| Dr. John Roebuck, and Samuel Garbet v. William and Andrew Stirling |
1772
|
Patent, Privilege, Sequestration, Improvement, Assignment, Interlocutor |
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. |
| Officers of State v. Thomas |
1802
|
Teind, Rent, Improvement, Property |
The Officers of State represent a renter who lived on the property of the Earl of Selkirk. The renter claimed that he had made improvements on the land, and was thus entitled to a deduction in his rental teinds because of the expenses he incurred in making these improvements. The Earl of Selkirk argued that only permanent improvements should be entitled to deductions, and that improvements such as laying manure for crops and adding lime to the soil were temporary and were paid off in the profits yielded by a higher crop. Marginalia on the front page of the first document notes that the court found that the pursuer was not entitled to any deduction in the rental teinds. |
