Any decree or judgment of a Court.
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: Interlocutor |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. R. Henderson v. John Mackay | 1831 | Diligence, Employment, Damages, Contract, Interlocutor, Breach of Contract | |
| Alexander Dick Junior v. William Richardson | 1838 | Prescription, Interlocutor, Agent, Witness, Debt, Process | Alexander Dick Junior sought suspension of a Glasgow magistrates' decree enforcing payment of £26:15:2 against him, alleging procedural and evidentiary flaws in the underlying action and disputing the law account charges, including a contested item dated April 1830. The litigation proceeded with challenges regarding procedural irregularities in proof, culminating in the Court's rejection of pleas of prescription and incompetence of bill, upholding the account as valid and awarding expenses against Dick as suspender. Dick subsequently petitioned to suspend William Richardson concerning disputed authorship and possession of legal documents arising from prior Richardson & Porter cases. |
| Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire | 1790 | Freeholder, Election contest, Freehold Qualification, Penalty, Interlocutor, Disposition | Alexander Milne pursued the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire, represented by George Skene of Skene, to reverse his expungement from the county freeholder roll following the Michaelmas meeting of 1790. The defenders answered that Milne’s freehold qualification was nominal and fictitious, contending that the statutory four-month limitation did not bar objections to fraudulent claims, while Milne asserted his independent acceptance of the wadset and denial of political obligation. The litigation proceeded through reclaiming petitions against adverse interlocutors, condescendences regarding the qualification’s validity, and Milne’s objections to the defenders’ account of expenses. The cause culminated in disputes over the award of statutory penalties and the allocation of costs between the parties. |
| Alexander v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor | 1787 | Prescription, Interlocutor, Libel, Debt, Parole Evidence, Oath of Party | Pursuer James Alexander petitioned the Court of Session to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Anderson v. Richardson | 1786 | Defamation, Libel, Aliment, Proof, Interlocutor, Prescription | John Anderson, Professor of Natural Philosophy, as pursuer, alleged that William Richardson, Professor of Humanity, as defender, uttered defamatory invectives against him in a public classroom at the College of Glasgow. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Anderson v. Saunders | 1829 | Sasine, Interdict, Aliment, Feu, Interlocutor, Possession | James Anderson and others raised an action of suspension and interdict against Robert Saunders concerning Saunders’ obstruction of a common stair leading to Anderson’s cellars and back-green, which Saunders used to access a sunk storey via a locked spar-door. Saunders answered the reasons of suspension and interdict, resisting the claims of nuisance and exclusive use. Following an interlocutor by Lord Medwyn, Ordinary, Anderson reclaimed against the decision, and Saunders subsequently appealed the interdict and suspension order barring his access. Both parties then submitted Cases arguing their competing rights to the stair, with Anderson contending that Saunders had no right to shut up the common passage and Saunders seeking alteration of the interlocutor granting the interdict against him. |
| Andrew Zuill v. Thomas Bryce Buchanan | 1830 | Sequestration, Interlocutor, Liferent, Rent, Reduction, Infeftment | Andrew Zuill or Yool, farmer at Bridgend of Boquhan, raised an action of reduction against Thomas Bryce Buchanan to set aside sheriff's decrees and interlocutors obtained for unpaid farm rents and damages, alleging the proceedings were invalid and unlawful. Buchanan reclaimed against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor and lodged defences asserting his heritable proprietorship and the validity of a liferent grant to William Gray. Zuill subsequently reclaimed, arguing that Buchanan possessed title to demand the rents during his possession of the subjects. |
| Arbutnott, et al. v. Scott, et al. | 1794 | Proof, Res judicata, Interlocutor, Salmon Fishing, Mill, Aliment | Arbutnott and others pursued Scott and others regarding a dam-dike that superior heritors claimed intercepted fish passage in violation of statutory regulations, while the defenders insisted the structure was a necessary check-dike for their mills. The petitioners sought alteration of a recent interlocutor, and the superior heritors informed the court that the dike was constructed to obstruct fish rather than supply water. The defenders maintained that alteration would injure their milling rights, and subsequently petitioned to be assoilzied, challenging the relevancy of the condescendence and the competency of the additional report and depositions. |
| Archer v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor | 1793 | Cautioner, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor, Succession, Bankruptcy | |
| Baillie v. Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow | 1796 | Heritor, Prescription, Act of Parliament, Expenses, Possession, Interlocutor | John Baillie reclaimed against an interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk in an action against the Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow concerning the liability for costs of repairing foot-pavements. The defenders submitted information arguing that adjacent proprietors, and not the public, must bear the cost of such repairs. |
