The First Fifty Appeals:
Appellant: Manuel De Lima
Respondent: East India Company
City: Madras
Approximate amount at issue: NA
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: NA
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: NA
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: September 24, 1679
National Archives Record Image: PC2/68/211
Outcome of the appeal: Settled extrajudicially
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: October 17, 1679
National Archives Record Image: PC2/68/237
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
The case of Manuel De Lima represents the first appeal to the Privy Council from an actual court decision in the East Indies. A jury of six Luso-Indians and six Englishmen (including Elihu Yale) convicted De Lima for the murder of his servant Pero Rangell on September 18, 1678. He arrived in England on the Society in summer 1679 and was imprisoned at Newgate. For more on the case and De Lima's eventual fate see A.M. Fraas, "'They Have Travailed Into a Wrong Latitude:' The Laws of England, Indian Settlements, and the British Imperial Constitution 1726-1773," (Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2011) [hereafter "Fraas"], pp. 39-42,73-4
---------
Appellant: Alvaro Pirez de Tavora
Respondent: East India Company
City: Bombay
Approximate amount at issue: NA
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: NA
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: NA
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: January 17, 1677
National Archives Record Image: PC2/65/438
Outcome of the appeal: Referred back to EIC courts
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 15, 1677
National Archives Record Image: PC2/66/47
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
Though earlier than De Lima's case above, Pirez de Tavora appealed to the Privy Council against actions of the Bombay East India Company in seizing some of his estates, not against any court judgment. The Tavora family were the primary landowners of Bombay at the time. His case was eventually referred back to the Company and the courts at Bombay and an extrajudicial settlement reached. For more see Fraas, 30;
Philip Stern, The Company State (Oxford, 2011)
---------
Appellant: Various
Respondent: Robert Holden EIC Governor
City: St. Helena
Approximate amount at issue: NA
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: NA
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: NA
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: January 15, 1690
National Archives Record Image: PC2/74/103
Outcome of the appeal: Never proceeded
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: None
National Archives Record Image: NA
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
Like Tavora's case above, this appeal to the Privy Council did not proceed from any formal court process. Rather, it involved several families in England petitioning for redress over the hanging deaths of their relatives on the island St. Helena at the order of Robert Holden, the East India Company governor there. The case never proceeded at the Council (it's last mention is at PC2/74/131) but was taken up by Parliament on several occasions. For more see Fraas, 78;
---------
Appellant: Elihu Yale
Respondent: East India Company
City: Madras
Approximate amount at issue: NA
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: NA
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: NA
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: February 14, 1694
National Archives Record Image: PC2/76/63
Outcome of the appeal: Never proceeded
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: March 7, 1694
National Archives Record Image: PC2/76/85
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
Elihu Yale, former governor of Madras, sent a letter of appeal to the Privy Council protesting his imprisonment in that city since 1693 at the hands of the new EIC administration there. The case never proceeded as the EIC in London ordered Yale sent home to England with all his goods. Yale tried to launch a second appeal to the Privy Council about the seizure of his goods in 1695-6 but no record is found in the PC registers. For more see Fraas, 75 and H.D. Love, Vestiges of Old Madras (London, 1913), vol. 1, 550-1.
---------
Appellant: John Nicks
Respondent: EIC
City: Madras
Approximate amount at issue: NA
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: NA
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: NA
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: March 14, 1694
National Archives Record Image: PC2/76/90
Outcome of the appeal: Referred to Board of Trade
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: March 21, 1694
National Archives Record Image: PC2/76/96
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
Nicks' case, like Yale's above, also originated in imprisonment at Madras and the case did not proceed further as Nicks was also allowed passage home like Yale. See H.D. Love, Vestiges of Old Madras (London, 1913), vol. 1, 551, 564-5.
---------
Appellant: Charles Barrington
Respondent: Madras EIC, James Macrae
City: Madras
Approximate amount at issue: NA
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: NA
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: NA
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: August 10, 1730
National Archives Record Image: PC2/91/340
Outcome of the appeal: Withdrawn - mutually
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: February 24, 1732
National Archives Record Image: PC2/91/612
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
Barrington's appeal represents the first to the Privy Council in over thirty years and the first under the provisions specified in the Charter of 1726. However, his appeal did not stem from a court judgment in either the Mayor's Court or the Court of Appeals. Rather he was appealing against the actions of the EIC governor of Madras in forcibly sending him home from that city. The case was later dropped by agreement of both parties in light of a lack of evidence and Barrington's unsympathetic cooperation with the Swedish East India Company. See Fraas, 297-8.
---------
Appellant: Thomas Waters
Respondent: EIC
City: Bombay
Approximate amount at issue: NA
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: NA
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: NA
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: March 8, 1732
National Archives Record Image: NA
Outcome of the appeal: Never proceeded
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: NA
National Archives Record Image: NA
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
This case does not appear in the records of the Privy Council but we know from other evidence that the secretaty of the Privy Council reported to the EIC that an appeal had been filed. Similar to Barrington's case, Waters' was appealing not from a judgment of the courts in Bombay but of his dismissal from office by the Company for misconduct and fraud in early 1729. For evidence of the appeal see BL IOR D/100 f.8; H/74 f107; E/4/460; P/341/6 and Fraas, 372.
