AI-transcribed

It may be mentioned that writing is not necessary to prove a sale except in the case of real property and ships.

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: Sale

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
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.
Cairns v. Common Agent in Ranking of Newlaw 1791 Debt, Interest, Bankruptcy, Sale, Cautioner, Agent Thomas Cairns of Dundrenan, Esquire, petitioned the Court against the Common Agent in Ranking of Newlaw. He sought exoneration from the price of lots 1st and 7th of the estate of the deceased David Currie and delivery up of the bond.
Campbell v. Campbell 1786 Contract, Debt, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Roup, Sale This case was a dispute over the sale of a horse. The pursuer, Dugald Campbell of Craignish, alleged that Neil Campbell of Duntroon sold him a horse that turned out to be lame. Case documents include a number of depositions by witnesses.
Campbell v. Davidson 1770 Rent, Aliment, Lease, Sale, Possession, Tack David Davidson of Cantray answered the petition of Colin Campbell, pretended Tackman of Easter Galcantray, and his spouse and subtenants, responding to their claim that a clandestine tack is valid against a purchaser. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cheape and Lindsay v. Campbell and Creditors 1795 Debt, Adjudication, Creditor, Sale, Succession, Estate Donald Campbell petitioned to challenge Lord Dregborn's interlocutor permitting creditors James Lindsay and James Cheape to pursue separate adjudications against an estate Campbell was selling as apparent heir, arguing such actions were unnecessary and costly. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Clark v. Bell 1802 Statute of limitations, Literary Property, Copyright, Adjudication, Sale, Sequestration Andrew Bell, an engraver, included pages from James Clark's book in the Encyclopedia Britannica without permission. James Clark claimed that he had the copyright to the information, but Bell argued that the statute of limitations had expired on the claim. The case had originally been heard by a Lord Ordinary who had required Bell to return the pages to Clark. However, Bell appealed the statute of limitations issue to the higher court, which agreed with him that it was possible Clark's claim to the material had expired. As a result, the case was remanded to the Lord Ordinary to reconsider the penalty he had imposed requiring Bell to return the pages to Clark.

Note: Clark is indexed as "Clerk" in the digest.
Colebrooke v. Hamilton 1802 Teind, Estate, Sale, Valuation In 1749, the Earl of Selkirk, then titular and patron of the parish of Crawfordjohn, sold his lands and teinds of Gilkerscleugh to James Hamilton. At the time, the two wrote up informal documents outlining the current teinds' value. Daniel Hamilton inherited these lands from his grandfather, but was concerned that the teinds had never been formally set at the value stated at the time of the initial sale. He brought the matter to court, asking that the teinds be officially valued at the amount stated in the old documents, which the court granted. George Colebrooke, the current titular of the teinds, opposed this result, and subsequently petitioned that the decision be overruled on the grounds that the original agreement between the Earl and James Hamilton had only constituted a sale of the lands and teinds, and was not meant to permanently establish the value of the teinds. He petitions that the past value of the teinds should not stand for all future teind duties because the agreement had "fallen asleep," or the statute of limitations had passed, and also because the original agreement was a contract of sale, and not a formal valuation.
Corse, et al v Kibble 1793 Copartnership, Contract, Sale, Debt, Dissolution, Partnership James Kibble, defender in an action raised by Robert Corse, John Black, James Buchanan, and Archibald Buchanan, petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, arguing that a resolution of 11 July binding the partners to dissolve their firm at Candlemas 1793 violated the partnership’s unanimity clause. Corse and his co-pursuers answered, maintaining that Kibble acted against his own interest and sought injurious terms.
Dover v. Forsyth 1784 Property, Sale, Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Possession Agnes Dover, pursuer, alleged that she had made a verbal agreement with Thomas Forsyth regarding a parcel in the village of Glenluce. Under this agreement, Dover would transfer her right to the parcel in exchange for a sale price and payment of a feu duty associated with the property. According to Dover, Forsyth paid part of the sale price and began building a house on the parcel, but he became bankrupt before the house was completed; Forsyth failed to pay the balance of the price or the feu duty. Dover sued Forsyth to recover either the money Forsyth allegedly owed her or, in the alternative, possession of the parcel. In response, the factor on Forsyth’s sequestrated estate argued that Dover should be required to pay for the improvements Forsyth made to the property.
