Legal Subject: Irritancy and Removing

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Earl of Galloway v. McHutchon, Selkrig & Others 27 Jul 1803 Landlord and tenant, Lease, Secluding Assignes and Subtenants, Irritancy and Removing A lease was granted to tenant and his heirs, secluding assignees and subtenants, for 21 years. The tenant died two years thereafter in considerable debt; and the question was, Whether certain transactions gone into with the heir, by which the latter entered into possession cum benefico inventarii, giving the creditors the benefit thereof, was not a covered assignation, and the tenant had thereby incurred an irritancy of the lease? The heir, pending the action, entered into an agreement with the creditors, whereby the latter discharged there claims, and transferred the stock for a certain sum; Went to the House of Lords; Held that there was no ground for removal, and the defenders assoilized (Freed from guilt). Affirmed in the House of Lords.
Reid v. Cunninghame 1784 Irritancy and Removing The suspender, James Reid, rented the lands of Lethem from Thomas Sharp of Houston. Reid’s “tack,” a type of lease, contained a clause that would nullify the agreement if he fell behind on his rent. Reid did fall behind, and Lethem’s new owner, Sir William Cunynghame, initiated a process to have him removed from the land. When Reid failed to appear in court, a decree of removing was entered in his absence. However, Reid sought a suspension of the decree, arguing that several factors militated against his being removed. First, Reid alleged that he did not receive a proper citation; instead, a short copy of the citation had been left in an out-building on his farm. Second, Reid claimed that his son, John, attempted to deliver the rent to Sir William’s agents while the process was pending, but the agents did not accept it until more than a week had passed. Finally, Reid claimed that the parties typically used a different payment schedule than the one specified in the tack. Thus, according to Reid, he was justified in believing that he owed less rent than Sir William alleged. Arguing that the equities weighed in his favor, Reid sought the opportunity to pay his rent—thereby “purging the irritancy”—and remain in possession of the land.