|Colebrooke v. Hamilton
||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.
|Dover v. Forsyth
||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.
|Gibb v. Speirs
||Locus Poenitentiae, Sale, Bargain
||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
||8 Dec 1803
||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 Fisher v. Donald Maclachlan
||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.