[]

Related Cases

Case Date Legal Subjects Abstract
Somerville v. Wilson 1767 Linen industry 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.
Alexander v. Beaumont 1774 Contracts and Obligations, Breach of Contract Robert Alexander hired John Beaumont in 1770 to mine the coal on Alexander's property in Blackhouse and Boghall in Ayrshire. Under the contract, Beaumont was to deliver coal from Alexander's property to the harbor of Ayr. Beaumont brought the coal to the harbor, but he claimed that there were no people who could receive on Alexander's behalf. Beaumont applied to William Alexander, the brother of Robert, for instructions. According to Beaumont, William directed him to offer the coal to the Newton Company or a third party, or to "bing" the coals "on the hill." The parties disagreed over the expenses incurred for coal binged on the hill. Alexander also accused Beaumont of failing to separate the bings of great coal from the bings of pan wood. Alexander believed that some coal caught fire because of Beaumont's alleged failure to separate great coal from pan wood.
Greenock Rope-Work Company v Donald, Donald, and Company 1773 Partnership, Dissolution The Greenock Ropework Company was a partnership formed to manufacture rope and sail-duck. Two partners, William Donald and Henry White (alternatively spelled Whyte), served as managers of the partnership. The partnership decided that only one manager was necessary, so it appointed Henry White as the sole manager of the partnership. This action offended William Donald as well as William's brother, James Donald, another partner of Greenock Ropework Company. With a strained relationship with two of its partners, William and James Donald proposed that the Company should be dissolved, which it did. The parties disputed the proper method of dissolution. To balance the books prior to dissolution, the partnership sought to collect a debt owed by James and Robert Donalds and Company (named as suspenders), the same James Donald who was a partner of the Greenock Rope partnership. Because the rope-work company furnished some goods to that company. James and Robert Donalds and Company sought to suspend the debt on the grounds that James Donald, as partner of the Greenock Ropework Company, was actually owed money in excess of the debt claimed by the partnership.
Wilson and Company v. Hamilton and Company 1773 Debt, Agent, Sell of goods James Wilson and Company of Kilmarnock manufactured woolen carpets for sale in London. Since 1762, Malcolm Hamilton and Company had served as James Wilson & Company's London agent . The dispute related to a large quantity of James Wilson & Company's carpets left in a wharf cellar in London for five years. James Wilson & Company argued that because of Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's negligence it suffered some loss. The pursuer claimed that the carpets had been significantly damaged due to Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's neglect. The defender disputed these claims.
Dr. John Roebuck, and Samuel Garbet v. William and Andrew Stirling 20 Jan 1773 Patent, Privilege Roebuck and Garbet, pursuers, claimed that they obtained a patent in 1771 for a process that produced sulfuric acid in vessels of lead, instead of in vessels of glass. The patent allegedly gave Roebuck and Garbet the exclusive privilege of using this process in Great Britain for fourteen years. Roebuck and Garbet claimed that William and Andrew Stirling were constructing buildings in Glasgow for the purpose of using Roebuck and Garbet's patented process. Roebuck and Garbet applied for a bill of suspension, but Lord Hailes found no patent transgression in the construction of the buildings. Roebuck and Garbet applied for a second bill of suspension, but the court did not prohibit the Stirlings from producing sulfuric acid in vessels of lead while the case was pending. Because their patent only lasts fourteen years, Roebuck and Garbet sought to stop the Stirlings' activity immediately. They argued that the continued activity of the Stirlings causes Roebuck and Garbet material loss and rendered their patent ineffective.
Samuel Cole, &c v. Ephraim Flamare, &c 4 Aug 1772 Samuel Cole, pursuer, was a silk-weaver based in London. Some of his silk (worth £3,000 Sterling) was stored in a warehouse in Canongate, a district of Edinburgh. Cole declared bankruptcy. Shortly after this, Flammare, defender and creditor of Cole, went to Edinburgh to seize Cole's silk in Canongate by using an admiral-precept. William Cole, brother and creditor of Samuel Cole, along with other creditors of Samuel Cole, also took out an admiral-precept on Samuel Cole's effects in Edinburgh. These other creditors sought an equal distribution of Cole's property among the creditors. Flammare alleged, among other procedural defects, that the other creditors' application for sequestration was ineffective under the applicable bankruptcy statute because the case involved an English, not Scottish, debtor.
