[]

Related Cases

Case Date Legal Subjects Abstract
Scrimgeour and Son v. Alexander and Sons 15 Jun 1769 Contract, Affreightment, Ships In March 1765, Edinburgh merchants Alexander & Sons contracted with the Borrowstounness merchant house of James Scrimgeour & Son to freight the ship the Duke of Athol for a voyage to Grenada—after considering a trip to Maryland or Virginia—with a cargo of herring, staves, and green linens. Due to a variety of accidents, the ship did not make it to Grenada until after the end of sugar season. Having no sugar to collect and bring back to Scotland, the agent at Grenada for Alexander & Sons convinced the ship’s captain to sail for (North) Carolina. Within days of the ship’s arrival in Wilmington, protests broke out over the Stamp Act, delaying the ship’s loading and departure for months. When the Duke of Athol finally returned to Leith, Alexander & Sons brought a legal dispute against James Scrimgeour & Son over the respective financial obligations of the parties due to the ship's delay.
Jones v. Smith 1771 Inspection of goods Pursuer David Jones, merchant in Glasgow, imported quantities of lint-seed from Philadelphia. The goods arrived in Greenock bound for Glasgow. Two dealers in Glasgow, whose business would be affected by the influx of lint-seed, lodged a complaint with the Trustees for the Improvement of Fisheries and Manufactures about the lint-seed's quality. The dealers maintained that the lint-seed was bad, and therefore should not be imported. Defender Hugh Smith was a surveyor for the Trustees. After receiving a report that some of the seed was bad, Smith ordered the condemnation of the seed. Jones challenged the grounds and process by which Smith sought to condemn his cargo.
Earl of Selkirk v. Robert Nasmith 17 Jan 1778 Estate Settlement, Bargain In 1756, upon the judicial sale of the late James Naesmith's property, the Earl of Selkirk agreed not to bid against Naesmith's son, Robert, for the estate of Glenley. This was in exchange for future right of first offer. In 1762, Robert Naesmith expressed his intention to sell Glenley. For the next ten years Selkirk periodically lent Naesmith money that was understood to be deducted from the final price of Glenley. In 1772, shortly after Naesmith and Selkirk agreed upon two arbiters to decide on a price for Glenley, Naesmith died with his affairs in disorder. Robert Naesmith's son, Robert, brought his father's lands to a judicial sale, but a few days before it was to take place, Selkirk petitioned the Court to have Glenley struck from it. He argued that he and Robert Naesmith's had completed a bargain. Robert Naesmith, James Naesmith (brother to the late Naesmith), and other creditors of the late Robert Naesmith, then petitioned the Court to refuse this request. After the Court ruled in favor of Selkirk, James Naesmith petitioned the Court to strike an Edinburgh dwelling-house, of which he claimed to be the rightful owner, from the sale. The Court ruled in his favor. Other creditors of Naesmith and Selkirk then asked the Court to adjudicate on various issues related to the final price of Glenley.
Clark v. Stuart 10 Mar 1779 Bonds, Sist, Maryland In August 1770, Hugh Macbride, Charles Philipshill, and the petitioner Peter Clark granted a bond for £150 sterling to Elisabeth Macbride. Charles Philipshill was the receiver of the money while the petitioner cosigned the loan at the request of Marion Philipshill and James Stewart. Both Marion Philipshill and James Stewart signed a promissory document, certifying they would indemnify Clark £75 each should repayment be requested. In June 1777, the heirs of Elisabeth Macbride called in the loan and Peter Clark paid her the money. The other two signers of the loan having relocated to Maryland. Marion Philipshilll reimbursed Clark her half of the loan but James Stewart did not. The Magistrates of Glasgow ruled that Stewart should pay Clark, but Stewart brought action to the Court of Session. In a previous judgment Lord Stonefield pronounced that the case be put on hold until the principal debtor, Charles Philipshill, be sued for repayment. Peter Clark then petitioned the court to have this decision overturned. On March 3, 1779 the Court remitted the cause to the Magistrates of Glasgow. Stewart then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. Handwritten marginalia on this document indicates that the Court refused Stewart's petition.
