AI-transcribed

There is no distinction in Scotland between simple contracts and specialties. Most contracts relating to personal property may be parole. No consideration is requisite to support a promise, whether verbal or written.

Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Contract

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Mr John Snodgrass, Preacher of the Gospel, George Steel, John Beatson, and Others v. Mr John Logan and Others 1772 Ministers, Adjudication, Aliment, Contract, Election, Election contest This case concerns the selection of the second minister for the parish at South Leith. In the past, the second minister has been selected by a committee with representatives from the incorporations of different trades and the kirk-session (a group of elders in the local congregation). The defender John Logan and the pursuer John Snodgrass were set up as candidates. The incorporations and the kirk-session disagree about the candidates. Each side also points to errors in the selections and voting process. In an interlocutory ruling, Lord Kennet Ordinary found for Logan. Mr Snodgrass, and the voters on his side, brought a process of reduction and declarator against Mr Logan, and his adherents, before Court. Mr Logan and his party repeated a counter-process of a similar nature.
A. R. Henderson v. John Mackay 1831 Diligence, Employment, Damages, Contract, Interlocutor, Breach of Contract
Alexander v. Beaumont 1772 Contracts and Obligations, Breach of Contract, Debt, Contract, Tack, Aliment Robert Alexander hired John Beaumont in 1770 to mine the coal on Alexander's property in Blackhouse and Boghall in Ayrshire. Under the contract, Beaumont was to deliver coal from Alexander's property to the harbor of Ayr. Beaumont brought the coal to the harbor, but he claimed that there were no people who could receive on Alexander's behalf. Beaumont applied to William Alexander, the brother of Robert, for instructions. According to Beaumont, William directed him to offer the coal to the Newton Company or a third party, or to "bing" the coals "on the hill." The parties disagreed over the expenses incurred for coal binged on the hill. Alexander also accused Beaumont of failing to separate the bings of great coal from the bings of pan wood. Alexander believed that some coal caught fire because of Beaumont's alleged failure to separate great coal from pan wood.
Alexander v. Montgomery 1771 Contract, Interlocutor, Reduction Robert Alexander, the pursuer, owned property in the town of Ayr that contained coal deposits. On behalf of his brother Robert Alexander, William Alexander exchanged letters with James Montgomery, Dr. John Campbell, and the other partners of the coal company at Newton of Ayr. Through this series of letters, the parties apparently agreed that Montgomery would deliver and the coal company would purchase the coal from Montgomery's property. Montgomery et al. denied the existence of a formal contract. Montgomery et al. also argued that Alexander was late delivering the coal.
Alexander Watson v. John Pyot 1800 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Entail, Contract This case concerned a father’s power to dispose of an estate that was the subject of a marriage contract, to the detriment of his son by that marriage. The son, Alexander Watson Jr., was the pursuer. A marriage contract between his parents, Alexander Watson Sr. and Jane Fulertoun, required Alexander Sr. to resign the estate of Turin to himself and the heirs-male of the marriage (and failing that, to certain substitutes). While still living, Alexander Sr. gave Alexander Jr. a portion of the lands included in the contract, along with certain lands that he acquired after making the contract. Subsequently, Alexander Sr. executed a series of deeds curtailing his son’s right to the estate, including a disposition of the remaining lands in favor of John Pyot, a distant relative. Alexander Jr. sought to have these deeds set aside on the ground that they violated the marriage contract. However, John Pyot claimed that Alexander Jr. had relinquished his claim by accepting the previous conveyance from his father.