| Barry, et al v. Incorporation of Weavers, et al | 1789 | Possession, Prescription, Interlocutor, Damages, Representation, Kirk Session | The Reverend Mr George Barry and the remanent members of the Kirk-session of Kirkwall and St Ola defended against a petition by the Incorporation of Weavers, Hammermen, Taylors, and Shoemakers of Kirkwall to alter Lord Henderland’s interlocutor. The incorporations sought to modify the court’s earlier decision, and the Kirk-session submitted answers resisting the proposed alteration. |
| Belsches v. Paterson and Anderson | 1786 | Tack, Thirlage, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Charter, Reduction | Robert Belsches pursued the action against Mrs Mary Paterson and Alexander Farquharson regarding the extent of thirlage over the lands of Greenyards. Belsches argued that the thirlage did not extend to wheat or barley, while Paterson and Farquharson maintained that the lands of Easter Greenyards were thirled to the mill of Skeoch for omnia grana crescentia. |
| Boyd (Provost of Linlithgow) v. Cunningham | 1832 | Interlocutor, Suspension, Expenses, Adjudication, Sist, Corporation | Cuninghams & Bell, W.S., asked the Court to allow them to sist themselves as parties in the suspension between pursuer John Boyd and defender George Cunninghame, seeking to repeat the interlocutor in their favour. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Burrell v. Lord Glenlee's Interlocutor | 1798 | Proof, Interlocutor, Servitude, Property, Aliment, Lease | William George Burrell petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Glenlee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Cadell v. Johnstone | 1798 | Defamation, Arrestment, Libel, Proof, Aliment, Interlocutor | John Cadell of Cockenzie pursued John Johnstone, printer in Edinburgh. Johnstone petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and Cadell filed answers opposing the petition. The defender subsequently submitted evidence in support of his libel claim against Cadell, detailing alleged violence and misconduct during Tranent militia enforcement. |
| Cadell v. Morthland and Johnstone | 1799 | Witness, Defamation, Evidence, Perjury, Proof, Interlocutor | John Cadell pursued John Morthland, Advocate, and John Johnstone, Printer in Edinburgh, for damages and libel arising from a false newspaper account that attributed inflammatory statements to him regarding militia officials at Tranent in 1797. During the course of the litigation, Morthland and Johnstone petitioned the court alleging judicial misconduct by Cadell as pursuer, including intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of proof, which Cadell denied while countering that the defenders had engaged in witness tampering and dilatory conduct. The cause also involved Morthland’s explanation of bills of exchange relating to property of the Scots Chronicle, and Cadell subsequently sought reimbursement for legal, printing, and clerical expenses incurred in the damages action. |
| Cameron v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor | 1797 | Succession, Tack, Multiple-Poinding, Lease, Warrandice, Interlocutor | Ewen Cameron sought reimbursement of court and House of Lords expenses incurred in defending against lease claims brought by Helen and Janet Cameron, the daughters of his deceased father John Cameron, regarding the disincumbering of lands. He petitioned against Lord Craig’s interlocutor refusing to allow retention of these costs, proceeding against the trustees and the daughters, whereupon Helen’s counsel argued the claim was procedurally barred and legally unsound. Cameron subsequently lodged a reclaiming petition against the Inner-House interlocutor. |
| Campbell v. Easterby | 1797 | Arrestment, Debt, Sequestration, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor | James Campbell petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding an arrested vessel, and George Easterby answered, arguing that Campbell’s bond of caution did not conform to the Admiral’s interlocutor and that the arrestment had caused no diminution in the ship’s value. The dispute thus turned on the sufficiency of the security offered and the effect of the seizure upon the vessel’s valuation. |
| Campbell v. Irvine | 1794 | Aliment, Marriage, Creditor, Succession, Debt, Interlocutor | |
| Campbell v. Laidlaw | 1796 | Debt, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Partnership, Interlocutor | Robert Campbell, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor suspending his charge for a bill of exchange he had accepted without value in the action against Laidlaw, the defender. Robert Corbet thereafter informed the Court that the bill had been accepted for the accommodation of Archibald M'Ausland rather than Milligan and Co. |
| Common Agent v. Corrie | 1794 | Adjudication, Interlocutor, Execution, Personal Objection, Courts, Expenses | Common Agent petitioned the court, arguing that Corrie's decree of cognition was void because it had not been properly notified. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Copland v. Ireland | 1786 | Proof, Interlocutor, Tack, Diligence, Rent, Sequestration | William Ireland petitioned the Court for leave to adduce additional proof and to renew diligence against William Birtwhistle, alleging that William Copland of Gregory had failed to report proof regarding Birtwhistle. Copland answered, responding to the claim that he had neglected to report the proof concerning Birtwhistle. |