---------
Appellant: Matthew Wastell
Respondent: Robert Adams
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 8514 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: January 5, 1730
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: January 20, 1730
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: November 25, 1731
National Archives Record Image: PC2/91/619
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: December 19, 1734
National Archives Record Image: PC2/93/53
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
This is the first case from the courts established by the Charter of 1726. It involved a complicated respondentia contract dispute over the loss of the merchant ships Prince George and Margaret following a riot at Jeddah (Jidda, Bahrain). The Privy Council overturns the ruling of the Calcutta courts that the shipowners share in the burden of debt and instead rules that each stakeholder pay out according to his degree of respondentia ownership. The Privy Council sent the matter of actually distributing the funds to a Chancery master who finally delivered in a report on January 26, 1737(PC2/94/92). For more on the case see Fraas, 277 and on the jurisprudence of respondentia Fraas, 261-72.
---------
Appellant: William Mitchell, Nathaniel Turner
Respondent: John Dean, Richard Bouchier
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 1000 pagodas+interest
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: July 11, 1730
Date of Court of Appeals Decree:
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: March 17, 1732
National Archives Record Image: PC2/91/619
Outcome of the appeal: Upheld both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: May 2, 1735
National Archives Record Image: PC2/93/156
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
A respondentia case relating to a 1,000 pagoda loan on a voyage between Madras and Surat. The cargo was damaged and voyage delayed but the Privy Council upheld the decisions of the Indian courts that the respondentia borrower still had to fulfill the debt. On the jurisprudence of respondentia generally see Fraas, 261-72.
---------
Appellant: Benjamin Francia estate (Moses Francia)
Respondent: James Hope
City: Bombay
Approximate amount at issue: 118,798 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: September 20, 1738
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: December 13, 1738
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: March 10, 1740
National Archives Record Image: PC2/95/664
Outcome of the appeal: Largely Overruled CA, affirmed MC selectively
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 3, 1756
National Archives Record Image: PC2/105/197
Lawyers involved: William Murray and Alexander Forrester for appellants; Charles Yorke and Robert Henley for respondents
Notes:
Though begun in the 1730s, the Privy Council did not rule finally on this case from Bombay until 1756. The case is quite convoluted and revolves around the Francia family (London Sephardic merchants) and debts contracted between one of the family members in Surat (Benjamin Francia d. 1732 )and an EIC employee there. Pursuant to his will, the Mayor's Court at Bombay awarded Benjamin's siblings (Moses Francia, Eleanor Francia, Rachel Francia, and Sarah Brighton) the majority of the estate despite the objections of James Hope who claimed substantial debts on ivory and iron accounts. The court of appeals in Bombay overruled the Mayor's Court and awarded Hope a substantial sum. Finally, in 1756, the Privy Council largely reversed the court of appeals decision and gave money back to the Francias. Among the counsel for the Francias was William Murray (Lord Mansfield). See Fraas, 242.
The printed briefs for the 1756 hearing of the case survive in British Library Add. Ms. 36,217. Brief for the Executors of the Benjamin Francia Estate appellants.William Murray and Alexander Forrester for appellants (ff.85-9). Brief for Dinah Hope, executor of the James Hope estate respondent. Charles Yorke and Robert Henley for respondents (ff.89-95).
---------
Appellant: Zechariah Gee, Thomas Coates Estate
Respondent: Edward F. Reede
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 4,295 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: September 22, 1739
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: December 6, 1739
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: December 31, 1741
National Archives Record Image: PC2/97/38
Outcome of the appeal: Upheld both for non prosecution
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: December 15, 1742
National Archives Record Image: PC2/97/267
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
In this case Edward Reede of Calcutta sued the executors of Thomas Coates for a sum mistakenly paid by Reede to Coates. Both the Mayor's Court and Court of Appeals ruled in Reede's favor but the executors threatened to appeal to the Privy Council. To forestall any action, Reede contested their appeal and had it dismissed by the PC after a year for non-prosecution.
---------
Appellant: John Horne
Respondent: George Dudley
City: Bombay
Approximate amount at issue: 4442 rupees, 3500 pardoes
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: October 1, 1739
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: December 18, 1739
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: December 31, 1741
National Archives Record Image: PC2/97/38
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 29, 1742
National Archives Record Image: PC2/97/170
Lawyers involved: "Dickinson of St. Thomas the Apostle" [Great St. Thomas the Apostle St. London EC4V] for Respondent
Notes:
George Dudley was a Bombay merchant who had deposited money with a moneychanger of the EIC treasury named "Woodon Naig" [Wodou (Udhav) Naik]. In 1739, Naik left Bombay suddenly along with money embezzled from the Company. That same year governor John Horne was replaced by Stephen Law to whom Horne handed over all remaining money from the treasury and Naik's accounts. Dudley then sued Horne claiming that some of the money handed over to Law had in fact been his (Dudley's) own. The Mayor's Court and Court of Appeals in Bombay awarded Dudley the money but the Privy Council overturned these judgments.
