AI-transcribed

An action for "reducing," i.e., cancelling a deed, or will, or setting aside a decree of a Court. In a "reduction improbation" the deed, &c., is set aside if not produced, as fully as if produced and proved invalid.

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
Mackay and Fullerton v. Dalrymples et al 1795 Succession, Possession, Reduction, Entail, Prescription, Sequestration Mrs Marianne Mackay, subsequently the Honourable Mrs Hamilton Fullarton, and her husband Colonel William Fullarton pursued Sir Hew Hamilton Dalrymple and other representatives of the Dalrymple family regarding succession to the estate of Bargeny, asserting rights as nearest substitutes under a 1688 marriage contract and entail which provided for female-line succession, while the defenders claimed title under a 1742 charter and seisin. The litigation involved petitions for sequestration of the estate, disputes over the custody of title-deeds and the removal of seals from estate repositories, and exchanges regarding the pursuers' standing to displace the defenders as heirs-apparent, the validity of a plea of minority, and allegations of contravention of irritant clauses. The pursuers sought to compel production of writings relied upon by the defenders and to conjoin reduction and declarator processes to ascertain their position under the entail, while the defenders maintained their lawful possession and disputed the pursuers' entitlement to the succession.
Mackenzie v. Mackenzie 1797 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Executor, Factor, Reduction Sir Hector Mackenzie of Gairloch, Baronet, pursued Alexander Kenneth Mackenzie regarding a conveyance of provision, which Alexander Kenneth defended as void for lack of requisite curator consent. Both parties successively petitioned the Court to alter interlocutors entered against them, with Sir Hector insisting that payment by his factor Norman Mackenzie was valid and not reducible. The dispute thus turned on whether the conveyance was effective without curator approval and whether the factor’s payment could stand.
MacLaggan v. Heritors of Melrose 1780 Aliment, Heritor, Reduction, Glebe, Suspension, Interlocutor Digitization in Progress
Marquis of Lorne, et al v. Denny, et al 1796 Election contest, Interlocutor, Election, Reduction, Burgess, Appeal The Marquis of Lorne and others pursued John Denny and others regarding the Michaelmas 1796 burgh election in Dumbarton, seeking to overturn the minutes that recorded John Dixon’s vote as valid and asserting a majority victory despite the contested proxy. The defenders answered that the pursuers’ voters lacked burgess qualification, and subsequently argued that Provost Lorne possessed no voting right and that key electors were not burgesses, ultimately demanding a poll election.
McNish v. Scougal and Ogilvy 1787 Witness, Deed, Reduction, Cautioner, Improbation, Act of Parliament John M'Nish pursued the reduction of a bond of caution he had granted to Messrs Scougal and Ogilvy, merchants in Leith, contending that the deed was void for lack of witnesses to his subscription and because he had not acknowledged his signature at the time of execution. Scougal and Ogilvy argued that the bond remained valid despite M'Nish's denial and the absence of attesting witnesses. The parties filed opposing informations regarding the formal validity of the instrument.
Monro v. Sutherlands and Sutherland 1793 Debt, Creditor, Reduction, Rent, Aliment, Sequestration William Ross Monro pursued an action against the heirs of John Sutherland and Ann Ross regarding debts Monro had owed to his uncle. William Ross of Aldie submitted a memorial arguing that the Court should not revive the tenor of unproduced obligations without proof of a special casus amissionis. The respondents challenged a decree in the suit, maintaining that prescription and a prior settlement barred the claim.
Mrs A. V. S. T. Anderson v. John Anderson 1827 Reduction, Tailzie, Entail, Succession, Aliment, Expenses Mrs A. V. S. T. Anderson, pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Moncreiff in her action against John Anderson, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mrs. Elizabeth Ralston, or Allison v. Joseph Rowat 1831 Reduction, Deathbed Mrs. Elizabeth Allison or Ralston, as pursuer, raised issues against John Rowat, as defender, concerning the validity of a deed of settlement dated August 19, 1829. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Murdoch v. Lord Dunsinnan's Interlocutor 1787 Decreet-Arbitral, Arbitration, Reduction, Interlocutor, Intromission, Suspension Elizabeth Murdoch, Alexander Smith, Jean Murdoch, and Christian Murdoch petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dunsinnan's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Myles v. Lyall 1797 Reduction, Debt, Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Interlocutor, Creditor Alexander Lyall, as cautioner, sought relief from liability against Myles under a bond limited to the Admiral’s decree, contending that the obligation did not extend to a later Court of Session reduction. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Nasmith v. Magistrates of Glasgow 1774 Arbitration, Contract, Reduction, Decreet-Arbitral, Arrestment, Cautioner David Nasmith, a mason, entered into a contract with the city of Glasgow in which he agreed to construct a quay along the river Clyde. The city subsequently raised concerns about Nasmith’s work on the quay, and the parties entered into arbitration. The arbiters found that Nasmith had been overpaid for his work and directed him to refund a portion of his fee to the city. Arthur Robertson, the Chamberlain of Glasgow, gave Nasmith a charge based on the arbiters’ decree, but Nasmith sought to have the charge suspended. He argued that the arbiters were prejudiced against him because he underbid Glasgow’s other masons to secure the contract in question.