| Creditors of Hay v. Fleming | 1793 | Debt, Creditor, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy | James Fleming, defender in the action by the creditors of Hay, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had excluded him from an adjudication upon the debtor’s Scottish property, maintaining that his claim was liquidated by bill and sufficiently authenticated by protest and affidavit notwithstanding the original instrument’s absence abroad. He sought to overturn the Inner-House ruling and obtain remit to the Lord Ordinary to lead further proof of his debt’s verity. |
| Creditors of John Horn | 1791 | Sequestration, Creditor, Trustee, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Statute | George Wilson, trustee for the creditors of John Horn, petitioned to alter an interlocutor allowing individual creditors to adjudicate post-sequestration, citing statutory prohibition and the risk of confusion or penalty preference. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie v. His Children | 1792 | Creditor, Adjudication, Statute, Arrestment, Debt, Interlocutor | The creditors of Kenneth Mackenzie, as pursuers, contended against his children, as defenders, that adjudications made without intimation were void and null, as set forth in the Information of John Peter du Rouvray and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Darling v. Landells | 1796 | Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Interlocutor, Aliment | Darling pursued Landells regarding the stipend of the parish minister of Coldingham. The defenders submitted information arguing that the stipend as modified by the Court's interlocutor was suitable and equitable given the parish's rental and living expenses. The petitioner subsequently petitioned the Court to alter that interlocutor modifying the stipend. |
| Davies, Jones, & Co. v. William Young | 1786 | Debt, Aliment, Oath, Interlocutor, Action, Bill of Exchange | William Young petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo, claiming expenses, and Davies, Jones, & Co. answered the petition. The merchants defended against Young's claim for expenses and asserted that he had commissioned and received the six hats in dispute. |
| 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. |
| Donald Campbell v. John Johnston | 1793 | Tack, Lease, Interlocutor, Possession, Inhibition, Rent | In an action of removing from Middle Craigs, Captain Donald Campbell petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo. John Johnston answered the petition, resisting Campbell's request to overturn the earlier decision. |
| Douglas v. Grierson | 1793 | Debt, Prescription, Oath, Interlocutor, Creditor, Aliment | William Douglas, factor for the Representatives of the Leith Soperie Company, pursued payment from Mrs. Hislop, the widow, for soap furnished in 1782. When the court sustained the defender’s plea of triennial prescription, Douglas petitioned to alter and remit the interlocutor, arguing that written commission and receipt from 1782 provided sufficient proof of debt to overcome the prescription bar, and sought reconsideration of the ruling. Mrs. Hislop subsequently reclaimed against the interlocutor sustaining the defense of prescription. |
| Duff v. Freeholders of Elgin and Forres | 1792 | Interlocutor, Freeholder, Res judicata, Tack, Lease, Rent | The Honourable Alexander Duff petitioned the Court to alter its prior interlocutor and restore him to the roll of freeholders for Elgin and Forres. Archibald Duff, Sheriff-clerk of Elgin, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter the same interlocutor. The petitions raised the question of whether the Court should reverse its order removing Alexander Duff from the freeholders' roll. |
| 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. |
| Duke of Gordon v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor | 1787 | Patronage, Charter, Succession, Act of Parliament, Interlocutor, Conveyance | Alexander, Duke of Gordon petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Dumfries v. Campbell | 1795 | Heritor, Tailzie, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Non-Entry, Rent | Dumfries, as heir to his mother and petitioner, sought to alter an interlocutor of December 1792 that had permitted the transference of an action of non-entry against him. Campbell responded that a declarator of nonentry commenced against the mother could be transferred in statu quo against her son and heir without requiring that he first take a passive title. |
| Dundas v. Thomson 1 of 2 | 1793 | Teinds, Valuation, Rent, Heritor, Tack, Interlocutor | |
| Dunn v. Johnston, et al | 1796 | Creditor, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Ranking of Creditors, Ranking and Sale, Diligence | Mr Johnston of Carnfalloch petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary that postponed his interest in the ranking, on the basis that the adjudication had been led after certification. The respondents answered, disputing the argument that an adjudication obtained after certification should be ranked with preference. |
| Earl of Cassillis v. James Finlay, Common Agent for carrying on the Locality of the Stipend of the Parish of Dalrymple | 1795 | Teinds, Rent, Tack, Stipend, Interlocutor, Valuation | |