John Finlay and Trustees v. Robert Finlay and Trustees 1772 Debt, Copartnership, Bankruptcy John Finlay, pursuer, was the son of Robert Finlay, defender. John and Robert operated a shoe factory in Glasgow as a partnership. Robert owned two-thirds interest and John owned one-third. The partnership experienced financial difficulty and was placed in trusteeship. John's trustees sued Robert's trustees to see if Robert owed any money to John from the venture. Robert insisted that he did not owe any money and sought certain documents and books from the partnership.
Alexander v. Montgomery 1772 Contract Robert Alexander, the pursuer, owned property in the town of Ayr that contained coal deposits. On behalf of his brother Robert Alexander, William Alexander exchanged letters with James Montgomery, Dr. John Campbell, and the other partners of the coal company at Newton of Ayr. Through this series of letters, the parties apparently agreed that Montgomery would deliver and the coal company would purchase the coal from Montgomery's property. Montgomery et al. denied the existence of a formal contract. Montgomery et al. also argued that Alexander was late delivering the coal.
William and Henry Knox and Co Merchants in Dunbar v. William Law, Esq Sheriff-depute of Haddington, and Others 10 Dec 1771 Pursuers William Knox and Henry Knox, merchants in Dunbar, supplied barley to brewers in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Knox and Knox alleged that defender William Law, the sheriff of the county of East Lothian, had set the fiar (fixed price) of barley too high. An Act of Sederunt in 1723 established the process by which a sheriff of a given county in Scotland would set friars. The Act required the sheriff to appoint a jury of at least eight landowners in the county, with knowledge of the good at issue, to set the price. According to the pursuers, the sheriff's responsibilities were purely ministerial, setting a price agreeable with the verdict of the jury. Knox and Knox alleged that Law did not comply with the 1723 Act when he set the fiar for barley.
Hately v. Dunlop 1771 Property, Encroachment Pursuer Joseph Hately was an engineer who specialized in coal mining. In May 1770 Hately obtained a tack (lease) of coal in the lands of Hutchison near Glasgow. Defender Colin Dunlop was a merchant in Glasgow who also worked in the coal trade. Hately accused Dunlop and his business partner Alexander Houston of trying to monopolize the Glaswegian coal trade. Hately was able to sell his coal at a lower price than Dunlop and Houston, who owned adjoining coal property in the lands of Carmyle. Dunlop accused Hately of encroaching upon his lands, petitioned the local sheriff of Lanark to allow three of his servants to inspect Hately's mines. Hately maintained that he did not encroached on Dunlop's property and only wanted to protect his interest in the coal-trade. Hately then sought the appointment of a land-surveyor, who was not a coallier or connected with the coal trade, to evaluate the land.
Reid v. Rowand 5 Jul 1770 Warrandice Petitioner Robert Reid, a baker in Glasgow, leased from defender George Rowand the first floor of a house in Glasgow for a term of 19 years. Reid planned to operate his bakery in this space. Rowan expressly warranted to Reid that he could erect and use an oven in the space. The tack contained a clause of warrandice to this effect. James Corbet, who lived above Reid, complained to the Dean of the Guild about the oven. Corbet feared that the oven and accompanying vents would breed vermin and hurt the value of his property. The Dean of the Guild ordered Rowan to remove the oven, and Rowan complied. Reid then sought damages, compensation, or rescission of the lease because the very purpose for the lease -- operating a bakery -- was now void.