Nasmith v. the Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow 1777 Arbitration, Contract, Reduction, Decreet-Arbitral, Arrestment, Evidence David Nasmith, a mason, entered into a contract with the city of Glasgow in which he agreed to construct a quay along the river Clyde. The city subsequently raised concerns about Nasmith’s work on the quay, and the parties entered into arbitration. The arbiters found that Nasmith had been overpaid for his work and directed him to refund a portion of his fee to the city. Nasmith challenged the arbiters’ decree in court. He initially argued that the arbiters were prejudiced against him because he had underbid Glasgow’s other masons to secure the contract in question. After that argument was rejected, the parties continued to dispute the proper method of measuring the work in question.
Nicol v. Meason 1765 Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Reduction, Horning, Creditor Euphan Nicol petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor that had reduced an indorsation granted to her by James Fechney under the Act of 1621. Gilbert Meason, a Leith merchant, replied, maintaining that the indorsation was valid under the statute.
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.
Oliver Melvil v. Mr Robert Arnot, Minister at Ceres 1782 Debt, Homologation, Reduction, Bill of Exchange, Legacy, Disposition While still a minor, acting jointly with his father, pursuer Oliver Melvil granted two bills to defender Robert Arnot. Shortly after reaching the age of majority, Oliver subscribed an account statement between his father and Robert Arnot, which included the bills. Oliver subsequently raised an action to reduce the bills on the ground that he granted them during his minority. Arnot responded that Oliver had ratified the bills by subscribing the account statement.
Rankine and Son v. Belch 1790 Creditor, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Forgery, Reduction, Promissory note Defender Peter Belch argued that the indorsement by Rankine and Son was genuine and that he held no material interest in the matter, as he would recover value from David Mitchell, who had received full value. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Remington, Crawford, and Company, and Others v. Mrs. and Miss Bruce and Sir Michael Bruce and Others 1824 Debt, Creditor, Succession, Reduction, Aliment, Expenses Remington, Crawford, and Company and other creditors pursued Mrs. Bruce, Miss Bruce, and Sir Michael Bruce to reduce an 1819 land disposition favoring the heirs, alleging it created unlawful preferences prejudicial to onerous debts. The defenders initially asserted that gratuitous provisions must be postponed to onerous creditors while seeking assoilziment, later maintaining that their securities derived from the free residue of the estate and were irreducible. The pursuers sought reduction of the mortis causa provisions while conceding the debtor's solvency, and argued that as onerous creditors they were entitled to preference over the gratuitous legatees.
Richard Thomson v. Messrs Douglas, Heron, and Company 1785 Debt, Trust, Sequestration, Fraud, Reduction, Security Richard Thomson of Crowdieknowes transferred his lands to David Armstrong of Kirtleton "heritably and irredeemably," with the qualification that such lands should be sold for Thomson's benefit. Armstrong obtained a charter for the lands without recording the qualification. Armstrong subsequently conveyed the lands to Douglas, Heron, and Company to secure his own debt, and other creditors of Armstrong adjudged the lands. Thomson then initiated a court action to void Armstrong's right to the lands on the ground of fraud. Armstrong's creditors, including Douglas, Heron, and Company, appeared in the suit to defend their interest. Thomson argued that Armstrong held the lands in trust and therefore lacked the power to act as proprietor. In response, the creditors argued that they were entitled to rely on the relevant land records.
Riddell v. Grosset 1791 Tack, Reduction, Rent, Agent, Aliment, Damages Sir James Riddell petitioned the Court of Session to apply the judgment of the House of Lords reversing the interlocutor that assoilzied him from the process of reduction against Grosset. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robert Fall v. Robert Louthean and Others 1791 Aliment, Jurisdiction, Election contest, Inhibition, Reduction, Voting rights Robert Fall pursued Robert Louthean and others, complaining that the Town Council of Kilrenny had illegally deprived him of his office as councillor and elected others in his absence. Sir John Anstruther argued that the competency of the action was the sole point before the Court, as directed by Lord Eskgrove.
