| Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire |
1790
|
Freeholder, Election contest, Freehold Qualification, Penalty, Interlocutor, Disposition |
Alexander Milne pursued the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire, represented by George Skene of Skene, to reverse his expungement from the county freeholder roll following the Michaelmas meeting of 1790. The defenders answered that Milne’s freehold qualification was nominal and fictitious, contending that the statutory four-month limitation did not bar objections to fraudulent claims, while Milne asserted his independent acceptance of the wadset and denial of political obligation. The litigation proceeded through reclaiming petitions against adverse interlocutors, condescendences regarding the qualification’s validity, and Milne’s objections to the defenders’ account of expenses. The cause culminated in disputes over the award of statutory penalties and the allocation of costs between the parties. |
| Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird |
1793
|
Insurance, Adjudication, Penalty, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Deviation |
Archibald and James Robertson, insurance brokers in Greenock, petitioned the Court to alter a prior interlocutor pronounced in their action against John Laird, merchant there, regarding whether a voyage alteration had voided an insurance policy. The pursuers contended that a liberty to call at an English port imported a liberty to discharge at Hull by statute and custom, while Laird answered that the alteration rendered the policy void and subsequently denied that calling at a port implied any right to discharge there. The parties exchanged replies and duplies on the construction of the policy's port liberties and the validity of the coverage. |
| Armstrong and Son, and Others v. Thomas Moffat and Others |
1800
|
Contract, Interlocutor, Penalty, Sheriff, Debt, Fine |
The candlemakers in Dalkeith routinely entered into one-year contracts with the Society of Fleshers to purchase the tallow from slaughtered cattle. This tallow was provided at a fixed price, and the candlemakers were entitled to examine it and receive a discount for any impurities they found. In 1799, the candlemakers sought, and obtained, a regulation providing for two appointees to search the tallow for impurities before it was transferred to them. The fleshers argued that this regulation should be suspended—or, at minimum, that they should receive a higher price—because the candlemakers were not entitled to receive purified tallow at the established contract price. |
| Brown v. Dundas |
1793
|
Adjudication, Statute, Fraud, Forfeiture, Penalty, Forgery |
Dundas, as defender, argued in an information that the statute under which Brown prosecuted them did not authorize the seizure of unstamped starch without prior notice or opportunity to comply. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Creditors of David Currie v. William Hannay |
1791
|
Debt, Penalty, Damages, Creditor, Contract, Forfeiture |
The creditors of David Currie pursued William Hannay regarding whether articles of roup imposed a binding obligation. Hannay petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and John Currie, as eldest son and apparent heir of David Currie, and Hugh Corrie, Writer to the Signet, answered, maintaining that the articles created no binding obligation. |
| John Gardner v. Smith and Wardrobe |
1773
|
Tutor and Pupil, Penalty, Aliment, Statute, Interlocutor, Creditor |
John Smith entered into an indenture to be an apprentice to John Gardner, a wright. Smith’s grandfather John Wardrop also was a party to the agreement, having agreed to provide board and washing for his grandson. The agreement had a term of three years and would be enforced by a £5 Sterling penalty if either side failed to perform its obligations. Smith entered into Gardner’s service, but he left the apprenticeship after about a year. Gardiner charged Smith and Wardrop for payment of the £5 Sterling penalty. However, Smith and Wardrop argued that the indenture agreement was void because it lacked a stamp signifying payment of a statutory duty. They also alleged that Gardner had taken up smuggling and was deficient in providing instruction. |
| 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. |
| John Reid and Richard Thomson v. United Incorporation of Mary's Chapel |
1792
|
Aliment, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Encroachment, Penalty, Suspension |
John Reid and Richard Thomson, masons and builders, and others, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Henderland's interlocutor in their action against the United Incorporation of Mary's Chapel. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Jones v. Smith |
1771
|
Inspection of goods, Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Forfeiture, Penalty, Appeal |
Pursuer David Jones, merchant in Glasgow, imported quantities of lint-seed from Philadelphia. The goods arrived in Greenock bound for Glasgow. Two dealers in Glasgow, whose business would be affected by the influx of lint-seed, lodged a complaint with the Trustees for the Improvement of Fisheries and Manufactures about the lint-seed's quality. The dealers maintained that the lint-seed was bad, and therefore should not be imported. Defender Hugh Smith was a surveyor for the Trustees. After receiving a report that some of the seed was bad, Smith ordered the condemnation of the seed. Jones challenged the grounds and process by which Smith sought to condemn his cargo. |