Walker v. Gordon 31 Jul 1776 Bankruptcy, Trusteeship William Alexander and Sons agreed to enter a co-partnership with George and Cuthbert Gordon for the production of cudbear (dye). The Alexanders made advances to the Gordons over a number of years. Due to mismanagement and disagreement among the partners, the cudbear company was unsuccessful, leading William Alexander and Sons to dissolve the company and seek payment on its advances. Cuthbert Gordon, defender, retained ownership of the cudbear company. Imprisoned for a debt owed to a third party, Gordon sought to sequester his assets. At issue in this case was who should have served as trustee for the creditors. Pursuer John Walker, as trustee for William Alexander and Sons, argued that Ellies Martin, a merchant in Leith, was the proper trustee. At a meeting of the creditors, Ellies Martin was elected trustee by the majority in value of the creditors present at the meeting. Walker also found it improper for Gordon to supervise his own affairs, since Gordon's mismanagement led to the company's demise. Cuthbert Gordon, however, maintained that he was the proper trustee, because certain creditors at the creditors' meeting selected him as trustee.
Alexander Stewart v. John Isat 13 Jul 1775 Burgh This case was about the implementation of an act of Parliament that authorized the town of Glasgow to impose a duty on beer and ale. Alexander Stewart, the collector of the duty, sued John Isat over an alleged arrear. In response, Isat claimed that he was being charged more than other brewers. He argued that the magistrates could not force an individual to pay higher charges than others who were similarly situated. Stewart, defending Glasgow’s magistrates, argued that they were entitled to charge Isat the full amount authorized by statute. He explained that brewers were charged different rates because the magistrates generally reduced the duty on brewers who paid dry multure (i.e., a toll for milling) to the town. Isat disputed this as a factual matter and argued that the magistrates could not use the duty to compel individuals to accept a servitude to the town’s mills.
Craig v. Anderson 6 Jul 1776 Trustees Joseph Heatly was an engineer who became insolvent before he could complete a projected coal-work outside of Glasgow. His estate being sequestered. His trustees put Heatly's funds and their own private capital into completing this coal work, projecting that the profits from the venture would more than pay back Heatly's debts and the expenses of its founding. John Anderson, one of Heatly's creditors, believed the trustees had neither the background nor the aptitude to manage a coal-work, and did not expect that this undertaking would result in him receiving the debt owed to him. He brought a summons and executed an inhibition against the trustees. In response the trustees petitioned the Court to have this inhibition suspended. Lord Kennet granted a sist (judicial stay) on the inhibition, "till the bill and answers should be advised." Because of this sist the inhibition was not recorded or executed within forty days, but the trustees feared that Anderson would file another one. They petitioned the Court to rule that Anderson could not execute an inhibition against the trustees of Heatly's estate. The Court dismissed this petition.
Tailors of Glasgow v. Hugh M'Kechnie and Others 29 Jan 1778 Corporation, Burgh Royal, Poor, Common Law, Right of Employment, Female Occupation, Soldier Finlay Ferguson, George Ferguson, and James Wallis all served in the British Army, and they all had daughters who married journeymen tailors. After their marriage, the three men: Hugh Mackechnie, Christopher Taes, and Peter Clydesdale, set up as master tailors in Glasgow. Not being members of the Incorporation of Tailors, they based their right to practice tailoring upon the statute 3d Geo. III. c. 8., which declared that soldiers, their wives, and children, were entitled to "set up, and exercise such trades, as they are apt and able for, in any town or place, within the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, without any let, suit, or molestation, of any person or persons whatsoever.” The Incorporation of Tailors brought a complaint against these men in 1776. The Magistrates of Glasgow ruled that they must pay 5 s. sterling, cease from working as master-tailors under penalty of 100 merks Scots, and be imprisoned in the tolbooth until they should make payment and grant bond. Arguing that this incarceration was "violent and illegal," the defenders obtained letters of suspension and liberation. The case came before Lord Stonefield, who ruled against them. They next petitioned the Court for review. The Court adhered to Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, and decided that the statute in question "does not entitle the daughter of a soldier to confer that privilege upon her husband."