Archibald Douglas of Douglas v. Douglas, Duke of Hamilton 1778 Deed, Aliment, Succession, Liferent, Sequestration, Contract This case constitutes an appeal to the House of Lords and Court of Session regarding an infamous earlier case, dubbed "The Douglas Cause." That case, which was settled by the House of Lords in 1769, revolved around the contested inheritance of the vast wealth of the Duke of Douglas, who died in 1761. The heir-male to the Duke of Douglas, the Duke of Hamilton, contested the property claims of Archibald Douglas, the son of the Duke of Douglas' sister, from many angles. In this last-ditch appeal, brought before the Court of Session and House of Lords, the Duke of Hamilton asserted that a 1744 deed of revocation put forth by the late Duke of Douglas was in fact a settlement of succession that disinherited his sister, Lady Jane Douglas, from all properties that had been passed to the family through investiture. On December 19, 1778 the Court of Session found that the Duke of Hamilton had no claim under the deed of October 16th, 1744, declaring it a deed of revocation and not of settlement. On March 27, 1779 the House of Lords dismissed an appeal of the Duke of Hamilton. The memorials submitted to the Court of Session in October of 1778 contain a history of the Angus and Douglas families and their investitures, and an overview of similar cases to "The Douglas Cause."
Armstrong and Son, and Others v. Thomas Moffat and Others 1800 Contract, Interlocutor, Penalty, Sheriff, Debt, Fine The candlemakers in Dalkeith routinely entered into one-year contracts with the Society of Fleshers to purchase the tallow from slaughtered cattle. This tallow was provided at a fixed price, and the candlemakers were entitled to examine it and receive a discount for any impurities they found. In 1799, the candlemakers sought, and obtained, a regulation providing for two appointees to search the tallow for impurities before it was transferred to them. The fleshers argued that this regulation should be suspended—or, at minimum, that they should receive a higher price—because the candlemakers were not entitled to receive purified tallow at the established contract price.
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.
Bowden and Gibson v. Esten and Bennett 1794 Contract, Parole Evidence, Debt, Arbitration, Defamation, Aliment Bowden and Gibson, as pursuers, maintained that the pursuer was entitled to his salary for eighteen nights under his engagement with Mrs. Esten, despite Esten and Bennett's refusal to allow him to perform as agreed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Brown v. Heritors of Falkland 1796 Aliment, Presbytery, Contract, Glebe, Interlocutor, Manse
Brown v. Maxwell 1772 Ministers, Adjudication, Aliment, Arrestment, Contract, Property rights The pursuer, Richard Brown, was a minister in Lochmaben. He claimed that the magistrates of the burgh harbored ill will towards him and sought to inconvenience or harass him. Among other actions, the magistrates ordered a barn on Brown's property to be destroyed, removed trees from his glebe, and reduced his seating in the kirk (church). The Lord Ordinary found that the destruction of the barn was a legitimate action authorized by the parish of Lochmaben's heritors. Brown sought a review of the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor. He argued that while he had struck an agreement with the defenders to remove the barn, they had agreed to do so at a later date. The defenders sought to avoid liability damages by claiming that they had only followed the heritors' instructions.
Campbell v. Campbell 1786 Contract, Debt, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Roup, Sale This case was a dispute over the sale of a horse. The pursuer, Dugald Campbell of Craignish, alleged that Neil Campbell of Duntroon sold him a horse that turned out to be lame. Case documents include a number of depositions by witnesses.
Charles Addison and Sons v. William Duguid and Others 1792 Insurance, Adjudication, Statute, Contract, Act of Parliament, Debt In February 1791, the ship Leviathan, sailed from Borrowstounness for Greenland on a whaling expedition. The vessel's owners, Charles Addison and Sons, took out an insurance policy with William Duguid, Andrew M'Kenzie, George Robertson, and James Hunter for 90 butts of blubber, with a provision that the underwriters would pay for whatever portion less than 90 the vessel returned with. The Leviathan was delayed at Stromness, Orkney for several weeks, and when the ship returned to its home port with only 3 or 4 butts, Addison and Sons sought to collect on the insurance. Their attempt to cash in the policy led to litigation in the Admiralty Court where the Judge Admiral initially ruled for the underwriters, before subsequently ruling against them on the Addisons' appeal. Duguid, M'Kenzie, Robertson, and Hunter asked the Court of Session to reverse the Judge Admiral's ruling, arguing that the Leviathan's delay in the Orkney's voided the insurance policy. Addison and Sons in turn argued that their reading of 26 Geo. III, cap. 41 and 29 Geo. III supported their claims, and further argued that the insurance policy was actually a wager, an illegal gambling contract violative of 19th Geo. II.
