AI-transcribed

Landowner.

Definition source
AI-generated
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
Mrs. Henderson's Trustees v. J. Tulloch and D. Ross 1832 Succession, Disposition, Trustee, Assignation, Heritor, Aliment
Mrs. Weatherstone and Others v. Marquis of Tweedale and Others 1813 Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Reduction, Heritor, Interlocutor Mrs. Weatherstone and others, as reclaimers, sought relief for over-payments made in the process of locality of the Parish of Channelkirk against the Marquis of Tweedale and others, as respondents. The respondents contended that the claimants were barred from recovering such over-payments unless they could prove the payments had been made by themselves or their direct predecessors. They further argued that the Teind-clerk's accounting practices for heritors lacked fixed principles and that equitable considerations must be applied to the claim.
Nisbet, et al v. The kirk-session of West-kirk 1773 Election contest, Heritor, Session-Clerk, Election, Salmon Fishing, Succession Sir John Nisbet and other heritors petitioned the Court against the kirk-session of West-kirk (St Cuthberts) for unilaterally electing a schoolmaster-clerk to serve as session-clerk and precentor without heritor consent. The kirk-session answered, admitting that it possessed no right to elect these parish officers without the consent of the heritors.
Officers of State v. Skene 1796 Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Heritor, Stipend, Charter The Officers of State pursued Messrs Skene and Elmslie regarding the tithes of Daviot parish, contending that the teinds belonged to the Bishop of Aberdeen as a mensal church rather than to the minister as parsonage, and asserting the Crown's right to allocate augmentation ultimo loco. The defenders maintained that the teinds of their lands were payable to the minister of Daviot as parsonage teinds, rejecting the claim that the church was mensal to the bishop. The parties exchanged memorials presenting these opposing arguments on the destination of the teinds and the Crown's consequent augmentation rights.
Ogilvie v. Scott 1792 Teinds, Patronage, Charter, Heritor, Debt, Parish
Ramsay v. Moray, et al 1794 Heritor, Succession, Glebe, Valuation, Thirlage, Inhibition John Clerk petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor against the heritors of his parish, which suspended his right to dig and sell marl from his glebe. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ramsay, et al v. Smith 1798 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Aliment, Interlocutor John Ramsay, Alexander Anderson, John Niven, and Andrew Simpson, heritors of the parish of Bourtie, presented a second reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The Reverend William Smith answered the petition, and subsequently lodged duplies in which he also asked the Court to alter the interlocutor. The parties thus submitted successive pleadings regarding the alteration of the interlocutor.
Rev. Peter Brydie v. James Johnstone and Others 1832 Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Feu duties, Process, Heritor The Reverend Peter Brydie pursued James Johnstone, Alexander Drysdale, Adam Drysdale, Thomas Drysdale, David Drysdale, and John Reid regarding the surrender of teinds for the stipend of the United Parishes of Fossaway and Tullibole. The defenders, represented by Robert Wilson, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Fullerton.
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 Ramsay Irvine v. The Honourable William Maule 1794 Teinds, Heritor, Valuation, Statute, Act of Parliament, Charter
Skene v. Hogg 1796 Valuation, Teinds, Heritor, Rent, Augmentation, Stipend Skene, as pursuer, argued that the Court of Session lacked authority to lay victual augmentation upon teinds or to modify victual to a minister where the teinds had been valued in money. He submitted successive memorials contending that the commutation to a fixed monetary payment precluded any subsequent augmentation or modification in grain.
Skirving and Young v. Vernor 1796 Tack, Lease, Rent, Teinds, Interlocutor, Heritor Skirving and Young, as tenants of Monktonhall lands under the Earl of Wemyss, claimed a proportional share of the church seats in Inveresk parish against Vernor, who asserted that his title to the aisle derived from a direct and express missive of 1763. The pursuers sought to compel a division of the seats, while the defender argued that they possessed no legal right to enforce such a partition. The case turned on whether tenants could claim proportional seating against an express title and compel division of the church accommodation.
Stewarts v. Scott 1794 Teinds, Charter, Patronage, Heritor, Stipend, Tack Miss Bien and Isabella Stewarts of Barnhills pursued an action against Scott regarding bygone teinds in the parish of Ancrum. They petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Henderland Ordinary on the matter. Scott defended his title by memorial, maintaining that his charters conveyed an heritable right to the teinds rather than mere patronage.
Storie v. Burn 1795 Arrestment, Debt, Aliment, Stipend, Creditor, Heritor Andrew Storie, as factor for the representatives of James Aitken, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Monboddo regarding whether creditors could attach a minister’s stipend. The respondent maintained that the stipend was alimentary in nature and therefore immune from attachment.
The Earl of Home, and other Heritors of the Parish of Eccles v. The Earl of Marchmont, &c 1777 Valuation, Seat in a Church, Heritor In 1774, the parish kirk of Eccles was rebuilt and the heritors of the parish disagreed over the division of the seating areas of the church. In short, the Earl of Marchmont and others argued that the seats should be allocated to both heritor and their tenants at once, with order of preference given to those heritors with the highest valuation. On the other hand, the Earl of Home and others argued that such a procedure would force the lower-value heritors to be placed "in the inferior seats of the church ; that is, either in the back-galleries, or in the long seats below, under the galleries ; and thus give place, not only to the meanest tenant, but to the cottars and tenants servants on the lands of the six heritors of highest valuation ; a thing in itself altogether unreasonable and indecent . . ." Rather, they argued that the seats of heritors and their tenants should be allocated separately, in order to prevent the mingling of the classes. The case was brought before the Sheriff of Berwick, who found "that each heritor's share must be allocated and set apart by itself." Lord Gardenstone remitted the cause without qualification, and the Court adhered to Gardenstone's interlocutor, with some extra provisions.
The Heritors of Portmoak v. Mrs Anne Jean Douglas. 1795 Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Lease, Heritor, Patronage Mrs Anne Jean Douglas defended her teinds’ exemption from ministerial allocation against The Heritors of Portmoak, citing her lease from St Andrew's College and equitable precedent. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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 Minister of the Parish of Falkland v. David Johnston and Others 1792 Teinds, Contract, Heritor, Glebe, Presbytery, Manse The Minister of the Parish of Falkland, represented by the Reverend Mr Andrew Brown, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor regarding a manse-glebe exchange originally concluded in 1650. David Johnston, Captain Mungo Law, and their co-defenders answered, resisting the petition and maintaining the validity of the exchange, which had been upheld for more than a century.
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 Cranstoun, Common Agent in the Locality of Peebles v. Miss Elliot and Others 1799 Teinds, Heritor, Representation, Stipend, Augmentation, Glebe Thomas Cranstoun, as Common Agent in the Locality of Peebles, pursued Miss Elliot and others regarding the liability of lands known as the Vicar's Glebe to pay teind. He petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor by Lord Dunsinnan, and subsequently sought to overturn an Inner-House interlocutor that had upheld an exemption from teind for the lands.
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.