| Eden, et al. v. Anstruther, et al | 1792 | Debt, Cautioner, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Credit, Interlocutor | Messrs Eden, Ridley, and Co. pursued Sir John Anstruther, Dr Steuart Threipland, George Oswald, and the representatives of John Mackay for £2,000 under bonds of credit granted in 1776. The defenders denied liability, Anstruther contending that his bond was never operated upon by Robert Fall individually and that no money had been drawn under it, while Threipland, Oswald, and Mackay asserted that no account had been opened on their bond and that the claim exceeded its scope. The litigation involved petitions to alter interlocutors and to remit to the Lord Ordinary, together with arguments that the formation of a new copartnery following Charles Fall's death rendered prior interlocutors open to reconsideration and requests to lodge replies regarding cash-account practice. |
| Eden, Ridley, and Company v. Threipland, et al | 1798 | Debt, Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Interest, Creditor, Interlocutor | Eden, Ridley, and Company, as chargers, sought enforcement of a bond to recover interest calculated on each individual advance, disputing the position of Dr Stewart Threipland of Fingask and George Oswald of Auchincruive, as suspenders, that liability extended only to principal and interest accruing from the date of bankruptcy. The suspenders maintained that the chargers' demand for additional interest ran contrary to prior interlocutors and established accounting practices. |
| Edie, Laird, and Others v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor | 1794 | Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Disposition, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Teinds | Edie, Laird, and others challenged Lord Craig's interlocutor ranking creditors' claims on Kerse lands, contending that objections to Elizabeth Dickie, Janet Gray, and Elizabeth Weir were wrongly omitted and that representation was valid under the Act of Sederunt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| Gardner v. Corporation of Goldsmiths in Edinburgh | 1792 | Tax, Debt, Corporation, Aliment, Interlocutor, Statute | Alexander Gardner and David Downie, goldsmiths in Edinburgh, pursued the Corporation of Goldsmiths regarding the incorporation’s resolution to abolish the marking-money tax and its appropriation of marking money for private use. The Corporation defended its actions by citing the opulence of its funds and historical precedent for tax abrogation, while the pursuers contended that the assay office marking fees constituted wages rather than assessments and that the corporation bore no liability for such expense. The litigation proceeded through mutual petitions to alter interlocutors and answers exchanging these respective positions. |
| 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. |
| Gibson v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor | 1795 | Tack, Interdict, Damages, Lease, Possession, Interlocutor | Walter Scott petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor that found him liable for expenses only, seeking instead an award of damages for loss caused by an interdict against road access. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Gordon et al v. Abell | 1792 | Teinds, Augmentation, Interlocutor, Stipend, Valuation, Heritor | The Duke of Gordon, the Trustees of Archibald Duff of Drummuir, and Alexander Milne of Chapelton petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The Reverend George Abell answered, arguing that the augmentation granted to him did not prejudice the heritors' rights. |
| Gordon of Cluny v. John Anderson | 1801 | Lease, Damages, Interlocutor, Tack, Sequestration, Arrestment | Lieutenant-Colonel John Gordon of Cluny raised an action of damages against John Anderson and others, seeking reparation for their failure to use the fodder of the way-going crop in accordance with lease regulations. The defenders lodged additional defences maintaining that the action was incompetent, and subsequently argued that the pursuer had no equitable claim for straw lost due to interdict and that they were entitled to be assoilzied. The litigation concerned the application of lease regulations to the fodder of the last crop following a House of Lords judgment on the interpretation of the lease. |
| Gordon v. Traill | 1832 | Debt, Creditor, Interest, Trust, Lease, Interlocutor | William Gordon and others, as pursuers, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Mackenzie in their action against the defender Traill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Gourlay v. Glen | 1786 | Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Interlocutor, Promissory note, Sequestration | David Gourlay of Kipdarroch, Deputy-Collector of Supply for the County of Stirling, pursued William Glen regarding competing claims to funds held by John Campbell. The dispute concerned priority between Gourlay’s revenue claim and Glen’s claim to a debt due from John Price. Gourlay initially petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor sustaining Campbell’s defence against Glen; Glen subsequently petitioned to reverse Lord Swinton’s interlocutor decerning against him, and Gourlay answered, maintaining his priority over the consigned funds. |
| Gray v. Methven's Interlocutor | 1795 | Aliment, Prescription, Creditor, Debt, Succession, Interlocutor | William Chambers petitioned the Court to remit the sheriff's interlocutor that held him liable for the aliment and expenses of Jean Wightman's child. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |