| Beck v. M'Clone |
1786
|
Factor, Agent |
This case was about a contract dispute. The defenders, Samuel Macclone Jr. and Samuel Macclone Sr., lived on the farm of Ross. The pursuer, John Beck, alleged that Samuel Jr. had agreed to sell him the farm’s entire output of oats. The Macclones responded that Samuel Jr. had no authority to make the bargain on behalf of his father, who was the sole tenant, and that Beck had known this when he allegedly entered into the transaction. |
| George Forbes v. Ann Mackenzie and Richard Paterson |
1775
|
Agent, Debt, Poor's Roll |
Defenders Ann Mackenzie and Richard Paterson retained pursuer George Forbes to help them recover a £. 200 bond granted to Mackenzie’s deceased father. Mackenzie and Paterson subsequently learned that they were eligible to receive court-appointed counsel through the “poor’s roll.” They successfully petitioned the Court of Session for the benefit of the poor’s roll and had the contract with Forbes voided. Forbes, who had already started working to recover the bond, sued Mackenzie and Patterson for the balance on their account. Mackenzie and Paterson disputed the amount that was owed and claimed that it should not be due until they had successfully recovered payment for the bond. |
| Lindsay and Allan v. John Campbell |
18 Jun 1800
|
Agent, Admiralty |
Pursuers Lindsay and Allan sued Defender John Campbell for the price of a cable that they provided to his ship at the port of Greenock, the ship's home port. The cable was ordered by Daniel Clark, the ship’s master, without Campbell’s approval. In his defense, Campbell argued that a ship’s owner was not bound to pay for furnishings ordered by the master in a home port. However, Lindsay and Allan contended that an owner was liable for any ordinary furnishings ordered by the master, whether or not the ship was in a home port. |
| Wilson and Company v. Hamilton and Company |
1773
|
Debt, Agent, Sell of goods |
James Wilson and Company of Kilmarnock manufactured woolen carpets for sale in London. Since 1762, Malcolm Hamilton and Company had served as James Wilson & Company's London agent . The dispute related to a large quantity of James Wilson & Company's carpets left in a wharf cellar in London for five years. James Wilson & Company argued that because of Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's negligence it suffered some loss. The pursuer claimed that the carpets had been significantly damaged due to Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's neglect. The defender disputed these claims. |