Charles Stewart, Writer to the Signet v. Andrew Miller, Depute Clerk to the Bills 1799 Aliment, Debt, Creditor, Succession, Bill of Exchange, Contract Defender Andrew Miller purchased the office of Deputy Clerk to the Bills from the Principal Clerks, Sir Robert Anstruther and Thomas Smith. While arranging the purchase, he met with Anstruther’s agent, pursuer Charles Stewart, W.S., who proposed to advance Miller one half of the purchase price in return for two-fifths of the deputy clerk’s fees collected during Miller’s tenure. Unbeknownst to Miller, Stewart was transacting on behalf of an undisclosed principal later revealed to be the son of Sir Robert Anstruther.

After Miller assumed his new office, the fee revenues dropped significantly and he was forced to borrow £250 from Charles Stewart. Subsequently, the court passed an act of sederunt allowing Miller to exact certain additional fees and apply them “to his use alone.” However, Miller failed to repay Stewart, who brought an action to recover the debt. In response, Miller presented a bill of suspension intended to try whether Mr. Stewart (or his principal) was entitled to 2/5 of the old fees, and whether he could claim any share of the new fees. The case documents contain information on fee revenues, activity levels in the Court of Session, and previous financial arrangements involving deputy clerks.
Chisholm v. Lord Gardenston's Interlocutor 1791 Aliment, Heritor, Contract, Tack, Adjudication, Sequestration William Chisholm petitioned the Court to alter Lord Gardenston's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Corse, et al v Kibble 1793 Copartnership, Contract, Sale, Debt, Dissolution, Partnership James Kibble, defender in an action raised by Robert Corse, John Black, James Buchanan, and Archibald Buchanan, petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, arguing that a resolution of 11 July binding the partners to dissolve their firm at Candlemas 1793 violated the partnership’s unanimity clause. Corse and his co-pursuers answered, maintaining that Kibble acted against his own interest and sought injurious terms.
Creditors of David Currie v. William Hannay 1791 Debt, Penalty, Damages, Creditor, Contract, Forfeiture The creditors of David Currie pursued William Hannay regarding whether articles of roup imposed a binding obligation. Hannay petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and John Currie, as eldest son and apparent heir of David Currie, and Hugh Corrie, Writer to the Signet, answered, maintaining that the articles created no binding obligation.
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.
Dickson v. Irving 1796 Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor, Debt, Presbytery, Contract David Dickson, minister of the Gospel at St Mungo, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutors in a suspension process against William Bell Irving of Whitehill, a heritor of the parish, wherein Dickson acted as Charger and Irving as Suspenders. Irving answered the petition.
Duguid v. Hall, et al 1788 Debt, Interlocutor, Credit, Oath, Caution, Contract James Duguid petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor and suspend the letters simpliciter issued against him, challenging the enforcement of a Magistrates’ decree. John Hall, John Tenant, and William Sprott answered, asserting that the Magistrates’ decree had been properly enforced and the petitioner’s claims were groundless.
Duke of Atholl v. Robertson 1797 Contract, Servitude, Decreet-Arbitral, Interlocutor, Possession, Suspension James Robertson petitioned the Court of Session to challenge a 1761 arbitral decree affirming the Duke of Atholl’s ownership of seven shealings, arguing that the underlying 1716 contract was void under statute and contrary to public interest. The Duke defended the contractual and arbitral rulings, maintaining his title to the forest lands while acknowledging that the decrees reserved limited pasturage rights to Lude under specified conditions.
Dunmore and Company v. Allan, et al 1786 Ships, Insurance, Warranty, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Contract Robert Dunmore and Company, merchants in Glasgow, raised an action against Richard Allan and other insurers in Glasgow and Archibald Campbell and other insurers in Greenock regarding a maritime insurance contract and questions of convoy obligations and warranty terms. The merchants petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Braxfield, and the insurers answered the petition.
Dunmore v. Trustee for Buchanans 1796 Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Contract, Debt, Creditor, Trustee Robert Dunmore, Esq. petitioned the Court of Session to alter a recent interlocutor pronounced in his litigation against the Trustee for Buchanans. He submitted an initial petition on 15 February 1797 seeking this relief, and subsequently presented an additional petition on 4 March 1797 reiterating his request that the Court modify its order.
