| 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. |
| Grieve and Others v. Incorporation of Tailors |
1773
|
Burgh, Corporate Privilege, Fine, Aliment, Succession, Privilege |
John Grieve, suspender, was a member of the Incorporation of Tailors in Glasgow. He entered into a partnership with suspenders James Loudon and Robert Robb for the purpose of manufacturing stays, also known as corsets. The Tailors complained to the magistrates of Glasgow that staymaking was reserved exclusively for members of their trade; therefore, according to the tailors, Loudon and Robb had impermissibly engaged in the trade and Grieve had assisted them contrary to his oath. The suspenders argued that staymaking was not included in the tailors’ trade monopoly and should not be added by implication. |
| 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. |
| Incorporation of Goldsmiths v. Cunningham, White, Marshall and Sons |
1801
|
Statute, Privilege, Corporation, Disuse |
The Incorporation of Goldsmiths brought a claim against jewelers and metal workers who were not part of their incorporation for selling jewelry and metal works. The Incorporation of Goldsmiths argued that Parliament had conferred exclusive privileges to the incorporated goldsmiths to search for, manufacture, and sell metal works, and that the defendants had been doing the same illegally since they were not properly incorporated. The non-incorporated defendants argued that after a certain practice has been maintained for a substantial time, i.e. their selling metal works despite their non-incorporated status, the statute conferring the privileges falls into disuse and becomes moot. |
| Incorporation of Hammermen &c. v. Incorporations of Weaver &c. |
1774
|
Trades, Reduction, Aliment, Privilege, Election, Succession |
This case was about the governance of the Glasgow trades house, an umbrella group comprising representatives of the various trades. These representatives included the deacon of each trade incorporation, along with “assistants” from each trade. The number of assistants allotted to each trade varied; the first four trades (hammermen, tailors, cordiners, and maltmen) had four assistants each, while the other trades had some lesser number. In 1771, the trades with fewer representatives moved to give themselves equal representation. The first four trades applied for a suspension of the proceedings, and later raised a process of reduction, on the ground that members of the trades house lacked the authority to adjust the number of representatives from each trade. |
| James Buchanan, Dean of Guild of Glasgow v. Patrick Bell |
1774
|
Adjudication, Public Police, Courts, Magistrate, Privilege, Jurisdiction |
This case was about the police powers of Glasgow’s dean of guild, a magistrate who supervised buildings. In 1773, the dean and his council ordered residents to take down their “water barges,” which were affixed to buildings in order to carry water away. Suspender Patrick Bell ignored the new rule and was individually ordered to take down his water barge. Bell brought a bill of suspension before the Court of Session. He argued that the dean of guild lacked authority to create regulations that were not based on common law or a statute; therefore, according to Bell, the dean of guild could not require removal of the water barge unless it constituted a nuisance or a trespass. The dean of guild responded that the order was within his jurisdiction, and that it was justified because the water barges were “ugly to the eye,” served to narrow the street, and poured water out onto passing pedestrians. |
| Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing v. Graham |
1789
|
Lease, Tack, Rent, Charter, Sequestration, Privilege |
The Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing pursued George Graham of Kinross for payment of £23 sterling yearly for the customs of the town under the roup of January 1785. They also reclaimed an interlocutor that had granted Graham the sole right to the fairs and markets customs, asserting the burgh’s historic entitlement to levy those same dues. |
| The Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh v. The Faculty of Advocates, and the Society of Writers to the Signet, in behalf of the College of Justice |
1787
|
Jurisdiction, Aliment, Privilege, College of Justice, Tax, Debt |
The Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh pursued the Faculty of Advocates and the Society of Writers to the Signet, acting on behalf of the College of Justice, for payment of poor's rates assessed upon the College. The suspenders maintained that the College enjoyed an established legal exemption from such assessments by virtue of statute, usage, and judicial acknowledgment, while the magistrates contended that no such privilege existed in law. Both parties submitted informations setting forth their respective positions on whether the College of Justice was liable to contribute to the maintenance of the city's poor. |
| The Magistrates, Town-Council, and Community of Dumbarton v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of the City of Glasgow |
1771
|
Interpretation of acts of Parlament, Act of Parliament, Contract, Sequestration, Arrestment, Privilege |
In 1770, Parliament passed legislation for improving the navigation of the River Clyde to the city of Glasgow. The act empowered the Magistrates and Town-Council to repair and enlarge the quay on the north side of the river, and build a new one on the south side. The legislation allowed the Glaswegian magistrates to levy a duty on river traffic, to which the Magistrates and Community of Dumbarton claimed exemption based on a 1770 contract between the two burgs. |