Earl of Selkirk v. Robert Nasmith 1776 Estate Settlement, Bargain, Creditor, Debt, Succession, Sale In 1756, upon the judicial sale of the late James Naesmith's property, the Earl of Selkirk agreed not to bid against Naesmith's son, Robert, for the estate of Glenley. This was in exchange for future right of first offer. In 1762, Robert Naesmith expressed his intention to sell Glenley. For the next ten years Selkirk periodically lent Naesmith money that was understood to be deducted from the final price of Glenley. In 1772, shortly after Naesmith and Selkirk agreed upon two arbiters to decide on a price for Glenley, Naesmith died with his affairs in disorder. Robert Naesmith's son, Robert, brought his father's lands to a judicial sale, but a few days before it was to take place, Selkirk petitioned the Court to have Glenley struck from it. He argued that he and Robert Naesmith's had completed a bargain. Robert Naesmith, James Naesmith (brother to the late Naesmith), and other creditors of the late Robert Naesmith, then petitioned the Court to refuse this request. After the Court ruled in favor of Selkirk, James Naesmith petitioned the Court to strike an Edinburgh dwelling-house, of which he claimed to be the rightful owner, from the sale. The Court ruled in his favor. Other creditors of Naesmith and Selkirk then asked the Court to adjudicate on various issues related to the final price of Glenley.
General Greme's Trustees v. Thomas Bruce 1799 Aliment, Thirlage, Trustees, Arbitration, Succession, Sale Thomas Bruce pursued General Greme's Trustees to void his purchase of the Braco estate, alleging the trustees had concealed a material alteration to the course of Keir Burn that diminished the property's value and safety. The trustees denied withholding information and argued that any damage was compensable and insufficient to annul the bargain. Bruce additionally sought authority to alter the burn's course, prompting disputes over jurisdiction and damages, while technical reports assessed flooding risks and construction costs.
George Haldane, and Others v. Charleton Palmer 1791 Trustee, Creditor, Adjudication, Debt, Sale, Succession George Haldane and other creditors pursued Charleton Palmer regarding the sale of the Grange estate and the ranking of claims to the proceeds. The creditors of W. Belchier argued that a summons of sale raised at the instance of an apparent heir does not operate as an adjudication for the behoof of the whole creditors, while Haldane sought to have his interest ranked pari passu with the other creditors.
Gibb v. Speirs 1779 Locus Poenitentiae, Sale, Bargain, Creditor, Disposition, Debt Robert Gibb had given heritable securities of his land to certain merchants in Paisley. In order to retrieve these securities, Gibb ventured to sell part of his land, Laigh-lyon-crosses (Lower Lyoncross) to Alexander Speirs. He sent Speirs a valuation, and after not receiving a reply, visited him the evening before his own lands were to be auctioned. The two verbally agreed that Gibb would sell his lands to Speirs and then hold a twelve-year lease on the lands; Speirs wrote a letter to Hugh Snodgrass, his agent in Paisley, saying as much. When Speirs later refused to carry out this agreement, Gibb presented a petition to the Sheriff of Renfrewshire, requesting that the defenders be compelled to produce the letter and the initial valuation. When the Sheriff's summons went ignored, the case came before the Court. Speirs argued that his agreement with the Gibb was merely verbal, and he was therefore in locus poenitentae (not yet legally obliged to stand by the agreement). He further argued that Gibb's lands had in fact been conveyed to his creditors, and they were no longer his to sell. Gibb disputed both of these claims.
