Deed of Conveyance. It may signify a will of real property, for in Scotland real property cannot be devised by a will proper, but can only be devised by a conveyance framed to take effect on execution, but which is valid, though not delivered before death.

Definition source

Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Disposition

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Air v. Johnston	1786	Debt, Bankruptcy, Fraud, Creditor, Disposition, Infeftment	William Air, merchant in Coldstream and trustee for the creditors of Robert Johnston, baker and feuar there, petitioned to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor, citing that a heritable bond held by Thomas Johnston of Templehall was invalid under the Act of 1696. Johnston answered, defending his heritable security against the trustee’s claim that it was liable to be set aside.
Alexander Cunnynghame v. William Muir of Caldwall	1760	Possession, Disposition, Retour, Charter, Liferent, Feu duties	Alexander Cunnynghame pursued a claim to the Five Pound Land of Craigbeat and Kersemeadow against William Muir of Caldwall, who objected on the basis of tax-roll and vassal land distinctions and argued that Cunnynghame’s title was nominal and fictitious and that he lacked possession. Muir replied to Cunnynghame’s answers, insisting that the pursuer held neither valid title nor actual possession of the lands. Cunnynghame defended his liferent-right to the properties, rebutting the objections by citing historical retours and demonstrating vassal possession.
Alexander Geddes and Allan Clark v. Jean Bull	1796	Marriage, Adjudication, Legitimacy, Reduction, Succession, Disposition	Alexander Geddes and Allan Clarke petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor in their action against Jean Bull. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire	1790	Freeholder, Election contest, Freehold Qualification, Penalty, Interlocutor, Disposition	Alexander Milne pursued the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire, represented by George Skene of Skene, to reverse his expungement from the county freeholder roll following the Michaelmas meeting of 1790. The defenders answered that Milne’s freehold qualification was nominal and fictitious, contending that the statutory four-month limitation did not bar objections to fraudulent claims, while Milne asserted his independent acceptance of the wadset and denial of political obligation. The litigation proceeded through reclaiming petitions against adverse interlocutors, condescendences regarding the qualification’s validity, and Milne’s objections to the defenders’ account of expenses. The cause culminated in disputes over the award of statutory penalties and the allocation of costs between the parties.
Allardice, et all v. Allardice	1795	Succession, Liferent, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor, Entail
Bayne v. Wallace	1796	Teinds, Disposition, Feu, Feu duties, Tack, Sequestration	Alexander Bayne of Rires presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter an interlocutor previously pronounced by Lord Craig. John Wallace of Sprettyhall and Rires Mill answered the petition as defender.
Benjamin Greig v. John Scott	1829	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Disposition, Sasine, Sale	Benjamin Greig, as pursuer, sought declarator, multiplepoinding, and exoneration against defender John Scott with respect to lands conveyed under bond to secure a £3000 debt, following unsuccessful sale attempts and disputes regarding title. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Black v. Allason	1788	Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Disposition, Reduction, Sasine	William Black, carrier and portioner in Falkirk and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against defender Allason. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Bruce v. Cunynghame	1790	Disposition, Freeholder, Charter, Seisin, Sasine, Assignation	James Bruce of Kinnaird petitioned the Court to expunge Sir William Augustus Cunynghame from the freeholders' roll of Stirling, alleging that Cunynghame’s qualification was nominal, fictitious, or held in confidence rather than by real right. Cunynghame answered that his freeholder qualification was genuine and supported by valid titles, a defense joined by David Cunynghame, younger of Livingstone, who asserted that the land titles were fully documented. Bruce replied and Cunynghame duplied, continuing the dispute over whether the enrollment rested on a real or merely nominal qualification.
Budge v. Lord Henderson's Interlocutor	1794	Teinds, Prescription, Disposition, Infeftment, Succession, Feu duties	Budge, as petitioner, submitted a memorial arguing that she and her predecessors had acquired an heritable right to the teinds of Toftingall by positive prescription, despite the lack of infeftment or charter. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Burden alias Campbell v. Campbells and Robertson	1791	Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Legacy, Multiple-Poinding, Disposition	Mrs Elizabeth Burden, alias Campbell, pursued the Campbells and Robertson as heir of her predeceased son John Campbell, claiming entitlement to his share of the residue of Duncan Campbell’s estate under the will’s substitution clause. She subsequently advanced additional claims under both the will and intestacy law, citing precedent for representative succession. The dispute centered on whether a mother could represent her deceased son to recover his portion of the inheritance under these competing theories of succession.
