| Bruce v. Cunynghame |
1790
|
Disposition, Freeholder, Charter, Seisin, Sasine, Assignation |
James Bruce of Kinnaird petitioned the Court to expunge Sir William Augustus Cunynghame from the freeholders' roll of Stirling, alleging that Cunynghame’s qualification was nominal, fictitious, or held in confidence rather than by real right. Cunynghame answered that his freeholder qualification was genuine and supported by valid titles, a defense joined by David Cunynghame, younger of Livingstone, who asserted that the land titles were fully documented. Bruce replied and Cunynghame duplied, continuing the dispute over whether the enrollment rested on a real or merely nominal qualification. |
| Henry Pierce, and his Attorney v. David Limond |
1791
|
Creditor, Adjudication, Disposition, Infeftment, Seisin, Ranking of Creditors |
Henry Pierce and other creditors of Hugh Ross of Kerse contended against David Limond that their adjudication ranked as the first effectual by infeftment against the lands of Breckonhill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Mackay v. Houston |
1795
|
Wadset, Charter, Seisin, Freeholder, Factor Loco Tutoris, Disposition |
Æneas Mackay petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his inrolment as a freeholder of Sutherland, while Hugh Houston objected that Mackay had failed to specify whether he claimed as a wadsetter or absolute proprietor and that his titles were defective. Mackay replied that his claim fully complied with statutory requirements for inrolment, but Houston maintained that the titles remained insufficient and the specification of interest inadequate. The dispute turned on whether Mackay's property rights satisfied the legal prerequisites for freeholder status. |
| Proctor v. Carnegy |
1796
|
Disposition, Sasine, Charter, Infeftment, Assignation, Seisin |
Patrick Proctor pursued an action against Sir David Carnegie to establish the validity of a sasine, maintaining that the seisin was legally complete without a commission from Lord Strathmore and that the freeholders and Court had improperly rejected his inrolment. Carnegie defended by contending that the commission was an essential part of the title which Proctor had failed to produce to the freeholders, rendering the seisin null. The parties exchanged informations and memorials debating the necessity of the commission and the legal effect of the sasine. |
| Shanks v. Kirk-Session of Creditors |
1796
|
Succession, Liferent, Disposition, Infeftment, Terce, Seisin |
Margaret Shanks pursued the Kirk-Session of Creditors to establish her right to terce in lands which she claimed her late husband Thomas Howie had held in fee by precept of sasine and infeftment at his death. The defenders maintained that the fee had been vested in Thomas's father John Howie rather than in Thomas himself, and accordingly sought to be assoilzied from Shanks's claim. |
