| Alexander-Charles Maitland, & Others v. Dame Helen Maitland Gibson, & Spouse |
1830
|
Compensation, Security, Succession, Debt, Tailzie, Entail |
Alexander-Charles Maitland and other heirs of entail pursued Dame Helen Maitland Gibson and her spouse regarding £7000 paid by a canal company for consent to route a canal through the entailed estate. The pursuers sought to have the sum paid into a bank for lawful investment under the 1827 Act, asserting it was compensation for permanent damage belonging to the entail, while the defenders answered that it represented merely the value of the land and payment for temporary inconvenience. The court found that the defenders must compensate the heirs for the permanent damage sustained by the estate from the canal deviation, with the compensation to be paid from the £7000 received for the consent. |
| Bruce v. Davidson |
1791
|
Valuation, Feu duties, Sasine, Process, Security, Property |
Colonel Andrew Bruce, pursuer, led proof by James Ferrier, writer to the signet, against defender Harry Davidson to the effect that the proof should proceed as agreed by both parties and commissioners. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Donald Campbell v. David Campbell |
1776
|
Cautioner, Debt, Trustee, Assignment, Security, Creditor |
John Campbell of Clochombie and James Campbell of Ballinaby were co-cautioners on a bond granted by Major Donald Campbell of Castlesween to the Bank of Scotland. After Castlesween encountered financial difficulties, Colonel Donald Campbell of Saddell stepped in to pay £4000 towards his debts, including the bond. As part of this transaction, Saddell took assignments of the debts in question and received a heritable security over Castleween. Subsequently, Saddell sought payment from David Campbell of Clochombie, son of the elder Clochombie. These two men struck a deal in which David agreed to pay off the entire £4000 in exchange for assignments of the debts and the security over Castlesween. As the new assignee, David sought payment from Donald Campbell of Ballinaby, the son of his father’s co-cautioner. Ballinaby contended that he was entitled to be ranked on the heritable security, leading to a dispute about the manner in which he would be ranked. |
| George Binnie v. Neil M'Millan |
1831
|
Aliment, Debt, Arrestment, Security, Expenses, Interlocutor |
George Binnie, mariner in Greenock, served as suspender against Niel M'Millan, grocer in Cartsdyke, reclaiming against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor which found that no expenses were due to the suspender. M'Millan argued in response that Binnie was not entitled to aliment because he had refused to sign an obligation for peace. The litigation turned on whether a suspender who declined to give security for the peace could recover expenses or maintain a claim for aliment. |
| Goodall v. Fleming |
1766
|
Contracts and Obligations, Debt, Security, Action, Bankruptcy, Succession |
The Pursuer, Walter Goodall, claimed that the Defender, Robert Fleming, owed Goodall money for the work Goodall did in preparing a new edition of Fordun's History of Scotland for publication. Robert Fleming, a printer, was hired by Robert Freebairn in 1744 to publish this new edition, and Freebairn hired Goodall under contract to prepare the book for press. Goodall claimed that although his employment was arranged under contract, he is still owed money for the immense additional labor he put into the project that was not accounted for at the time of the original contract, including correcting the book for press, compiling the introduction, compiling the indexes, and working on the dedication and preface. After the project began, Robert Fleming acquired the right to the publication from Freebairn, believing that from the number of subscriptions that this would be a profitable endeavor. Goodall continued work on the project under the same conditions agreed upon with Freebairn. Goodall brought action against Fleming in the Court of Session to obtain the balance he claimed was due to him from Fleming. Fleming claimed that since Goodall's contract was with Freebairn, Fleming did not owe Goodall the additional balance. Further, Fleming argued that since Goodall carried out the work with significant delays and did not finish until 1759, Fleming lost many subscriptions and no longer owed Goodall the additional balance. Goodall claimed that he was sorry to lay this case before the Court of Session because "it publishes to the World at what a very low Price learned Labour is estimated in Scotland." |
| Henry Peirse and Others v. Mrs Elizabeth Ross |
1791
|
Adjudication, Conveyance, Infeftment, Security, Heritor, Reduction |
Mrs Elizabeth Ross defended her adjudication of multiple Ayrshire lands against objections by Henry Peirse and others, asserting her right as heir and the validity of her Crown charter in response to their claims of prior or superior rights. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Hill v. Swinton |
1796
|
Contract, Security, Deed, Breach of Contract, Debt, Copyright |
Peter Hill, bookseller in Edinburgh, sought to relinquish his interest in the copyright of a book he had contracted to publish with John Swinton, Advocate. Swinton maintained that Hill remained bound by the agreement to accept delivery of sixty copies annually until all four hundred and eighty-six remaining copies were delivered. The pleadings set forth the parties' competing positions on the enforceability of the publication contract and the disposition of the unsold stock. |