Campbell v. Officers of State	1784	Teinds, Tack, Charter, Disposition, Patronage, Stipend	General Campbell petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Elliock Ordinary, asserting that he held heritable rights to his teinds. The Officers of State responded, arguing that the tithes of Campbell’s lands in Kilvicocharmaig were heritably held and not subject to local stipend by virtue of ancient charters and possessory prescription.
Carnegie v. Turnbull	1796	Freeholder, Election contest, Aliment, Sequestration, Disposition, Freehold Qualification	Carnegie complained of his removal from the roll of freeholders, arguing that he had departed the meeting before being called to take the trust oath and that no formal intimation had been given. Turnbull answered that Carnegie had been struck off for evading the oath after warning, and further asserted that Carnegie had divested himself of all land in the county prior to appearing at Forfar to assert a vote, thereby denying his qualification.
Carnegy v. Gardyne	1796	Sasine, Charter, Register, Freeholder, Infeftment, Disposition	James Lindsay Carnegy petitioned to overturn the enrolment of Charles Gardyne as a freeholder at the Michaelmas head-court for Forfar, contending that the sasine of 1789 underlying Gardyne's claim proceeded upon an exhausted precept and that the claim failed to specify the register in which the sasine was recorded as required by statute. Gardyne answered that his claim satisfied the statute of the 16th of the late King and that the omission of the register specification was immaterial. Carnegy replied insisting upon the necessity of specifying the register, while Gardyne reiterated that his claim met all statutory requirements without such specification and had been properly accepted.
College of Glasgow v. Lindsay	1793	Succession, Disposition, Infeftment, Contract of marriage, Creditor, Aliment
Cowan v. M'Intosh and Others	1795	Adjudication, Interest, Disposition, Feu duties, Rent, Feu	Robert Cowan petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor that had dismissed his process against Mary and Katharine Gordon, the exposers of lands in Blythwoodholme. M'Intosh and others, as respondents, opposed the suspension by arguing that Cowan had breached the articles of roup by failing to grant bond for the purchase price and drawing rents without security.
Crawfords v. Russell, et al	1789	Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Debt, Arrestment, Disposition	Agnes and Margaret Crawfurds, as pursuers, argued that they were absolute fiars during their lives and that their children were heirs to the sums bequeathed in fee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cunynnghame v. Whitefood, et al	1797	Succession, Deed, Aliment, Disposition, Reduction, Minor	Lieutenant Colonel Francis Cunynghame pursued James Whitefoord and others, seeking to set aside a settlement executed by Whitefoord in 1792 while he was a minor. Cunynghame argued that the deed was void because a minor could not alter the succession to heritable estate established by the former proprietor, and further contended that the settlement lacked proper delivery. The litigation raised the question of whether a minor's deed could effectively convey or settle heritable property.
David and Henry Lillie v. Mrs. Lillie or Smith, and Others	1832	Succession, Debt, Creditor, Legacy, Disposition, Aliment	David and Henry Lillie pursued Mrs. Lillie or Smith and others to prove the tenor of a holograph letter written by Miss Margaret Seton that their sister Catherine Lillie had destroyed, asserting that the letter directed legacies to them. The defenders denied that the letter contained any such bequests in favor of the pursuers. The pursuers lodged a revised condescendence and note of pleas in law, the defenders answered, and the pursuers subsequently led proof regarding the contents of the destroyed letter.
David Wight v. William Inglis	1798	Succession, Aliment, Disposition, Debt, Heritor, Teinds	David Wight pursued William Inglis, Alexander Inglis, Elizabeth Inglis, Margaret Inglis, Marion Inglis, and James Hay to have them assoilzied from the burdens of the 1774 settlements. The defenders maintained that the provisions in those settlements were not payable to them as heirs of provision, and Wight subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor. The defenders answered, asserting a claim to 12,000 merks Scots legacy payable to their mothers' issue under the will of Andrew Simpson.