Hitchiner v. Stewart 1802 Assignees, Merchants, Sale, Rei vindicatio Hitchiner, Hunter & Company gunpowder manufacturers raised an action “rei vindication” or an action to recover the price of gunpowder against Stewart and Ninian. The Defenders bought some gunpowder from pursuer’s agents (Messrs and J. Robertson) without knowing that Hitchiner, Hunter & Company owned the gunpowder. Messrs and J. Robertson became bankrupt and Defendants applied a set off of some debts that they have with each other. The Lords cited the general principle of law "Bona Fide" to sustain that: (i) Defendants purchased and transacted fona fide with Pursuer's agents, due to Defenders were entitled to plead compensation on a debt that they had with Robertson and company, and (ii) Pursuers did not have an action for recovery against Stewart and Ninian, as third party of the relationship with their agents.
James Cheap v. William Morehead [Copy 1] 1790 Liferent, Sasine, Disposition, Sale, Valuation, Election Digitization and Description in Progress.
Additional documents in this case can be found in the duplicate case record in UVALL Box 16 and in UVALL Box 22 - Vol. 03.
James Fisher v. Donald Maclachlan 1769 Sale, Security, Debt, Rent, Tack, Adjudication This case was about the interpretation of documents relating to a land transaction. Lachlan Maclachlan of Innis Chonnell, an ancestor of defender Donald Maclachlan, was arrested on account of his debt to Dougal Campbell of Edderline. Lachlan sought help from Duncan Fisher, the father of pursuer James Fisher, and the parties agreed to a three-part transaction. First, Duncan executed a bond of presentation attesting that he would present Duncan at a specified time and place or pay the debt to Campbell, plus a penalty. Second, Lachlan executed a minute of sale in which he agreed to transfer his lands to Duncan. Finally, in a note of depositation, Duncan and Lachlan agreed that if Lachlan paid his debt on the specified day, the minute of sale would become null and void. Lachlan did not present himself or pay the debt, and the minute of sale was registered in the sheriff court. For many years, Fisher and his heirs failed to obtain possession of the land, but pursuer James Fisher eventually raised an action for that purpose. In litigation, the parties disputed the nature of the transaction. James contended that the original parties had intended a true sale of the lands. However, defender Donald Maclachlan argued that the land transfer was merely a security, and that he could retain the lands by paying off the original debt.
McBrayne v. Arthur 1786 Contract, Copartnership, Sale, Possession, Valuation, Tack Donald M'Brayne sought suspension against Arthur to prevent the partners from altering business affairs following the expiry of their contract, alleging breach of the Sixth Article which required an offer of assets. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mures, et al v. Hannay, et al. 1793 Agent, Debt, Sale, Interlocutor, Creditor, Statute Sir Samuel Hannay and his co-defenders petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, requesting either that the Court fix a time and place for creditors to elect a common agent for the sale and ranking or that it appoint Archibald Swinton or another person to that office. Based on the single document cataloged for this 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.
Robert Armour v. James Young 1774 Contract, Debt, Sale, Interlocutor, Aliment, Fraud Defender James Young ordered a quantity of superfine black cloth from pursuer Robert Armour, who routinely sold fabric at fixed prices on behalf of a merchant in Worcester. Armour claimed that the parcel of cloth that was delivered to Young included an invoice specifying the price. However, Young refused to pay that price, and Armour brought suit before the magistrates of Glasgow. Young objected that he never agreed to a particular price, and further claimed that coarse cloth was delivered to him instead of superfine cloth. The magistrates admitted proof regarding the price of the disputed articles, and Armour appealed. The Lord Ordinary not only affirmed the price-related proof, but also directed that proof be allowed regarding whether or not Young had “complained of the bad quality of the cloth recently after delivery thereof.” Armour once again sought review, arguing that the case should be decided based on questions of law.
Robert Callander v. John Milligan 1847 Arrestment, Debt, Defamation, Bankruptcy, Sale, Damages Robert Callander pursued John Milligan for damages for defamation and unlawful apprehension. Callander alleged that Milligan had instigated false accusations of cattle theft, causing Callander's detention by police at Carlisle and resulting in lost sales and reputational injury. Milligan denied liability, contending that Callander had stolen the cattle rather than purchased them through an assignee as claimed, while Callander maintained he had paid for the beasts before being wrongfully detained.
Solicitor of Tithes v. Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising Thames water in York-buildings 1776 Teinds, Feu duties, Disposition, Aliment, Lease, Sale This case was about the right to teinds on lands that the York Building Company purchased from the Barons of Exchequer. The lands, as part of the estate of Southesk, had been forfeited to the Crown after their owner participated in the Jacobite rising of 1715. The York Building Company then purchased the estate from the public. In the 1770s, a dispute arose over teinds on a portion of the estate in the parish of Leuchar. According to the Solicitor of Tithes, the York Building Company only possessed these teinds by tacit relocation (i.e., by holding over on a lease), and was required to get a new lease; the Solicitor eventually brought an action for payment of tithes. The Company claimed a right to the teinds based on a 1744 disposition from the Barons of Exchequer. Additionally, it claimed to have purchased the lands in reliance on a rent-roll that did not include a deduction for teinds. The Solicitor argued that the teinds were never part of the forfeited estate, and therefore could not have been sold to the Company.
The York-Buildings Company v. Alexander Mackenzie 1784 Sale, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor, Fraud The York-Buildings Company, as pursuers, sought reduction of the sale and damages against Alexander Mackenzie, Writer to the Signet, alleging that he had fraudulently purchased Seton lots through a collusive sale process in 1777. Mackenzie defended the regularity of the sale and resisted reduction. The parties subsequently exchanged petitions and answers concerning interlocutors on the reduction, and the Company later sought price reduction based on Mackenzie’s alleged fraudulent conduct as a common agent, which Mackenzie disputed along with the scope of his replies and the Court’s reliance upon them.
Watson v. Johnston 1768 Bankruptcy, Adjudication, Creditor, Debt, Cautioner, Sale Andrew Scott, John Stark, Richard Stark, William James, and William Craig went bankrupt in 1760. Pursuer, John Watson, became an agent for the creditors of the bankrupt individuals. The bankrupts's estates were adjudged by their creditors and John Watson brought a process of ranking and sale. The creditors were accordingly ranked, with Marion Stark, wife of Andrew Scott, ranked primo loco. Then, defender, Thomas Johnston, a merchant in Glasgow, purchased at a judicial sale some effects of Andrew Scott's estate. This move was designed to help pay some of Scott's creditors, and to make annual payments of a liferent, to Scott's wife. The Defender died without paying the creditors, and his cautioner proved insolvent. Thus, Mr. Watson, Scott's creditors and Mr. Macneil of Callonsay a creditor of Johnston brought a process to sequestrate the subjects originally belonging to Andrew Scoot and purchased by Thomas Johnston. This is a multiple-poinding process where the creditors of the parties related to the bankrupt individuals claimed that Mr. Johnston had left his affairs in very great disorder.
Woods v. Carstairs 1777 Bargain, Loan, Ranking of Creditors, Sale, Sequestration, Factor This case concerns a promised wheat shipment from Robert Fleming, tenant in Falside, to James and William Woods, merchants in Elie. In January 1777, Fleming wrote the Woods brothers about his circumstances. He offered to send them "all the wheat that I have" in exchange for an advance of money. The Woods brothers sent Fleming about £9 in cash and approximately £30 in bills. Fleming then sent the Woods sixteen bolls of wheat, promising to deliver the remainder after seed-time. However, before this could happen, Fleming's affairs went into disorder, and he applied for a sequestration of his effects. The Woods then applied to James Carstairs, Fleming's factor, for the remainder of the wheat. Carstairs replied that the money Fleming had received from the two men was not a bargain, but a loan, and informed them that they would have to wait for the ranking of Fleming's creditors. The Woods then petitioned the Court to order Carstairs to deliver the wheat to them. As opposed to Carstair's claim that the transaction in question was a loan, the pursuers argued that it was a bargain.
York-Buildings Company v. Taylor 1791 Debt, Entail, Succession, Trust, Sale, Trustee Alexander Mackenzie, Writer to the Signet, as defender, submitted minutes in answer to the minutes filed by the pursuer, the Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising Thames Water in York-buildings. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 282)