Legal Subject: Employment |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. R. Henderson v. John Mackay | 1831 | Diligence, Employment, Damages, Contract, Interlocutor, Breach of Contract | |
| Attorney of Thomas Cullen & Co v. David Philp | 1792 | Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Employment, Pactum Illicitum | The attorney of Thomas Cullen and Company opposed David Philp, merchant in Boarhills, who as suspender pleaded that no action could lie upon bills alleged to have arisen from a smuggling transaction in which the pursuers were principals or accessories. The attorney replied that this plea of non-action for smuggled goods was unjust and unsupported by law or fact. |
| Launie v. Palmer | 1794 | Debt, Bill of Exchange, Trustee, Bankruptcy, Prescription, Employment | The pursuer Launie, by John Dickson, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor and to decern for the balance of the account, opposing Palmer's claim to charge as principal furnisher and to impose interest and commission. Palmer responded, arguing that the practice of principal furnishers receiving a percentage from tradesmen was not an imposition on the public or employer. The dispute centered on the legitimacy of these charges in the accounting between the parties. |
| McKenzie v. Buchanan and Company | 1792 | Arrestment, Debt, Contract, Aliment, Employment, Action | Daniel M'Kenzie, a spinner, pursued James and Archibald Buchanans and Company, his masters, contending that they had unlawfully deducted from his wages without contractual authority. The Buchanans subsequently petitioned the Court to overturn an inner-house interlocutor that had been pronounced against them. |
| Ross v. Woodman | 1770 | Employment, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Sequestration | Pursuer David Ross was the manager of the Theatre-Royal of Edinburgh. Defender Esther Woodman was an actress in the theatre's productions. Esther entered into an employment contract with Ross after receiving her husband's (Thomas Woodman) consent. Ross eventually fired Esther Woodman because she refused to take on certain roles in the plays and did not show up to rehearsals. Following her dismissal, Esther and Thomas Woodman brought an action against Ross before the sheriff of Edinburgh, seeking a weekly salary for the term of Esther's employment contract. Ross maintained that Esther was justly and properly dismissed based on her improper conduct, and that she was not entitled to her weekly salary under the employment contract. |
Documents discussing this subject (89)
- 9.—Unto the Right Honourable the Lords of Council and Session, NOTE OF ADVOCATION for Thomas Kirkpatrick, formerly Overseer or Grieve at Hallmanor, now residing at Cocket Lane, nea
- A. R. Henderson v. John M'Kay — Revised, 4 Oct 1832
- Alexander Cunison v. John Mather — Memorial, 7 Oct 1790
- Alexander Govan v. Thomas Lang — Appendix
- Allan Jack v. James Elder — Answers
- APPENDIX.
- APPENDIX. DECLARATION of GEORGE RATHIE, 4th December 1816.
- APPENDIX. Dr.—Mr ALEXANDER IZATT, and Owners of the Diligence, Captain Hurst, in Account Current with SAMUEL MARSHALL and HUTCHISON,—Crs.
- APPENDIX. MINUTES of MEETING of the INCORPORATION of FLESHERS.
- APPENDIX. No. I. INTERLOCUTORS of the Lord Ordinary in Causa. Act. D. McNeill.—Alt. Solicitor-General. Act. D. McNeill.—Alt. Solicitor-General.
- APPENDIX. No. II. PURSUER'S PROOF.
- Archibald Reid Henderson v. John M'Kay — Advocation, 30 Sep 1831
- Archibald Reid Henderson v. John Mackay — Reclaiming, 4 Apr 1832
- Binning v. Binning — Petition, 31 Jan 1767
- Buchanans — Petition, 27 Feb 1793
- Christopher Smyth v. Archibald Nisbet — Interlocutor, 12 Dec 1826
- Daniel Mackenzie v. Messrs James and Archibald Buchanans and Company — Information, 11 Oct 1792
- David Clyne v. Andrew Snody — State of the Process, 27 May 1828
- David Naesmith v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow — Proof
- David Nicholson, and fifteen other journeymen-weavers in Glasgow and its neighbourhood v. George Brown, and twenty other master-manufacturers in Glasgow and its neighbourhood — Information, 23 Feb 1768
- David Nicolson, and others v. George Brown, and others — Information, 16 Feb 1768
- Dugald Campbell v. Hugh Price, James Stevenson, and James Alexander — Bill of Advocation, 1830
- Dugald Campbell v. Hugh Price; James Stevenson; James Alexander — Replies, 1827
- Dugald Campbell v. James Stevenson, Hugh Price, and James Alexander — Condescendence, 15 Nov 1828
- Dugald M'Callum v. James Young of Calderside and William Young, Younger of Calderside — Revised Condescendence and Answers, 13 Nov 1849
- Duncan Wright v. Sir James Steuart Denham and John Burns — State of the Process, 21 Mar 1828
- General-Collection-of-Session-Papers-1831-12-FEB--23-FEB-221-224-257 doc0110
- George Johnston Junior v. John Clark — Reclaiming Note, 2 Sep 1830
- George Sinclair v. Charles William Thornton Erskine — Bill of Advocation, 12 Nov 1829
- Henry Holywell v. Robert Frank — Answers, 8 Apr 1824
- Henry Holywell v. Robert Frank — Replies, 22 May 1824
- Home v. Smart — Petition, 9 Jul 1795
- Horne v. Ryrie — Report, 4 Mar 1851 [2]
- Howe v. Bland — Petition, 16 Jul 1782
- III.—STATEMENT of FACTS for DEFENDER, WITH ANSWERS thereto for PURSUERS; IV.—PLEAS in LAW for Pursuers; V.—PLEAS in LAW for Defender; VI.—INTERLOCUTOR CLOSING RECORD.
