| Alexander Campbell v. John Campbell |
1772
|
Slavery and enslaved people, West Indies and Atlantic trade, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Assignment, Interlocutor |
Alexander Campbell in Balole, Islay, pursued John Campbell, Tackman of Dunloskin, alleging forgery and improper bond cancellation, to which John Campbell filed answers. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Brisbane v. Sempill |
1794
|
Feu, Succession, Feu duties, Infeftment, Assignment, Disposition |
Brisbane, as pursuer, argued that Lord Sempill, as defender and singular successor, was bound to pay a year's rent for entry rather than the two shillings Scots claimed by the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Crosby and Attorney v. Maidment |
1798
|
Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Assignment, Usury, Interest |
|
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Earl of Dalhousie v. Wilson |
1802
|
Property rights, Lease, Assignment, Possession |
Charles Wilson was a farm tenant in Millholm, which was originally leased to his father, William Wilson. The landlord of the property was the pursuer, Earl Dalhousie. The lease was then assigned to John Wilson, son of Charles Wilson, who did not reside in the farm, but hired a servant or a manger, James Keddie, to cultivate the land. John Wilson moved to Jamaica. The Pursuer brought an action to remove John Wilson and James Keddie from the possession of the farm, alleging that it has been subleased without his written consent as the proprietor. The Court concluded that John Wilson must be held as having abandoned his lease, and as the farm remained without a tenant, the landlord was entitled to enter to the possession. |
| Earl of Northesk & Factor v. Rolland, et al |
1797
|
Lease, Tack, Assignment, Sublease, Rent, Possession |
|
| George Earl of Tyrconnel v. Sir Archibald Grant |
1777
|
Debt, Assignment, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Lease, Proof |
Sir Archibald Grant defended an action by George Earl of Tyrconnel and the Representatives of Richard Shergold concerning annuity bonds, maintaining that the defeasance of the bonds was valid notwithstanding suppressed indorsements. The pursuers thereafter petitioned the Court to resume consideration of the competition. |
| Grant v. Campbell |
1765
|
Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Trust, Trustee, Assignment |
Grant, as executor, sued the Campbell heirs for an unpaid marriage settlement that included a mortgage and annuity, the dispute turning on an incomplete conveyance and questions of executor liability. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Heritors of Stewarton v. Trustees on the High Roads, and Cunningham |
1797
|
Debt, Trustees, Trustee, Contract, Assignment, Heritor |
The Heritors of Stewarton pursued the Trustees on the High Roads and William Cunningham regarding the administration of statute conversion money for highway repairs in the parish. The heritors argued that such funds were required to be expended annually on the public roads and could not be assigned to other purposes, while Cunningham contended that the trustees were not bound to yearly expenditure or to repay past misapplications, and further claimed that the trustees had unlawfully refused to apply the money to reimburse his personal advances for road works. The process included trustees' minutes from 1774 to 1791, which recorded road repairs, toll assignments, and Cunningham's appointment as principal overseer and collector, together with a report by the Sheriff-Depute on road conditions recommending specific repairs and toll-bars. |
| Hinton v. Donaldson |
1773
|
Copyright, Literary Property, Property, Patent, Privilege, Assignment |
This case was about the right to publish a literary work. Stephen Austin obtained a patent from the Crown to publish the second edition of “A New History of the Holy Bible,” by Rev. Thomas Stackhouse. Austin died, leaving his estate to his wife, Elizabeth. She then died after marrying John Hinton, the pursuer. In 1765, defender James Meurose completed another edition of Stackhouse’s book, and in 1767, defenders Alexander Donaldson and John Wood agreed to reprint copies of certain volumes. Hinton sued all three men on the ground that the new edition violated his common law property right in the work. By this time, the patent had expired, and there was no statutory claim. The defenders argued that the common law of Scotland did not provide a perpetual right to so-called literary property. |
| In re Jean Alexander |
1779
|
Debt, Ranking of Creditors, Adjudication, Assignment, Legacy, Ranking and Sale |
