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.
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Murdoch v. Lord Rockville's Interlocutor | 1791 | Reduction, Disposition, Insanity, Verdict, Interlocutor, Infeftment | William Murdoch petitioned the Court to alter Lord Rockville's interlocutor, which required him to extract proceedings from Cupar in an action of reduction. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Neilson, et al v. Sinclairs | 1786 | Feu duties, Teinds, Wadset, Reversion, Disposition, Intromission | George Neilson, Benjamin Sinclair, and other creditors of Robert Manson-Sinclair of Bridge-end pursued Mrs Henrietta Sinclair, Janet Sinclair, and their husbands regarding debts owed by the debtor, petitioning the Court to alter Lord Ankerville's interlocutor of 9 August 1786. The defenders answered the petition, responding to the creditors' claims against Robert Manson-Sinclair. |
| Ogilvie v. Mercer | 1793 | Succession, Deed, Reduction, Disposition, Entail, Tailzie | Sir John Ogilvy of Invercarity, Hope Stewart of Ballechin, and Miss Margaret Mercer Elphinstone challenged the validity of a deed of entail executed by Robert Mercer on 22 February 1791, arguing that it was void as a death‑bed settlement. Katharine Mercer subsequently petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor pronounced in the case. |
| Playfair v. Riddell and Riddell 1 of 2 | 1793 | Possession, Bargain, Sale, Rent, Locus Poenitentiae, Disposition | William Robertson petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Messrs Riddell and Mr Davidson. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Proctor v. Carnegy | 1796 | Disposition, Sasine, Charter, Infeftment, Assignation, Seisin | Patrick Proctor pursued an action against Sir David Carnegie to establish the validity of a sasine, maintaining that the seisin was legally complete without a commission from Lord Strathmore and that the freeholders and Court had improperly rejected his inrolment. Carnegie defended by contending that the commission was an essential part of the title which Proctor had failed to produce to the freeholders, rendering the seisin null. The parties exchanged informations and memorials debating the necessity of the commission and the legal effect of the sasine. |
| Purdie v. Tod | 1789 | Succession, Debt, Tack, Lease, Rent, Disposition | Thomas Purdie, clerk to the Charity Work-house of Edinburgh, pursued claims of heritable interest in a tan-work against Thomas Tod, merchant in Edinburgh, and Tod answered the petition. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Representatives of Laurie v. Bell | 1797 | Disposition, Succession, Sasine, Tack, Aliment, Heir | The Representatives of Laurie, as suspender and holder of a four-fifths interest, sought suspension of a sale against Bell on the ground of a title defect affecting the share of the pupil Gilbert Laurie Finlay, son of the deceased Jean Laurie. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Robert Henry v. William Watt and Others | 1831 | Succession, Disposition, Entail, Liferent, Teinds, Jus Crediti | Robert Henry pursued a claim to the Woodend estate against William Watt and others, who defended by asserting that the entail’s conditions protected the heirs of Robert Watt rather than the Crown and that Henry could not enforce the restrictions against them. The defenders subsequently lodged a reclaiming note requesting that the Court alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Corehouse. |
| Robson v. Robson | 1793 | Succession, Disposition, Sasine, Aliment, Heir, Adjudication | George Robson petitioned the Court to overturn Lord Ankerville's interlocutor concerning their father's settlement, which had favored George over his elder brother James. James Robson answered, asserting that the father had exercised a reserved power to alter the settlement by granting an acre in Jedburgh to James as heir at law. George replied, contending that James was not entitled to the acre because the term "heir" in the settlement referred to the legal heir rather than the heir of investiture. |
| Shanks v. Kirk-Session of Creditors | 1796 | Succession, Liferent, Disposition, Infeftment, Terce, Seisin | Margaret Shanks pursued the Kirk-Session of Creditors to establish her right to terce in lands which she claimed her late husband Thomas Howie had held in fee by precept of sasine and infeftment at his death. The defenders maintained that the fee had been vested in Thomas's father John Howie rather than in Thomas himself, and accordingly sought to be assoilzied from Shanks's claim. |
| Sinclair & Pringle v. Smith, et al | 1797 | Debt, Succession, Aliment, Executor, Disposition, Heritor | Sir John Sinclair of Ulster and Alexander Pringle pursued Fraser Smith, Christian and Jacobina Smith, Peter Sinclair, and George Brock for proportional relief from annuity payments secured upon the pursuers' heritable subjects. The defenders, claiming status as legatees under Captain Allan's 1764 deed, argued that they were not liable for the annuity payments, while the pursuers maintained that the defenders were bound to relieve them proportionally from that burden. |
| Sir Alexander Mackenzie of Gairloch v. Hector Mackenzie and His Tutor | 1768 | Debt, Factor, Assignation, Executor, Reduction, Disposition | |
| Sir John Ogilvie of Inverquharity v. Sir David Carnegie of Southesk | 1795 | Valuation, Charter, Disposition, Commissioners of Supply, Proof, Succession | Sir John Ogilvie of Inverquharity pursued Sir David Carnegie of Southesk and other freeholders regarding their refusal to inroll him on the roll of freeholders for the county of Forfar in respect of the lands of Baldovan. The dispute centered on whether Ogilvie had sufficiently established the lands' valuation at £386:5:8 Scots through cess-book entries and receipts to qualify for the roll, or whether the freeholders had properly rejected his proof as insufficient. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies debating the adequacy of the valuation evidence and the applicability of precedents. |
