[]
Related Cases
| Case | Date | Legal Subjects | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carron Company v. Forth and Clyde Navigation | 1772 | Contracts and Obligations, Canals | The Carron Company, along with various other parties, united to form a company called the Company of Proprietors of the Forth and Clyde Navigation. The company proposed to construct a canal to connect the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde. The first plan was to use the River Carron to connect the two firths. The Carron Company supported this initial plan, but objected to a revised strategy that would put the east end of the canal directly of the Firth of Forth, rather than on the River Carron as originally proposed. The Carron Company argued that this new route would bypass its iron works mille and petitioned its partners for an agreement to dig a side canal to the River Carron. The Carron Company claimed that this agreement was made, and they sought a Court order to enforce this agreement. |
| The Magistrates, Town-Council, and Community of Dumbarton v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of the City of Glasgow | 19 Nov 1771 | Interpretation of acts of Parlament | 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. |
| James Buchanan, Dean of Guild of Glasgow v. Patrick Bell | 15 Nov 1774 | 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. | |
| Nasmith v. Magistrates of Glasgow | 1775 | Arbitration | David Nasmith, a mason, entered into a contract with the city of Glasgow in which he agreed to construct a quay along the river Clyde. The city subsequently raised concerns about Nasmith’s work on the quay, and the parties entered into arbitration. The arbiters found that Nasmith had been overpaid for his work and directed him to refund a portion of his fee to the city. Arthur Robertson, the Chamberlain of Glasgow, gave Nasmith a charge based on the arbiters’ decree, but Nasmith sought to have the charge suspended. He argued that the arbiters were prejudiced against him because he underbid Glasgow’s other masons to secure the contract in question. |