Robertson and Husband v. Holland 1775 Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Promissory note, Reduction, Security Martha Robertson, petitioner, sought payment on a bill from William Holland, respondent; at the same time, Archibald Ochiltree sought payment from Holland on a promissory note that was payable to Robertson but had been indorsed to Ochiltree. Robertson and Holland offered differing accounts of the facts surrounding the bill and promissory note. According to Robertson, Holland voluntarily granted the instruments on behalf of a friend, Charles Bolingbroke, who fled the country without paying his debts to Robertson. However, according to Holland, Robertson solicited the instruments so that she could show them to her creditors, without any intention that they would actually be paid. In Holland’s telling, a receipt signed by Robertson was intended to secure him against any demand for payment. In addition to disputing the facts, Robertson presented legal arguments against the receipt’s validity, which related to her status as a married woman. Holland argued that the bills were invalid because Robertson had paid no value for them. A number of depositions are included in the case documents.
Scrimgeour and Son v. Alexander and Sons 1772 Adjudication, Affreightment, Interlocutor, Oath, Reduction, Interest Documents available. Rich description in progress.
Scrimgeour and Son v. Alexander and Sons 1769 Contract, Affreightment, Ships, Interlocutor, Proof, Reduction In March 1765, Edinburgh merchants Alexander & Sons contracted with the Borrowstounness merchant house of James Scrimgeour & Son to freight the ship the Duke of Athol for a voyage to Grenada—after considering a trip to Maryland or Virginia—with a cargo of herring, staves, and green linens. Due to a variety of accidents, the ship did not make it to Grenada until after the end of sugar season. Having no sugar to collect and bring back to Scotland, the agent at Grenada for Alexander & Sons convinced the ship’s captain to sail for (North) Carolina. Within days of the ship’s arrival in Wilmington, protests broke out over the Stamp Act, delaying the ship’s loading and departure for months. When the Duke of Athol finally returned to Leith, Alexander & Sons brought a legal dispute against James Scrimgeour & Son over the respective financial obligations of the parties due to the ship's delay.
Shiells v. Bayne 1788 Adjudication, Sasine, Interlocutor, Diligence, Exhibition, Reduction John Shiells, Helen Waldie Carrier, and James Breaden, as pursuers, presented a reclaiming petition against an interlocutor issued by Lord Dunfinnan in their action against Bayne, the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Shiells v. Lord Duncan's Interlocutor 1788 Suspension, Reduction, Citation, Interlocutor, Caution, Exhibition Shiells, as petitioners, challenged Lord Dunfinnan’s interlocutor, arguing that a suspender could proceed as pursuer without awaiting the charger’s mora and that a late protestation could not invalidate prior steps. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Simpson v. Morison, and Glass and Son 1786 Debt, Creditor, Reduction, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Aliment Elisabeth Simpson, spouse of James Davidson, petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor of Lord Alva that had allowed the reduction of her husband's land disposition. William Morison, late maltman in Stirling, and John Glass and Son, merchants there and Morison's assignees, answered the petition on behalf of themselves and Davidson for his interest.
Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet v. Peter Spiers 1790 Valuation, Oath, Reduction, Commissioners of Supply, Feu duties, Disposition Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet, as pursuer, sought admission to the roll of freeholders, while Peter Spiers of Culcroich, Esquire, as defender, argued in his duplies that the freeholders had rightly refused to admit him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Sir Alexander Mackenzie of Gairloch v. Hector Mackenzie and His Tutor 1768 Debt, Factor, Assignation, Executor, Reduction, Disposition
Sir Andrew Lauder v. Helen Adam-Lauder 1765 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Marriage, Reduction, Creditor Defender Helen Adam-Lauder submitted an Information arguing that, as the widow of suspender Sir Andrew Lauder's son, she was entitled to aliment from him under natural law and precedent. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Stewart v. Anderson 1792 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Reduction, Creditor David Anderson, merchant in Kirkaldy, petitioned to reduce a decree pronounced in an action of forthcoming. Martha Stewart answered, contending that Anderson had not been made a party to the original action and that the decree should not be reduced. Anderson subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
Stewart v. Magistrates and Town Council of St. Andrews 1792 Election contest, Suspension, Reduction, Interdict, Election, Interlocutor Robert Stewart, claiming to be the duly elected Deacon of the Incorporation of Wrights in St Andrews, petitioned the Court to set aside the election of John Edie and declare his own title valid, alleging that Edie’s election was voided by a court interdict and insufficient legal votes. The Magistrates and Town Council of St Andrews defended Edie’s election as lawful and accused Stewart of unlawful usurpation of the office. The litigation proceeded through successive petitions and answers, with Stewart additionally moving the Court to alter interlocutors regarding expenses and other procedural orders.
