was given - John Spreull, junior - had perished in a shipwreck shortly before his father's death. Furthermore, Stalker claimed that the original decreet charged on was null and void, for John Spreull, senior, had died shortly beforehand. John Aitcheson countered the suspender's various pleas of compensation, and declared that Stalker's contention regarding the death of Spreull, senior, was clearly false. He also claimed that there was no evidence that Spreull, junior, had been lost at sea, and that he was merely "abroad on business."
Bell v. King 1794 Witness, Aliment, Adultery, Divorce, Mala Fides, Defamation James Bell, Sheriff-Clerk of Berwickshire, pursued an action of divorce against his spouse Isobel King, alleging she had committed adultery with their lodger Thomas Purves. King denied the charge and sought to lead evidence from Purves himself and from her own mother and siblings, while Bell objected that Scots law rendered both the alleged adulterer and near relations incompetent witnesses for the defender. The litigation involved petitions to alter interlocutors, competing memorials on witness competency, and Bell’s answers to King’s bill of advocation regarding the separation and adultery allegations.
Cockburn v. Partners of Douglas, Heron & Co 1780 Copartnership, Debt, Sequestration, Mala Fides, Bankruptcy, Aliment This case was about liability for a share of the failed partnership of Douglas, Heron, and Company. The pursuers, a group of the company’s partners, alleged that the disputed share belonged to Archibald Cockburn of Cockpen, who was both a stockholder and a director of the company. Cockburn claimed that he had acquired the share on behalf of the company, as part of an effort to prop up its stock price. However, the partners argued that as a director, Cockburn did not have the power to make such a purchase, and that even if he did, that power was not exercised properly.
Crawford, et al v. Morrison, et al 1787 Election contest, Aliment, Election, Mala Fides, Adjudication, Inhibition Thomas Crawford, Charles Pirrie, Alexander Paterson, and John Gardner pursued John Morrison and others to have Morrison’s election as Deacon of the Incorporation of Wrights in Glasgow declared void. The respondents defended the 1787 election as having proceeded by lawful procedure and majority vote, and further averred that the complainants had themselves accepted office under the contested appointment.
Crichton v. Mackay 1788 Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Creditor, Marriage, Succession Alexander Crichton petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor. Defender Mary Mackay answered, responding to allegations of infamy and misconduct that Crichton had made against her.
David Fowler v. Andrew Reid 1765 Election contest, Aliment, Bribery, Mala Fides, Corruption, Reduction Complainers David Fowler and James Miller alleged that an election in Kilrenny was tainted by corrupt practices designed to instate officials who would support Robert Alexander for a seat in parliament. Fowler and Miller sued the burgh’s elected officials, seeking to have the election vacated or, at minimum, to be reinstated in their positions as counsellor and bailie. The officials denied these allegations and alleged that members of the opposing party, including Sir John Anstruther and complainer David Fowler, had themselves engaged in corruption.
Edmonstone v. Tweedale 1772 Debt, Disposition, Deed, Interlocutor, Mala Fides, Rent In 1766, Robert Tweedale, defender, owed money to James Edmonstone, pursuer. Tweedale could not repay Edmonstone at that time. As security for the eventual payment, Tweedale granted Edmonstone the right to "infeft," or take possession of, some old houses in Mid-Calder. Edmonstone agreed to delay seeking payment provided that Tweedale delivered possession of the houses to him. Despite this agreement, Edmonstone did not take possession of the houses and allowed Tweedale to continue living in them. Edmonstone grew tired of the delays in payment and found that the homes were in such a poor state of repair that their sale would not cover the cost of the debt. Edmonstone brought a process against Tweedale before the sheriff-depute of Edinburgh seeking to collect payment. He argued that the homes stood as security for future payment of the debt, and did not constitute the payment itself. Tweedale, however, countered that his infestment to Edmonstone satisfied the debt, an argument that the sheriff-depute accepted. In the Court of Session, the Lord Ordinary initially found for Edmonstone, but later reversed his own ruling. The documents here represent Edmonstone's attempts to convince the full court to rule in his favor.