Dickie v. Lord Henderland's Interlocutor	1789	Reduction, Succession, Improbation, Feu duties, Disposition, Liferent	Patrick Dickie, eldest lawful son of William Dickie and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Lord Henderland. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Earl of Rednor v. Macarthur	1791	Succession, Disposition, Trust, Debt, Assignation, Adjudication	Archibald Macarthur Stewart, defender in the action by the Earl of Rednor, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edie, Laird, and Others v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor	1794	Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Disposition, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Teinds	Edie, Laird, and others challenged Lord Craig's interlocutor ranking creditors' claims on Kerse lands, contending that objections to Elizabeth Dickie, Janet Gray, and Elizabeth Weir were wrongly omitted and that representation was valid under the Act of Sederunt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edmonstone v. Morehead	1790	Freeholder, Disposition, Teinds, Charter, Sasine, Assignation	George Edmonstone, a minister, petitioned the Court to overturn the Stirlingshire freeholders' refusal to admit him to the electoral roll, while William Morehead of Herbertshire defended the decision by challenging Edmonstone's qualification. Edmonstone submitted replies and duplies addressing objections to his qualification, and his agent William Craig filed answers to Morehead's condescendence. The pleadings repeatedly referenced parallel litigation involving Edmonstone's brother Charles Edmonstone and another freeholder, Mr. Cheape.
Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier v. Trustees of General Simon Fraser	1791	Debt, Succession, Trustee, Entail, Disposition, Trust	Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier pursued the Trustees of General Simon Fraser for payment of a Crown-gifted debt, insisting that the trustees were bound to pay the specified heirs rather than apply the funds to the entailed estate. The trustees maintained that the Crown’s gift of the debt to Archibald Fraser could not be enforced against the entailed estate of Lovat. They subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the cause.
Erskine v. Erskine	1795	Succession, Creditor, Adjudication, Debt, Disposition, Prescription	The respondent Erskine argued that the marriage contract of 1738 constituted an onerous deed in favour of George Erskine that bound his heir to denude the lands. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Fotheringham and Hume v. Ogilvie and Others	1795	Succession, Debt, Aliment, Liferent, Disposition, Creditor	William Fotheringham and Hume pursued claims to the Balfour estate against Ogilvie and others, petitioning the Court in 1795 and again in 1797 to alter interlocutors respecting the succession. The respondents defended these interlocutors, maintaining that under a marriage contract the estate had vested in fee-simple in the second son, who predeceased his parents, thereby excluding the pursuers' claims as heirs. The litigation turned on whether the second son's fee-simple right to the Balfour estate took precedence over the pursuers' asserted rights in the Powrie succession.
Francis Fraser v. David Middleton	1793	Tack, Infeftment, Disposition, Succession, Liferent, Lease	David Middleton, defender, argued that a lease obtained under a valid personal grant from an apparent heir must be preferable to an infeftment void by reason of non habente potestatem. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Francis Pinkerton Drummond v. William Abernethy Drummond, &c	1792	Succession, Liferent, Prescription, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor	Francis Pinkerton Drummond, as pursuer, sought against William Abernethy Drummond and others the correction of a charter or infeftment to reflect the true succession under a 1722 marriage contract rather than heirs-male in general. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Helen Fergus or M'Leish, and Husband v. Isobel Fergus or Izat, and Husband	1830	Debt, Succession, Aliment, Trust, Disposition, Liferent	Helen Fergus or M'Leish and her husband John M'Leish pursued Isobel Fergus or Izat and her husband John Izat for exhibition of debts and payment from the estate of James Fergus. The defenders counterclaimed that prior payments they had made for M'Leish's debts exceeded the £300 legacy and half of the moveable estate due to them, leaving a balance of £60 1 3 owed by the pursuers. The pursuers maintained the validity of an 1814 settlement and denied allegations of preferential treatment, while the defenders subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor of the court.
Henry Pierce, and his Attorney v. David Limond	1791	Creditor, Adjudication, Disposition, Infeftment, Seisin, Ranking of Creditors	Henry Pierce and other creditors of Hugh Ross of Kerse contended against David Limond that their adjudication ranked as the first effectual by infeftment against the lands of Breckonhill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Henry v. Russell	1794	Succession, Entail, Disposition, Sasine, Tailzie, Teinds
Heritors of Kirkcudbright v. Birtwhistle	1790	Teinds, Adjudication, Disposition, Prescription, Heritor, Tack	The Heritors of Kirkcudbright sought to establish a scheme of locality for the lands of Balmae against William Birtwhistle, who claimed the teinds of those lands and objected to the proposed arrangement. They petitioned the Court to repel Birtwhistle's objection after Lord Monboddo pronounced an interlocutor adverse to their scheme, and Birtwhistle answered while maintaining his claim to the teinds. Birtwhistle later petitioned to alter the Court's subsequent interlocutor, and the Heritors, represented by the Earl of Selkirk, answered to resist his teind claim and defend the locality scheme.
