BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Patrick Cunninghame, v The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh. [1800] Mor 5_14 (3 December 1800)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1800/Mor05BURGH-ROYAL-007.html Cite as:
[1800] Mor 5_14
Patrick Cunninghame, v. The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh
Date: 3 December 1800 Case No. No. 7.
A bill of suspension and interdict at the instance of an individual member of a Town-Council, complaining of an act of the Council, appointing an additional minister within the burgh, on the ground that its revenue was not in a situation to pay his stipend, held to be incompetent.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh having resolved to make St. Andrew's Church a collegiate charge, appointed the Reverend David Ritchie to be junior minister, with a stipend of £.200 yearly.
Patrick Cunninghame, then a member of the Town-Council, complained of this resolution by a bill of suspension and interdict, in which he stated, that the expenditure of the City already exceeded its revenues; that the appointment would at all times have been unnecessary, and was peculiarly improper under the present circumstances.
The Town-Council defended the measure on grounds of expediency.
The Lord Ordinary took the case to report.
On advising memorials, the Court thought the measure expedient. But they further thought, that the complaint was incompetent. This Court, (it was observed, in a proper action brought for that purpose, will controul Magistrates in the expenditure of the revenue, when special acts of malversation are charged against them; see No. 94. p. 7366; but they have no power, in this summary form, to recal or prohibit an appointment made by a corporate body, in which a third party has a jus quæsitum, on vague allegations that the revenue is in-sufficient for its support.
The Lords unanimously refused the bill, and found the complainer liable in expenses.
Lord Ordinary, Cullen.For Cunninghame, Jo. Clerk.Alt. Lord Advocate Hope.
Fac. Coll. (Appendix,) No. 10. p. 19.
