Succession, vol. ii. p. 7. See Cognition and Sasine. Burgage-Holding.

Definition source

Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Succession.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Succession

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Alexander Bruce v. The Representatives of John Stein	1792	Succession, Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Tack, Cautioner	Alexander Bruce pursued the representatives of John Stein for a debt arising from a 1770 bond involving Robert Stein, with trustees and spouses' portions also forming part of the dispute. The defenders resisted the action, leading Bruce and his trustee Alexander Abercromby to argue that the defenders, as representatives of the deceased John Stein, remained liable for the bond obligation.
Alexander Geddes and Allan Clark v. Jean Bull	1796	Marriage, Adjudication, Legitimacy, Reduction, Succession, Disposition	Alexander Geddes and Allan Clarke petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor in their action against Jean Bull. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander-Charles Maitland, & Others v. Dame Helen Maitland Gibson, & Spouse	1830	Compensation, Security, Succession, Debt, Tailzie, Entail	Alexander-Charles Maitland and other heirs of entail pursued Dame Helen Maitland Gibson and her spouse regarding £7000 paid by a canal company for consent to route a canal through the entailed estate. The pursuers sought to have the sum paid into a bank for lawful investment under the 1827 Act, asserting it was compensation for permanent damage belonging to the entail, while the defenders answered that it represented merely the value of the land and payment for temporary inconvenience. The court found that the defenders must compensate the heirs for the permanent damage sustained by the estate from the canal deviation, with the compensation to be paid from the £7000 received for the consent.
Allardice, et all v. Allardice	1795	Succession, Liferent, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor, Entail
Archer v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor	1793	Cautioner, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor, Succession, Bankruptcy
Archibald Craig v. Emilia Brodie	1773	Succession	Archibald Craig obtained a court order for payment of a debt owed to him by Emilia Brodie. After Emilia died, Craig sought to collect the funds from her daughter, Margaret Brodie, who had intromitted with the estate.
Balfour v. M'Kenzie	1794	Teinds, Tack, Succession, Stipend, Prescription, Heritor	Balfour pursued the reduction of decrees of prorogation of tithes for Tarbat and Fearn granted to the Earl of Cromarty, arguing that they had been obtained by fraud and in the absence of the Crown, were inconsistent with the original tack, and exceeded the Court's legal power. M'Kenzie defended the validity of the decrees, maintaining that they were not subject to reduction or challenge. The pursuer replied, reiterating that the prorogations violated the terms of the original tack and lay beyond the Court's jurisdiction.
Bayne and Miller v. Wisheart-Belshes	1792	Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Reduction, Fraud, Cautioner	Margaret Bayne and David Miller, baker in Perth, objected to the examination of James Dick Junior as a witness for Sir John Wisheart-Belshes in the process against him, arguing that Dick was disqualified by interest and relation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Binning v. Binning	1766	Succession, Testament, Aliment	The Pursuer, Helen Binning, sought 500 merks (Scots) willed to her father as aliment by her grandfather in a 1733 deed of settlement. The Pursuer's father, Patrick Binning, died young, after marrying at age sixteen. The parties in this case disagreed over whether or not Patrick married with the consent of his father. Helen, the only child of the marriage, was raised in her grandfather's home after the death of her father. The Defender, James Binning, was Helen Binning's uncle, eldest son of James Binning the elder. The Defender claimed that since his brother, Patrick Binning, died before reaching majority and before his father's death, Helen Binning's claim to her father's aliment payment was invalid. Upon the death of Margaret Binning, Helen's grandmother, in 1762, Helen brought action before the sheriff of Linlithgow against her uncle for payment of the 500 merks.
Blyth v. Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor	1789	Debt, Adjudication, Creditor, Arrestment, Aliment, Succession	Walter Blyth, as pursuer, presented a petition challenging an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Dreghorn. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Braimer v. Innes and Lothian	1788	Aliment, Debt, Succession, Interdiction, Trustee, Trust	John Braimer, late of Edrom, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, which maintained Braimer's interdiction and declared the trustees not bound to pay over the balance. Gilbert Innes of Stow and John Lothian, merchant in Edinburgh, as defenders, answered the petition, resisting Braimer's claim for reversion and discharge of the interdiction.