Edie and Laird, Petitioners v. 1797 Debt, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Succession, Ranking of Creditors, Contract Petitioners Messrs Edie and Laird, merchants in London, asked the Court to alter Lord Craig's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company v. Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet, Baronet, and Others, Trustees of the deceased Da… 1835 Debt, Statute, Contract, Partnership, Interest, Succession The Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company raised an action against Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet and others, as trustees of the deceased shareholder David Clyne, to enforce statutory calls for unpaid shares under the Edinburgh Oil Gas Company Act. The defenders denied liability, contending that the company had abandoned its oil-gas operations and improperly transferred its assets to a coal-gas concern, thereby invalidating the demands. The pursuers maintained their statutory right to recover expenses from the estate, while the defenders persisted in their challenges and ultimately reclaimed against the interlocutor, seeking to sustain their defences and be assoilzied from the action.
Elizabeth and Isobel Grays, Daughters of John Gray of Rogart, deceased v. John Wood, and Others, Creditors of said John Gray 1770 Creditor, Estate Settlement, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Contract Elizabeth and Isobel Gray, daughters of John Gray, inherited the lands of Rogart, which their mother Rachel Monro had received from her own father. After her marriage to John Gray, Monro transferred legal ownership of the lands to her husband, at which time he agreed to secure £200 in liferent for his spouse and their future children. No formal contract, however was ever executed to confirm this agreement. Nevertheless, Mr. Gray remained as manager or administrator for his daughters. Elizabeth and Isobel Gray sold the lands of Rogart. The Creditors of John Gray brought a multiple-poinding action against them in an attempt to claim a right to a portion of the proceeds in order to satisfy John Gray's debts. The Lords found that the lands did not belong to the Mr. Gray, thus Elizabeth and Isobel Gray could claim the whole value.
Fleming v. Montgomery 1794 Succession, Teinds, Stipend, Contract, Tack, Heritor Lady Clementina Fleming pursued Montgomery regarding the tithes of the barony of Stobo, seeking to convert the payment from meal to money in accordance with a 1730 decree of valuation. The defender maintained that the Lord Chief Baron and ministers of Stobo were bound by historical tacks and prior decrees of modification that governed the form of payment. The litigation proceeded through competing memorials addressing whether the 1730 valuation or the historical obligations should determine how the tithes were rendered.
Folsetter and Wright v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1786 Apprentice, Contract, Theft, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Fraud William Folsetter and James Cobban petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Justice Clerk's interlocutor on the bills. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Forbes, Hunter, and Company v. Edinburgh Life Assurance Company 1829 Insurance, Contract, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Representation, Aliment Sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Company, bankers, raised an action against the Edinburgh Life Assurance Company to recover £3000 sterling payable under a policy of assurance. The defenders resisted payment, asserting that the policy was void due to misrepresentation and the non-statement of material facts at the time of effecting the insurance. The cause subsequently proceeded to a Bill of Exceptions for the defenders.
Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff 1792 Debt, Heritor, Aliment, Contract, Arrestment, Interlocutor James Gentle, writer in Edinburgh, pursued the Heritors of Crieff for exoneration from a bond of caution and relief from expenses arising from a church contract, contending that unpaid shares and material cost increases since 1778 rendered the Heritors liable for the losses. The Heritors answered that the loss was Gentle's own, and the cause proceeded through replies and duplies disputing the contractual responsibility. William Lumsdain separately petitioned for remit of answer expenses and delivery of his bond of caution, and after the Heritors petitioned to alter an Inner-house interlocutor, Gentle responded reaffirming his claim for exoneration based on the church cost claims.
George Forbes v. Ann Mackenzie and Richard Paterson 1775 Agent, Debt, Poor's Roll, Sequestration, Contract, Adjudication 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.
George Gordon and Alexander Stewart v. Alexander Lawrence 1832 Contract, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Aliment, Expenses George Gordon and Alexander Stewart pursued Alexander Lawrence, a slater in Keith, regarding disputes over slate supply, pricing, and carriage. Lawrence reclaimed against the interlocutor of Lord Corehouse, and the parties lodged a mutual appendix detailing their competing claims concerning the slate transactions.