---------
Appellant: John Albert Sichterman
Respondent: William Price, Samuel Sheldrake, William Weston, Joseph Guion estate
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 18197 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: January 28, 1741
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: August 14, 1741
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: January 19, 1743
National Archives Record Image: PC2/97/297
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: March 29, 1743
National Archives Record Image: PC2/97/465
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
John Albert Sichterman was the chief of the Dutch East India Company's (VOC) factory at Hugli in Bengal. He lent Joseph Guion [Guyon], the supercargo aboard the William and Mary a sum of money for a voyage out of Calcutta. When Guon died on board, Sichterman sued for a share of the estate in the same class as respondentia creditors but was denied by the Mayor's Court and Court of Appeals. The Privy Council seemed quite confused in the case, overturning the Indian decrees and using respondentia and "bottomree" (another form of maritime insurance) interchangeably - resulting in protests from Calcutta. For more see Fraas, 288.
---------
Appellant: George Williamson
Respondent: James Horne, John Lambton
City: Bombay
Approximate amount at issue: 8168 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: June 29, 1739
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: July 12, 1739
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: February 7, 1744
National Archives Record Image: PC2/98/335
Outcome of the appeal: Upheld for non prosecution
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: March 5, 1744
National Archives Record Image: PC2/99/7
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
George Williamson was the supercargo aboard the Elizabeth bound from Calcutta to Surat and back. Wanting to pick up goods at Cochin on his way back to Calcutta, he asked Lambton and Horne for a letter of credit drawn upon Rabbi Ezekial there. When the Elizabeth sank on the subsequent voyage, Lambton and Horne sued to recover the money they had lent Williamson, which both the Mayor's Court and Court of Appeals awarded them. Williamson claimed that he was going to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council and five years later Lambton and Horne went to the Privy Council for a judgment officially ending any chance of an appeal on the ground of non-prosecution.
---------
Appellant: James Irwin
Respondent: John Saunders
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 1182 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: December 23, 1743
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: December 13, 1744
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: February 26, 1746
National Archives Record Image: PC2/99/369
Outcome of the appeal: Upholds both decisions
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: May 29, 1747
National Archives Record Image: PC2/100/245
Lawyers involved: Francis Cooper of Basinghall Street for Respondent
Notes:
A respondentia dispute between two Calcutta merchants relating to a failed voyage between Calcutta and Sri Lanka (Columbo and Galle). The Privy Council upheld the judgments of the Mayor's Court and Court of Appeals in favor of Saunders. The decree in the case reached Calcutta in May of 1748 and was made a rule of the court. The notes of William Lee (chief justice of King's Bench), who sat on the PC for its hearing of the case, are in the Beinecke Library, Yale University. For more see Fraas, 334.
---------
Appellant: John Rennald
Respondent: William Barwell
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 6454 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: July 27, 1744
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: December 22, 1744
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: May 23, 1748
National Archives Record Image: PC2/101/30
Outcome of the appeal: Upholds both decisions
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 14, 1748
National Archives Record Image: PC2/101/32
Lawyers involved: William Murray and Alexander Forrester for the respondent; Dudley Ryder and Alexander Hume-Campell for the respondent
Notes:
A contract dispute relating to opium purchased at Calcutta for sale in today's Burma. The buyer went to court to have the contract overturned given the poor quality of the opium he had received. The courts in India and the Privy Council ordered the contract upheld given the testimony of local experts that all procedures in assaying opium had been followed and that the buyer knew the risks. For more on the case see Fraas, 251.
The printed briefs for the case survive in the Beinecke Library, Yale University:
William Lee Papers (Osborn MSS 52) Box 22, item 28[two copies]: Calcutta in Bengal, in the East-Indies. John Rennald, merchant, - - - - - - appellant. Wadham Brooke, Esq; for and on behalf, and as attorney of William Barwell, Esq; - - respondent. The appellant's case. William Murray and Alexander Forrester for the respondent 11 June 1748
William Lee Papers (Osborn MSS 52) Box 22, item 29: Calcutta in Bengall, in the East-Indies. John Rennald, merchant, - - - - - - appellant. Wadham Brooke, Esq - - respondent. The respondent’s case. Dudley Ryder and Alexander Hume-Campell for the respondent 11 June 1748 (MS note correcting to 14 June 1748)
---------
Appellant: William Price, Edward Holden Cruttendon
Respondent: Augustus Burton, Edward Massey estate
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 15000+int
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: November 2, 1745
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: December 9, 1746
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: February 1, 1749
National Archives Record Image: PC2/101/162
Outcome of the appeal: Uphold both for non prosecution
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 29, 1749
National Archives Record Image: PC2/101/297
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
A respondentia dispute in which the appellants promised an appeal to the Privy Council but never followed through. The respondents asked the PC to formally dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution which they grant.
---------
Appellant: EIC Council at Calcutta
Respondent: Humphreys Cole
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 75000 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: December 11, 1745
Date of Court of Appeals Decree:
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: February 9, 1749
National Archives Record Image: PC2/101/187
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed -new trial ordered
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: March 7, 1749
National Archives Record Image: PC2/101/207
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
This is an exceedingly complicated case involving a dispute between the East India Company executive at Calcutta and the Mayor's Court over the unwillingness of a Sikh merchant to subject himself to the courts there. The Mayor's Court had awarded disgraced Company employee Cole a sum when he sued prominent Patna merchant Deepchund who failed to contest the suit. This caused innumerable local political problems for the Calcutta executive who pursued the case to the Privy Council to have the Mayor's Court judgment overturned - which the PC did in 1749. For more see See Fraas, 345-6;203 n71 and
---------
Appellant: Edward Stephenson, Willaim Barwell
Respondent: J.Z. Holwell, William Young, Sir Francis Russell estate
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 20000 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: September 12, 1747
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: December 3, 1747
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: March 14, 1749
National Archives Record Image: PC2/101/230
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed CA held MC
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: March 12, 1751
National Archives Record Image: PC2/102/172
Lawyers involved: NA
Notes:
A case involving the priority of debts in which the Mayor's Court decreed that specialty creditors to the estate of Sir Francis Russell estate should be paid first. The Privy Council upheld the Mayor's Court's decision. For more see Fraas, 270.