John and Ursula Smith v. James Marshall 21 Jul 1780 Disposition Upon the sale of Drongan to Mungo Smith in 1765, the children of the late John Smith and Ursula Hamilton had right to one eleventh of the price. Their uncles and tutors, Thomas Hamilton of Overtoun and John Hamilton of Dowan, lodged this sum in Virginia with their firm John Hamilton and Company. In 1775 this money was lost when the firm's assets were locked up, and the Smith siblings brought action against John Hamilton of Dowan; Archibald Hamilton, the son of the late Thomas Hamilton of Overtoun; and the children of the late John Marshall, for recovery of this sum. John Marshall had served as cautioner to the 1763 bond for Drongan granted by the Hamiltons to their pupils. He died in 1774, having conveyed the bulk of his subjects to his younger children, William and Jean, although his eldest son, James, held the general disposition. The action came before Lord Braxfield, who repelled James Marshall's defenses but then reported the case. In December of 1779 the Court ruled that James Marshall was liable to the pursuers for the debt, but only in proportion with the other onerous debts of his father. Upon receiving a petition and answers, the Court ruled again in July of 1780, adhering to their previous interlocutor.
James Edmonstone v. William Jackson 1 Feb 1780 Abandonment, Ships In April 1776, John Walker & Company freighted the Duntreath with a load of coal, deliverable to Alexander-John Alexander of Grenada. Upon the Duntreath's arrival in Grenada, Bartlet, Campbell, & Company freighted it for a journey to Florida. In August 1776, after stopping on the St. Johns River, the Duntreath's captain James Edmonstone was captured by rebels and carried to Savannah. Now under the command of James Crichton, on its journey back to Grenada, the Duntreath was captured by the privateer ship Tyrannicide, but then recaptured and brought to New York for repairs. In January 1778, the Duntreath set out for Grenada again, but was captured by another rebel ship, the Three Sisters, before being recaptured and brought to Grenada. When no appearance was made to reclaim the Duntreath, Grenada's Vice-Admiralty Court had it auctioned. The owners of the Duntreath then made a claim to its insurance underwriters for a total loss, however the underwriters argued that because the auction money was deposited with Grenada's Vice-Admiralty Court, it was merely a partial loss. After the High Court of Admiralty found their case ineffectual, the ship's owners appealed to the Court of Session. Lord Gardenstone reported their bill, but the Court ruled it outside of their jurisdiction. Their bill was later remitted to Lord Braxfield, however, who reported it again; the Court then determined that the pursuers could only claim a partial loss.
Marshall, Hamilton, and Company v. John Crawford and John Barns 15 Nov 1786 This case was about the interpretation of two insurance policies taken out by Messrs Marshall, Hamilton, and Company on the ship Ceres. One of those policies covered the Ceres and its freight until the ship reached its “port or ports of discharge in the West Indies”; the other policy covered the Ceres and a subset of its freight, a load of fish, until the ship reached “a market in the West Indies.” In Spring of 1784, the Ceres sailed from Greenock, Scotland, carrying beef, coal, and dry goods. The ship went first to St. John’s, Newfoundland, where it picked up the load of fish, and subsequently to the Caribbean, where it discharged the fish. The shipmaster, George Jamieson, then began taking steps to obtain a return freight to Britain. In the course of his efforts to obtain a return freight, Jamieson sailed to Jamaica and moored the Ceres in Morant Bay. There, the ship was wrecked in a hurricane. At the time of the wreck, the Ceres still contained beef, coal, and dry goods. Based on these facts, a dispute arose between Marshall, Hamilton, and Co. and its underwriters about whether, prior to the hurricane, the ship’s outward voyage had terminated under the terms of each insurance policy.
Duncan Stewart v. Lieutenant Alexander Graeme 7 Mar 1799 While working abroad in the service of the East India Company, Lieutenant Duncan Stewart remitted £1000 to Scotland. He assigned a power of attorney to William Stewart and John Taylor, allowing them to manage the money. Lieutenant Stewart directed the men to invest his money in heritable securities and give the interest to certain family members. He died in India, leaving a holographic memorandum of a will that provided for the money in Scotland to be “applied in the manner already directed.” Lieutenant Stewart’s executors initiated a court proceeding to determine who was entitled to the £1000. The court determined that the fund was heritable property that should pass to Lieutenant Stewart’s heir-at-law, his sister Elizabeth Stewart Bowman. Bowman then died, leaving the residue of her estate to her natural son Lieutenant Alexander Graeme. Lieutenant Graeme claimed that he was entitled to the £1000 based on Mrs. Bowman’s will. However, Duncan Stewart, Lieutenant Stewart’s cousin in Jamaica, claimed that he was the Lieutenant’s heir-at-law and should inherit the money because the £1000 was a heritable subject and Bowman never made up a title to it. Case documents include a reproduction of Lieutenant Stewart's detailed memorandum disposing of his personal effects.
