Captain John Anderson v Anderson of Dowhill and Lecky.

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute involves Captain Anderson initiating legal proceedings in Glasgow against Anderson of Dowhill and Lecky. Both parties had submitted bills and answers. To avoid confusion arising from parallel proceedings involving two different Lords and clerks, the court appointed Saline, the auditor in Captain Anderson's process, to also serve as auditor in the process raised by Lecky and Dowhill. This arrangement allowed both parties to proceed before the same auditor, each using their own clerk.

Anderson of Dowhill was ordered to respond by the following day regarding the exhibition of count-books and to depone on his use or acceptance of assignations to retired bonds that had not been individually purged but were covered by the society's stock.

Following a report by Saline, the court further decided on 9 December that although Dowhill, as manager and book-keeper of the copartnery of the ship called the Providence, had an acknowledged balance of £29,000 due to him by the partners, the account did not show that the debit side instructions of the articles had been presented to and seen by the other partners. Consequently, Dowhill was ordered to produce the journal and ledger-books, any relevant instructions of the copartnery, and his accounts under oath. The matter was remitted to the Lord Reporter to take Dowhill's oath and to frame appropriate interrogatories.

Dowhill objected to this order on the grounds that it risked disclosing his private fortune and offered to show the records to two merchants but not to Captain Anderson.

The court responded that as book-keeper, Dowhill's accounts were common instruments accessible to all members of the society.

Later, on 2 February 1687, the court advised that Dowhill was obliged to account for the cargo of sack included in the £29,000 balance due to him by the partners of the ship Providence at their last accounting. Before answering further, it was ordered that proof be led to determine whether Dowhill alone had the keys to the cellar where the goods were stored or whether the other partners had access as well.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it was appropriate to appoint a single auditor for concurrent proceedings involving the same parties to avoid confusion and interference.
2. Whether Dowhill was required to produce and swear to the copartnery's accounting records and instructions despite objections concerning privacy.
3. Whether Dowhill was obligated to include the cargo of sack in the accounting balance due to him by the partners.
4. Whether access to the cellar where the goods lay was exclusive to Dowhill or shared with other partners, affecting the accounting and proof requirements.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Anderson of Dowhill)

• Dowhill objected to producing the journal and ledger-books on the basis that doing so would disclose his private fortune.
• He proposed to show the records only to two merchants, refusing to disclose them to Captain Anderson.

Appellee's Arguments (Captain Anderson and Others)

• As book-keeper, Dowhill's accounts were common instruments accessible to all members of the copartnery society.
• Therefore, the accounts and related documents should be produced and sworn to in the legal process.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning focused on procedural clarity and fairness in the management of concurrent legal actions involving the same parties. By appointing a single auditor to oversee both processes, the court sought to avoid confusion and overlapping jurisdiction between two Lords and clerks.

Regarding the production of accounts, the court emphasized the communal nature of the copartnery's records, holding that as book-keeper, Dowhill could not withhold these documents on privacy grounds since the accounts were instruments common to all partners.

The court further analyzed the accounting balance, requiring Dowhill to account for the cargo of sack included in the balance due to him. To ensure accuracy and fairness, the court ordered proof to determine whether Dowhill had exclusive control over the goods, which would affect the partners' access and the accounting process.

Holding and Implications

The court ORDINED that:

• Saline would serve as auditor in both concurrent proceedings to prevent confusion and interference.
• Anderson of Dowhill must answer regarding the exhibition of count-books and the use of assignations to retired bonds.
• Dowhill must produce the journal, ledger-books, and instructions of the copartnery, and swear to their accuracy under oath.
• Dowhill is required to include the cargo of sack in the accounting balance due to him.
• Proof must be led to determine the exclusivity of access to the cellar where goods were stored.

The decision directly affected the parties by clarifying procedural management and compelling disclosure of accounting records. No new legal precedent was established beyond the case-specific orders.