Ilay Ferrier v. William Morehead	1789	Disposition, Infeftment, Freeholder, Liferent, Feu duties, Valuation	Ilay Ferrier, Esquire, Colonel of the late Scotch Brigade, petitioned the Court to overturn the freeholders' rejection of his claim to be enrolled as a freeholder of Stirlingshire, which William Morehead of Herbertshire opposed by alleging that Ferrier's liferent infeftment was nominal, fictitious, and subservient to Sir Archibald Edmonstone's political design. The parties exchanged replies, answers, and condescendences regarding the validity of the land descriptions, valuations, and the genuineness of the qualification, with Ferrier responding to claims of illusory price and interference in vassal arrangements. Ferrier subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, and Morehead answered maintaining that the superiorities were illusory and the enrollment improper.
J. J. Hope Vere v. Right Hon. Charles Hope and Others	1822	Succession, Entail, Tailzie, Prescription, Disposition, Sasine	James Joseph Hope Vere pursued an action of declarator against the Right Honourable Charles Hope and the other Heirs of Entail of Craigiehall regarding the succession to the estate and the effect of the tailzie of 1708. The pursuer contended that the lands were held free of entail fetters, while the defenders maintained that the 1733 marriage contract had not altered the destination of the original entail and asserted that Hope Vere was barred from reduction by contravention, forfeiture, prescription, and the tailzie's resolutive clause. Between 1823 and 1830 the parties exchanged successive defences, informations, and revised cases disputing the construction of the entail and the validity of the subsequent titles.
James Waddel v. John Brown	1794	Tack, Lease, Possession, Succession, Adjudication, Disposition	James Waddel pursued John Brown concerning a lease of burgage subjects, seeking to determine whether such a lease bound a singular successor under the Act of 1449 without regard to the purchaser's knowledge. Waddel, by his agent Robert Craigie, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and either grant decree in terms of the libel or ordain Brown to answer facts and produce correspondence. Brown responded by information, arguing that a lease of burgage subjects was binding against a singular successor under the 1449 Act regardless of whether the purchaser had notice of it.
John and Ursula Smith v. James Marshall	1779	Disposition	Upon the sale of Drongan to Mungo Smith in 1765, the children of the late John Smith and Ursula Hamilton had right to one eleventh of the price. Their uncles and tutors, Thomas Hamilton of Overtoun and John Hamilton of Dowan, lodged this sum in Virginia with their firm John Hamilton and Company. In 1775 this money was lost when the firm's assets were locked up, and the Smith siblings brought action against John Hamilton of Dowan; Archibald Hamilton, the son of the late Thomas Hamilton of Overtoun; and the children of the late John Marshall, for recovery of this sum. John Marshall had served as cautioner to the 1763 bond for Drongan granted by the Hamiltons to their pupils. He died in 1774, having conveyed the bulk of his subjects to his younger children, William and Jean, although his eldest son, James, held the general disposition. The action came before Lord Braxfield, who repelled James Marshall's defenses but then reported the case. In December of 1779 the Court ruled that James Marshall was liable to the pursuers for the debt, but only in proportion with the other onerous debts of his father. Upon receiving a petition and answers, the Court ruled again in July of 1780, adhering to their previous interlocutor.
John Gordon of Auchanachy v. Grizel Ogilvie	1757	Succession, Debt, Disposition, Infeftment, Prescription, Reduction	John Gordon of Auchanachy, pursuer, and his trustee Alexander Gordon of Whiteley, Advocate, challenged the title of Grizel, Katharine, and Anne Ogilvie, daughters of John Ogilvy, to the Estate of Balbegno, arguing that the defenders' claim founded on a 1713 obligation of their mother Elizabeth Middleton was voidable on grounds of prescription and res judicata. The defenders maintained that the pursuer was barred from reducing their infeftment by ratified obligations binding his parents and by forty years' prescription, while the pursuer contended that he was not subject to his father's debts and that a prior decreet-absolvitor against Lady Auchanachy did not bar the present action. The parties exchanged memorials and answers disputing the validity of a 1709 estate settlement, the production of evidence, and allegations of fraud and misconduct in the original disposition.
