| Aitken and Others v. Wilson and Bannatyne |
1779
|
Birly court, Jurisdiction, Riot, Arrestment, Caution, Wrongous Imprisonment |
This case was about a “birly court”: a voluntary association of small proprietors and tenants that regulated property lines and common pasturages in their neighborhood. The birly court in Elsrighill (Elsrickle) levied a fine on one of its members, John Wilson. When Wilson refused to pay, the court’s elected officers seized two of his pewter plates. Wilson complained to the sheriff of Lanarkshire, alleging that the birly court lacked authority to take such an action. The sheriff-substitute, John Bannatyne, found that the officers were guilty of a riot and had them detained. In response, the officers sued both Wilson and Bannatyne for wrongful imprisonment. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Colvill v. M'Ewan |
1793
|
Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Proof, Jurisdiction, Oath |
Lieutenant George Colvill petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor finding him liable to M'Ewan for damages and expenses for allegedly harbouring an apprentice who absconded. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Countess of Loudon, and Others v. The Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire |
1792
|
Jurisdiction, Trustees, Appeal, Sequestration, Act of Parliament, Adjudication |
The Countess of Loudoun and others pursued the Trustees on the High Roads in Ayrshire regarding the proposed suppression of the road by Crawfordland-bridge, while the Trustees and associated justices of the peace defended the road's continued operation. The Trustees initially challenged the Court's jurisdiction to review their proceedings, then argued in subsequent pleadings that the road served public convenience and must be kept open. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies contesting both the Court's authority to intervene and whether the road should remain open or be suppressed. |
| Craig and Hyslop v. Spence, et al |
1793
|
Insurance, Ships, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Evidence, Jettison |
James Craig and William Hyslop pursued John Spence and other Edinburgh underwriters for a partial loss on a cargo of wheat, petitioning the Court to address an interlocutor that had found the underwriters liable. The defenders answered, denying that the vessel had stranded and contending that the damage did not constitute general average. Hislop subsequently petitioned the Court regarding the policy’s exclusion of average loss for perishable goods and the applicability of the stranding exception to the loss. |
| Cunningham and Simpson v. Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith |
1795
|
Debt, Arrestment, Statute, Common Law, Contract, Jurisdiction |
Cunningham and Simpson petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Dreghorn, Ordinary on the bills, which had refused a bill of suspension in the matter of apprentices Dowie, Stewart, and Drysdale. They subsequently sought suspension of the judgment and interdict against Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith, and their officers, regarding the levying and carrying away of apprentices Dowie and Stewart. |
| Cunynghame v. Watson |
1788
|
Jurisdiction, Freeholder, Retour, Charter, Sasine, Tax |
Sir William Augustus Cunynghame petitioned the Court to overturn the freeholders' interlocutor admitting Charles Watson as a freeholder, challenging whether the heritable bailie office and lands qualified Watson for that status. David Williamson answered for the defender, responding to Cunynghame's objections regarding the extent of the office and lands. |
| Dame Robina Pollock, Spouse to Sir Hugh Crawford, and Sir Hugh, for his Interest v. Mary Porterfield, Widow of John Lockhart of Lee |
1777
|
Jurisdiction, Female Succession, England, Debt, Entail, Aliment |
In 1708, an Act of Parliament was passed enabling Dorothy Luckyn and James Lockhart to sell some lands the former had inherited. Upon their deaths the money from the sale was held in trust on behalf of their young heir, John Lockhart. Rather than petition the Court of Chancery to remove the tailzie from the trust, Lockhart's trustee, Robina Lockhart, removed the money to Scotland and conveyed it to her pupil upon his coming of age. When John Lockhart died a number of decades later his unentailed estate passed to his wife, Mary. John Lockhart's niece and her husband then brought action against Mary Lockhart and other trust-disponees, claiming the above-mentioned money as heirs of entail. They argued that the money in question still remained entailed under English law. The defenders, on the other hand, argued that the trust-money, having been removed to Scotland and conveyed to Lockhart, was therefore a sum of money belonging to him. Furthermore, they argued that even if there had originally been a case against the trustee's actions, it was no longer viable due to the negative prescription. To support this second argument, the defenders cited the Court's decision on Boyd Porterfield of Porterfield v. Joanna, Margaret, and Lilias Porterfields. The Court of Session determined that the negative prescription had cut out the claim of the substitute heirs, and the House of Lords upheld this decision. |