Incorporation of Weavers in Glasgow v. James Freeland and Others 29 Jan 1778 Charter, Weaving, Silk In 1528, the Crown granted the Incorporation of Weavers in Glasgow an exclusive charter to practice weaving in that burgh. In 1681, however, they lost the exclusive privilege of weaving linen and hemp. Around 1760, a number of craftsmen in Glasgow began operating as silk-weavers despite being neither freemen of the Incorporation of Weavers nor, in some cases, freemen of Glasgow Burgh. In 1775, after the Incorporation of Weavers brought a complaint against a number of them, Bailie Duncan Niven had them imprisoned and fined. After obtaining a bill of suspension and liberation, these silk-weavers brought an action of oppression and damages against certain members of the Incorporation, and against Bailie Niven. At the same time, the Incorporation of Weavers requested a declaration that only members of their guild could practice silk-weaving within Glasgow. These actions were conjoined and came before Lord Gardenstone, who reported the case. The Court found that if the silk-weavers wished to practice their craft, they must join the Incorporation of Weavers. The case reports only cover the action of declarator brought by the Incorporation of Weavers.
Richardson and Co v. Stoner, Hunter, and Ker 20 Nov 1783 Jettison, Insurance This case was about apportioning liability for a cargo of salmon that was partially jettisoned and partially sold for a lower-than-expected price before reaching its planned destination. The owners of the salmon raised an action for damages against their underwriters, as well as the merchants who sold the salmon and the shipmaster-owner of the vessel; they argued that the shipmaster lacked authority to make the sale. The underwriters argued that although the relevant policy covered the jettisoned cargo, it did not apply to a partial loss such as the allegedly premature sale.
James Ayton v. James Bruce 23 Jan 1785 James Ayton of Kippo leased his mill to James Bruce, along with the right to mill grain produced on surrounding properties that were possessed by tenants. While the lease to Bruce was still in effect, Ayton took back the land that had been leased to tenants and stopped taking that land’s produce to the mill. Bruce claimed that he should receive a corresponding abatement of his rent.
Armstrong and Son, and Others v. Thomas Moffat and Others 9 Jul 1800 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.
Birnie and Co. v. Weir 16 Jan 1800 Warranty Samuel Birnie and Co. sold “British potashes” for use as a bleaching agent. In certain printed materials, the company claimed that these British potashes had been “found to answer every purpose in bleaching, &c. equal to the best American pot.” Helen Weir of Longloch, the Defender, ordered several casks of the potashes for her bleaching business; however, she was dissatisfied with the product and refused to pay her bill. Samuel Birnie and Co. brought suit to collect on the account. In response, Mrs. Weir argued that the British potashes were inferior to American potashes and contained a “radical” latent defect: Although materials bleached with the British potashes initially appeared white, they turned a reddish or bluish color after being exposed to the air. Based on the resulting harms to her business, Mrs. Weir raised a claim for damages. Samuel Birnie and Co. maintained that British potashes were suitable for use in certain stages of the bleaching process, that the company’s representations had been made in good faith, and that Mrs. Weir had used the British potashes unskillfully. The court found that Mrs. Weir was not liable for the price of the potashes and awarded her damages.
Robert Armour v. James Young 1774 Contract Defender James Young ordered a quantity of superfine black cloth from pursuer Robert Armour, who routinely sold fabric at fixed prices on behalf of a merchant in Worcester. Armour claimed that the parcel of cloth that was delivered to Young included an invoice specifying the price. However, Young refused to pay that price, and Armour brought suit before the magistrates of Glasgow. Young objected that he never agreed to a particular price, and further claimed that coarse cloth was delivered to him instead of superfine cloth. The magistrates admitted proof regarding the price of the disputed articles, and Armour appealed. The Lord Ordinary not only affirmed the price-related proof, but also directed that proof be allowed regarding whether or not Young had “complained of the bad quality of the cloth recently after delivery thereof.” Armour once again sought review, arguing that the case should be decided based on questions of law.
Stewart v. Carrick 1774 Defamation Pursuer William Stewart sued defender Robert Carrick for libel. The dispute concerned allegations that Stewart had committed fraud while competing for flax premiums offered by the Board of Trustees for Improving Fisheries and Manufactures in Scotland. After Carrick wrote about the alleged fraud to Stewart’s employer, Robert Patterson, Stewart brought a defamation suit in the Commissary Court of Glasgow. In his defense, Carrick argued that he had no malicious intent, that the facts in the letters were well-founded, and that Stewart had failed to show any damages resulting from the letters.