| Knox v. Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow |
1798
|
Procurator, Charter, Faculty, Penalty, Interlocutor, Contract |
Hugh Knox, Writer in Glasgow, petitioned the Court against the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, seeking to remit their regulation that imposed £30 of entry money upon him on the grounds that his apprenticeship had ended before the regulation was enacted and the charge was therefore retrospective and oppressive. The Faculty answered, defending the regulation against his claims. |
| Lamb v. Neilson |
1784
|
Apprentice, Cautioner, Deed, Interlocutor, Penalty, Representation |
Andrew Lamb raised a charge to enforce an indenture executed by George Neilson, his apprentice, and William Neilson, a cautioner. The Neilsons sought a suspension of the charge, arguing that the indenture was void because it had not been properly stamped. Lamb argued that he could still obtain the stamp and pursue the action. |
| Loch v. Tweedie |
1798
|
Arrestment, Aliment, Trespass, Poinding, Interlocutor, Penalty |
John Loch pursued Alexander Tweedie regarding damages caused by Tweedie’s trespassing sheep, defending his poinding of the flocks and asserting statutory rights to distrain while disputing the defender’s allegations as to penalties and damages. Tweedie repeatedly petitioned the Court to alter interlocutors, first regarding Lord Craig’s order and later challenging subsequent decisions, while Loch reclaimed against an Inner House interlocutor and submitted defenses supported by witness testimony. Tweedie answered Loch’s reclaiming petition and continued to seek alteration of the Court’s interlocutors through November 1799. |
| Macadam v. Creditors of Campbell and Company |
1787
|
Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Penalty, Adjudication, Debt, Infeftment |
John Macadam of Craigingillan petitioned the Court to alter Lord Alva's interlocutor, which had restricted his right to rank for penalty in his heritable bond against Campbell and Company. The heritable creditors of the firm answered, opposing his claim for penalty beyond the expenses of recovery. |
| Ranking of the Creditors of Jarvieston |
1782
|
Debt, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Ranking of Creditors, Infeftment, Penalty |
This case was about whether creditors could be ranked for the penalties specified in heritably secured bonds. The affected creditors argued that they should be ranked for the penalties to the extent of their actual expenses. They further argued that the court had previously used its equitable powers to limit recovery with respect to penalty provisions, but not foreclosed recovery altogether. The respondents contended that creditors could never be ranked for penalties. |
| Robert Alexander v. James Chrystie |
1766
|
Election contest, Aliment, Arrestment, Contract, Oath, Penalty |
The commissioners from five boroughs of the county of Fife gathered to elect a parliament-burgess, and on the first vote Robert Alexander was elected. Later, the presiding officer voted again so that Alexander's opponent won. Alexander sued the clerk and returning officer, James Chrystie, because of the way the voting was handled. |
| Robertson v. McClure |
1779
|
Roup, Penalty, Removing, Sist, Debt, Adjudication |
In 1758, John McClure commissioned William Robertson to offer £112 for a house and yard at a public roup (auction). According to McClure, Robertson purchased the property at a higher rate than authorized. McClure refused to pay the price. Robertson then became subject to penalties and other expenses, which compelled him to bring a process against McClure before the Magistrates of Ayr. The Magistrates granted a decree in absence, against which McClure then obtained a (sist) judicial stay. Despite this stay, Robertson then made the debt over to James Fergusson. In August 1775, Fergusson obtained a decree of adjudication against McClure on account of the above-mentioned decree and some debts that had been owed by McClure's father. Fergusson then assigned this adjudication to Robert Robertson, the son of William Robertson. Robert Robertson took possession of some property owned by McClure after which he successfully brought a process of removing against him. McClure applied by bill of suspension to the Court of Session, which was refused by Lord Gardenstone. McClure then petitioned the Court for review, arguing that both debts were invalid: one, because there was a sist on it, and the other, because it had been extinguished by a decree of mails and duties obtained by Robertson. Furthermore, he argued that because his property were jointly owned by him and his four siblings, the charger's decree of moving was erroneous in regard to four-fifths of the property. |
| Ross v. Scott |
1793
|
Lease, Penalty, Trespass, Adjudication, Aliment, Statute |
James Scott, as pursuer, alleged that the defender Ross’s sheep had trespassed on his grounds and contended that the statute of 1686, cap. 11, entitled him to recover penalties. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Sir Robert Pollock v. Thomas Paton |