Brisbane v. Sempill	1794	Feu, Succession, Feu duties, Infeftment, Assignment, Disposition	Brisbane, as pursuer, argued that Lord Sempill, as defender and singular successor, was bound to pay a year's rent for entry rather than the two shillings Scots claimed by the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bromfield v. Paterson et al	1786	Succession, Debt, Liferent, Entail, Tailzie, Infeftment	Stephen Bromfield pursued Mary Paterson, Alexander Campbell, and Henry Campbell regarding the estate of Eccles, contending that the defenders were bound by an entail and could not claim the lands without limitations. The defenders argued that the entail of 1743 and its 1755 amendment bound the succession to the barony of Eccles and lands of Stow, and further maintained that a deed of 1758 continued the prior entail, citing the precedent in Lowrie v. Spalding.
Brown v. Brown	1787	Succession, Aliment, Heirship Moveables, Debt, Trust, Heritor	Jean Brown petitioned to alter an interlocutor that had ordered her to return a gold watch and gowns to Janet Brown, relict of George Baird, contending that the items were not marital property. Janet Brown answered, defending her claims of inheritance and possession of the heirship-moveables in dispute.
Budge v. Lord Henderson's Interlocutor	1794	Teinds, Prescription, Disposition, Infeftment, Succession, Feu duties	Budge, as petitioner, submitted a memorial arguing that she and her predecessors had acquired an heritable right to the teinds of Toftingall by positive prescription, despite the lack of infeftment or charter. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Burden alias Campbell v. Campbells and Robertson	1791	Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Legacy, Multiple-Poinding, Disposition	Mrs Elizabeth Burden, alias Campbell, pursued the Campbells and Robertson as heir of her predeceased son John Campbell, claiming entitlement to his share of the residue of Duncan Campbell’s estate under the will’s substitution clause. She subsequently advanced additional claims under both the will and intestacy law, citing precedent for representative succession. The dispute centered on whether a mother could represent her deceased son to recover his portion of the inheritance under these competing theories of succession.
Burt v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor	1789	Succession, Aliment, Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Defamation	Robert Burt petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor that the Court had pronounced against the Lord Justice Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cameron v. Cameron	1792	Lease, Succession, Tack, Aliment, Liferent, Adjudication	Ro. Craigie petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors sustaining claims to the lands of Laick and Branahawn. The respondent argued that the lease of those lands secured by her father ought to be upheld notwithstanding contested settlements and allegations of hardship.
Cameron v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor	1797	Succession, Tack, Multiple-Poinding, Lease, Warrandice, Interlocutor	Ewen Cameron sought reimbursement of court and House of Lords expenses incurred in defending against lease claims brought by Helen and Janet Cameron, the daughters of his deceased father John Cameron, regarding the disincumbering of lands. He petitioned against Lord Craig’s interlocutor refusing to allow retention of these costs, proceeding against the trustees and the daughters, whereupon Helen’s counsel argued the claim was procedurally barred and legally unsound. Cameron subsequently lodged a reclaiming petition against the Inner-House interlocutor.
Campbell v. Arbuthnott	1793	Lease, Rent, Tack, Succession, Homologation, Possession	James Campbell, tenant in Broombank, as pursuer argued that a missive from the Viscount of Arbuthnott dated 1755 did not constitute a valid lease agreement. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell v. Irvine	1794	Aliment, Marriage, Creditor, Succession, Debt, Interlocutor
Campbell v. Monboddo's Interlocuter	1793	Succession, Debt, Aliment, Reversion, Entail, Trustees	James Campbell petitioned against Lord Monboddo's interlocutor, asking the Court to alter the ruling that the reversion of the estate's sale price must be laid out upon lands. 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.
Children of Macneil v. Reps. of Campbell, et al	1793	Succession, Wadset, Aliment, Arrestment, Debt, Creditor
College of Glasgow v. Lindsay	1793	Succession, Disposition, Infeftment, Contract of marriage, Creditor, Aliment
Coventry v. Lord Hailes' Interlocutor	1787	Succession, Legacy, Liferent, Aliment, Testament, Debt	Robert Coventry presented a petition challenging an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Hailes. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Crawfords v. Russell, et al	1789	Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Debt, Arrestment, Disposition	Agnes and Margaret Crawfurds, as pursuers, argued that they were absolute fiars during their lives and that their children were heirs to the sums bequeathed in fee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Creditors of Fergusson v. Swinton	1795	Creditor, Debt, Succession, Aliment, Feu duties, Property	Hugh Ferguson, David Steuart, and other creditors of Walter Ferguson pursued an action against Mrs Catharine Swinton, his spouse, to set aside her marital settlements as fraudulent preferences prejudicial to their claims against the insolvent estate. They challenged the postnuptial contract granting her an annuity and provisions as voidable for preference. Mrs Swinton, represented by Alexander Keith as her curator ad litem, defended the deed as fair, onerous, and legally valid, resisting reduction.
