AI-transcribed

Any decree or judgment of a Court.

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: Interlocutor

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
A. R. Henderson v. John Mackay 1831 Diligence, Employment, Damages, Contract, Interlocutor, Breach of Contract
Alexander Campbell v. John Campbell 1772 Slavery and enslaved people, West Indies and Atlantic trade, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Assignment, Interlocutor Alexander Campbell in Balole, Islay, pursued John Campbell, Tackman of Dunloskin, alleging forgery and improper bond cancellation, to which John Campbell filed answers. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Dick Junior v. William Richardson 1838 Prescription, Interlocutor, Agent, Witness, Debt, Process Alexander Dick Junior sought suspension of a Glasgow magistrates' decree enforcing payment of £26:15:2 against him, alleging procedural and evidentiary flaws in the underlying action and disputing the law account charges, including a contested item dated April 1830. The litigation proceeded with challenges regarding procedural irregularities in proof, culminating in the Court's rejection of pleas of prescription and incompetence of bill, upholding the account as valid and awarding expenses against Dick as suspender. Dick subsequently petitioned to suspend William Richardson concerning disputed authorship and possession of legal documents arising from prior Richardson & Porter cases.
Alexander Duncan, and Others v. The Magistrates of Aberdeen 1783 Debt, Adjudication, Tax, Interlocutor, Oath, Process The pursuers challenged a regulation passed by the magistrates of Aberdeen, which raised the dues required to become a burgess.
Alexander Grant v. Lewis Ray and others 1767 Election contest, Aliment, Corruption, Bribery, Interlocutor, Oath Sir Alexander Grant of Dalvey pursued Lewis Ray, Colonel Hector Munro, and other elected magistrates and counsellors of Fortrose, alleging that the Michaelmas 1766 election had been procured by bribery and corruption. The litigation involved repeated disputes over the competency of witnesses, as Grant sought to examine Colonel Munro and Captain William Douglas regarding electoral misconduct while the respondents petitioned against orders permitting testimony by Robert Logan and invoked privilege against self-incrimination. Grant also petitioned to prove that Douglas had fled the country to avoid examination, and the parties exchanged interrogatories, objections, and replies concerning the alleged corrupt practices.
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.
Alexander Stewart v. John Isat 1773 Burgh, Tax, Thirlage, Jurisdiction, Tack, Interlocutor 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.
Alexander v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor 1787 Prescription, Interlocutor, Libel, Debt, Parole Evidence, Oath of Party Pursuer James Alexander petitioned the Court of Session to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander v. Montgomery 1771 Contract, Interlocutor, Reduction 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.
Alexander v. Ross 1767 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Interlocutor, Contract of marriage, Representation In the action between Alexander, pursuer, and Ross, defender, Marjory Ross and John Baillie petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Allan v. Stewart 1771 Roads, Property, Servitude, Proof, Interlocutor, Heritor Sheep drovers commonly used a road through the properties of pursuers Joseph Allan and Alexander Morton to get to a sheep fair in Kilbride. Allan and Morton wanted to mitigate or stop the use of this road for the passage of sheep. Allan and Morton insisted that the sheep-drivers had no right to use this road because there were other routes available. They specifically alleged that another road to the west of Allan and Morton, called the "peat-road," was a suitable path. Defenders John Stewart and James Stewart were heritors of the lands that included this peat-road. John and James Stewart maintained that the peat-road is private, not public. They also claimed that Allan and Morton could not summon them into this case as defenders because Allan and Morton had no legal interest in the peat-road.
Anderson v. Richardson 1786 Defamation, Libel, Aliment, Proof, Interlocutor, Prescription John Anderson, Professor of Natural Philosophy, as pursuer, alleged that William Richardson, Professor of Humanity, as defender, uttered defamatory invectives against him in a public classroom at the College of Glasgow. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Anderson v. Saunders 1829 Sasine, Interdict, Aliment, Feu, Interlocutor, Possession James Anderson and others raised an action of suspension and interdict against Robert Saunders concerning Saunders’ obstruction of a common stair leading to Anderson’s cellars and back-green, which Saunders used to access a sunk storey via a locked spar-door. Saunders answered the reasons of suspension and interdict, resisting the claims of nuisance and exclusive use. Following an interlocutor by Lord Medwyn, Ordinary, Anderson reclaimed against the decision, and Saunders subsequently appealed the interdict and suspension order barring his access. Both parties then submitted Cases arguing their competing rights to the stair, with Anderson contending that Saunders had no right to shut up the common passage and Saunders seeking alteration of the interlocutor granting the interdict against him.