Gillespie and Company v. Milligain 1796 Contract, Fraud, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Succession, Partnership William Gillespie and Company petitioned the Court of Session against Lord Stonefield’s interlocutor refusing a bill of advocation. Thomas Milligain answered, maintaining that he was a partner rather than a mere servant and denying the petitioners’ accusations as baseless and malicious.
Gillies v. Carmalt 1783 Wager, Adjudication, Contract, Interlocutor, Forfeiture This case was about the interpretation of a wager. John Gillies, pursuer, entered into a wager with John Carmalt, defender, in which Carmalt bet that he could ride his mare from Glasgow to Dalkeith and back in one day. Gillies brought an action for payment, in which the Lord Ordinary found that Carmalt had thirty days remaining to perform the wager, and that he could lead his horse downhill. Gillies petitioned for reconsideration.
Grants v. Nicol 1796 Arrestment, Creditor, Contract, Debt, Bankruptcy, Heritor William Grant, Daniel Grant, and Alexander Grant petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Swinton concerning their claim to payment preference for work completed after Cruickshanks' default under a contract for church construction. David Monypenny, appearing for the respondent Nicol, submitted a memorial arguing that Nicol was entitled to preference over the petitioners in recovering payment for timber supplied under the contract.
Hamilton v. Hunter and Co. 1782 Contract, Insurance, Interlocutor, Action, Debt, Bill of Exchange This case was about the purchase of an insurance policy by a broker. Robert Hunter and Company, in Saltcoats, asked James Hamilton, an insurance broker in Glasgow, to procure an insurance policy for a ship sailing to the Firth of Clyde. Hunter and Co. specified that the policy should not cost more than eight guineas per cent. However, Hamilton was unable to find insurance at this price, so he procured a policy at nine guineas per cent, paying the difference himself. He then wrote Hunter and Co. to inform them of the action he had taken. In the letter, Hamilton stated that if Hunter and Co. did not approve of the policy, they could have it vacated by sending a return letter "in course of post." Hunter and Co. wrote back two days later to reject the policy; in the meantime, the ship in question had arrived safely. Hamilton sued for payment of the premium. In response, Hunter and Co. argued that their rejection of the policy was valid.
Hately v. Dunlop 1771 Property, Encroachment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Contract, Tack Pursuer Joseph Hately was an engineer who specialized in coal mining. In May 1770 Hately obtained a tack (lease) of coal in the lands of Hutchison near Glasgow. Defender Colin Dunlop was a merchant in Glasgow who also worked in the coal trade. Hately accused Dunlop and his business partner Alexander Houston of trying to monopolize the Glaswegian coal trade. Hately was able to sell his coal at a lower price than Dunlop and Houston, who owned adjoining coal property in the lands of Carmyle. Dunlop accused Hately of encroaching upon his lands, petitioned the local sheriff of Lanark to allow three of his servants to inspect Hately's mines. Hately maintained that he did not encroached on Dunlop's property and only wanted to protect his interest in the coal-trade. Hately then sought the appointment of a land-surveyor, who was not a coallier or connected with the coal trade, to evaluate the land.
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.
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.
HM Advocate v. James Cathcart Taylor 1760 Debt, Aliment, Cautioner, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Reduction His Majesty's Advocate pursued James Cathcart Taylor and argued that two bills for 300 and 200 merks were granted ob non causam, as indentures for Aneas Cameron's apprenticeship were never properly executed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hog and Others v. Creditors of John Stewart &c 1792 Debt, Copartnership, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Contract, Dissolution James Hog, Cashier of the Paisley Banking Company, and others petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Gardenston at the instance of the creditors of John Stewart and Company. The creditors answered that the bills in question had been drawn after the dissolution of the copartnership, thereby contesting the grounds for the petition.