Crichton v. Mackay	1788	Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Creditor, Marriage, Succession	Alexander Crichton petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor. Defender Mary Mackay answered, responding to allegations of infamy and misconduct that Crichton had made against her.
Cunynnghame v. Whitefood, et al	1797	Succession, Deed, Aliment, Disposition, Reduction, Minor	Lieutenant Colonel Francis Cunynghame pursued James Whitefoord and others, seeking to set aside a settlement executed by Whitefoord in 1792 while he was a minor. Cunynghame argued that the deed was void because a minor could not alter the succession to heritable estate established by the former proprietor, and further contended that the settlement lacked proper delivery. The litigation raised the question of whether a minor's deed could effectively convey or settle heritable property.
David and Henry Lillie v. Mrs. Lillie or Smith, and Others	1832	Succession, Debt, Creditor, Legacy, Disposition, Aliment	David and Henry Lillie pursued Mrs. Lillie or Smith and others to prove the tenor of a holograph letter written by Miss Margaret Seton that their sister Catherine Lillie had destroyed, asserting that the letter directed legacies to them. The defenders denied that the letter contained any such bequests in favor of the pursuers. The pursuers lodged a revised condescendence and note of pleas in law, the defenders answered, and the pursuers subsequently led proof regarding the contents of the destroyed letter.
David Wight v. William Inglis	1798	Succession, Aliment, Disposition, Debt, Heritor, Teinds	David Wight pursued William Inglis, Alexander Inglis, Elizabeth Inglis, Margaret Inglis, Marion Inglis, and James Hay to have them assoilzied from the burdens of the 1774 settlements. The defenders maintained that the provisions in those settlements were not payable to them as heirs of provision, and Wight subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor. The defenders answered, asserting a claim to 12,000 merks Scots legacy payable to their mothers' issue under the will of Andrew Simpson.
Dewar v. Howieson	1788	Aliment, Succession, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Creditor	Mrs Nisbet and her husband petitioned the Court of Session to alter the Lord Justice-Clerk's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Dickie v. Lord Henderland's Interlocutor	1789	Reduction, Succession, Improbation, Feu duties, Disposition, Liferent	Patrick Dickie, eldest lawful son of William Dickie and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Lord Henderland. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Douglas and Baillie v. Mitchell	1796	Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Heritor, Augmentation, Succession	The Reverend Thomas Mitchell answered the petition of Archibald Lord Douglas and Dame Elizabeth Baillie, arguing that the Court could grant victual augmentation despite the teinds having been valued in money. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Duke of Gordon v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor	1787	Patronage, Charter, Succession, Act of Parliament, Interlocutor, Conveyance	Alexander, Duke of Gordon petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Dunbar v. Dunbars, et al	1798	Succession, Entail, Tailzie, Infeftment, Debt, Teinds	Sir Benjamin Dunbar, pursuer, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter its interlocutor of 2 February 1799, which had assoilzied him from the conclusions of his action against the defenders, the Dunbars, et al. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Dundas, et al v. Cameron	1794	Succession, Debt, Tack, Rent, Teinds, Aliment	Dundas and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to remit to the Lord Justice Clerk the case of Donald Cameron of Lochiel against the defender Alan Cameron concerning a disputed disposition and sasine of lands. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Durham v. Durham	1802	Heir, Succession, Prescription	Thomas Durham, brother of Sarah and Janet Durham, died without issuing any settlement of disposition over the lands of Foulshiells. The lands of Foulshiells belonged formerly to Thomas Hamilton of Boghead, who was the great-grandfather of Thomas, Sarah and Janet Durham. Sarah claimed that she was the only one entitled to inherit the lands before mentioned without division, as heir-female and older sister, in virtue of the language of the old title-deeds. Also, she pointed out that Mr. Hamilton's intention was to transfer the land to anyone called to succeed (heirs in line) without division. He expressly mentioned it in the deed and it had been transferred like that. On the other hand, Janet argued that she had a joint right to the lands before mentioned with her sisters, as heir-portioner. Finally, the Court found that Sarah had the sole right of the lands as the older sister of Thomas.