Andrew Gray and Others vs. David Wilson and Others 1790 Election contest, Election, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Aliment, Sequestration Andrew Gray and others pursued David Wilson and others regarding the contested election of magistrates and counsellors in Anstruther Easter, seeking to void the defenders' election and obtain a declaration that the pursuers were the lawfully chosen officers. The defenders maintained the validity of their election and the proper exercise of voting rights, while the parties disputed whether the presiding magistrate possessed an ordinary vote or merely a casting vote to be exercised only in cases of equality. The pursuers contended that the magistrate had no ordinary vote and could only break ties, whereas the defenders argued that Baillie Chalmers had no right to vote unless an equality of votes existed.
Andrew Ross and Others v. John Glasford and Company 1771 Charter Party, Sailor's Compensation, Ships, Sequestration, Aliment, Interlocutor In the summer 1759, Charger Andrew Ross and others were sailors aboard the Ingram, a ship owned by suspender John Glassford. The planned route was Clyde to Newfoundland, then to Spain, Portugal, or any port in the Mediterranean, and then back to Clyde. During its voyage from Lisbon, Portugal to Clyde, the ship was captured by a French privateer (the Belleisle privateer), commanded by Thurot. The sailors on the Ingram, including Ross, were dropped off in Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland. When the sailors finally returned to Glasgow, they applied for the wages due to them at their arrival in Lisbon. These wages would cover the voyage from Clyde to Newfoundland, and then to Lisbon. Glassford refused to pay the sailors' wages. Glassford maintained that sailors were not entitled to their wages when the ship is taken or wrecked in its homeward voyage. Ross et al. disagreed, and argued that it was a custom among merchants in many places to compensate sailors, even in a situation where the ship is taken.
Andrew v. Murdoch 1803 Wrongful imprisonment, Due process, Arrestment, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Wrongous Imprisonment The pursuer raised an action of wrongful imprisonment against the defender, Sheriff-Substitute, and challenged the interlocutor that ordered his incarceration. The pursuer argued that the defender violated the Act of 1701, by not giving a deliverance on the petition for bail within the required time, and also by not admitting the pursuer to bail when he was accused of a bailable offense. The purpose of the act was to protect people from oppressive acts by those entrusted with executive or ministerial authority.
Andrew Zuill v. Thomas Bryce Buchanan 1830 Sequestration, Interlocutor, Liferent, Rent, Reduction, Infeftment Andrew Zuill or Yool, farmer at Bridgend of Boquhan, raised an action of reduction against Thomas Bryce Buchanan to set aside sheriff's decrees and interlocutors obtained for unpaid farm rents and damages, alleging the proceedings were invalid and unlawful. Buchanan reclaimed against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor and lodged defences asserting his heritable proprietorship and the validity of a liferent grant to William Gray. Zuill subsequently reclaimed, arguing that Buchanan possessed title to demand the rents during his possession of the subjects.
Arbutnott, et al. v. Scott, et al. 1794 Proof, Res judicata, Interlocutor, Salmon Fishing, Mill, Aliment Arbutnott and others pursued Scott and others regarding a dam-dike that superior heritors claimed intercepted fish passage in violation of statutory regulations, while the defenders insisted the structure was a necessary check-dike for their mills. The petitioners sought alteration of a recent interlocutor, and the superior heritors informed the court that the dike was constructed to obstruct fish rather than supply water. The defenders maintained that alteration would injure their milling rights, and subsequently petitioned to be assoilzied, challenging the relevancy of the condescendence and the competency of the additional report and depositions.
Archer v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor 1793 Cautioner, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor, Succession, Bankruptcy
Archibald Cooper v. Sir William Maxwell 1775 Tack, Rent, Aliment, Interlocutor, Lease, Arrestment In this case, the parties disputed the boundaries of tack that included a lime-work. Archibald Cooper alleged that Sir William Maxwell of Calderwood had encroached on his tack, and therefore sought to have Maxwell's work enjoined.
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.
Baillie v. Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow 1796 Heritor, Prescription, Act of Parliament, Expenses, Possession, Interlocutor John Baillie reclaimed against an interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk in an action against the Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow concerning the liability for costs of repairing foot-pavements. The defenders submitted information arguing that adjacent proprietors, and not the public, must bear the cost of such repairs.