| Duff v. Chalmers |
1769
|
Aliment, Succession, Statute, Jurisdiction, Teinds, Glebe |
Archibald Duff of Drummuir answered the petition of Alexander Chalmers, Minister of Cairny, responding to the argument that the presbytery possessed authority to designate moss for peats beyond the minister's immemorial privilege. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Duncan Davidson and Charles Graham v. John Fraser and his Attornies |
1798
|
Bankruptcy, Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Adjudication |
Duncan Davidson and Charles Graham challenged an interlocutor dismissing their bond claim against George Gun Munro, contending that an English bankruptcy commission had not transferred their debt to assignees for enforcement in Scotland. They subsequently answered a petition by John Fraser, responding to the Court's interlocutor on questions of creditor ranking and the validity of diligence. |
| Forbes v. Magistrates of Canongate |
1791
|
Arrestment, Debt, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Cautioner, Oath |
Archibald Forbes, creditor of Alexander Robertson, pursued the Magistrates of Canongate for unlawfully releasing Robertson from imprisonment for debt, alleging the liberation contravened the 1671 Act because the health certificate was unsworn and granted unrestricted liberty. The magistrates answered that they had not breached the act, maintaining that Robertson’s health had been sufficiently established by certificates on soul and conscience. |
| Forsyth v. Abercromby |
1793
|
Suspension, Arrestment, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Witness |
Sir George Abercromby, James Urquhart, and George Forbes, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor of the Sheriff of Banffshire regarding the unlawful conduct of Alexander Gordon and Gavin Steuart. Robert Forsyth, as defender, answered the petition, responding to allegations that he had used improper language in his representation. |
| George Dempster and Others v. Charles Lyel, Sr. |
1790
|
Freeholder, Statute, Jurisdiction, Tack, Disposition, Adjudication |
George Dempster and others sought to remove Charles Lyell from the freeholder roll for Forfar, contending that his valuation improperly included Easter Glenquharity lands not held in his title, thereby reducing his qualification below the requisite 400l Scots. The respondents initially denied the allegations and asserted that statutory limits restricted the court’s jurisdiction, while the complainants maintained that the court possessed authority over all wrongful freeholder enrolments and cited precedent. Lyell subsequently answered the petition and complaint, denying that he had been wrongfully retained on the roll. |
| George Trail v. Thomas Lyell |
1766
|
Ministers, Witness, Jurisdiction, Libel, Debt, Bankruptcy |
Petitioner George Trail exhibited a libel charging Thomas Lyell, minister at Lady, with fornication, attempted rape, attempted assassination, and other crimes. Trail, who was both the minister of Dunnet and a heritor in Lady, sought to have Lyell deposed from his ministry. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland initiated a process regarding the libel, but many witnesses refused to appear on the ground that ecclesiastical courts could not compel their testimony. Trail therefore petitioned the Court of Session for letters of diligence (i.e., warrants) to force the witnesses to testify. |
| Hamilton v. Scott |
1797
|
Jurisdiction, Aliment, Interlocutor, Arrestment, Debt, Libel |
The Reverend John Scott petitioned against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Methven. Thomas Hamilton, Treasurer for the Poor of Avondale, answered the petition, asserting that the justices of the peace had jurisdiction and that the decree was regular. |
| Hill v. Abercromby |
1793
|
Defamation, Advocation, Counsel, Interlocutor, Liferent, Jurisdiction |
Robert Hill, tailor in Potterrow, pursued Charles Abercromby, writer in Edinburgh, asking the Court to remit a protestation taken out by Abercromby after the summons was called and appearance entered, and to inflict censure for malpractice. Hill presented replies to Abercromby’s answers, disputing the respondent’s conduct in filing the protestation at that procedural stage. |
| Home, et al v. Macknight |
1797
|
Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Fraud |