---------
Appellant: Frances Altham, John Altham
Respondent: George Gray, Perry Purpill Templer estate
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: more than 20000 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: August 30, 1748
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: October 19, 1748
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: November 23, 1749
National Archives Record Image: PC2/101/366
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 9, 1752
National Archives Record Image: PC2/103/118
Lawyers involved: Mr. Watson of Essex Ct. in the Middle Temple for the respondent
Notes:
An estate case in which Frances Altham (the widow of Perry Purpill Templar) sued her late husband's executor (the surgeon George Gray) for the legacy promised her in Templar's will (20,000 rupees plus Templar's slaves). Gray argued that Templar's daughter was entitled to the sum and the courts in India issued various confused procedural rulings which the Privy Council resolved by granting Frances Altham all that the will promised her.
---------
Appellant: William Davis, J.Z. Holwell, E.H. Cruttendon
Respondent: Nyan Mullick
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 12,034 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: August 18, 1749
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: January 19, 1750
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: February 5, 1751
National Archives Record Image: PC2/102/149
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed CA held MC
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: December 20, 1751
National Archives Record Image: PC2/102/414
Lawyers involved: Philip Caretert Webb for Mullick solicitor; Dudley Ryder and William Murray for the appellants; Robert Henley and Alexander Hume-Campbell for the respondents
Notes:
A dispute over a cotton contract entered into by Nyan Mullick [Nayan Chand Mallika] and an English merchant at Calcutta. The Mayor's Court had ruled that the original contract in favor of Mallika should stand while the Court of Appeals believed that Mallika had dealt fraudulently and that the contract should be amended. The Privy Council ruled for Mallika, upholding the Mayor's Court decision and ordering William Davis and his representatives (Cruttendon and Holwell - both former mayors of Calcutta) to pay Mallika the contracted price for his cotton. For more see Fraas, 286-7.
The printed briefs for this case survive as
British Library shelfmark 1890.e.28: Edward Holden Cruttenden Esq; and John Zephaniah Holwell Esq; attorneys for, and on behalf of, William Davis Esq; --- Plaintiffs. Nian Mullick, --------- Defendant. Et e contra. And between the said John Zephaniah Holwell, as attorney of said William Davis, and the said William Davis in person, -- Appellants. The said Nian Mullick, ------- Respondent. Et e contra. The case of the said William Davis, and of the said John Zephaniah Holwell, as attorney to the said William Davis, the appellant in the original, and respondent in the cross appeal. Dudley Ryder and William Murray for the appellants 10 December 1751
British Library shelfmark 1890.e.28: Between Nian Mullick, a Banian Merchant of Calcutta in the East Indies, --- Appellant. John Zephaniah Holwell, of Calcutta, Esq; attorney for William Davis, Esq; --- Respondent. And between the said John Zephaniah Holwell, Appellant. and The said Nian Mullick, Respondent. The case of the said Nian Mullick, Appellant in the original, and respondent in the cross appeal. and Edward Holden Cruttenden Esq; and John Zephaniah Holwell Esq; attorneys for, and on behalf of, William Davis Esq; --- Plaintiffs. Nian Mullick, -Defendant. Robert Henley and Alexander Hume-Campbell for the respondents 10 December 1751
Also available through Gale's Eighteenth Century Collections Online
---------
Appellant: Nyan Mullick
Respondent: William Davis, Z.H. Holwell, Cruttendon
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 12,034 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: August 18, 1749
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: January 19, 1750
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: October 31, 1751
National Archives Record Image: PC2/102/356
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed CA held MC
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: December 20, 1751
National Archives Record Image: PC2/102/414
Lawyers involved: Philip Caretert Webb for Mullick solicitor; Dudley Ryder and William Murray for the appellants; Robert Henley and Alexander Hume-Campbell for the respondents
Notes:
Counter-suit and counter-appeal filed same as above.
---------
Appellant: Barbazon Ellis, Francis Pym, Nathaniel Whitewell estate
Respondent: Wissram Savajee, John Sewell, Laurence Sullivan, Shivaji Dharam Seth estate
City: Bombay
Approximate amount at issue: 5000 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: September 6, 1749
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: October 16, 1750
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: January 14, 1752
National Archives Record Image: PC2/102/431
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: December 7, 1752
National Archives Record Image: PC2/103/251
Lawyers involved: William Murray and Charles Yorke for appelants; Dudley Ryder and Robert Henley for respondents
Notes:
A case revolving around the priority of debts and the distribution of the estate of Shivaji Dharam Seth - a powerful Bombay-Surat merchant. His sons attempted a private distribution if assets to his creditors but one English creditor (Nathaniel Whitewell) refused to go along with this distribution, arguing that a bond given him by Shivaji was of a higher priority in law than the obligations held by other creditors. The Mayor's Court disagreed and ordered that all creditors be treated equally. The Privy Council overturned this ruling and ordered Shivaji's executors to pay Whitewell's debts first. For more see Fraas, 283-6.