Graham et al v. Macfarlane 1766 Education, Presbytery, Aliment, Defamation, Mala Fides, Sequestration This case involved the efforts of heritors in the parish of Port of Mentieth (Port) to deprive the parish schoolmaster, James Macfarlane, of his office. The heritors claimed that Mcfarlane neglected his schoolmaster duties while operating a side business as a merchandiser, beat the school children under this tutelage, along with other accusations. The Pursuers first complained of Macfarlane to the Sheriff of Perth in 1752, but Macfarlane was allowed to continue. Starting in 1763 and again in 1764, forty heritors and heads of families in Port exhibited a complaint against Macfarlane to the presbytery stating that Macfarlane was unfit to be a school teacher due to neglect of duty while he operated his merchandising business and abusive treatment of students. The Presbytery found Macfarlane unfit to serve as schoolmaster in Port. Macfarlane appealed to the synod of Perth and then to the Court of Session. Macfarlane argued that since the salaries of schoolmasters in parish schools were so low, it was common occurrence for schoolmasters to serve as merchandisers for the goods in demand in their parishes. He acknowledged that he had attended fairs in Stirling and Gartmore to sell lint-seed and trade other goods, but he argued that he was only gone for two days and that it was the custom of the parish to close school on these days because many children were absent to to assist with the bear seed. He outlined his measures of discipline as schoolmaster and claimed that they were not severe as the Pursuers had claimed. Case documents provide details of the day-to-day happenings in the Port school house and Macfarlane's interactions with students.
Home v. Smart 1795 Interlocutor, Mala Fides, Damages, Arbitration, Impress Service, Arrestment Sir George Home, Baronet, Commander of HMS Defiance, sought review of an interlocutor that found him liable for damages for impressing John Smart, chief mate of the Brig Molly of Leith, who claimed exemption under merchant vessel practice and had been cleared of a desertion allegation. Smart answered, contending that the impressment was unlawful and based on a false pretence of desertion. Home subsequently reclaimed against the Inner-House interlocutor, seeking to alter the finding that he was liable in expenses.
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.
Janet Calder v. John Wood 1798 Citation, Interlocutor, Aliment, Arrestment, Mala Fides, Witness John Wood, defender, sought review of interlocutors rejecting his advocation bill in an action brought by Janet Calder, contending that the citation had been defective because it was left at a lodging house he no longer occupied. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Jean Farquharson v. Alexander Anderson 1800 Interlocutor, Aliment, Witness, Creditor, Mala Fides, Succession After having a child outside of marriage, Jean Farquharson brought an action against Alexander Anderson for declarator of marriage or, in the alternative, damages for seduction. Anderson denied fathering Farquharson’s child. To prove their cases, the parties proffered many depositions of local residents who had witnessed events material to the case. Alleging that Anderson had engaged in a scheme of witness tampering, Farquharson objected to the admissibility of several such depositions. Case materials include reprinted depositions, excerpts from depositions, and references to many individuals in the local community.
John Gray v. John M'Aulay 1791 Election, Election contest, Penalty, Statute, Witness, Mala Fides John Gray, writer in Dumbarton, pursued John M'Aulay, town clerk of Dumbarton, to enforce statutory penalties for allegedly making a commission to George Ferguson contrary to the Act of 16 George II c. 11. M'Aulay denied issuing any commission, maintaining that the document was merely an extract of minutes, while Gray contended that the clerk's affixing of the burgh seal to the extract of election rendered it a legal commission. Following an Inner-House interlocutor that dismissed his complaint, Gray reclaimed against that decision.
Keltie v. Finlay 1776 Bill (Financial Instrument), Mala Fides, Expenses, Fraud, Class, Debt In January 1770, John Finlay granted a bill to James Beveridge. Shortly afterward he made a partial payment to Thomas Beveridge, who had possession of the bill. A note of this partial payment was marked on the bill, but five years later David Keltie, the bill's endorsee, sued Finlay for its full amount. By this point the bill had been torn and the receipt of partial payment was disfigured. Finlay thus accused Keltie of bad faith ("pessima fide") and fraud, and petitioned the Court to exempt him from paying any additional part of the bill. After Keltie produced the torn-off section of the bill, Lord Barskimming decreed that Finlay would only have to pay the remaining balance, but that he was responsible for expenses. Finlay petitioned the court to overturn this ruling, arguing that Keltie was responsible for the court fees, having unjustly pressed him for more money than was due. Keltie in turn argued that Finlay's inconsistent testimony was to blame for the unnecessary expenses. He claimed that much of the confusion arose from whether the receipt was denominated in pounds Scots or sterling. Keltie argued that he was right to have insisted in favor of pounds Scots: likening the suspender to "the lower sort of people in this country," he claimed that "people of inferior rank in Scotland, to this day, generally count in Scots, and not in Sterling money."
