AI-transcribed

Expenses, or Costs of Suit. In judicial procedure, this term is applied to the charges exigible from a party to a process, as court dues, fees to counsel and agents, and other expenses incurred in the prosecution of the action. It is almost the invariable practice for the pursuer, or, generally speaking, for the party making any claim judicially, not only to demand payment or performance of the obligation, or declarator or reduction of the right which is in question, but also to conclude for the expenses of the process which he has found it necessary to institute. Expenses may be given, however, without being specially concluded for. They are not, properly speaking, part of the subject-matter of an action.

Definition source
AI-transcribed
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Expenses.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Expenses

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
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.
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.
Brenton v. Liddell 1796 Justices of Peace, Apprentice, Statute, Suspension, Expenses, Service Captain Brenton sought to justify his detention of the apprentice John Donaldson against suspender Liddell, maintaining that Liddell had failed to comply with statutory conditions for reclaiming the boy. Liddell responded that Donaldson had not been lawfully enrolled under the 1795 act, as no written notification of disqualification had been delivered prior to the apprentice’s entry on board ship. The dispute turned on the validity of the enrollment and the statutory prerequisites for reclaiming an apprentice.
Chalmers v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor 1798 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Trustees, Expenses, Tack Thomas Chalmers petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor issued by Lord Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Creditors of Hynd v. M'Kechny 1777 Expenses, Adjudication, Rent, Interlocutor, Oath, Creditor In 1764, Alexander M'Kechny became a tenant of a dwelling-house and offices in Port-Glasgow, which had been the property of James Hynd. Hynd, a land-waiter, died in debt. In 1770 Hynd's son renounced his claim to his father's estate and Hynd's effects were then sold to pay his creditors. In June 1775, a remit was made to Lord Stonefield to divide the funds from the sale, and at this time Stonefield discovered that no rents had been paid on the property occupied by Alexander M'Kechny. The creditors of John Hynd brought action against M'Kechny, and various facts of the tenancy were disputed: The year M'Kechny took up residence in the dwelling-house, the yearly rent, and the sums expended by M'Kechny on repairs and legal defenses against encroachment. While M'Kechny was eventually vindicated in court, he argued that the verity of his claim had been known to his creditors from the beginning, and that they were therefore responsible for his legal expenses. The pursuers, on the other hand, argued that M'Kechny was at fault for providing incomplete records and making himself unavailable to be deponed.
Cunningham and Simpson v. Walker and Smith 1799 Expenses, Common debt, Debt, Debtors Case originated with debt due by the bankrupt fugitive Walter McFarlane, stabler in the Canongate, to Cunningham and Simpson. Other Creditors, but not including Cunningham and Simpson gathered and decided to have Walker and Smith auction off Mcfarlane's assets. Cunningham and Simpson challenged the right of Walker and Smith to claim the goods in order to pay off creditors. Cunningham and Simpson succeeded in claiming expenses from Walker and Smith.
George Binnie v. Neil M'Millan 1831 Aliment, Debt, Arrestment, Security, Expenses, Interlocutor George Binnie, mariner in Greenock, served as suspender against Niel M'Millan, grocer in Cartsdyke, reclaiming against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor which found that no expenses were due to the suspender. M'Millan argued in response that Binnie was not entitled to aliment because he had refused to sign an obligation for peace. The litigation turned on whether a suspender who declined to give security for the peace could recover expenses or maintain a claim for aliment.
George Gordon and Alexander Stewart v. Alexander Lawrence 1832 Contract, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Aliment, Expenses George Gordon and Alexander Stewart pursued Alexander Lawrence, a slater in Keith, regarding disputes over slate supply, pricing, and carriage. Lawrence reclaimed against the interlocutor of Lord Corehouse, and the parties lodged a mutual appendix detailing their competing claims concerning the slate transactions.
Hon. Mrs Maria Hay Mackenzie and Hugh Munro v. Magistrates of Dingwall and Others 1832 Sequestration, Possession, Tack, Expenses, Interlocutor, Res judicata Mrs. Maria Hay Mackenzie and Hugh Munro petitioned the Court for interim execution pending their appeal against the interlocutor of 11th July 1832 in their action against the Magistrates of Dingwall and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Keltie v. Finlay 1776 Bill (Financial Instrument), Mala Fides, Expenses, Fraud, Class, Debt In January 1770, John Finlay granted a bill to James Beveridge. Shortly afterward he made a partial payment to Thomas Beveridge, who had possession of the bill. A note of this partial payment was marked on the bill, but five years later David Keltie, the bill's endorsee, sued Finlay for its full amount. By this point the bill had been torn and the receipt of partial payment was disfigured. Finlay thus accused Keltie of bad faith ("pessima fide") and fraud, and petitioned the Court to exempt him from paying any additional part of the bill. After Keltie produced the torn-off section of the bill, Lord Barskimming decreed that Finlay would only have to pay the remaining balance, but that he was responsible for expenses. Finlay petitioned the court to overturn this ruling, arguing that Keltie was responsible for the court fees, having unjustly pressed him for more money than was due. Keltie in turn argued that Finlay's inconsistent testimony was to blame for the unnecessary expenses. He claimed that much of the confusion arose from whether the receipt was denominated in pounds Scots or sterling. Keltie argued that he was right to have insisted in favor of pounds Scots: likening the suspender to "the lower sort of people in this country," he claimed that "people of inferior rank in Scotland, to this day, generally count in Scots, and not in Sterling money."