Baird v. Allan and Steuart 1793 Debt, Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Reduction Respondents, Messrs Allan & Steuart, Bankers in Edinburgh, ask the court to consider 1. Competency of the appeal and 2. Merits of the question. This case was in litigation for almost a decade leading up to this appeal. In 1783, Mr. Moffat, grazier in Portsburgh, bought a parcel of cattle from Mr. Guild with a bill of 150 £ sterling, payable in three months. Mr. Guild brought the bill to Respondents, Messrs Allan & Steuart, Bankers in Edinburgh. Respondents discounted the bill, after Mr. Moffat swore to its validity. Petitioner John Baird and Mr. John Newlands were Cautioners for Mr. Moffat. When the bill became due, Mr. Moffat refused to pay, alleging the Guilds had forged copies and discounted bills at other banks, bringing the sum of money owed to well over the original 150 £ sterling. Mr. Moffat later died, bankrupt, before the valid bill was ever found. The case was heard before Lord Justice Clerk Glenlee in 1785, Lord Stonefield Ordinary in 1792, Lord Ankerville in 1790, Lord Dreghorn and Lord Abercromby in 1792. Despite multiple judgments for Messrs Allan & Steuart, Mr. Baird still challenges the validity of the bill, and appeals the judgments against him as cautioner on the bill.
Ballantyne v. Malcolm 1793 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Defamation, Interlocutor, Fraud Alexander Malcolm, defender, petitioned against an interlocutor issued by Lord Monboddo in the action raised by Ballantyne, pursuer. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bannerman v. Shaw and Ritchie 1795 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Interest, Interlocutor The Reverend Mr. James Bannerman, as executor of Mrs Beatrix Goldie, petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor ordering him to condescend on a bond granted by his late husband. David Shaw of Jamaica and his attorney Alexander Ritchie answered, responding to claims under a bond dated 1771. Bannerman then petitioned to alter the interlocutor and be assoilzied, whereupon Shaw and Ritchie answered again, this time responding to the claim for a bond due from Bannerman’s late uncle Patrick Bannerman.
Barry, et al v. Incorporation of Weavers, et al 1789 Possession, Prescription, Interlocutor, Damages, Representation, Kirk Session The Reverend Mr George Barry and the remanent members of the Kirk-session of Kirkwall and St Ola defended against a petition by the Incorporation of Weavers, Hammermen, Taylors, and Shoemakers of Kirkwall to alter Lord Henderland’s interlocutor. The incorporations sought to modify the court’s earlier decision, and the Kirk-session submitted answers resisting the proposed alteration.
Bell v. Magistrates of Glasgow 1776 Property, Sasine, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Aliment, Arrestment Pursuer Patrick Bell was the proprietor of a piece of land called Bellshaugh or Provost Haugh, situated along the River Clyde near Glasgow Green. Additionally, Bell claimed to own a small strip of land that was used for access to Bellshaugh. The magistrates of Glasgow purchased property on either side of this strip and sought to enclose the entire area. Bell protested, and the magistrates proposed two possible solutions. First, citing an Act of Parliament, they offered to build a fence on either side of the road and charge Bell for half of the construction cost. Alternatively, they proposed to erect a gate that could be used to access the road. Bell refused both proposals, claiming that the cited statute did not apply and that he had an absolute right to exclude the magistrates. The magistrates maintained that either accommodation—the fence or the gate—would be reasonable and equitable; they also suggested that Bell might only hold a servitude.
Belsches v. Paterson and Anderson 1786 Tack, Thirlage, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Charter, Reduction Robert Belsches pursued the action against Mrs Mary Paterson and Alexander Farquharson regarding the extent of thirlage over the lands of Greenyards. Belsches argued that the thirlage did not extend to wheat or barley, while Paterson and Farquharson maintained that the lands of Easter Greenyards were thirled to the mill of Skeoch for omnia grana crescentia.
Benson, &c. v. Stark, &c. 1793 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Tack, Interlocutor, Oath Reuben Benson, William Benson, John Murdoch, and John M'Pherson, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in their action against Stark and the other defenders. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Birnie and Co. v. Weir 1799 Warranty, Debt, Aliment, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Succession 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.
Boyd (Provost of Linlithgow) v. Cunningham 1832 Interlocutor, Suspension, Expenses, Adjudication, Sist, Corporation Cuninghams & Bell, W.S., asked the Court to allow them to sist themselves as parties in the suspension between pursuer John Boyd and defender George Cunninghame, seeking to repeat the interlocutor in their favour. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Brodie v. Grant 1767 Interlocutor, Adjudication, Possession, Tack, Reduction, Appeal Alexander Brodie of Lethen, as pursuer, sought to retain possession of the pool of Stockiebanks on the River Findhorn until the boundary of his fishing rights against Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant, Sir Alexander Grant of Delvey, Sir William Dunbar of Durn, Captain Duncan Urquhart of Burdieyards, and others, as defenders, could be finally ascertained. The defenders disputed Brodie’s fishing rights, leading to answers, replies, and duplies. In 1769, the respondents petitioned against the Lords’ affirmation of an amended interlocutor defining the Findhorn boundary, alleging contradictory judgments and complaining that the boundary had been expanded unexpectedly through judicial admission.
