Company. See Society. Firm of a Company.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Company.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Company |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finnan v. Syme | 1801 | Corps, Company, Fine, Delinquency, Military | John Syme was a volunteer in a Company of the Royal Dumfries Volunteers, but he did not communicate his resignation from the company and his superiors fined him for his delinquency. John Finnan, the Esq. Captain of the company, took the case to court to recover the fined money. The Court reduced the fine by half, but refused Syme's subsequent petition to dismiss the fine entirely (noted in the marginalia). |
| Greenock Rope-Work Company v Donald, Donald, and Company | 1772 | Partnership, Dissolution, Debt, Company, Sasine, Compensation | 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. |
Documents discussing this subject (35)
- Answers for Mrs Thomson, VII. Answers for Trustees, VII. Condescend. VIII.
- APPENDIX. No. I. LETTER from Colonel Thackeray to Mr Lyon, W. S. No. II. COPY LETTER Colonel Thackeray to General Mann, enclosed in the preceding.
- Douglas, Heron, and Co. v. Matthew Bolton — Information, 15 Jan 1785 [2]
- Dr Stewart Threipland, George Oswald and Representatives of John M'Kay v. Messrs Eden, Ridley, Cookson, Widdrington and Company — Replies, 7 Dec 1793
- Duncan Spottiswoode, Mrs. Barbara Syme, William Morehead and William Cadell v. James M'Dowall, Richard Marshall, John Baird, Charles Grierson and William Reid — Answers, 10 Mar 1791
- Dunlop, Hamilton, and Company v. John Laurie — Answers, 6 May 1811
- Edinburgh Oil Gas-Light Company v. Trustees of David Clyne — Complainers' Case, 27 Jun 1837
- George Cramond v. William Hogg — Duplies, 8 Jun 1814
- George Dundas of Dundas v. Thomas Dundas, elder and younger, of Fingask — Information, 11 Jan 1759 [2]
- George Ord v. Miles Barton & Mandatory — Revised Case, 26 Jun 1849
- George Wedderburn and others v. Scottish Central Railway Company and others — Note
- Grainger and Miller v. John Cross and Others — Summons, 1834
- Greenock Rope-Work Company v Donald, Donald, and Company — Information, 2 Jan 1773
- H. J. Williams and others v. Caledonian Iron and Foundry Company — Answers, 7 Dec 1829 [2]
- Hugh Macmorran and Company, and the Trustees for their Creditors v. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Fire Office — State of the Process, 14 Nov 1809
- James M'Clelland v. Robert M'Cowan — Condescendence
- James, Wood, and James v. Alexander and John Downie — Reclaiming Note, 18 May 1836
- John Boursiquot v. Robert M'Kean and Co. and Others — Summons, 27 Apr 1814 [2]
- John Holliday v. James Auchinleck Cheyne and Lindsay Mackersy — Answers, 9 Dec 1829
- John Lawrie v. Dunlop, Hamilton, and Co., Hercules Scott, James Crocket Robertson, and Scheviz, Robertson, and Co. — Duplies, 22 Jun 1811
- John Lawrie v. Messrs Dunlop, Hamilton, & Company, and Hercules Scott & Company, and others — Replies, 1 Jun 1811
- John Samson v. Donald Campbell — Reclaiming Note, 31 May 1849
- John William Bell v. John Cooper — Summons, 16 Jan 1836
- John William Bell v. Samuel Asbury, Watson, Pellat, and Company, John Watson, Frederick Pellat, and John Henry Watson — Summons, 16 Jan 1836
- M'Callum and Garrioch and George M'Callum v. John Stewart — Note
- Petition — Petition } of John Gilmour
- Petition — Wixon and Deans, Merchants in Edinburgh, Creditors of Nicoll and Company, Tea-Merchants, Dundee, as a company, and of Joseph Nicoll, Tea-Merchant, Dundee, sole Partner of said Company, as Partner thereof and as an Individual
- Replies — Rep.—William Penney to Ans.—William Bennet
- RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT of FACTS, AND ANSWERS thereto by the Pursuer.
- REVISED CONDESCENDENCE for Pursuer, WITH REVISED ANSWERS thereto for Mrs Thomson, Miss Janet Thomson, and Thomas Thomson: And with REVISED ANSWERS also for the Trustees of John Tho
- REVISED REASONS of ADVOCATION for Messrs. J. Thomson, T. Bonar, and Company, Merchants in London; and Christopher Kerr, one of the Town-Clerks of Dundee, their Mandatory,—Pursuers
- Robert Sclater and Others v. David Clyne — Revised Case, 28 Nov 1829
- The East Lothian Central Railway Company v. Sir John Dick Lauder, Alexander Peffers, Adam Neill, Robert Miller and John Bethune Ross — Reclaiming Note, 15 Jul 1848 [2]
- The Edinburgh Oil-Gas Light Company v. Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet, James Farquhar Gordon, John Meiklejohn, John Logan, Robert Lockhart, and David Manson — Answers, 14 Jan 1836
- Thomas Bishop and Edward Railton v. Directors of the Mersey and Clyde Steam Navigation Company — Replies, 18 May 1826 [2]