The printed briefs for this case survive as:
British Library Add. Ms. 36,217 ff.17-18: Brief for Barbazon Ellis and Francis Pym Appellants William Murray and Charles Yorke for appellants;
ff.19-20: Brief for the Administrators of the estate of Sawajee Daromsett [Shivaji Dharam Seth] respondents Dudley Ryder and Robert Henley for respondents 1752
---------
Appellant: William Sedgwick
Respondent: Wissram Savajee, John Sewell, and Laurence Sullivan, Shivaji Dharam Seth estate
City: Bombay
Approximate amount at issue: 11103 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: July 27, 1749
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: 09/21/49
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: February 13, 1752
National Archives Record Image: PC2/102/502
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: December 7, 1752
National Archives Record Image: PC2/103/251
Lawyers involved: William Murray and Charles Yorke for appellants; Dudley Ryder and Robert Henley for respondents
Notes:
An allied case to the that of Whietwell's above. Sedgwick also sued the Dharam Seth estate on the same grounds and the Privy Council likewise overturned the decrees of the Indian courts. See Fraas, 283-6.
The printed briefs for this case survive as:
British Library Add. Ms. 36,217 ff.7-13: Brief for William Sedgwick Appellant William Murray and Charles Yorke for appellants
ff.15-16: Brief for the Administrators of the estate of Sawajee Daromsett [Shivaji Dharam Seth] respondents Dudley Ryder and Robert Henley for respondents
---------
Appellant: Wadham Brooke
Respondent: Calcutta EIC, Adam Dawson, James Blackford, John Holland, William Watts, Roger Drake, Thomas Burrow, E.H. Cruttendon
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: unknown
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: unknown
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: unknown
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: July 15, 1752
National Archives Record Image: PC2/103/167
Outcome of the appeal: Never proceeded
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: none
National Archives Record Image: None
Lawyers involved: Thomas Cole for Respondents
Notes:
This case involved debts and malfeasance of Company employee Wadham Brooke. Brooke threatened to appeal the judgments against him to the Privy Council but never proceeded.
---------
Appellant: John Coales
Respondent: Holland Goddard, William Young estate
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: unknown
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: unknown
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: unknown
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: November 22, 1753
National Archives Record Image: PC2/103/510
Outcome of the appeal: Never proceeded
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: none
National Archives Record Image: None
Lawyers involved: Mr. Athawes and Commeline from Distaff lane near St. Pauls for respondents
Notes:
A estate case out of Calcutta which never proceeded. The Appellant in the case attempted to enlist Dudley Ryder (the Attorney General) to prosecute the appeal but Ryder refused. See Ryder diaries for 27 October 1753.
---------
Appellant: Samuel Moses, Levi Moses estate
Respondent: John Smith, Solomon Franco, Samuel Greenbaugh estate
City: Madras
Approximate amount at issue: 850 pagodas
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: December 5, 1755
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: April 27, 1756
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: March 1, 1758
National Archives Record Image: PC2/106/48
Outcome of the appeal: Never proceeded
Date of Final Privy Council Mention: December 13, 1758
National Archives Record Image: PC2/106/299
Lawyers involved: Philip Carteret Webb for respondent
Notes:
A respondentia case involving several Jewish merchants of Madras. The case appears to never have proceeded to a judgment even though Samuel Moses asserted his willingness to appeal further in December 1758. See PC2/106/306.
---------
Appellant: Barbazon Ellis
Respondent: Alexander Douglas
City: Bombay
Approximate amount at issue: 3962 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: January 12, 1759
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: March 23, 1759
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: April 5, 1760
National Archives Record Image: PC2/107/336
Outcome of the appeal: Never proceeded
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: none
National Archives Record Image: NA
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
This case involves a dispute between two English merchants over 18 jars of hing (Asafoetida) purchased at Bussorah [Basra, Iraq]. For the original proceedings in the case see BL IOR P/417/13 (pp. 190-3). The case never proceeded to a verdict in the Privy Council.
---------
Appellant: Frey Francisco de Assumpcao and Tenesnes De Pogose, Minas Isaac estate
Respondent: Joseph de Boggaram,Tague Sherymore widow and Cachatoor de Aran John son in law, Phillipus Sherrymore estate
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 7800 arcot rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: June 15, 1759
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: September 8, 1759
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: October 2, 1760
National Archives Record Image: PC2/107/498
Outcome of the appeal: Upholds both decisions
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 27, 1761
National Archives Record Image: PC2/108/410
Lawyers involved: Balthazar Burman of Lincoln's Inn for respondent
Notes:
A fraught commercial dispute between Armenian merchants. for a full description of the case see PC2/108/76 . "Phillipus Sherrymore" was likely a member of the Julfa Armenian Xerimani (Shariman) family which had members at Madras and Calcutta. Father Francisco appears in several cases involving Roman Catholic Armenians. He was likely an Augustinian friar attached to Our Lady of the Rosary church in Calcutta.
