Damages. In legal phraseology, the term damages is usually applied to the pecuniary reparation due for loss or injury sustained by one person, through the fault of another. Every illegal, unwarrantable, or malicious act, whether fraudulent or not, by which another is injured, either in his patrimonial interests, or in his person or feelings, founds a civil claim for damages against the person who has caused the loss or injury. This claim may be grounded on a breach of contract, or on a crime or delict, or quasi delict, or on any blameable omission or neglect of duty; the civil claim for reparation, at the instance of the private party who has suffered, not being incompatible with proceedings ad vindictam publicam, at the instance of the private party, or of the public prosecutor.

Definition source

Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Damages.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Damages

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
A. R. Henderson v. John Mackay	1831	Diligence, Employment, Damages, Contract, Interlocutor, Breach of Contract
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.
Christie v. Cowans, et al	1794	Rent, Tack, Lease, Teinds, Warrandice, Damages	David Halket, David Robertson, and Laurence Robertson petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor concerning salmon fishings in the River of Leven. 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.
Gibson v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor	1795	Tack, Interdict, Damages, Lease, Possession, Interlocutor	Walter Scott petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor that found him liable for expenses only, seeking instead an award of damages for loss caused by an interdict against road access. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gordon of Cluny v. John Anderson	1801	Lease, Damages, Interlocutor, Tack, Sequestration, Arrestment	Lieutenant-Colonel John Gordon of Cluny raised an action of damages against John Anderson and others, seeking reparation for their failure to use the fodder of the way-going crop in accordance with lease regulations. The defenders lodged additional defences maintaining that the action was incompetent, and subsequently argued that the pursuer had no equitable claim for straw lost due to interdict and that they were entitled to be assoilzied. The litigation concerned the application of lease regulations to the fodder of the last crop following a House of Lords judgment on the interpretation of the lease.
Grays v. Brown	1832	Decreet-Arbitral, Lease, Damages, Arbitration, Interdict, Roads	Patrick Gray, Patrick Gray Junior, and Robert Gray pursued William Henry Brown for damages arising from an interdict against their use of private roads on the farm of Freelands. Brown denied the claim. The pursuers subsequently lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor, asserting the action was incompetent and seeking remission of expenses.
Inglis v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor	1789	Fraud, Contract, Damages, Aliment, Interlocutor, Proof	William Inglis presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court of Session to alter its interlocutor on damages for non-implementation of a bear-delivery agreement with Lord Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
James Henderson v. William Scott	1792	Arrestment, Sequestration, Aliment, Interlocutor, Jurisdiction, Damages	James Henderson raised an action against William Scott, alleging that the defender had unlawfully detained his property and imprisoned him without warrant. Scott, acting in his capacity as Procurator-Fiscal, laid an information contending that the defender had acted unlawfully in detaining a ring found in Berwick.
Macdougal v. Duncan	1791	Lease, Tack, Rent, Damages, Roup, Possession	Alexander Macdougal, as pursuer against Duncan, defender, petitioned the Court against Lord Alva's interlocutor to remit the decree of summary removing and damages. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Macindoe v. Cowley, Wallace, Crawford, and French	1777	Military, Optima Fide, Jurisdiction, Mala Fides, Damages, Wrongful imprisonment, Freemasonry	This case concerns the forced enlistment and imprisonment for desertion of John Macindoe, Glasgow hair-dresser. In February of 1777, while in a drunken state, John Macindoe pledged himself to the army in exchange for a shilling from Ensign Hugh Wallace. A few weeks later, upon the order of Captain William Cowley, Macindoe was seized by a group of soldiers and imprisoned for refusing to enlist. Macindoe applied to the Court by a bill of suspension and liberation, and Lords Covington and Kennet ordered Macindoe set at liberty. Macindoe then brought action for damages and expenses against Wallace and Cowley, and against the bailies who had ordered his imprisonment. He claimed that his false imprisonment had led to the ruin of his business, and that he had been forced to enlist in another regiment out of necessity. Bailies French and Crawfurd, on the other hand, argued that because Macindoe was presently a soldier, therefore "the only consequence of his not being found a soldier in one regiment, was, that he would soon be a soldier in another.” They also argued that as bailies they had merely judged erroneously, and not acted out of malice. The Court assoilzied Crawfurd and French, as well as Cowley. Ensign Wallace then petitioned the Court for assoilment as well, stating that he had "innocently and bona fide" believed that Macindoe's enlistment was legitimate.
Mitchell v. Lord Alva's Interlocutor	1787	Contract, Debt, Damages, Action, Bargain, Interlocutor	Pursuer Thomas Mitchell petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in the dispute with Lord Alva. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Riddell v. Grosset	1791	Tack, Reduction, Rent, Agent, Aliment, Damages	Sir James Riddell petitioned the Court of Session to apply the judgment of the House of Lords reversing the interlocutor that assoilzied him from the process of reduction against Grosset. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robert Callander v. John Milligan	1847	Arrestment, Debt, Defamation, Bankruptcy, Sale, Damages	Robert Callander pursued John Milligan for damages for defamation and unlawful apprehension. Callander alleged that Milligan had instigated false accusations of cattle theft, causing Callander's detention by police at Carlisle and resulting in lost sales and reputational injury. Milligan denied liability, contending that Callander had stolen the cattle rather than purchased them through an assignee as claimed, while Callander maintained he had paid for the beasts before being wrongfully detained.
Robertson and Farquharson v. Cameron, et al	1786	Arrestment, Aliment, Sequestration, Creditor, Defamation, Damages	The defenders Daniel Cameron, Joseph Fyfe, James Boyd, and Thomas Miller filed an information arguing that the pursuers Robertson and Farquharson were unlawfully detained in prison after being apprehended for attempted robbery. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Scotlands v. Thompson	1776	Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Damages, Election contest	The defender, the Reverend James Thomson, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The pursuers, Scotlands, opposed the petition in a memorial arguing that Thomson's accusations were malicious, politically motivated, and subversive of public order.
Wilson and Scott v. Alexander	1779	Damages, Property, Animal Welfare, Trespass, Boni Mores	In November 1777, Jean Alexander of Rosebank had some nux vomica (strychnine) put into her swine and poultry's meat. A few days later her neighbor James Wilson's dog died "after suffering the greatest agony." After Wilson discovered that his dog was likely poisoned by his neighbor, he confronted her and she responded with contempt, saying that the poison had been to stop her livestock's food being eaten by his dog. Wilson, filed a complaint with the Sheriff of Edinburgh, who found the complaint relevant. Alexander then brought the process by advocation to the Court, and Lord Westhall assoilzied (absolved) her, determining that she was entitled to lay poison in her property in order to protect it. Wilson then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. His advocate, David Armstrong, argued that Alexander's actions had gone against the common good, and that Alexander should have trusted in the law to protect her from Wilson's dog. In response, Alexander said there was no proof that her poison had caused the dog's death, and that even if it had, "what she did she was entitled to do in virtue of her right of property, and in defence of that property." She also disputed the basis of Wilson's claim to damages - that his dog was valuable to him as, among other things, a protection from thieves. Finally, in an illuminating turn of events, Alexander responded to a rumor that she had also poisoned the Duke of Buccleuch's dog. Rather, the defender insisted, Buccleuch's dog had been killed by a mob at Loanhead.