| Stewart v. Hoome | 1789 | Succession, Debt, Tailzie, Disposition, Entail, Adjudication | Charles Stewart of Annapolis in Maryland, Esquire, and David Stewart his brother and attorney, as pursuers, argued against Hoome that the defender's father lacked power to alter the entail succession by marriage settlement. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Stewart V. Ireland | 1796 | Conveyance, Disposition, Mandate, Diligence, Freeholder, Election contest | Charles Stewart petitioned to overturn the freeholders' refusal to enroll him on the roll of freeholders, resting his claim upon titles and a valuation certificate, and William Ireland answered that the qualification was nominal and fictitious and that no mandate had been produced. The parties exchanged replies and duplies disputing the validity of the claim and seeking commission to recover material writings, after which Ireland petitioned against an Inner-House interlocutor that had found the freeholders erred in refusing admission. Stewart subsequently moved the court to apply a recent judgment of the House of Peers and to modify the account of expenses. |
| Stewart, et al v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor | 1789 | Arrestment, Sequestration, Debt, Assignation, Creditor, Disposition | Stewart and others petitioned the Court to alter Lord Swinton’s interlocutor regarding the arrestment of goods held in trust for creditors. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| T. Mansfield (Stuart's Trustee) v. Walker's Trustees | 1830 | Sequestration, Bankruptcy, Trustee, Creditor, Sasine, Disposition | Thomas Mansfield, as trustee upon the sequestrated estate of James Stuart, raised a summons of reduction against John Sutherland Sinclair and subsequently against Josiah Walker and the representatives of Professor Walker, contesting the defenders' assertion of a right to preference over the general body of creditors. The process was advanced to the record, after which Mansfield submitted a revised case maintaining that the defenders' claim to priority in the bankrupt estate was unfounded. |
| The Earl of Fife v. Mrs Martha M'Kenzie and Elizabeth Fraser | 1795 | Succession, Aliment, Disposition, Debt, Executor, Creditor | The Earl of Fife pursued Mrs Martha M'Kenzie and Elizabeth Fraser, as executors of the deceased Alexander Udny of Udny, to enforce postnuptial settlements executed in 1769 whereby the Earl claimed succession to Mrs Udny's heritable estates, moveable goods, and annuities. The defenders challenged the validity of the deeds and claimed the estate's rents and assets. Following an interlocutor issued in May 1795, both parties petitioned the Court to alter that determination. |
| The Marchioness of Titchfield and her Husband, for his interest v. Alexander Penrose Cuming | 1797 | Succession, Debt, Liferent, Entail, Heritor, Disposition | The Marchioness of Titchfield and her husband, for his interest, pursued Alexander Penrose Cuming, who defended on the plea of res judicata. The pursuers petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor sustaining this defence, and Cuming answered. They then presented a second petition asking the Court to overturn the interlocutor regarding the res judicata plea, to which Cuming also answered. |
| The Trustees of the late Robert Vans Agnew v. Mrs Frances Dunlop or Agnew & Others | 1832 | Debt, Succession, Disposition, Expenses, Assignation, Legacy | The Trustees of the late Robert Vans Agnew maintained the validity of a disposition dated 1808 against Mrs Frances Dunlop or Agnew and others, lodging an additional appendix to their reclaiming note that asserted the deed remained binding upon the defenders. The Earl of Galloway and J. A. S. M'Kenzie subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Fullerton, petitioning the Court to alter that determination. |
| The Younger Children of Lauchlan Mactavish v. His Creditors | 1787 | Succession, Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Disposition, Heritor | The younger children of Lauchlan Mactavish pursued his creditors regarding provisions settled upon them under a marriage contract. The creditors defended by seeking equal creditor rank for Margaret, Lauchlan, and the children under the contract provisions contingent upon the father’s lifetime events, while also arguing that such provisions were not exigible during his lifetime and therefore did not compete against the creditors’ onerous debts. |
| Thomas Thorburn v. Thomas Ranken | 1832 | Debt, Creditor, Trustee, Ranking and Sale, Disposition, Interest | |
| Thomson &c v. St. Clair Erskine | 1794 | Debt, Succession, Entail, Disposition, Aliment, Heritor | Thomson and others, as petitioners, sought alteration of an interlocutor that had ordered them to pay Lady Erskine's annuity from Whitsunday 1791. Sir James St Clair Erskine, as defender, argued that the bond of annuity granted by General St Clair constituted his personal debt rather than that of Mr Thomson, general disponee of the late Colonel St Clair. The question was whether liability for the annuity fell upon Colonel St Clair's estate or upon Sir James as successor to the grantor's obligation. |
| Trustees of Archibald Chessels v. Messrs Hervey and Fawell | 1791 | Succession, Debt, Arrestment, Aliment, Creditor, Disposition | The Trustees of Archibald Chessels raised an action against Messrs Hervey and Fawell to contest the validity of an arrestment laid upon excise rents held by the Commissioners. The defenders had sought to recover a debt through the arrestment based on a |