Inglis v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor 1789 Fraud, Contract, Damages, Aliment, Interlocutor, Proof William Inglis presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court of Session to alter its interlocutor on damages for non-implementation of a bear-delivery agreement with Lord Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Jamieson v. Kyle 1778 Jus Quaesitum Tertio, Tocher, Aliment, Succession, Contract, Deed In June 1756, Janet Jamieson and David Kyle signed a post-nuptial contract, naming each other as heirs, and after that the heirs of the longest-lived. Under the same contract, John Jamieson, Janet's father, transferred some lands to the couple. Seven years later, David Kyle and Janet Jamieson entered into another contract, which unreservedly conveyed and transferred the lands in question to Kyle's heirs. Kyle then brought action to reduce the contract of 1756, and John Jamieson and his son, John, defended against it. Kyle claimed that the 1756 contract was invalid because Janet Jamieson was unable to sign her name in her own hand, but did not produce any proof. The action went dormant until 1777, when David Kyle advertised a sale of these lands. John Jamieson, junior, executed an inhibition of this sale, and in return Kyle sought to overturn the inhibition. The case came before Lord Kennet, who sustained Kyle's claims. Jamieson petitioned the Court for review, arguing that he was the feur of the lands in question, and had acquired this right from the onerous obligations in the 1756 marriage contract. According to handwritten marginalia, the Court unanimously refused Jamieson's petition.
John Low v. Managers of the Weaver-trade in Brechin 1766 Contracts and Obligations, Trades, Debt, Contract, Creditor, Aliment While pursuer John Low was a weaver in Brechin, the weaver-trade entered into a contract to purchase a large quantity of victual annually from Sir Alexander Ramsay-Irvine of Balmain. The weavers divided the victual among themselves. After Low moved to Dundee, he sought to retain his portion of the victual. The weavers in Brechin refused, and Low brought suit.
John Stewart v. James Ross 1795 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Construction, Contract, Teinds John Stewart, Esq. petitioned the Court to overturn Lord Stonefield's interlocutor in his dispute with James Ross, mason at Bridgend, concerning building accounts and measurements. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
John Ure, and other Heritors within the Royalty of the Burgh of Forfar v. Patrick Carnegy, and Others, Heritors of the Landward District of the Parish of Forfar 1792 Decreet-Arbitral, Heritor, Burgh, Teinds, Contract, Debt John Ure and the other heritors within the royalty of the burgh of Forfar pursued Patrick Carnegy and the other heritors of the landward district of the parish regarding the method of dividing the church. The pursuers argued that the church ought to be divided in proportion to population, while the defenders maintained that it should be divided according to valued rent as settled by Lord Coalston's decree. Both parties presented informations to the Court setting forth these competing claims.
Kemloe v. Dun, Reid, and Company 1767 Debt, Arrestment, Contract, Expenses, Interlocutor, Compensation In 1756, Gideon Kemloe, a merchant in Stonehaven (Stonehyve), cosigned as security on a load of cloth purchased by William Wise on credit from Dun and Company in Aberdeen. Wise could not sell the linen, and Kemloe became charged with making the payment to Dun and Company. Kemloe sought a suspension of this payment, claiming that since Dun and Company were already in debt to Wise, that debt should be settled first. Handwritten notation on case document says "refused."
Kirkpatrick v. Maxwells 1795 Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Tack, Trustee William Kirkpatrick claimed title to Kirkcudbright lands against the heirs and husbands of Sir Robert Maxwell’s sisters, who defended by asserting their own prior title founded upon ancient charters and prescription. After the Court issued an interlocutor, Kirkpatrick petitioned to have it altered, and the defenders subsequently disputed his claim.
Knox v. Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow 1798 Procurator, Charter, Faculty, Penalty, Interlocutor, Contract Hugh Knox, Writer in Glasgow, petitioned the Court against the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, seeking to remit their regulation that imposed £30 of entry money upon him on the grounds that his apprenticeship had ended before the regulation was enacted and the charge was therefore retrospective and oppressive. The Faculty answered, defending the regulation against his claims.
Lawson v. Macculloch 1797 Aliment, Debt, Interlocutor, Contract, Contract of separation, Creditor David Macculloch petitioned the Court to remit Lord Craig's interlocutor, which found him liable to his wife, Lawson, for expenses and denied her claim to a larger aliment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 658)