Lydia Douglas, and her Husband v. The Trustees of Sir Charles Douglas 1791 Succession, Aliment, Marriage, Trust, Disposition, Mala Fides Lydia Mariana Douglas and her husband pursued the Trustees of Sir Charles Douglas, arguing that a condition in her father's will was void as capricious and unjust. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Macindoe v. Cowley, Wallace, Crawford, and French 1777 Military, Optima Fide, Jurisdiction, Mala Fides, Damages, Wrongful imprisonment, Freemasonry This case concerns the forced enlistment and imprisonment for desertion of John Macindoe, Glasgow hair-dresser. In February of 1777, while in a drunken state, John Macindoe pledged himself to the army in exchange for a shilling from Ensign Hugh Wallace. A few weeks later, upon the order of Captain William Cowley, Macindoe was seized by a group of soldiers and imprisoned for refusing to enlist. Macindoe applied to the Court by a bill of suspension and liberation, and Lords Covington and Kennet ordered Macindoe set at liberty. Macindoe then brought action for damages and expenses against Wallace and Cowley, and against the bailies who had ordered his imprisonment. He claimed that his false imprisonment had led to the ruin of his business, and that he had been forced to enlist in another regiment out of necessity. Bailies French and Crawfurd, on the other hand, argued that because Macindoe was presently a soldier, therefore "the only consequence of his not being found a soldier in one regiment, was, that he would soon be a soldier in another.” They also argued that as bailies they had merely judged erroneously, and not acted out of malice. The Court assoilzied Crawfurd and French, as well as Cowley. Ensign Wallace then petitioned the Court for assoilment as well, stating that he had "innocently and bona fide" believed that Macindoe's enlistment was legitimate.
Macredie v. Cunninghames 1776 Power of Attorney, Mala Fides, Plantation, Slavery and enslaved people, West Indies and Atlantic trade, Enslaved people named as property Thomas Macredie, a business associate of William Cunninghame, died intestate in July of 1753, leaving a 400-acre plantation in Augusta County, Virginia. Andrew and William Macredies, father and brother of Thomas, respectively, successively corresponded with William Cunninghame regarding the sale of "Macredie's Quarter," and when he returned to Glasgow in 1762, his brother, Alexander, took over the matter. Eventually the plantation was sold to Colonel Thomas Slaughter, who became bankrupt before making any payments on the land. In April of 1773, a few months after the death of Alexander Cunninghame, William Macredie brought action against William Cunninghame for the price of Macredie's Quarter, arguing that Cunninghame had spitefully withheld the bond for the land, following a dispute over Cunninghame's commission. William Cunninghame, on the other hand, argued that he had never been the official power of attorney, and therefore was not responsible for delivering the bond to Macredie. Lord Barskimming assoilzied (cleared) Cunninghame, and Macredie brought action against the heirs of Alexander Cunninghame. Cunninghame's heirs, the defenders, argued that the fault lay with Macredie, who had failed to seek out Alexander Cunninghame while he was still alive. After Barskimming assoilzied the defenders, Macredie reclaimed, and William Cunninghame was then ordained to exhibit all relevant correspondence on the matter. According to Macredie, these letters provided evidence of "collusion and artifice"; he therefore asked the Court to alter Barskimming's assoilment. Shortly afterward, however, for reasons not disclosed in the court documents, Macredie withdrew his objection to the Cunninghames' assoilment, and Lord Barskimming found Macredie liable for their legal expenses.
Magistrates of Perth v. Andrew 1797 Tack, Rent, Lease, Mala Fides, tenant, Possession The Magistrates of Perth sought John Andrew’s removal from leased lands following the expiration of his lease, while Andrew claimed that permission from his brother to cultivate adjacent land constituted tacit consent to his continued possession. After Lord Armadale pronounced an interlocutor against him, Andrew petitioned the Court to alter that decision, prompting the Magistrates and Town-Council of Perth, along with Charles Bruce as Treasurer, to answer his petition and defend against the charge of horning.
Maxwell v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1789 Arrestment, Action, Sequestration, Creditor, Mala Fides, Citation Charles Maxwell-Campbell petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
McKenzie v. Lowe 1778 Debt, Cautioner, Tack, Security, Creditor, Mala Fides Kenneth M'Kenzie petitioned the court to alter an interlocutor, contending that Doctor Lowe’s letter was intended to delay relief until the 1775 rents were paid rather than merely to cover a £400 arrear. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Merry v. Macrae 1791 Arrestment, Aliment, Defamation, Proof, Inhibition, Mala Fides James Merry pursued James Macrae for assault with a stick, claiming damages and a fine. Alexander Young, Writer to the Signet, subsequently lodged an information contending that Merry's claim was unfounded and urging that the interlocutor against Macrae not be enforced.
Peter Ramsay and Others, Councillors and Burgesses of Pittenweem v. Andrew Martin and Others 1765 Election contest, Aliment, Oath, Perjury, Mala Fides, Debt Petitioners sought to have a borough election nullified on the ground that it was conducted in a corrupt fashion by counsellors who were bribed by Robert Alexander, a candidate for the local parliament seat.