John Miller, &c. v. Mrs A. Moodie or Anderson	1829	Creditor, Disposition, Succession, Liferent, Adjudication, Interlocutor	John Miller, William Roy, and William Thomson raised an action against Mrs Amelia Moodie or Anderson to compel her to complete a valid title and grant discharge of a heritable bond previously assigned to her. The defender denied that she was bound to make up titles to her children's heirs for the discharge of the bond, and subsequently submitted a reclaiming note seeking recall of the interlocutor and her assoilziement. The litigation concluded when William Harley, tutor-at-law for John Anderson, minuted that the pupil had no interest in the bond and consented to the completion of title at the defender's expense.
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.
Lydia Douglas, and her Husband v. The Trustees of Sir Charles Douglas	1791	Succession, Aliment, Marriage, Trust, Disposition, Mala Fides	Lydia Mariana Douglas and her husband pursued the Trustees of Sir Charles Douglas, arguing that a condition in her father's will was void as capricious and unjust. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
MacEwan v Thompson	1793	Debt, Succession, Creditor, Trustee, Adjudication, Disposition
Mackay v. Houston	1795	Wadset, Charter, Seisin, Freeholder, Factor Loco Tutoris, Disposition	Æneas Mackay petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his inrolment as a freeholder of Sutherland, while Hugh Houston objected that Mackay had failed to specify whether he claimed as a wadsetter or absolute proprietor and that his titles were defective. Mackay replied that his claim fully complied with statutory requirements for inrolment, but Houston maintained that the titles remained insufficient and the specification of interest inadequate. The dispute turned on whether Mackay's property rights satisfied the legal prerequisites for freeholder status.
Marshall v. Taylor	1796	Bankruptcy, Trustee, Disposition, Creditor, Sequestration, Fraud	James Marshall, Writer to the Signet and trustee, challenged a preference claimed by Taylor and Smith over the proceeds of the lands of Dubhall and Auld's Acre from a bankrupt estate, asserting that the bankrupt held no valid title at the time of the bond. After the Court sustained the respondents' claim by interlocutor, Marshall petitioned to have that decision altered. The respondents opposed the petition as an irregular and belated reclaiming motion, arguing it was barred by acquiescence and prior litigation.
Miller v. Cathcart, et al	1798	Succession, Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Tack, Disposition
Miss Isabella Brown and Mandatary v. J. A. Cheyne and J. M'Kean	1830	Trustee, Ranking and Sale, Creditor, Disposition, Trust, Sasine	Miss Isabella Brown sued James Auchinleck Cheyne and John M'Kean for £500 and damages, alleging negligence in the defenders' purchase of Malta Terrace, Edinburgh on her behalf. The defenders answered, denying liability for the alleged negligence in the transaction. The litigation proceeded with reclaiming notes filed by both parties regarding interlocutory orders, including an argument by the defenders that Brown lacked title to maintain the action or to seek relief against their interlocutor.
Montgomery v. Fowlis	1794	Succession, Deed, Debt, Prescription, Disposition, Creditor	Montgomery, as pursuer, asserted that his adjudging creditor titles to the lands of Warrix and others were valid and complete while those of the defenders Fowlis were void. The defenders countered that a deed of tailzie executed in 1729, though not formally delivered, had been homologated by Janet Simpson's acceptance of a debt from the estate and thus constituted a valid title. Robert Barclay subsequently petitioned the Court for permission to present further argument against the defenders' claims based on an adjudication of heir rights under a disposition dated 1722.
Mrs Jean Hall v. Creditors of Robert Hall	1784	Ranking and Sale, Disposition	This case was about the ranking and sale of the estate of the late Robert Hall of Fulbar. Many years prior to the ranking, Robert agreed to pay his sister, Jean Hall, 2000 merks if she married with the consent of certain family members. The agreement provided that if Jean married without consent, or if she died without marrying, the 2000 merks would devolve to Robert. Robert subsequently granted Jean a bond of corroboration, which omitted the provision regarding Jean’s death before marriage. Later, Jean granted a disposition of the 2000 merks to her nieces and nephews, including the petitioner, Miss Jean Hall. When the ranking and sale commenced, Miss Jean sought to be ranked on the contract, bond, and disposition, but other creditors objected that that the elder Jean Hall had died unmarried. Miss Jean Hall argued that the marriage condition was unjust, that the bond of corroboration should take precedence over the contract, and that the elder Jean held a property right entitling her to dispose of the money.
Mrs. Henderson's Trustees v. J. Tulloch and D. Ross	1832	Succession, Disposition, Trustee, Assignation, Heritor, Aliment