Susanna Vere v. The Earl of Hyndford, and Others 1791 Deed, Reduction, Aliment, Succession, Arbitration, Adjudication Susanna Vere pursued the Earl of Hyndford, John Hamilton of Westburn, William Porteous of Carmacoup, John Bannatyne of Castlebank, and Robert Bell regarding the authority to control the proceedings of tutors, and the defenders argued that Vere possessed no power to impose a negative upon such proceedings. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Thomas Buchanan v. John Adam 1775 Debt, Succession, Possession, Infeftment, Annual Rent, Reduction This case was about a “wadset,” an arrangement in which a debtor conveyed property to a creditor as security for a debt. The facts of the case were somewhat unusual in that the same debt was secured partly by a wadset and partly by an annual-rent. Interest rates had dropped considerably since the wadset was established in 1615; Pursuer Thomas Buchanan argued that in light of this changed circumstance, the annual-rent represented a full security, and the wadset should be considered “improper.” (The parties' immediate predecessors are listed on this case page; more detailed chains of title are described in the case documents.)
Thomson v. Paterson 1781 Debt, Witness, Execution, Inhibition, Reduction, Creditor Thomson challenged the validity of an inhibition execution by Paterson, arguing that the execution's failure to state that witnesses were present at the time of execution rendered it void. Adam Ogilvie subsequently presented information advancing similar arguments that the respondent's inhibition execution lacked legal validity due to the absence of witness attestation to their presence. The dispute turned on whether this procedural defect invalidated the inhibition.
Thomsons v. Campbell 1789 Sequestration, Bill of Exchange, Reduction, Multiple-Poinding, Interdict, Arrestment Andrew, George, and Andrew Thomsons petitioned the Court to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Neil Campbell of Inverliver answered, arguing that the petitioners had misstated the grounds of suspension and the nature of his plea.
Viscount of Arbuthnott v. Gilles 1793 Reduction, Aliment, Proof, Tack, Debt, Lease John, Viscount of Arbuthnott pursued Colin Gillies regarding leases granted by the late Viscount, alleging that the deceased had lacked capacity and acted under Gillies’ undue influence when granting long leases of his estates. The defender maintained the late Viscount’s competence and business acumen, producing witness testimony and sixty-eight letters to establish the fairness of the contractual terms and rebut claims of lesion, while the pursuer petitioned to renew commissions for proving incapacity and sought to compel Gillies to produce books and evidence regarding a farm-victual transaction. The litigation involved disputes over procedural delays, the sufficiency of proof regarding the Viscount’s mental state, and the production of financial records and correspondence relating to rent payments and lease obligations.
William and Henry Knox and Co Merchants in Dunbar v. William Law, Esq Sheriff-depute of Haddington, and Others 1771 Teind, Evidence, Fiar, Reduction, Court of Session, Interest Pursuers William Knox and Henry Knox, merchants in Dunbar, supplied barley to brewers in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Knox and Knox alleged that defender William Law, the sheriff of the county of East Lothian, had set the fiar (fixed price) of barley too high. An Act of Sederunt in 1723 established the process by which a sheriff of a given county in Scotland would set friars. The Act required the sheriff to appoint a jury of at least eight landowners in the county, with knowledge of the good at issue, to set the price. According to the pursuers, the sheriff's responsibilities were purely ministerial, setting a price agreeable with the verdict of the jury. Knox and Knox alleged that Law did not comply with the 1723 Act when he set the fiar for barley.
William Hamilton v. Mary Burton-Hamilton 1765 Aliment, Reduction, Debt, Tailzie, Succession, Infeftment Sir William Hamilton of West-Port pursued Mary Burton-Hamilton and Mary De Gares, alias Bonamy, seeking reduction of two heritable bonds and petitioning the Court to alter a recent interlocutor. The defenders answered, resisting the reduction, and Burton-Hamilton subsequently replied, defending her claim by asserting that she was entitled to indemnification for expenses and that her guardian had acted in fulfillment of his duty, notwithstanding any objection on grounds of ob turpem causam.
William Yeats v. Alexander Thomson and Others 1829 Reduction, Creditor, Trust, Expenses, Trustees, Trustee William Yeats pursued Alexander Thomson and others to reduce a pretended will dated 1 April 1829. In July 1832, Yeats and James Wilson presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to recall Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor and reduce the defenders' liability.
Woddrop v. Finlay 1793 Decreet-Arbitral, Tack, Arbitration, Interlocutor, Reduction, Debt John Finlay, defender, answered the petition of William Woddrop, pursuer, arguing that the interlocutor should not be altered and that the arbiters’ explanation was necessary to ascertain material justice. 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.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 1129)