- III.—STATEMENT OF FACTS for the DEFENDER, AND ANSWERS thereto for the Pursuer.
- James Burness v. William Pollok Morris and Morris Pollok — Appendix to Petition, 20 Jun 1849
- James Earl of Fife v. William Rose — Answers, 18 Dec 1801
- James Gammell v. William Wier and John Barr — Answers, 1820
- James Gracie v. David Staig — Answers, 10 Sep 1812
- James Gracie v. David Staig — State of the Process, 2 Jun 1806
- James Lawson v. Mrs Margaret Cochrane, or Halliburton — State of the Process, 25 Oct 1827
- James Lawson v. Mrs Margaret Halli-Burton, or Cochrane — Replies
- James Lindsay and Company v. George Jones — Information, 2 Feb 1796
- James Russel v. Nathaniel Gow — Memorial, 9 Oct 1794
- James Stevenson & Others v. John Munro & Others — Revised Condescendence and Answers, 17 Jun 1829
- James Watson v. James Grindlay — Answers, 16 Nov 1824 [2]
- James Watson v. James Grindlay — Reasons, 19 Jan 1826
- John Anderson Junior v. John Walker — Answers, 2 Jul 1828
- John Anderson v. Margaret Thomson — Answers, 20 Dec 1821 [2]
- John Mather v. Alexander Cunnison — Proof, 20 Feb 1789
- John Morthland and John Johnstone v. John Cadell — Duplies, 17 Dec 1799
- John Skeill v. Humphry-Bland Gardiner — Petition, 14 Feb 1775
- John Stewart and Curator v. Alexander Brown and Company — Proof, 16 Jul 1821
- John William Bell v. John Cooper — Summons, 16 Jan 1836
- John William Bell v. Watson, Pellat, & Company — Summons, 21 Apr 1837
- John Wilson v. Archibald M'Lean — 17 Jan 1777
- Launie — Petition, 8 Feb 1794
- Lilias Donaldson v. Thomas Kirkpatrick — Replies
- Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow v. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company — State of the Process
- Michael Gilfillan and Mrs Mary Bogle, otherwise Gilfillan v. John Burnet — Answers, 7 Jul 1823
- Miscellaneous-Coll-x-Summer-Sess-813-814 doc0047
- Nathaniel Gow v. James Ruffel — Proof, 9 Apr 1793
- No. III. AMENDED ANSWERS for John Davidson, Writer, Edinburgh,—Charger.
- No. III. MINUTE FOR PURSUER IN CAUSA DUGALD CAMPBELL v. PRICE &c. No. IV.
- Petition — Claud Neilson against Lord Cringletie's Interlocutors [2]
- Petition — D. M'DOUGAL against Lord Gillies's Interlocutor
- Petition — John Anderson against Inner-House Interlocutor [2]
- Petition — John Craig, & Others against an Inner-House Interlocutor [2]
- Petition — William Kirkpatrick senior, and David Staig, both merchants in Dumfries, Thomas Stothart of Arkland, George Mackenzie at Rosehall, and Robert Ramsay writer in Dumfries, trustees for the creditors of James Macwhirter and Son, merchants in…
- Petition — Wm. Douglas, Esq; a
- REC. NOTE—W. ELDER and OTHERS, AGAINST Lord Medwyn's Interlocutor. John Hannay, W. S. Pursuers' Agent. Lockhart, Hunter, & Whitehead, W. S. Defenders' Agents. Mr. Thomson, Clerk.
- Reclaiming Petition — David Steuart, Esq; against Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor
- RECORD. REVISED CONDESCENDENCE for THOMAS PATERSON Writer in Hamilton,—Pursuer; AND REVISED ANSWERS for DAVID MARSHALL, Esq. of Neilsland, and the Trustees of the late General Matt
- Robert Alexander v. John Montgomery-Beaumont — 3 Mar 1774
- Robert Leslie v. Duncan Clark — Replies, 8 Aug 1780 [2]
- Robert Tennent and Others v. Thomas M'Intosh — Bill of Advocation, 20 Feb 1818
- Samuel James Hallam v. Gye and Company — Record, 5 Dec 1835
- STATEMENT of FACTS for DAVID MARSHALL, Esquire of Neilsland, and the Trustees of General Matthew Baillie, and Pursuer's ANSWERS thereto.
- SUMMONS, THOMAS LANG and COMPANY, AGAINST M'LEOD and CLERK. John Patten, W.S. Agent.
- Thomas Cranstoun v. David Philp — Information, 26 Apr 1792
- Thomas Landale v. Mrs. Elizabeth Roughead or Tod and David Tod — Answers
- William Gillespie and Company, and Taylor and Almond v. Thomas Milligain — Answers, 27 Feb 1796
- William Good v. Robert Fleming — Answers, 17 Dec 1766
- William Kirkpatrick senior, David Staig, Thomas Stothart of Arkland, George M'Kenzie of Rosehall, and Robert Ramsay v. George Dawson — Answers, 18 Nov 1780
- William M'Donald v. Messrs. Mackie and Company — Answers, 6 Feb 1829
- William Macdonald v. Messrs Mackie & Co. — Condescendence, 6 Feb 1829
- William Phipps, Trustee on the sequestrated estate of William Fraser, Railway Contractor v. Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Company — Minute, 25 Jan 1843
- [Rec. Note boxed March 3, 1857. Appendix to Reclaiming Note, Alexander Smith against Lord Mackenzie's Interlocutor