1777
|
Penalty, Rent, Adjudication, Lease, Debt, Succession |
In 1770, Sir Robert Pollock of Pollock let the lands of Floak and Floakside to Thomas Paton, a tenant of some years. The missives of the new agreement contained an additional clause that if Paton were to plough any land in addition to what he had ploughed the previous year, he would pay £100 Scots for each additional acre. After Paton had quit Floak and Floakside, Pollock brought action before the Sheriff of Renfrewshire, requesting the requisite payment on a newly-ploughed acre and a half. The sheriff-substitute initially ruled in Pollock's favour, however after consulting with the sheriff-depute he declared the extra provision to be a penalty that must correspond with real damages. Sir Robert, the pursuer, then applied to the Court by bill of advocation, claiming to have undertaken many costly improvements of his land, which would come to nought should tenants such as Paton be allowed to plough a meadowland of rich soil. He pointed out that Paton had been under no obligation to enter into the tack, and under no obligation to plough the extra land. The defender, on the other hand, stated that Pollock was severely exaggerating the quality of the land in question; he described it as a bare moor farm whose sole improvement was a stone dike on the common march. Furthermore, he claimed that in previous years he had been allowed to plough the land in question at no additional cost. The Court found in favour of the pursuer, determining the money asked for to be a form of rent. |
| Somerville v. Wilson |
1766
|
Linen industry, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustees, Forfeiture, Penalty |
In April 1765, the charger, Thomas Wilson, as Inspector of Yarn appointed by the Trustees for Improving Manufactures in Scotland, inspected a quantity of yarn owned by the suspender, Patrick Somerville, in an Edinburgh market waiting to be transported to Glasgow. Wilson determined that 32 of Somerville's 150 spindles were faulty in their manufacture, and he seized these spindles. Wilson brought action against Somerville before the Sheriff of Edinburgh, who condemned the 32 spindles and charged Somerville with a penalty, payable to Wilson. Somerville appealed the Sheriff's decision to the Court of Session, which overturned the fine but upheld the forfeiture of the yarn. In an effort to get his yarn back, Somerville argued that the seizure was unwarranted and illegally done. He claimed that the statues relative to the linen industry and improving manufacturing in Scotland were an encroachment on the liberty of individuals. Wilson's petition argued for the importance of inspections in order to counteract people like Somerville, working as hawkers, who dealt both in the spinning of yarn from flax and the purchasing of yarn to sell to manufactures. Wilson argued that these hawkers have been particularly active in Edinburgh selling yarn to Glasgow and Paisley and that their trade had provided regular cover to fraud in the making of yarn. |
| Steuart v. Ramsden |
1793
|
Sequestration, Penalty, Arrestment, Jurisdiction, Forfeiture, Debt |
Steuart pursued Ramsden to remit the seizure of effects from the sequestrated premises of James Hill, contending that Ramsden's poinding of the goods was illegal. Hill separately sought remission of penalties and forfeiture awarded by the Edinburgh Justices of Peace for alleged accounting breaches, which Ramsden defended as clear statutory violations warranting the assessed amounts. Ferguson petitioned to challenge both the legality of Ramsden's poinding and the jurisdiction of the Justices to impose penalties beyond the statutory limit, while Ramsden additionally sought review of an interlocutor regarding preference over the poinded effects in Hill's bankruptcy. |
| Trustees of Sir James Carnegie v. Personal Creditors of the Estate of Auchinbreck |
1769
|
Debt, Adjudication, Ranking of Creditors, Penalty, Creditor, Bankruptcy |
The Trustees of Sir James Carnegie, Baronet, Richard Lockwood, and other creditors-adjudgers of the estate of Auchinbreck petitioned the Court to remit the restriction of penalties in their adjudications. They submitted cases and precedents arguing that real creditors must rank pari passu with personal creditors for the full accumulated sums until paid. |
| William Hart v. John and James Naesmith |
1775
|
Debt, Adjudication, Poinding, Annual Rent, Penalty, Feu duties |
Michael Naesmith borrowed £480 from William Hamilton in 1731 and by 1740 John and James Naesmith, defenders, had become bound for the debt. After Michael's death, John and James received adjudication against a tenement he had owed, in order to recover what he owed them. In 1774, Hart, pursuer, and son of another creditor of Michael, brought an adjudication against the tenement. |
| Young, and Husband v. Sinclair, et al |
1796
|
Debt, Creditor, Assignation, Penalty, Succession, Aliment |
Mrs Janet Young and James Riddoch, her husband, sought recovery of the net expenses they had incurred in enforcing payment of an annuity due under a heritable bond. Mrs Janet Sinclair, her husband James Smith, William Innes, and William Innes as Administrator-in-Law resisted, contending that they ought not to be subjected to the expenses of process under a general decerniture for penalty. |