| Isabel Howison v. John Howison |
1784
|
Debt, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Security |
Three men granted a bill to Stephen Howison, the late father of pursuer Isobel Howison. Additionally, John Howison of Hyndford, defender, wrote Stephen a letter promising that the bill would be paid. Later, Isobel sued John for payment. In response, John argued that the action was barred by a six-year limitation on bills and a seven-year limitation on liability for cautioners. |
| James Fisher v. Donald Maclachlan |
1769
|
Sale, Security, Debt, Rent, Tack, Adjudication |
This case was about the interpretation of documents relating to a land transaction. Lachlan Maclachlan of Innis Chonnell, an ancestor of defender Donald Maclachlan, was arrested on account of his debt to Dougal Campbell of Edderline. Lachlan sought help from Duncan Fisher, the father of pursuer James Fisher, and the parties agreed to a three-part transaction. First, Duncan executed a bond of presentation attesting that he would present Duncan at a specified time and place or pay the debt to Campbell, plus a penalty. Second, Lachlan executed a minute of sale in which he agreed to transfer his lands to Duncan. Finally, in a note of depositation, Duncan and Lachlan agreed that if Lachlan paid his debt on the specified day, the minute of sale would become null and void. Lachlan did not present himself or pay the debt, and the minute of sale was registered in the sheriff court. For many years, Fisher and his heirs failed to obtain possession of the land, but pursuer James Fisher eventually raised an action for that purpose. In litigation, the parties disputed the nature of the transaction. James contended that the original parties had intended a true sale of the lands. However, defender Donald Maclachlan argued that the land transfer was merely a security, and that he could retain the lands by paying off the original debt. |
| James Sellars v. Ninian Anderson |
1778
|
Emotion, Oath, Injury, Security (Physical and Mental), Lawburrows, Security |
At the beginning of 1777 James Sellars, Robert Sellars, and Marion Sellars brought action against Ninian Anderson for having brought a "causeless" action of lawburrows (a warrant for extracting legal security to keep the peace) against them. They charged Anderson with malicious and vexatious intent in bringing this action, while the defender replied that he could prove the grounds upon which he had brought it, although he was not required by law to do so. The case came before Lord Covington, who ruled that because the defender had originally offered proof, he was required to provide it. Anderson petitioned the Court to alter Covington's interlocutor, arguing that Scots law was clear that a person taking out lawburrows was only required to swear that he dreaded harm from the recipients of the action. He further argued that the pursuers could not make a claim to damages, as repercussions would only follow if they were to commit unlawful harm. The pursuers answered that the lawburrows against them had indeed caused harm, for their forced march from Meikle Govan to the Glasgow town-house to provide caution had led to public humiliation. The Court altered Covington's interlocutor, finding that the defender was not required to justify the grounds of his application for lawburrows. Upon receiving a reclaiming petition from the pursuers, the Court adhered. Lord Barskimming remarked, "We will not cut a man out of his just right because he hastily offered to prove before an Ordinary what he was not obliged to prove." |
| John Melville v. TheCreditors of George Smiton |
1794
|
Infeftment, Liferent, Succession, Ranking of Creditors, Security, Conveyance |
John Melville petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had held void the infeftment in favor of George Gordon's heirs, opposing the creditors of George Smiton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Landale v. Carmichael, et al |
1792
|
Debt, Adjudication, Interest, Teinds, Creditor, Security |
David Landale, surgeon in Leven, sought to reduce decrees of adjudication and expiry of the legal granted against his uncle Thomas Landale, arguing that the claims contained pluris petitio and had been extinguished by intromissions made within the legal period. After Edward McCormick petitioned to alter an interlocutor, Landale renewed his challenge in 1794 on grounds of pluris petitio, informality, and extinguishment, prompting the defenders to file duplies confined to factual allegations. Landale subsequently maintained that adjudication being an articulate diligence, a pluris petitio in one article did not invalidate the entire decree. |
| Lee Allen and Andrew Elder v. Elder and Others |
1832
|
Poinding, Expenses, Interlocutor, Advocation, Sheriff, Security |
John Lee Allen, Esq., and Andrew Elder presented a reclaiming note asking the Court of Session to alter Lord Medwyn's interlocutor in their action against Elder and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| MacGill v. Campbell |
1780
|
Factor Loco Tutoris, Aliment, Estate, Succession, Factor, Security |