The Common Agent in the Locality of Roxburgh filed answers on behalf of Macknight, defender, responding to objections by James Home of Carlfide and other pursuers to interlocutors concerning teind valuation and victual allocation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Hugh Baillie and Archibald M'Harg v. John Bland |
1772
|
Suspension, Jurisdiction, Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration |
Actor George Anne Bellamy granted four promissory notes to pursuer Hugh Baillie but failed to make timely payments. Subsequently, Bellamy and actor West Digges granted Baillie a bond of corroboration, promising to pay the accumulated debt. Bellamy and Digges again failed to make all necessary payments, and Digges was charged with horning. Digges obtained a suspension of the charge, but while the suit was pending, Digges went to England, where Baillie had him arrested. Digges, Baillie, and defender John Bland then entered into an agreement in which Digges and Bland agreed to pay the remaining debt. Bland granted Baillie two notes for 50 l. each, but payment was refused on one of them. Baillie protested the note, and Bland brought a bill of suspension. Bland argued that Baillie’s decision to effect Digges’s imprisonment constituted contempt of the Scottish Court. He also argued that the agreement among Digges, Bland, and Baillie was obtained metu carceris—that is, in fear of prison—and therefore was not actionable at law. |
| James Buchanan, Dean of Guild of Glasgow v. Patrick Bell |
1774
|
Adjudication, Public Police, Courts, Magistrate, Privilege, Jurisdiction |
This case was about the police powers of Glasgow’s dean of guild, a magistrate who supervised buildings. In 1773, the dean and his council ordered residents to take down their “water barges,” which were affixed to buildings in order to carry water away. Suspender Patrick Bell ignored the new rule and was individually ordered to take down his water barge. Bell brought a bill of suspension before the Court of Session. He argued that the dean of guild lacked authority to create regulations that were not based on common law or a statute; therefore, according to Bell, the dean of guild could not require removal of the water barge unless it constituted a nuisance or a trespass. The dean of guild responded that the order was within his jurisdiction, and that it was justified because the water barges were “ugly to the eye,” served to narrow the street, and poured water out onto passing pedestrians. |
| James Coutts v. Sir Francis Blake |
1775
|
Lease, Arrestment, Property, Proof, Jurisdiction, Possession |
This case addressed the court's jurisdiction to resolve a dispute over fishing rights in the river Tweed, where that river forms the border between Scotland and England. Pursuer James Coutts claimed that defender Sir Francis Blake of Twizell, who possessed a fishing right on the English side of the Tweed, had demolished a portion of Coutts’s dam, causing severe harm to his fishery. Blake claimed that the alleged demolition site was on the English side of the border, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts. Many local residents are mentioned in case documents. |
| 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. |
| James Hill v. Thomas Hopkirk and John Macall |
1779
|
Fine, Election, Arrestment, Corporation, Jurisdiction, Election contest |
In 1752 and 1769, Thomas Hopkirk and John MacCall, respectively, paid a £20 fine to avoid serving on the Glasgow Town Council. In 1778, both men having retired to the country, they were successively elected Dean of Guild and also declined the position. The Town Council demanded that they each pay a £40 fine to the Merchants House as a penalty, so the two men presented suspensions of charge to Lord Gardenstone. They argued that the Town Council was not a court of law and did not have the authority to seize the private property of a burgher. Furthermore, they argued that even if the Town Council had the legal authority to impose fines, both men had been liberated by the fines they had already paid. The Lord Ordinary ruled in their favor, and James Hill, collector of the Merchants House, represented against this interlocutor. He argued that such fines were customary in several Scottish burghs, and that their previous fine did not liberate the suspenders from serving as Dean of Guild. In response, Hopkirk and MacCall argued that it was unjust that two men, both over the age of sixty, should be required “to take up the load of a laborious employment, at an age, when the humane regulations of every civilized community, permit the willing subjects to lay down the burden of public office altogether.” The Court found that the men were not liable for an additional fine, having already been liberated from serving on the Council. |
| James Turnbull and Malcolm Macdonald v. Sir George Home, Baronet |
1793
|
Jurisdiction, Suspension, Arrestment, Proof, Sequestration, Interdict |