---------
Appellant: Executors of William Sedgwick (Robert Mapletoft, Richard Allwright, Cornelius Inglis, John Isherwood, Thomas Stringer)
Respondent: Thomas Holme, Samuel Griffith
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 4897 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: unknown
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: December 27, 1753
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: January 16, 1761
National Archives Record Image: PC2/108/150
Outcome of the appeal: Upheld for non-prosecution
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: January 20, 1761
National Archives Record Image: PC2/108/155
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
A commercial dispute relating to commission charged on goods shipped between Jeddah, Mocha, and Calcutta.
---------
Appellant: Francis Meleart, Royal Prussian Company
Respondent: Luckycondore
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 10,275 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: October 14, 1760
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: December 24, 1760
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: February 2, 1762
National Archives Record Image: PC2/109/36
Outcome of the appeal: Never proceeded
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: none
National Archives Record Image: None
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
In this case the Mayor's Court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Luckeycondore [Lakhi ___?] (a prominent merchant of Calcutta who came into the Mayor's Court on several occasions) against the short-lived Royal Prussian Bengal Company (chartered in 1753 from Emden). The RPBC never proceeded in their appeal against these verdicts.
---------
Appellant: John Durrand
Respondent: Calcutta EIC
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 51,376 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: February 8, 1760
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: July 17, 1760
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: February 4, 1762
National Archives Record Image: PC2/109/38
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed CA held MC
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: July 15, 1762
National Archives Record Image: PC2/109/293
Lawyers involved: Thomas Nuthall of Crosby Square for respondents
Notes:
John Durrand appeals here on behalf of those concerned in the ship Restitution which was used to convey french personnel and others away from Chandernagore to Madras in light of recent English victories. The EIC had given Durrand a bond for 45,000 rupees payable if the ship was captured by the French which he was seeking to collect on as the French prisoners on board had seized the vessel within hours of leaving. The Mayor's Court and Privy Council both rule that Durrand should be able to collect.
---------
Appellant: Padre Dionisius Manasse
Respondent: Solomon Eban David
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 7442 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: April 20, 1762
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: September 9, 1762
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: October 24, 1763
National Archives Record Image: PC2/110/140
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: December 14, 1763
National Archives Record Image: PC2/110/179
Lawyers involved: William Birch of Norfolkstreet for respondent solicitor; Fletcher Norton and Charles Yorke for appellant; Thomas Sewell and William de Grey for respondents
Notes:
The appellant in this case was an Armenian priest who came from Bussorah [Basra, Iraq] in 1750 to Calcutta and it being "customary" for congregants to support the clergy, David took him into his household. In 1755, the priest took over some accounts for David but all their business papers were lost in the invasion of 1756. The priest sued to collect on some sums he felt owed him by David and the case went forward to the Mayor's Court which supported the priest and the Court of Appeals which reversed that decree. The Privy Council somewhat mysteriously ruled that both decrees should be overturned and the case started again from scratch.
The printed briefs in this case survive as:
British Library Add Ms, 36,219
ff. 135-7 Brief for the appellant
ff. 137-9 Brief for the Respondents
---------
Appellant: Mary De Lor
Respondent: Calcutta EIC, Bombay EIC
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 15,171 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: April 26, 1763
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: June 23, 1763
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: February 1, 1765
National Archives Record Image: PC2/111/82
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed CA held MC
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: September 27, 1767
National Archives Record Image: PC2/112/96
Lawyers involved: Alexander Wedderburn and Alexander Forrester for appellant; Charles Yorke and William de Grey for respondents
Notes:
Mary de Lor, a Bombay resident who "lived with" a merchant named John Bohier sued the Company in both Calcutta and Bombay for seizing two of her own houses to satisfy Bohier's debts to them. The Company alleged that all of her property was acquired through the agency of Bohier and could be liquidated to pay his debts. The Mayor's Court disagreed and awarded her the value of the seized property, the Court of Appeals overturned this ruling but the Privy Council ordered the original award in favor of de Lor to stand.
The printed briefs in this case survive as:
British Library Add. Ms. 36,220:
ff.65-72: Brief for Mary de Lor Appellant
Brief for the Calcutta EIC Council respondents
---------
Appellant: Russell Skinner and others, agents for the Nabob's Grant
Respondent: John Henry Meyers, George Burghall
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: unknown
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: January 31, 1766
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: August 20, 1766
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: November 18, 1767
National Archives Record Image: PC2/112/507
Outcome of the appeal: Dismissed
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: July 7, 1768
National Archives Record Image: PC2/113/238
Lawyers involved: Thomas Goostrey of Sherrard St. solicitor; Charles Yorke and William de Grey for appellants; Alexander Forrester and J. Dunning for Respondents
Notes:
This appeal and several others below all relate to the payment or "donation" (of around £375,000) extracted from the Bengali nawab Mir Jafar in 1763 to compensate members of the EIC military forces in India for their service and for abstaining from plunder. This money was to be paid out to soldiers according to rank and other criteria. Russell Skinner was the appointed agent for distributing the donation and as such was at the center of much litigation amongst the recipients. There is a wealth of primary documentation concerning disputes over the donation published in the invaluable Fort William-India House Correspondence series - see volume four especially, also among others on the donation and the period broadly see, P.J. Marshall, East Indian Fortunes (Oxford, 1976), 210.