Birnie and Co. v. Weir 16 Jan 1800 Warranty Samuel Birnie and Co. sold “British potashes” for use as a bleaching agent. In certain printed materials, the company claimed that these British potashes had been “found to answer every purpose in bleaching, &c. equal to the best American pot.” Helen Weir of Longloch, the Defender, ordered several casks of the potashes for her bleaching business; however, she was dissatisfied with the product and refused to pay her bill. Samuel Birnie and Co. brought suit to collect on the account. In response, Mrs. Weir argued that the British potashes were inferior to American potashes and contained a “radical” latent defect: Although materials bleached with the British potashes initially appeared white, they turned a reddish or bluish color after being exposed to the air. Based on the resulting harms to her business, Mrs. Weir raised a claim for damages. Samuel Birnie and Co. maintained that British potashes were suitable for use in certain stages of the bleaching process, that the company’s representations had been made in good faith, and that Mrs. Weir had used the British potashes unskillfully. The court found that Mrs. Weir was not liable for the price of the potashes and awarded her damages.
Duncan v. Maclintock and Smith 1778 Copartnership, Trade, Bill of Lading In November 1774, Robert Maclintock Jr. freighted the brigantine Rainbow to carry goods to Virginia and return a cargo of wheat. His father and David Smith joined in the adventure, and the three wrote Virginia merchants Charles Duncan and John Brown, empowering them to draw on Maclintock jr. for the price. According to the defenders of this action, Smith and Maclintock Sr., in the summer of 1775, when the Rainbow returned to Clyde with the cargo of wheat, Maclintock jJr. informed his co-adventurers that the cargo was not for them, but solely for himself. Two years later he stopped paying his bills and left the country, and the defenders received a demand from Charles Duncan for the unpaid value of the Rainbow's cargo. Duncan, the pursuer of this action, argued that as co-adventurers the defenders were liable for the price of the cargo, and that the bill had been drawn solely on Maclintock jr.'s account out of secrecy: Maclintock Sr. was a principal in the Merchant Bank, and it was convenient for him that his name did not appear on the bill. Duncan further accused the defenders of obliterating evidence of a copartnership contained in documents possessed by Betty Maclintock, the aunt of Maclintock Jr. The defenders argued, on the other hand, that they were not co-partners with the younger Maclintock, and were therefore not liable for his debts. The bailies of Glasgow, who first heard the case, repelled the defense, and Lord Braxfield refused the defenders' bill of advocation. They then petitioned the Court to compel Lord Braxfield to pass the bill.
Hammond, Birket, and Smith v. Marshall 1784 Arrestment Hammond, Birket, and Smith, pursuers, attempted to arrest (legally claim) funds in the hands of Claud Marshall, a writer in Glasgow, on the ground that Claud possessed funds belonging to their debtor William Marshall. William was in Tobago, and he had sent a bill to Claud with instructions to apply it for the support of William’s daughters. Hammond, Birket, and Smith argued that Claud possessed the bill when the arrestment was used. Claud responded that he had sent the bill off to London by that time, and that payment was made to William’s children.
Chatto v. Officers of the State, and Potts 1784 Clause, Ultimus Haeres, Substitute and Conditional Institute While his natural son William was abroad in Jamaica, John Duncanson of Maxpoffle executed a settlement. The settlement granted Maxpoffle to certain trustees for William’s benefit, and failing William, for the benefit of John Chatto. The settlement also provided that the trustees should denude themselves of their right to the land, in favor of William, upon his return to the country. William returned to Scotland after his father’s death, and the trustees transferred Maxpoffle to him. William later died without issue, and his wife Gallacina Potts was advised that the estate fell to the crown. She therefore applied to the Barons of Exchequer for a gift of bastardy. John Chatto intervened, laying claim to the lands by virtue of John Duncanson’s settlement; Chatto was later permitted to bring a declaratory proceeding before the Court of Session. There, Potts argued that Chatto was a conditional institute rather than a substitute, meaning that he was entitled to inherit only if William predeceased John.