Earl of Rednor v. Macarthur	1791	Succession, Disposition, Trust, Debt, Assignation, Adjudication	Archibald Macarthur Stewart, defender in the action by the Earl of Rednor, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company v. Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet, Baronet, and Others, Trustees of the deceased Da…	1835	Debt, Statute, Contract, Partnership, Interest, Succession	The Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company raised an action against Sir William Baillie of Polkemmet and others, as trustees of the deceased shareholder David Clyne, to enforce statutory calls for unpaid shares under the Edinburgh Oil Gas Company Act. The defenders denied liability, contending that the company had abandoned its oil-gas operations and improperly transferred its assets to a coal-gas concern, thereby invalidating the demands. The pursuers maintained their statutory right to recover expenses from the estate, while the defenders persisted in their challenges and ultimately reclaimed against the interlocutor, seeking to sustain their defences and be assoilzied from the action.
Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier v. Trustees of General Simon Fraser	1791	Debt, Succession, Trustee, Entail, Disposition, Trust	Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier pursued the Trustees of General Simon Fraser for payment of a Crown-gifted debt, insisting that the trustees were bound to pay the specified heirs rather than apply the funds to the entailed estate. The trustees maintained that the Crown’s gift of the debt to Archibald Fraser could not be enforced against the entailed estate of Lovat. They subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the cause.
Eliott v. Curries	1796	Debt, Succession, Tack, Lease, Aliment, Rent
Eliott v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor	1797	Trustees, Debt, Succession, Hypothec, Election contest, Action	Sir William Eliott petitioned to reclaim an interlocutor of the Lord Justice Clerk denying his claim to £50:10s. paid to the writer Thomas Tod, arguing that the account was not prescribed and fell outside the scope of triennial prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Elizabeth Wallace v. William Gordon and Others	1766	Succession	Janet Buchanan executed a settlement that made her niece Grizel Gordon the residuary beneficiary of her estate. The settlement provided that if Grizel died before marrying, the substitute beneficiary would be Elizabeth Wallace, Buchanan’s first cousin once removed. Buchanan died in 1762, and Grizel took possession of her effects, including a bond granted by Robert Dundas, Lord President of the Court of Session, for £200 Sterling. In 1763, Grizel discharged the £200 bond and lent the same amount to Charles Dundas, Robert’s brother; for the second loan, Charles and Robert gave their joint bond. After Grizel died, a dispute arose between Elizabeth Wallace and Grizel’s half-siblings, children of Robert Gordon, over who should succeed to the estate. The Gordon siblings claimed that language in the second bond, making it payable to Grizel, “her heirs, executors, and assignees,” altered the substitution in their favor. According to marginalia on the case documents, the court preferred Elizabeth Wallace.
Erskine v. Erskine	1795	Succession, Creditor, Adjudication, Debt, Disposition, Prescription	The respondent Erskine argued that the marriage contract of 1738 constituted an onerous deed in favour of George Erskine that bound his heir to denude the lands. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Farquhar et al, Heritors in Brechin v. Garie	1798	Church of Scotland, Succession, Presbytery, Agent, Heritor, Ministers	Farquhar and the other heritors in Brechin, as pursuers, challenged defender Mr James Garie’s ordination and parish eligibility, citing his lack of Scottish theological training and his dissenting ordination by non-Presbyterian bodies. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Fleming v. Montgomery	1794	Succession, Teinds, Stipend, Contract, Tack, Heritor	Lady Clementina Fleming pursued Montgomery regarding the tithes of the barony of Stobo, seeking to convert the payment from meal to money in accordance with a 1730 decree of valuation. The defender maintained that the Lord Chief Baron and ministers of Stobo were bound by historical tacks and prior decrees of modification that governed the form of payment. The litigation proceeded through competing memorials addressing whether the 1730 valuation or the historical obligations should determine how the tithes were rendered.
Fotheringham and Hume v. Ogilvie and Others	1795	Succession, Debt, Aliment, Liferent, Disposition, Creditor	William Fotheringham and Hume pursued claims to the Balfour estate against Ogilvie and others, petitioning the Court in 1795 and again in 1797 to alter interlocutors respecting the succession. The respondents defended these interlocutors, maintaining that under a marriage contract the estate had vested in fee-simple in the second son, who predeceased his parents, thereby excluding the pursuers' claims as heirs. The litigation turned on whether the second son's fee-simple right to the Balfour estate took precedence over the pursuers' asserted rights in the Powrie succession.
Francis Fraser v. David Middleton	1793	Tack, Infeftment, Disposition, Succession, Liferent, Lease	David Middleton, defender, argued that a lease obtained under a valid personal grant from an apparent heir must be preferable to an infeftment void by reason of non habente potestatem. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.