The printed briefs for this case survive as:
BL Ad Ms. 36,220 ff. 177-82: Brief for Russell Skinner and others, agents for the Nabob's Grant Appellants
Brief for John Henry Meyers, and George Burghall Respondents
---------
Appellant: Christian Van Teylingen
Respondent: John Dedrick Severin
City: Madras
Approximate amount at issue: 1125 Pagodas
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: May 12, 1767
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: August 27, 1767
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: April 28, 1768
National Archives Record Image: PC2/113/148
Outcome of the appeal: Withdrawn- appellant
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 9, 1770
National Archives Record Image: PC2/114/409
Lawyers involved: James Martin of Middle Temple for respondent
Notes:
This case and the three others below all relate to debts contracted by Christian Van Teylingen, chief of the Dutch factory at Negapatnam. In 1765, he had assisted the English EIC against orders and was forced to flee to Madras for protection. He could not however flee from his creditors who sued him in the Mayor's Court. When van Teylingen escaped to England they successfully defended their interests at the Privy Council. The documentation for these cases is particularly rich and includes attorneys bills and much other paperwork. See Fraas, 392. See also PC2/113/266 and also below 37,38,39.
---------
Appellant: Christian Van Teylingen
Respondent: Modelly Travangadam Chitty
City: Madras
Approximate amount at issue: 934 pagodas
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: August 19, 1766
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: August 6, 1767
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: August 5, 1768
National Archives Record Image: PC2/113/266
Outcome of the appeal: Upheld both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: April 2, 1770
National Archives Record Image: PC2/114/298
Lawyers involved: Lane for Respondent solicitor; Sykes for Respondent attorney
Notes:
One of three Chettiar merchants to sue Van Teylingen for debts. The documentation for this case is particularly rich and includes attorneys bills and much other paperwork. See Fraas, 392 and 36,38,39.
---------
Appellant: Christian Van Teylingen
Respondent: Medah Veradah Ragullou Chitty
City: Madras
Approximate amount at issue: 999 Pagodas
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: July 22, 1766
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: August 6, 1767
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: August 4, 1768
National Archives Record Image: PC2/113/257
Outcome of the appeal: Upheld both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: April 2, 1770
National Archives Record Image: PC2/114/298
Lawyers involved: Heaton and Venables of Threadneedle St. for respondent
Notes:
One of three Chettiar merchants to sue Van Teylingen for debts. The documentation for this case is particularly rich and includes attorneys bills and much other paperwork. See Fraas, 392, 36,37,39 and also PC2/113/266.
---------
Appellant: Christian Van Teylingen
Respondent: Chacolonga Chitty
City: Madras
Approximate amount at issue: 2293 Pagodas
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: June 21, 1767
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: August 27, 1767
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: August 5, 1768
National Archives Record Image: PC2/113/266
Outcome of the appeal: Withdrawn- appellant
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 9, 1770
National Archives Record Image: PC2/114/409
Lawyers involved: Mr Dagge of Lincoln's Inn for respondent
Notes:
One of three Chettiar merchants to sue Van Teylingen for debts. The documentation for this case is particularly rich and includes attorneys bills and much other paperwork. See Fraas, 392, 36,37,38.
---------
Appellant: William Shaw
Respondent: Edward Chandler
City: Bombay
Approximate amount at issue: 5,410 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: July 9, 1766
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: September 9, 1766
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: September 7, 1768
National Archives Record Image: PC2/113/332
Outcome of the appeal: Upheld for non prosecution
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: March 13, 1769
National Archives Record Image: PC2/113/494
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
A case involving an old debt (from 1754) between William Shaw (of Bussorah [Basra, Iraq]) and Chandler (of Bombay). Shaw threatened an appeal to the Privy Council but never followed through so Chandler came forward to ask the PC to dismiss for non-prosecution.
---------
Appellant: William Bolts
Respondent: EIC
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 8,167 benares rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: October 6, 1767
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: March 2, 1768
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: December 16, 1768
National Archives Record Image: PC2/113/388
Outcome of the appeal: None
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: none
National Archives Record Image: none
Lawyers involved: Thomas Nuthall for Respondent
Notes:
This is one of the most well-known Privy Council cases from the pre-Regulating Act era. William Bolts, a native of Heidelberg, was a merchant and former alderman of the Calcutta Mayor's Court who had been expelled from the city by the East India Company and sent back to England. In order to combat his expulsion, Bolts first brought an appeal against the Company over a rice shipment suit in which the Company had won a judgment against him. This original appeal was never resolved and instead Bolts turned the spotlight on the Company for illegally expelling him from India. See below for the continuation of the case.