Brown v. Heritors of Falkland 1796 Aliment, Presbytery, Contract, Glebe, Interlocutor, Manse
Burrell v. Lord Glenlee's Interlocutor 1798 Proof, Interlocutor, Servitude, Property, Aliment, Lease William George Burrell petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Glenlee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cadell v. Johnstone 1798 Defamation, Arrestment, Libel, Proof, Aliment, Interlocutor John Cadell of Cockenzie pursued John Johnstone, printer in Edinburgh. Johnstone petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and Cadell filed answers opposing the petition. The defender subsequently submitted evidence in support of his libel claim against Cadell, detailing alleged violence and misconduct during Tranent militia enforcement.
Cadell v. Morthland and Johnstone 1799 Witness, Defamation, Evidence, Perjury, Proof, Interlocutor John Cadell pursued John Morthland, Advocate, and John Johnstone, Printer in Edinburgh, for damages and libel arising from a false newspaper account that attributed inflammatory statements to him regarding militia officials at Tranent in 1797. During the course of the litigation, Morthland and Johnstone petitioned the court alleging judicial misconduct by Cadell as pursuer, including intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of proof, which Cadell denied while countering that the defenders had engaged in witness tampering and dilatory conduct. The cause also involved Morthland’s explanation of bills of exchange relating to property of the Scots Chronicle, and Cadell subsequently sought reimbursement for legal, printing, and clerical expenses incurred in the damages action.
Cameron v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor 1797 Succession, Tack, Multiple-Poinding, Lease, Warrandice, Interlocutor Ewen Cameron sought reimbursement of court and House of Lords expenses incurred in defending against lease claims brought by Helen and Janet Cameron, the daughters of his deceased father John Cameron, regarding the disincumbering of lands. He petitioned against Lord Craig’s interlocutor refusing to allow retention of these costs, proceeding against the trustees and the daughters, whereupon Helen’s counsel argued the claim was procedurally barred and legally unsound. Cameron subsequently lodged a reclaiming petition against the Inner-House interlocutor.
Cameron v. McAlpin 1773 Rent, Lease, Proof, Possession, Tack, Interlocutor Defenders Robert M‘Alpin and William Grierson answered the petition of pursuers John Cameron of Callart and Mary Stewart his wife, responding to claims of breach of lease agreement. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell v. Easterby 1797 Arrestment, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor James Campbell petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding an arrested vessel, and George Easterby answered, arguing that Campbell’s bond of caution did not conform to the Admiral’s interlocutor and that the arrestment had caused no diminution in the ship’s value. The dispute thus turned on the sufficiency of the security offered and the effect of the seizure upon the vessel’s valuation.
Campbell v. Irvine 1794 Aliment, Marriage, Creditor, Succession, Debt, Interlocutor
Campbell v. Laidlaw 1796 Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Partnership, Interlocutor Robert Campbell, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor suspending his charge for a bill of exchange he had accepted without value in the action against Laidlaw, the defender. Robert Corbet thereafter informed the Court that the bill had been accepted for the accommodation of Archibald M'Ausland rather than Milligan and Co.
Cassillis v. Stephenson 1776 Ranking of Creditors, Debt, Interlocutor, Ranking and Sale, Creditor, Agent The parties in this case were creditors of the late William Donald, a merchant in Ayr. Through an agent, Andrew Stephenson, respondent, brought a process to rank the creditors, and representatives of the creditors met to select a common agent. Petitioner David, Earl of Cassilis, claimed that at the meeting a majority of creditors voted for Alexander Abercrombie to be the common agent. However, respondent Stephenson and others preferred George Tod. Following the meeting, Lord Gardenstone, Ordinary, nominated and authorized George Tod as common agent. Cassilis et al. sought review from the Lords of Session, arguing that Abercrombie was selected as common agent by a majority of creditors and by a majority of the value of the debts represented. The petitioners also argued that, as “preferable” creditors, they had priority over the respondents, who were “postponed” creditors. Stephenson et al. disputed specific votes at the creditor meeting, arguing that certain agents for the petitioners were not authorized to vote for Alexander Abercrombie. Some creditors, they argued, did not meet the threshold amount of debt to gain a vote. For all the other creditors who met the threshold amount of debt, the respondents rejected any distinction between preferable and postponed creditors for the ranking of creditors.