James Turnbull and Malcolm Macdonald, as suspenders, sought to compel their bound apprentice Alexander M'Kenzie to return to service and argued that he could not legally enter His Majesty's Fleet as a volunteer. Sir George Home, Baronet, maintained that a seaman formerly apprenticed to a slater might lawfully serve in the Fleet notwithstanding the opposition of his former masters. The dispute turned on whether an apprentice bound to a slater could voluntarily enter naval service or remained subject to his masters' claim for specific performance of the indenture. |
| John Boog and Attorney v. The Common Agent in the Ranking of Margaret Watt's Creditors |
1800
|
Conflict of Laws, Debt, Jurisdiction, Prescription, Creditor, Aliment |
A Scotsman named Daniel Morgan went to London and purchased goods on credit from John Boog, a merchant. Morgan then departed for India as steward on an East India ship, leaving his wife Margaret Watt in Dundee. Morgan died during the outward passage, and Boog eventually sought payment from Watt. Watt argued in court that Boog’s claim was barred by the “triennial prescription,” a statute of limitations, but Boog secured a “decree in absence” after Watt exhausted her ability to pay for a legal defense. Other creditors of Watt initiated a ranking and sale of her heritable property. In that proceeding, the common agent renewed the defense of prescription against Boog’s claim. Boog answered that English law—which had no triennial prescription—should apply because Morgan never returned to Scotland. |
| Jones v. Smith |
1771
|
Inspection of goods, Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Forfeiture, Penalty, Appeal |
Pursuer David Jones, merchant in Glasgow, imported quantities of lint-seed from Philadelphia. The goods arrived in Greenock bound for Glasgow. Two dealers in Glasgow, whose business would be affected by the influx of lint-seed, lodged a complaint with the Trustees for the Improvement of Fisheries and Manufactures about the lint-seed's quality. The dealers maintained that the lint-seed was bad, and therefore should not be imported. Defender Hugh Smith was a surveyor for the Trustees. After receiving a report that some of the seed was bad, Smith ordered the condemnation of the seed. Jones challenged the grounds and process by which Smith sought to condemn his cargo. |
| Lamont v. Ewing |
1792
|
Arrestment, Debt, Jurisdiction, Theft, Sequestration, Aliment |
Thomas Ewing, defender, petitioned the Court to overturn the interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk, which found the water-bailie of Glasgow competent to hear the pursuer Lamont’s civil action for stolen goods. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| M'Crackan v. Pulline |
1775
|
Jurisdiction, Debt, Proof, Contract, Rent, Aliment |
James M'Cracken, suspender, agreed to pay Richard Pulline, charger, for allowing twenty-five cattle to graze on Pulline's land. M'Cracken subsequently refused to pay on the ground that the cattle were inadequately fed. Pulline brought an action for payment before the justices of the peace, who found in his favor. M'Cracken then obtained a suspension, arguing that the justices lacked jurisdiction and that his contract with Pulline was explicitly conditioned on the cattle being given sufficient fodder. |
| M'Culloch v. Allan |
1792
|
Presbytery, Jurisdiction, Appeal, Teinds, Advocation, Interlocutor |
M'Culloch, as pursuer, argued that the trial and censure of schoolmasters belonged to the civil courts rather than ecclesiastical presbyteries. He subsequently maintained that sentences of presbyteries regarding schoolmasters were subject to review by ecclesiastical courts alone. Allan, as defender, contended that the presbytery's jurisdiction over schoolmasters was subject to review only in superior Church judicatories and not in the Court of Session. |
| 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. |
| Margaret Scruton v. John Gray |
1772
|
Marriage, Jurisdiction, Alimony, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration |
Gray, defender, was a native of Cork, Ireland who attended university in Scotland. Scruton, pursuer, claimed that she and Gray married in Glasgow while he was attending college there. Scruton sought a "decree of declarator" from the Commissary Court of Edinburgh to find them to be husband and wife. (Commissary Courts were established in Scotland in the 1560s and had exclusive jurisdiction in marriage and divorce cases.) Scruton also sought alimony from Gray. Gray denied that any marriage took place. There was no public solemnization of the marriage, nor any cohabitation as husband and wife. According to Gray, there was only a "private interview" between the two. Gray also denied that the Commissary Court of Edinburgh has jurisdiction over him since he was a foreigner. |
| Marquis of Abercorn v. The Magistrates of Edinburgh |