Playfair v. Riddell and Riddell 2 of 2 1793 Possession, Bargain, Arrestment, Condition, Tack, Mala Fides
Principal Clerks of Session v. Charles Steuart 1788 Sequestration, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Mala Fides, Arrestment The Principal Clerks of Session brought a penal action against Charles Steuart, as heir of the late John Steuart, seeking to hold him liable for his father’s neglect of duty in preserving extracted decreets and their warrants. Steuart argued that he ought to be assoilzied from the charge, while the pursuers maintained that he was bound as heir to indemnify them for the expenses and damages arising from his father’s failure.
Procurator-Fiscal of the County of Edinburgh v. Wilson 1787 Mala Fides, Interlocutor, Oath, Libel, Arrestment, Lease David Wilson, gardener at Roslin, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his bill of advocation against the Procurator-Fiscal of Edinburgh’s complaint charging him with hunting without a licence. William Scott, as Procurator-Fiscal, answered the petition, defending the interlocutor and responding to Wilson’s allegation that the reference to his oath was incompetent.
Robb v. Bogg 1794 Interlocutor, Agent, Clerks of Session, Mala Fides, Suspension, Act of Parliament In Robb v. Bogg, Thomas M'Grugar petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had turned a null decree into a libel and ordered him to plead the merits. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Rutherford v. Caverhill, et al 1787 Succession, Debt, Aliment, Deed, Mala Fides, Creditor Mrs Helen Rutherford sought to reduce deeds of settlement executed by the deceased Archibald Jerdon in favour of Jerdon Caverhill, contending that the instruments were invalid owing to his dotage and undue influence. Archibald Jerdon of Bonjedward and his Tutors, with others, defended the deeds and argued that the Court should not reduce them.
Scotlands v. Thompson 1776 Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Damages, Election contest The defender, the Reverend James Thomson, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The pursuers, Scotlands, opposed the petition in a memorial arguing that Thomson's accusations were malicious, politically motivated, and subversive of public order.
The Common Agent in the Ranking and Sale of John Mackinnell's property v. Thomas Goldie 1797 Debt, Adjudication, Succession, Copartnership, Creditor, Mala Fides Thomas Goldie, judicial factor for dissolved brewing partnerships, pursued the Common Agent in the Ranking and Sale of John Mackinnell's property to recover debts and losses, including principal, interest, and asset sale damages, arising from John M'Kinnell's mismanagement, following M'Kinnell's death and prior adjudications. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads v. Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick 1793 Trustees, Thirlage, Mala Fides, Statute, Interdict, Act of Parliament The Trustees upon the Berwickshire Turnpike Roads defended the placement of a toll-bar on the Eyemouth road against the Mayor, Bailies, and Burgesses of the Borough of Berwick, who sought suspension of the tolls under a 1793 turnpike act. The Corporation argued that the trustees had violated the statute by situating the gate closer to Eyemouth than to Berwick, thereby creating unequal distances prohibited by the act. The Trustees maintained that the gate was properly positioned as near as may be to the required distance from Berwick and that the Corporation's bill of suspension lacked legal foundation.
William Cunninghame and Co. v. James Craig of Baidland 1778 Aliment, Maryland, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Mala Fides, Arrestment In July 1769, John Craig, son of James Craig of Baidland, contracted with Cunninghame and Co. to serve for five years as an indentured servant in "any of their stores in Virginia or Maryland." Towards the end of his contract, he allegedly became gravely ill. Cunninghame and Co. advanced money to cover his medical bills. Cunninghame & Co. brought action against Craig of Baidland for repayment of this debt, claiming that they had extracted a guarantee from his son to accept the bill provided they released him from his contract. The cause came before Lord Ankerville, who assoilzied (absolved) the defender. The pursuers then petitioned the Court for review, arguing that it was the "natural obligation" of parents to pay for their children's support. Furthermore, the pursuers claimed that they had been obliged to advance the money in question as a result of the "duty incumbent on every man to save his neighbour's life." In his answer, James Craig wrote that he could not afford to cover the expenses of his adult son who had supported himself for years. Furthermore, Craig noted that after settling in North America his son "acquired habits of dissipation and extravagance" and that most or all of the sum advanced by the pursuers was likely to sustain this spendthrift lifestyle, and not to cover medical bills. After all, “It may likewise be observed, that if the assistance may not be had, of the most skilled, even for a less sum than the salary due to John Craig, very miserable must be the situation of numbers, both in America and elsewhere.” Craig's answers concluded by asking what would happen if every parent were compelled to accept the bills of their children who, living in far-off lands, made unverifiable claims of sickness as the cause of their debt.
Young v. Hernderland's Interlocutor 1793 Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Oath, Proof, Creditor Pursuer John Young, tenant in Upper Nisbet, petitioned the Court to remit Lord Henderland's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 854)