AI-transcribed

The Supreme Civil Court of Scotland. It consists of thirteen Judges, or "Lords of Session," and is divided into the Outer and Inner House. Five Judges, called Lords Ordinary, constitute the Outer House, each of whom sits separately, and before any one of whom most actions may be commenced. Unless it is of unusual difficulty, in which case the Lord Ordinary may "report" (transfer) it to the Inner House, he hears it fully and pronounces judgment. Against the judgment an appeal lies to the Inner House. The Inner House sits in two Divisions, the First and Second, four Judges sitting in each, and each Division being of co-extensive and independent jurisdiction. In very difficult cases either Division may consult the other Judges, or order the case to be heard before the whole Judges, which is called a "Hearing in presence," and the case is then decided by the opinion of the majority. From either Division an appeal lies only to the House of Lords. Appeals to the Court of Session from inferior Courts may generally be taken either before one of the Lords Ordinary (whose decision in that case is final), or before either Division of the Inner House. In all cases the plaintiff or appellant selects the Lord Ordinary and the Division to which the cause is to be attached.

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: Court of Session

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Lord William Gordon and Others v. Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod and Others 1791 Freeholder, Statute, Possession, Election contest, Title, Court of Session Lord William Gordon, Vice-Admiral of Scotland, presented a petition and complaint against Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod, Arthur Forbes of Culloden, and others regarding the removal of his name from the Inverness-shire freeholders' roll. The complainer alleged that the respondents had acted irregularly in striking off liferent-voters, while the respondents contended that the four-month limitation period did not bar the removal of nominal or fictitious voters and that their conduct was legally justified. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies addressing the procedural regularity of the expunging and the applicability of the limitation period, followed by speeches on whether objections of nominality were competent after four months. Thereafter, Lord William Gordon and Lieutenant Alexander Godsman petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and award expenses, prompting further answers from the respondents defending their freeholder status and maintaining the validity of their prior objections.
Marshall v. Youngson 1798 Procurator, Court of Session, Agent, Interlocutor, Clerks of Session, Jurisdiction James Marshall, Writer to the Signet, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor respecting the offices held by Alexander Youngson. Youngson answered, defending his concurrent practice as procurator before the High Court of Admiralty and Writer to the Signet on the ground that the two roles were not incompatible. The dispute turned on whether the office of Writer to the Signet could be held consistently with acting as a procurator in the Admiralty Court.
Smyth v. Bushby 1794 Advocation, Process, Sist, Procurator, Adjudication, Court of Session In the bill of advocation between Smyth and Bushby, the sheriff-clerks of Scotland moved the Court to recall an order that had permitted transmission of inferior court processes to the bill-chamber without warrant or security. The Clerks to the Bills opposed this relief, contending that the practice of granting two successive orders for production of inferior court process in such bills had been uniform since 1765.
William and Henry Knox and Co Merchants in Dunbar v. William Law, Esq Sheriff-depute of Haddington, and Others 1771 Teind, Evidence, Fiar, Reduction, Court of Session, Interest Pursuers William Knox and Henry Knox, merchants in Dunbar, supplied barley to brewers in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Knox and Knox alleged that defender William Law, the sheriff of the county of East Lothian, had set the fiar (fixed price) of barley too high. An Act of Sederunt in 1723 established the process by which a sheriff of a given county in Scotland would set friars. The Act required the sheriff to appoint a jury of at least eight landowners in the county, with knowledge of the good at issue, to set the price. According to the pursuers, the sheriff's responsibilities were purely ministerial, setting a price agreeable with the verdict of the jury. Knox and Knox alleged that Law did not comply with the 1723 Act when he set the fiar for barley.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 117)