1792
|
Tack, Interlocutor, Suspension, Jurisdiction, Lease, Rent |
The Marquis of Abercorn pursued the Magistrates of Edinburgh for damages, alleging that their diversion of Braid's Burn had injured his water and mills, and sought to join his claim to an existing damages action raised by William Laing. The Magistrates responded that the Marquis lacked standing to claim indemnification under the 1785 water statute without first exhausting the process before a sheriff's jury. |
| Marshall v. Youngson |
1798
|
Procurator, Court of Session, Agent, Interlocutor, Clerks of Session, Jurisdiction |
James Marshall, Writer to the Signet, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor respecting the offices held by Alexander Youngson. Youngson answered, defending his concurrent practice as procurator before the High Court of Admiralty and Writer to the Signet on the ground that the two roles were not incompatible. The dispute turned on whether the office of Writer to the Signet could be held consistently with acting as a procurator in the Admiralty Court. |
| Messrs Pears and James v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor |
1790
|
Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Jurisdiction, Regalia |
Messrs Pears and James petitioned the Court of Session to remit Lord Stonefield's interlocutor refusing a Bill of Horning. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Michael M'Culloch v. William Allen |
1791
|
Presbytery, Jurisdiction, Appeal, Heritor, Aliment, Statute |
The Reverend Mr M'Culloch pursued William Allan, schoolmaster of Bothwell, regarding a Synod sentence that had found Allan unqualified for his office. Allan petitioned the Court to remit the sentence, and M'Culloch responded with information arguing that sentences of Presbyteries on schoolmasters were subject to review by superior ecclesiastical courts. |
| Moray, et al. v. Scott |
1795
|
Teinds, Stipend, Communion Elements, Jurisdiction, Aliment, Interlocutor |
Moray and his co-petitioners petitioned the Court to alter Lord Ankerville Ordinary's interlocutor allocating communion elements upon their lands, arguing that the allocation violated established law and the Court's own decree. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Muirhead, Hay and Company v. Dunmore |
1797
|
Debt, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Sequestration, Jurisdiction |
Digitization and description in progress. |
| Murdoch et. al v. Magistrates of Port-Glasgow |
1778
|
Duty (Tax), Public Works, Act of Parliament, Statute, Jurisdiction, Contract |
In 1693, an Act of (Scotland's) Parliament granted Glasgow a duty of two pennies Scots per pint of ale or beer "brewed, in-brought, vended, tapped, or sold within the city, suburbs, or liberties thereof." In 1762, when Murdoch, Warroch, and Company founded a brewery at Anderston, they began paying this duty to Glasgow upon importing their beer into the city. In 1774 Port-Glasgow was separated from Glasgow and joined with Newark, and was granted a similar duty by the British Parliament. Shortly afterward Murdoch, Warroch, and Company were forced to pay this duty upon importing some ale and beer into Port-Glasgow. In response they withheld their customary payment from Glasgow. The collector of impost for Glasgow brought action before the magistrates of that city, which ruled in his favor. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company then brought the cause by advocation to the Court of Session, asking to be found liable for only one impost payment. After Lord Stonefield found them liable for both duties they submitted his interlocutors to the Court for review. See a later case, Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow v. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company, for further attempts on the part of this brewery to evade impost. |
| Petition and Complaint of William Macewan |
1792
|
Debt, Freeholder, Arrestment, Statute, Jurisdiction, Election contest |
William Macewan petitioned the Court to overturn the determination of the freeholders of Perth that his qualification was nominal and fictitious. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Petition of the Magistrates of Dunfermline |
1793
|
Expenses, Jurisdiction, Alter, Prisoner, Sheriff, Courts |
|
| Rebecca Hog v. Thomas Hog |
1791
|
Succession, Jurisdiction, Legitim., Debt, Aliment, Collation |
Rebecca Hog pursued Thomas Hog of Newliston regarding an estate that included moveables situated in England, and Thomas answered that the Court might apply English law to those assets. After the Court pronounced an interlocutor, Thomas reclaimed and presented an additional petition, which Mrs Lashley and her husband answered by alleging that he had failed to comply with the order to furnish full states of the estate. |
| Robert Fall v. Robert Louthean and Others |
1791
|