Jean Alexander, petitioner, held a bond on behalf of a French niece of her father, William Alexander, deceased Lord Provost of Edinburgh. The obligants on the bond were her brothers Robert and William. However, the former was deceased and the latter was bankrupt, and she had failed to produce her interest in time for a process of ranking upon William's estate. She petitioned the Court to have it inserted after the fact. |
| James Donaldson and James Pinkerton v. The Manchester Insurance Company |
1831
|
Insurance, Debt, Insurance Claim, Bill of Exchange, Interest, Assignment |
James Donaldson and James Pinkerton raised an action against the Manchester Insurance Company to recover payment under a fire insurance policy for wheat destroyed in 1829, claiming £408 1s. 11d. plus interest and costs. The defenders denied the competence of the action and asserted that the claim was void and barred. The parties thereafter joined issue on whether the defenders were liable for the loss of wheat and whether the policy had been discharged. |
| James Sinclair v. Robert Anderson and Others |
1771
|
Liferent, Succession, Sequestration, Assignment, Fiar, Contract of marriage |
In 1705, James Fraser concluded a marriage contract with Margaret Torry, the daughter of John Torry, who held lands and tenants in Elgin. Margaret was heir to her father's property, and the marriage contract granted James the right to the rents, fees, duties, etc. of the Elgin tenants for his life should Margaret pre-decease him. Margaret and James had three children, and by the time of this lawsuit only their daughter, Margaret Fraser, remained alive. In the 1720s, James's financial affairs began to fall in disarray and he attempted to sell his wife's heritable lands, triggering a series of legal disputes resulting in the land's sequestration. After the death of James and his eldest son, John, James's creditors laid claim to the Elgin rents and fees. James Sinclair challenged the creditors in the Court of Session, arguing that his grandfather's right to his grandmother's heritable lands ceased with his death, devolved on his now dead uncle, and subsequently now fell to his mother. In other words, the heritable lands ceased to be part of James Fraser's estate when he died and reverted to his wife's estate, subsequently inherited by her children. Sinclair contended that as the heritable lands constituted part of James Fraser's estate in life only, his creditors had no claim to them after his death. The Court of Session agreed and found for James Sinclair. |
| Richardson and Tait v. Thomson |
1775
|
Debt, Assignment, Interlocutor, Oath, Representation, Assignation |
David Thomson of Ingliston, defender, granted a bond to James Thomson, who conveyed shares of the bond to many different assignees. Several of these assignees made further assignments, and the pursuers, John Richardson and John Tait, came to possess a four-sixths share of the bond. Richardson and Tait sued David Thomson for payment. In the ensuing process, Thomson alleged that Tait and Richardson were merely trustees for certain assignees whom he had already paid. In response, Richardson and Tait claimed to be Thomson’s rightful creditors, having exchanged ready money for shares that the earlier assignees were unable to collect. Richardson and Tait also argued that David Thomson had missed a deadline for continuing to contest the case. |
| Shoolbred v. Lindsay |
1792
|
Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Assignment, Assignation, Arrestment |
John Shoolbred, trustee for the creditors of Captain Charles Steuart Lindsay, sought to compel Lindsay to assign £40 per annum from his military half-pay pursuant to a court order. Lindsay resisted, maintaining that his half-pay was not assignable to creditors and that Shoolbred’s claim thereto was ineffectual. The case turned on whether half-pay could be made liable to the claims of creditors. |
| Tod v. Thomson |
1792
|
Arrestment, Creditor, Debt, Assignment, Assignation, Witness |
Alexander Thomson, defender in the action raised by Tod, petitioned the Court on 2 March 1792 to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor against him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| York Building Company v. Roperhead |
1791
|
Debt, Sequestration, Assignment, Assignation, Creditor, Reduction |
The Governor and Company of Undertakers for Raising the Thames Water in York Buildings petitioned the Court against Roperhead to find that assignees of bonds must take every objection competent against the cedent. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
