| 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. |
| Mustart v. Stonefield's Interlocuter |
1794
|
Impress Service, Contract, Interlocutor, Interdict, Fraud, Collusion |
Alexander Muftart and John Muftart petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in their case against Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Stewart v. Graham |
1782
|
Impress Service, Slavery and enslaved people, Freedom suits, Enslaved people named as property, Adjudication, Interlocutor |
This case addressed whether a standard press-warrant, which authorized the impressment of seamen, applied to a man who had worked aboard ships while enslaved. The man in question, James Graham, accompanied a slaveholder on voyages between Scotland and the Caribbean, performing duties such as steering and reefing. However, when Graham’s enslavement ended, he became apprenticed to Grant, Wood, and Company, a carpet manufacturing company in Glasgow. The petitioner in this case, Lieutenant William Stewart, subsequently attempted to press Graham into naval service based on his sailing experience. Grant, Wood, and Company petitioned the magistrates of Glasgow to prevent Graham’s impressment, and Graham appeared on his own behalf. After allowing the parties to gather proof, the magistrates found that Graham could not be impressed because he did not voluntarily choose a seafaring life. Lieutenant Stewart appealed to the Court of Session. |
