| Brisbane v. Sempill |
1794
|
Feu, Succession, Feu duties, Infeftment, Assignment, Disposition |
Brisbane, as pursuer, argued that Lord Sempill, as defender and singular successor, was bound to pay a year's rent for entry rather than the two shillings Scots claimed by the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Crosby and Attorney v. Maidment |
1798
|
Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Assignment, Usury, Interest |
|
| Earl of Dalhousie v. Wilson |
1802
|
Property rights, Lease, Assignment, Possession |
Charles Wilson was a farm tenant in Millholm, which was originally leased to his father, William Wilson. The landlord of the property was the pursuer, Earl Dalhousie. The lease was then assigned to John Wilson, son of Charles Wilson, who did not reside in the farm, but hired a servant or a manger, James Keddie, to cultivate the land. John Wilson moved to Jamaica. The Pursuer brought an action to remove John Wilson and James Keddie from the possession of the farm, alleging that it has been subleased without his written consent as the proprietor. The Court concluded that John Wilson must be held as having abandoned his lease, and as the farm remained without a tenant, the landlord was entitled to enter to the possession. |
| Earl of Northesk & Factor v. Rolland, et al |
1797
|
Lease, Tack, Assignment, Sublease, Rent, Possession |
|
| James Donaldson and James Pinkerton v. The Manchester Insurance Company |
1831
|
Insurance, Debt, Insurance Claim, Bill of Exchange, Interest, Assignment |
James Donaldson and James Pinkerton raised an action against the Manchester Insurance Company to recover payment under a fire insurance policy for wheat destroyed in 1829, claiming £408 1s. 11d. plus interest and costs. The defenders denied the competence of the action and asserted that the claim was void and barred. The parties thereafter joined issue on whether the defenders were liable for the loss of wheat and whether the policy had been discharged. |
| Richardson and Tait v. Thomson |
1775
|
Debt, Assignment |
David Thomson of Ingliston, defender, granted a bond to James Thomson, who conveyed shares of the bond to many different assignees. Several of these assignees made further assignments, and the pursuers, John Richardson and John Tait, came to possess a four-sixths share of the bond. Richardson and Tait sued David Thomson for payment. In the ensuing process, Thomson alleged that Tait and Richardson were merely trustees for certain assignees whom he had already paid. In response, Richardson and Tait claimed to be Thomson’s rightful creditors, having exchanged ready money for shares that the earlier assignees were unable to collect. Richardson and Tait also argued that David Thomson had missed a deadline for continuing to contest the case. |
| Shoolbred v. Lindsay |
1792
|
Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Assignment, Assignation, Arrestment |
John Shoolbred, trustee for the creditors of Captain Charles Steuart Lindsay, sought to compel Lindsay to assign £40 per annum from his military half-pay pursuant to a court order. Lindsay resisted, maintaining that his half-pay was not assignable to creditors and that Shoolbred’s claim thereto was ineffectual. The case turned on whether half-pay could be made liable to the claims of creditors. |
| Tod v. Thomson |
1792
|
Arrestment, Creditor, Debt, Assignment, Assignation, Witness |
Alexander Thomson, defender in the action raised by Tod, petitioned the Court on 2 March 1792 to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor against him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| York Building Company v. Roperhead |
1791
|
Debt, Sequestration, Assignment, Assignation, Creditor, Reduction |
The Governor and Company of Undertakers for Raising the Thames Water in York Buildings petitioned the Court against Roperhead to find that assignees of bonds must take every objection competent against the cedent. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