Chalmers v. The Duke of Gordon 1786 Stipend, Teinds, Interlocutor, Rent, Jurisdiction, Augmentation The Reverend Alexander Chalmers pursued the Duke of Gordon and the heritors of Cairney and Bottary for augmentation of his stipend, memorializing that the existing provision was inadequate to the weight of his charge. After the Court pronounced an interlocutor in the teind-cause, Chalmers petitioned for its alteration to secure a competent sum, and the heritors replied, contesting the Court’s authority to modify stipends already decreed.
Clark v. Macgill 1773 Res judicata, Title Dispute, Adjudication, Possession, Interlocutor, Reduction This case was about the disputed ownership of a small piece of property on Jeffry's Close, Glasgow. In 1763, before pursuer Peter Clark purchased his property on the close, defender James Macgill petitioned the dean of guild for a warrant to enclose the disputed area. James Herbertson, Clark’s predecessor, failed to mount a challenge. However, by the time Macgill was ready to start work on the project, Clark had purchased Herbertson’s former property, which he understood to include the area proposed for enclosure. Clark complained to the dean of guild that the enclosure would be an encroachment. The dean-of-guild court ruled for Macgill, finding that the matter had been decided in the earlier proceeding, and Clark sought review. Case documents name numerous property owners and tenants in The Bridgegate (or Goosedubs) area of Glasgow.
Clay v. Coulter 1770 Debt, Adjudication, Arrestment, Insurance, Interlocutor, Reduction Pursuers Clay and Midgley, merchants in Liverpool, purchased tobacco on several occasions from McKittrick and Company, located in Virginia. To pay a balance due to Clay and Midgley, McKittrick and Company sent a shipment of tobacco to them in November 1761. Clay and Midgley obtained insurance on this shipment from defender James Coulter, a merchant in Glasgow. The ship sailed from Virginia for Liverpool, but it was captured by a French privateer in February 1762. Learning of the capture, Clay and Midgley sought to recover their losses from the insurance policy. Coulter insisted on retaining the sums he underwrote in the insurance policy, claiming that he was also a creditor of the McKittrick Company. Coulter argued that the insurance payments were debt payments to him. He contended that the cargo remained the property of McKittrick and Company until it was delivered at Liverpool to the consignees. As such, the cargo was claimable by creditors. Clay and Midgley respond that, under the established law of merchants, the consignees had an exclusive interest in the goods that the consignor's creditors could not defeat.
Coalston v. Stewart 1770 Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Promissory note Pursuer Jean Coalston and her husband Patrick Walker petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Common Agent v. Corrie 1794 Adjudication, Interlocutor, Execution, Personal Objection, Courts, Expenses Common Agent petitioned the court, arguing that Corrie's decree of cognition was void because it had not been properly notified. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Competition Among the Creditors of Macfarlane 1766 Debt, Arrestment, Shipping, Aliment, Interlocutor, Creditor This case was a dispute among the creditors of David Macfarlane, a merchant of St. Christophers (St. Kitts). In 1764, Macfarlane sent a shipment of sugar from St. Croix to Port Glasgow, consigning it to James King. Macfarlane instructed King to sell the sugar and apply the proceeds to pay certain of Macfarlane’s creditors, who were set forth in a list. When the sugar arrived in Scotland, however, some of Macfarlane’s creditors sought an arrestment. This led to a competition among Macfarlane’s creditors. In the course of the proceeding, the Lord Ordinary ruled that the consigned sugar could not be arrested, and a group of joint petitioners sought review. In August 1766, the Court of Session ruled against them. In November 1766, Messrs. Greenshiels and Wardrope petitioned the court again, this time on their own, arguing that they should be treated differently from other creditors because they did not receive notice of the shipment. In December 1766 the Court adhered to its earlier interlocutor.
Copland v. Ireland 1786 Proof, Interlocutor, Tack, Diligence, Rent, Sequestration William Ireland petitioned the Court for leave to adduce additional proof and to renew diligence against William Birtwhistle, alleging that William Copland of Gregory had failed to report proof regarding Birtwhistle. Copland answered, responding to the claim that he had neglected to report the proof concerning Birtwhistle.
Cowan v. Mac Candlish 1770 Paternity, Suit, Aliment, Proof, Defamation, Interlocutor Mary Cowan had alleged before the sheriff of Kirkcudbright that MacCandlish had fathered her son in 1765. She obtained an order compelling him to pay child support. MacCandlish claimed that her case was unproven, and that the sheriff had acted improperly in taking depositions from two witnesses when neither MacCandlish nor his procurator were present.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 2572)