Kemloe v. Dun, Reid, and Company 1767 Debt, Arrestment, Contract, Expenses, Interlocutor, Compensation In 1756, Gideon Kemloe, a merchant in Stonehaven (Stonehyve), cosigned as security on a load of cloth purchased by William Wise on credit from Dun and Company in Aberdeen. Wise could not sell the linen, and Kemloe became charged with making the payment to Dun and Company. Kemloe sought a suspension of this payment, claiming that since Dun and Company were already in debt to Wise, that debt should be settled first. Handwritten notation on case document says "refused."
Lee Allen and Andrew Elder v. Elder and Others 1832 Poinding, Expenses, Interlocutor, Advocation, Sheriff, Security John Lee Allen, Esq., and Andrew Elder presented a reclaiming note asking the Court of Session to alter Lord Medwyn's interlocutor in their action against Elder and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh v. Brown 1831 Servitude, Property, Construction, Interdiction, Expenses, Disposition The Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh, as pursuers, raised a summons of demolition and removal against James Brown, the defender, seeking to compel him to demolish structures erected within twenty-five feet of Saint Andrew's Church. Brown answered, arguing that the shed erected on his property did not constitute a "building" as defined in the servitude. He subsequently presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter Lord Medwyn's interlocutor regarding the shed's attachment to the Session-House wall.
M. M'Kenzie v. C. Mackintosh 1828 Expenses, Interest, Interlocutor, Arrestment, Debt, Creditor M. M'Kenzie, as pursuer, raised an action against C. Mackintosh, as defender, regarding a fund in medio, and the Court upheld the oath references, granted a commission, dispensed with the minute-book, and awarded the fund to Campbell Mackintosh. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mrs A. V. S. T. Anderson v. John Anderson 1827 Reduction, Tailzie, Entail, Succession, Aliment, Expenses Mrs A. V. S. T. Anderson, pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Moncreiff in her action against John Anderson, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Petition of the Magistrates of Dunfermline 1793 Expenses, Jurisdiction, Alter, Prisoner, Sheriff, Courts
Remington, Crawford, and Company, and Others v. Mrs. and Miss Bruce and Sir Michael Bruce and Others 1824 Debt, Creditor, Succession, Reduction, Aliment, Expenses Remington, Crawford, and Company and other creditors pursued Mrs. Bruce, Miss Bruce, and Sir Michael Bruce to reduce an 1819 land disposition favoring the heirs, alleging it created unlawful preferences prejudicial to onerous debts. The defenders initially asserted that gratuitous provisions must be postponed to onerous creditors while seeking assoilziment, later maintaining that their securities derived from the free residue of the estate and were irreducible. The pursuers sought reduction of the mortis causa provisions while conceding the debtor's solvency, and argued that as onerous creditors they were entitled to preference over the gratuitous legatees.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Captain Donald Matheson 1790 Rent, Freeholder, Lease, Possession, Election contest, Expenses Robert Home-Gordon, George M'Kay, and others pursued Captain Donald Matheson, seeking to have his name removed from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland on the ground that he lacked a valid freeholder qualification. The litigation subsequently reached a minute concerning the validity of Matheson's freehold qualification.
Robert Wark v. William Wotherspoon 1830 Expenses, Assignation, Tack, Rent, Interlocutor, Irritancy William Wotherspoon sought suspension of a decree obtained by Robert Wark ordering him to pay £9, 13s. 5½d. and extract dues. Wotherspoon defended the suspension on the ground that an assignation of lease from Mr Young was necessary for debt recovery, while denying Wark’s allegations of arrears and encroachment. He subsequently lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to recall the interlocutor and suspend the letters simpliciter, and obtained an additional appendix allowing him to print the defences, replies, condescendence, and answers from the inferior court process.
Skinner v. Bell 1832 Expenses, Trustee, Sist, Advocation, Tax, Feu J. R. Skinner, pursuer, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter Lord Corehouse's interlocutor in the action against Bell. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Sutherland v. Caledonian Society of Edinburgh 1797 Jurisdiction, Arbitration, Interlocutor, Libel, Statute, Expenses John Sutherland, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to remit the interlocutor of Lord Glenlee dismissing his action against the Caledonian Society of Edinburgh, the defender, for wrongful expulsion and denial of burial money. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
The Trustees of the late Robert Vans Agnew v. Mrs Frances Dunlop or Agnew & Others 1832 Debt, Succession, Disposition, Expenses, Assignation, Legacy The Trustees of the late Robert Vans Agnew maintained the validity of a disposition dated 1808 against Mrs Frances Dunlop or Agnew and others, lodging an additional appendix to their reclaiming note that asserted the deed remained binding upon the defenders. The Earl of Galloway and J. A. S. M'Kenzie subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Fullerton, petitioning the Court to alter that determination.
William Gilmour and Others v. William Finnie and Benjamin Greig 1832 Expenses, Assignation, Credit, Interest, Suspension, Interlocutor William Finnie and Benjamin Greig, defenders in the action raised by William Gilmour and others, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Corehouse. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
William Yeats v. Alexander Thomson and Others 1829 Reduction, Creditor, Trust, Expenses, Trustees, Trustee William Yeats pursued Alexander Thomson and others to reduce a pretended will dated 1 April 1829. In July 1832, Yeats and James Wilson presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to recall Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor and reduce the defenders' liability.
Williamson v. Hay 1832 Trustees, Assignees, Title, Expenses, Interlocutor, Action Alexander Williamson, the pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter its interlocutor which found no expenses due to either party. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 730)