---------
Appellant: William Bolts
Respondent: EIC
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: NA
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: NA
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: September 5, 1768
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: February 14, 1770
National Archives Record Image: PC2/114/254
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed President and Council
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 11, 1770
National Archives Record Image: PC2/114/407
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
A continuation of the case above but with different subject matter. Bolts asks here that he be restored to his office as alderman of Calcutta. The EIC, believing Bolts' case strong, refused to answer his complaint, and the PC reinstated Bolts. Then on June 27, 1770 Bolts asked that he be allowed to stay in England for two years and that the person who acts in his place as alderman be allowed to stay there until word can reach him from London at which time Bolts would take up his office again (see PC2/114/469). Eventually, in January 1772, the PC report that the attorney general has told them that "your majesty cannot legally comply with the petitioners request" and Bolts' request is dismissed. See PC2/116/22 as well as Bolts' own polemic
---------
Appellant: John Griffith, estate of Hodjee Carim Ally
Respondent: Robert Garden, estate of John Price
City: Bombay
Approximate amount at issue: 15,000 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: August 6, 1771
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: November 30, 1771
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: August 13, 1772
National Archives Record Image: PC2/116/415
Outcome of the appeal: Upholds CA
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 20, 1774
National Archives Record Image: PC2/118/138
Lawyers involved: James Hutchinson of Leathersellers Hall for appellant
Notes:
A convoluted mercantile case out of Bombay involving the estate of Hodjee Carim Ally [Haji Karim Ali], his executor John Griffith and several of the estate's Bombay debtors. The Mayor's Court ordered John Price, one of the debtors, to pay Griffith but the Court of Appeals overturned the ruling forcing Griffith to appeal to the PC. The Privy Council agreed with the Court of Appeals and threw out Griffith's demand.
---------
Appellant: Russell Skinner
Respondent: John Corsar
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: unknown
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: July 2, 1770
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: October 1, 1770
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: November 17, 1772
National Archives Record Image: PC2/116/486
Outcome of the appeal: Unknown
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: none
National Archives Record Image:
Lawyers involved: Mr. Denison of Featherstone Buildings for appellant
Notes:
Another case involving Mir Jafar's "donation" as inabove. The appeal is pursued further at PC2/117/104.
---------
Appellant: Russell Skinner
Respondent: John Miller, John Dawnes, estate of Richard Lawder
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: unknown
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: May 11, 1770
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: September 25, 1771
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: March 26, 1773
National Archives Record Image: PC2/117/104
Outcome of the appeal: Unknown
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: none
National Archives Record Image: none
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
Another case involving Mir Jafar's "donation" as in above. The appeal is pursued further at PC2/117/104.
---------
Appellant: Russell Skinner
Respondent: Thomas Sheels, estate of Isaac Tullie
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: unknown
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: July 2, 1771
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: October 2, 1771
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: March 26, 1773
National Archives Record Image: PC2/117/105
Outcome of the appeal: Unknown
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: none
National Archives Record Image: None
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
Another case involving Mir Jafar's "donation" as in above_.
---------
Appellant: James Haddock, estate of John Horne
Respondent: John Watson
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 33,501 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: October 11, 1771
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: February 26, 1772
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: April 28, 1773
National Archives Record Image: PC2/117/188
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: May 12, 1774
National Archives Record Image: PC2/118/44
Lawyers involved: Joseph Hickey for Respondent
Notes:
An estate dispute over priority of debts in which the Mayor's Court and Court of Appeals ordered Haddock, as administrator of the Horne estate, to pay various creditors. The Privy Council ordered these decrees overturned and all disbursements made only in the full legal course of administration and not ad-hoc through litigation.
---------
Appellant: James Haddock, estate of John Horne
Respondent: David Anderson, John Brasier
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 4,368 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: January 31, 1772
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: July 14, 1772
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: April 28, 1773
National Archives Record Image: PC2/117/189
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: May 12, 1774
National Archives Record Image: PC2/118/39
Lawyers involved: Mr. Irving of Middle Temple for respondents
Notes:
An estate dispute over priority of debts in which the Mayor's Court and Court of Appeals ordered Haddock, as administrator of the Horne estate, to pay various creditors. The Privy Council ordered these decrees overturned and all disbursements made only in the full legal course of administration and not ad-hoc through litigation.
---------
Appellant: James Haddock, estate of John Horne
Respondent: Claud Russell,
City: Calcutta
Approximate amount at issue: 6,771 rupees
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: January 31, 1772
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: July 14, 1772
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: April 28, 1773
National Archives Record Image: PC2/117/189
Outcome of the appeal: Reversed both decrees
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: May 12, 1774
National Archives Record Image: PC2/118/42
Lawyers involved:
Notes:
An estate dispute over priority of debts in which the Mayor's Court and Court of Appeals ordered Haddock, as administrator of the Horne estate, to pay various creditors. The Privy Council ordered these decrees overturned and all disbursements made only in the full legal course of administration and not ad-hoc through litigation.
---------
Appellant: James West
Respondent: Louis Monnerown
City: Madras
Approximate amount at issue: unknown
Date of Mayor's Court Decree: unknown
Date of Court of Appeals Decree: November 28, 1772
Date of First Privy Council Hearing: October 29, 1773
National Archives Record Image: PC2/118/55
Outcome of the appeal: Upheld for non prosecution
Date of Final Privy Council Judgment: June 19, 1775
National Archives Record Image: PC2/119/25
Lawyers involved: Francis Eyre of Surrey St. for Respondent
Notes:
The litigants in this case, Monnerown (of Pondicherry) and West (of Madras), had contracted for several thousand pounds of saltpeter. When Monnerown sued over the contract he won his case in India and West promised to appeal to the PC. He asks here for the Privy Council to declare the case dismissed for non-prosecution. The PC ordered that "...the usual summons may be affixed on the Royal Exchange and in the East India Coffee house" and when no one stepped forward for West, the PC dismissed the appeal.