This case was about the appointment of a guardian for John Brand, who was unable to manage his own affairs. William Ayton was appointed tutor by the Court of Exchequer, but he died before Brand’s incapacity was lifted. The beneficiary of Brand’s will, Sarah Macgill, requested the appointment of a factor loco tutoris (administrator) to manage Brand’s affairs on an interim basis. William Campbell and John Brand, W.S., relatives of the incapacitated Brand, opposed Macgill’s petition, arguing that Campbell had already petitioned the Court of Exchequer to become tutor-dative. |
| McKenzie v. Lowe |
1778
|
Debt, Cautioner, Tack, Security, Creditor, Mala Fides |
Kenneth M'Kenzie petitioned the court to alter an interlocutor, contending that Doctor Lowe’s letter was intended to delay relief until the 1775 rents were paid rather than merely to cover a £400 arrear. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Petrie v. Lord Ankerville's Interlocutor |
1789
|
Debt, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Rent, Security |
Pursuer Joseph Petrie petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his dispute with defender Lord Ankerville. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Richard Thomson v. Messrs Douglas, Heron, and Company |
1785
|
Debt, Trust, Sequestration, Fraud, Reduction, Security |
Richard Thomson of Crowdieknowes transferred his lands to David Armstrong of Kirtleton "heritably and irredeemably," with the qualification that such lands should be sold for Thomson's benefit. Armstrong obtained a charter for the lands without recording the qualification. Armstrong subsequently conveyed the lands to Douglas, Heron, and Company to secure his own debt, and other creditors of Armstrong adjudged the lands. Thomson then initiated a court action to void Armstrong's right to the lands on the ground of fraud. Armstrong's creditors, including Douglas, Heron, and Company, appeared in the suit to defend their interest. Thomson argued that Armstrong held the lands in trust and therefore lacked the power to act as proprietor. In response, the creditors argued that they were entitled to rely on the relevant land records. |
| Robertson and Husband v. Holland |
1775
|
Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Promissory note, Reduction, Security |
Martha Robertson, petitioner, sought payment on a bill from William Holland, respondent; at the same time, Archibald Ochiltree sought payment from Holland on a promissory note that was payable to Robertson but had been indorsed to Ochiltree. Robertson and Holland offered differing accounts of the facts surrounding the bill and promissory note. According to Robertson, Holland voluntarily granted the instruments on behalf of a friend, Charles Bolingbroke, who fled the country without paying his debts to Robertson. However, according to Holland, Robertson solicited the instruments so that she could show them to her creditors, without any intention that they would actually be paid. In Holland’s telling, a receipt signed by Robertson was intended to secure him against any demand for payment. In addition to disputing the facts, Robertson presented legal arguments against the receipt’s validity, which related to her status as a married woman. Holland argued that the bills were invalid because Robertson had paid no value for them. A number of depositions are included in the case documents. |
| Scott v. Stonefield's Interlocutor |
1793
|
Interlocutor, Caution, Possession, Suspension, Security |
|
| Sir James Grant v. Simon Fraser |
1785
|
Debt, Adjudication, Cautioner, Interlocutor, Multiple-Poinding, Security |
Sir James Grant of Grant, Baronet, as pursuer, petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his case against Simon Fraser, the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| The Trustees for the Creditors of John Brough v. The Heirs of Robert Selby |
1794
|
Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Security, Cautioner, Sequestration |
The Trustees for the Creditors of John Brough pursued the Heirs of Robert Selby regarding the extent of security afforded by a heritable bond of relief granted by Brough in 1783. The Trustees contended that the bond secured the sum drawn at the date of seisin notwithstanding subsequent fluctuations in the cash account. The Heirs maintained that the bond subsisted only to the extent of the limited sum until the cash account was closed and the infeftment renounced. |
| Thomas Manson, Writer in Edinburgh v. John Angus, Merchant in Edinburgh |
1771
|
Debt, Security, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange |
Andrew Farquhar, a shopkeeper in Edinburgh, owed money to defender John Angus, a merchant in Edinburgh. To satisfy this debt, Farquhar indorsed to Angus a bill payable by pursuer Thomas Manson. Farquhar later went bankrupt and was committed to prison. Manson refused to pay the bill and alleged that the transaction between Farquhar and Angus was "fraudulent and usurious." Manson argued, for example, that Angus sold goods to Farquhar at exorbitant profits. Angus denied this claim and maintained that Manson must pay the bill. |
| Wilson and Corse v. Woods |
1797
|
Debt, Letter of Credit, Security, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Succession |
Wilson and Corse, as pursuers, sued John Woods for breach of a guarantee letter he had written to authorize credit to the foreign buyer Gray. They argued that Woods’s liability extended beyond fifty casks under trade practice and the statute defining cask sizes. Woods responded by memorial, contending that his letter to Gray was merely an inquiry with conditional security rather than an unqualified mandate or obligation of cautionry. |