Aliment, Jurisdiction, Election contest, Inhibition, Reduction, Voting rights |
Robert Fall pursued Robert Louthean and others, complaining that the Town Council of Kilrenny had illegally deprived him of his office as councillor and elected others in his absence. Sir John Anstruther argued that the competency of the action was the sole point before the Court, as directed by Lord Eskgrove. |
| Robert Forsyth v. Hon. Henry Erskine and the Members of the Faculty of Advocates |
1790
|
Faculty, Jurisdiction, Presbytery, Trial |
Robert Forsyth petitioned for admission to trial, and Henry Erskine and the Members of the Faculty of Advocates responded that his ecclesiastical status disqualified him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Robert Munro v. John Baxter, Provost of Cupar, and Other Burgesses |
1772
|
Election, Debt, Jurisdiction, Election contest, Adjudication, Aliment |
This case stems from a disputed election for the Dean of Guild of Cupar in 1766. Robert Munro and John Stewart stood as candidates. Munro claimed to have won the election. The town council decided that the other candidate, Stewart, had actually won. On appeal to the Court of Session, however, the court determined that Munro had won the election. The court did not award Munro costs and fees related to the litigation. Munro then petitioned the town council for reimbursement of his expenses. The town council agreed to make a donation to Munro. A few members of the town council, objecting to this donation, sought to stop the payment in court. Munro contended that the Court of Session did not have jurisdiction over the royal burrows with respect to administrative and revenue matters. |
| Robert Robb v. Gabriel Halladay |
1766
|
Jurisdiction, Witness, Perjury, Libel, Premises Liability, Common Law |
Robert Robb accused Gabriel Halladay of committing perjury during Court of Session proceedings regarding the Anstruther Wester elections. Halladay raised several technical objections to the libel (i.e., the indictment); Robb responded to these objections and argued that the case should move forward. The libel was dismissed. |
| Robert Scott v. Adam Mitchell |
1775
|
Wrongful imprisonment, Cautio Judicio Sisti, Debt, Arrestment, Jurisdiction, Contract |
This case was about whether a magistrate supervising a fair could exercise a power of summary imprisonment. On his way to the St. Lawrence fair in Selkirk, Robert Scott, pursuer, agreed to buy a cow from William Oliver. Scott intended to purchase the cow as a “yeld” (a barren cow), but he claimed to have discovered at the fair that she was “in milk.” Scott refused to take the cow or pay the agreed upon price. Oliver complained to defender Adam Mitchell, one of the bailies of Selkirk. Mitchell ordered Scott jailed after a summary proceeding, the facts of which were disputed. Arguing that this process was defective, Scott brought an action for damages for wrongful imprisonment. Mitchell claimed that as superior of the fair, he was empowered to enforce Scott and Oliver’s contract by summarily imprisoning Scott until Scott found caution (i.e., bail). |
| Smith v. Procurator Fiscal |
1795
|
Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Statute |
Smith pursued the Procurator Fiscal to challenge the Justices of the Peace's prohibition on fares charged by the postmasters. The postmasters argued that the justices lacked jurisdiction to regulate their charges and that economic hardship entitled them to increase rates according to market conditions. They initially submitted a memorial asserting these claims and subsequently petitioned the Court of Session to overturn the fare ban on grounds of jurisdictional overreach. |
| Steuart v. Ramsden |
1793
|
Sequestration, Penalty, Arrestment, Jurisdiction, Forfeiture, Debt |
Steuart pursued Ramsden to remit the seizure of effects from the sequestrated premises of James Hill, contending that Ramsden's poinding of the goods was illegal. Hill separately sought remission of penalties and forfeiture awarded by the Edinburgh Justices of Peace for alleged accounting breaches, which Ramsden defended as clear statutory violations warranting the assessed amounts. Ferguson petitioned to challenge both the legality of Ramsden's poinding and the jurisdiction of the Justices to impose penalties beyond the statutory limit, while Ramsden additionally sought review of an interlocutor regarding preference over the poinded effects in Hill's bankruptcy. |
| Sutherland v. Caledonian Society of Edinburgh |
1797
|
Jurisdiction, Arbitration, Interlocutor, Libel, Statute, Expenses |
John Sutherland, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to remit the interlocutor of Lord Glenlee dismissing his action against the Caledonian Society of Edinburgh, the defender, for wrongful expulsion and denial of burial money. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