Incorporation of Hammermen &c. v. Incorporations of Weaver &c. 1776 Trades This case was about the governance of the Glasgow trades house, an umbrella group comprising representatives of the various trades. These representatives included the deacon of each trade incorporation, along with “assistants” from each trade. The number of assistants allotted to each trade varied; the first four trades (hammermen, tailors, cordiners, and maltmen) had four assistants each, while the other trades had some lesser number. In 1771, the trades with fewer representatives moved to give themselves equal representation. The first four trades applied for a suspension of the proceedings, and later raised a process of reduction, on the ground that members of the trades house lacked the authority to adjust the number of representatives from each trade.
Grieve and Others v. Incorporation of Tailors 1773 Burgh, Corporate Privilege John Grieve, suspender, was a member of the Incorporation of Tailors in Glasgow. He entered into a partnership with suspenders James Loudon and Robert Robb for the purpose of manufacturing stays, also known as corsets. The Tailors complained to the magistrates of Glasgow that staymaking was reserved exclusively for members of their trade; therefore, according to the tailors, Loudon and Robb had impermissibly engaged in the trade and Grieve had assisted them contrary to his oath. The suspenders argued that staymaking was not included in the tailors’ trade monopoly and should not be added by implication.
Alexanders vs. Gordons 1774 Copartnership This case involved a copartnery formed by members of the Alexander family and members of the Gordon family. The purpose of the copartnery was to manufacture dye using a method developed by George Gordon. After pursuing this business for a number of years, the Alexanders alleged that they had become substantial creditors of the copartnery. Accordingly, the Alexanders brought actions in Scottish court and eventually obtained a writ from the Court of King’s Bench in England. They also sought to dissolve the copartnery. In response, the Gordons raised an action for damages incurred as a result of the allegedly illegal proceedings instigated by the Alexanders; the Gordons also sought sums allegedly due to them in connection with the copartnery. As a result of this suit, the Gordons obtained an inhibition against the Alexanders. Robert and William Alexander petitioned the court to recall the inhibition, and later asked the court to sequester the assets of the copartnery.
Murdoch et. al v. Magistrates of Port-Glasgow 1778 Duty (Tax), Public Works In 1693, an Act of (Scotland's) Parliament granted Glasgow a duty of two pennies Scots per pint of ale or beer "brewed, in-brought, vended, tapped, or sold within the city, suburbs, or liberties thereof." In 1762, when Murdoch, Warroch, and Company founded a brewery at Anderston, they began paying this duty to Glasgow upon importing their beer into the city. In 1774 Port-Glasgow was separated from Glasgow and joined with Newark, and was granted a similar duty by the British Parliament. Shortly afterward Murdoch, Warroch, and Company were forced to pay this duty upon importing some ale and beer into Port-Glasgow. In response they withheld their customary payment from Glasgow. The collector of impost for Glasgow brought action before the magistrates of that city, which ruled in his favor. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company then brought the cause by advocation to the Court of Session, asking to be found liable for only one impost payment. After Lord Stonefield found them liable for both duties they submitted his interlocutors to the Court for review. See a later case, Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow v. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company, for further attempts on the part of this brewery to evade impost.
Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow v. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company 1783 Duty (Tax) By statute, brewers who imported beer or ale into Glasgow were required to pay a duty on their entire output—whether sold in the city or not—with the exception of overseas exports. The defenders, who were partners in the brewing firm of Murdoch, Warroch, and Company, paid the duty until 1780, when they unsuccessfully requested an exemption for the portion of their beer and ale that was sold outside of Glasgow. The defenders then announced that they would no longer sell any products into Glasgow; however, they offered to make sales to Glasgow residents at the brewery. At the same time, a merchant named Alexander Munro began purchasing beer at the brewery and delivering it to Glasgow residents. The magistrates and council of Glasgow sued the brewers. They alleged that the brewery was unlawfully evading the duty by routing its products through Munro, who used the company’s old storeroom and equipment. The defenders responded that their brewery did not fall under the statute, which was only meant to cover breweries closer to Glasgow. They also argued that the arrangement with Munro was an arm’s length bargain that should not subject them to the duty.