AI-transcribed

Lease.

Definition source
AI-generated
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: Tack

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Bennet v. David Maxwell 1787 Tack, Arrestment, Debt, Lease, Rent, Sasine Alexander Bennet, as pursuer, challenged a tenant’s missive as invalid for lacking formality or stamp, and David Maxwell, as defender, responded asserting the missive’s validity under pacta esse servanda. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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 Farquharson v. The Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising Thames water in York-buildings 1775 Landlord and tenant, Liferent, Rent, Lease, Tack, Adjudication The York Building Company, defender, leased the mansion and property of Fingask to John Drummond of Megginch for a term of 99 years. Pursuer Alexander Farquharson subsequently acquired the right to the lease. The mansion had fallen into a state of disrepair, and Farquharson sued the Company, alleging that the Company was required to pay for repairs. The Company argued that the lease was written specifically to absolve it of this responsibility.
Alexander Fergusson, and Others v. The Magistrates of Glasgow 1781 Tack, Arrestment, Reduction, Charter, Tax, Sequestration The pursuers, who were also suspenders in a related action, challenged the authority of the magistrates of Glasgow to impose a duty on potatoes.
Alexander Grant v. James Grant 1768 Rent, Aliment, Lease, Succession, Possession, Tack Alexander Grant, Writer in Edinburgh, as pursuer, claimed the right to prolong a lease by years of delayed possession, and James Grant of Grant, Esq., as defender, answered the petition. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Stewart v. John Isat 1773 Burgh, Tax, Thirlage, Jurisdiction, Tack, Interlocutor This case was about the implementation of an act of Parliament that authorized the town of Glasgow to impose a duty on beer and ale. Alexander Stewart, the collector of the duty, sued John Isat over an alleged arrear. In response, Isat claimed that he was being charged more than other brewers. He argued that the magistrates could not force an individual to pay higher charges than others who were similarly situated. Stewart, defending Glasgow’s magistrates, argued that they were entitled to charge Isat the full amount authorized by statute. He explained that brewers were charged different rates because the magistrates generally reduced the duty on brewers who paid dry multure (i.e., a toll for milling) to the town. Isat disputed this as a factual matter and argued that the magistrates could not use the duty to compel individuals to accept a servitude to the town’s mills.
Alexander v. Beaumont 1772 Contracts and Obligations, Breach of Contract, Debt, Contract, Tack, Aliment Robert Alexander hired John Beaumont in 1770 to mine the coal on Alexander's property in Blackhouse and Boghall in Ayrshire. Under the contract, Beaumont was to deliver coal from Alexander's property to the harbor of Ayr. Beaumont brought the coal to the harbor, but he claimed that there were no people who could receive on Alexander's behalf. Beaumont applied to William Alexander, the brother of Robert, for instructions. According to Beaumont, William directed him to offer the coal to the Newton Company or a third party, or to "bing" the coals "on the hill." The parties disagreed over the expenses incurred for coal binged on the hill. Alexander also accused Beaumont of failing to separate the bings of great coal from the bings of pan wood. Alexander believed that some coal caught fire because of Beaumont's alleged failure to separate great coal from pan wood.
Allardice v. The Officers of State, and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews 1798 Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Stipend, Tack, Prescription Robert Barclay Allardice pursued the Officers of State and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews regarding the modification of the teinds of Hallgreen lands. The Reverend Robert Croll submitted that the teinds should be fixed at a fair and equitable rate, while Allardice argued they ought to be valued at a fifth of the rent prior to improvements rather than the current improved rent. The parties exchanged competing memorials on the proper basis for calculating the teind duty.
Archibald Cooper v. Sir William Maxwell 1775 Tack, Rent, Aliment, Interlocutor, Lease, Arrestment In this case, the parties disputed the boundaries of tack that included a lime-work. Archibald Cooper alleged that Sir William Maxwell of Calderwood had encroached on his tack, and therefore sought to have Maxwell's work enjoined.
Archibald McLachlan v. Archibald McArthur Stewart 1789 Adjudication, Rent, Lease, Possession, Teinds, Tack Archibald M'Lachlan younger of Craigin-terve pursued a Bill of Advocation against Archibald McArthur Stewart, asking the Court to remit the sheriff-substitute's interlocutor ordering his removal from the lands of Letternamolt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Baird and Kerr v. Heritors of Stobo and Ministers of Drummelizier and Broughton 1794 Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Augmentation, Prescription Baird and Kerr pursued an action against the heritors of Stobo and the ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton regarding portions of the teinds of Stobo. The ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton claimed a radical and clear prescriptive right to those teinds based on nearly two centuries of enjoyment. The pursuers countered that the teinds had been erroneously paid to the ministers and that they were entitled to evict them.
Balfour v. Earl of Moray 1796 Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Heritor, Collation, Act of Parliament Mr Andrew Balfour, Advocate, His Majesty's Solicitor of Tithes, petitioned the Court as pursuer against the Earl of Moray, as defender, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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 v. Wallace 1796 Teinds, Disposition, Feu, Feu duties, Tack, Sequestration Alexander Bayne of Rires presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter an interlocutor previously pronounced by Lord Craig. John Wallace of Sprettyhall and Rires Mill answered the petition as defender.
Bell v. Rutherford 1793 Debt, Lease, Tack, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment Suit over fees for repairs of houses on the lands of Scraesburgh, part of the estate of Hunthill. In 1787, James Bell (Petitioner) signed a tack to lease the lands in Scraesburgh from Captain Rutherford (Defender/respondent). He signed a clause which stipulated that he accepted the houses “in a habitable and tenantable condition” as they were left by Robert Dickieson, the previous tenant. Mr. Bell argues that this clause was fraudulent because Mr. Dickieson did not leave the homes in a habitable condition. Bell received a judgment against Mr. Dickieson to pay for the repairs, but Dickieson went bankrupt, Dickieson’s trustees refused to pay, and the houses remained in disrepair for three years. In February, 1790, Captain Rutherford sold his estate to Benjamin Bell, who then sued James Bell for the condition of the houses. James Bell sued to hold Captain Rutherford liable for the repairs. In 1792, Lord Dunsinnan found for defender, and James Bell appeals.
Belsches v. Paterson and Anderson 1786 Tack, Thirlage, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Charter, Reduction Robert Belsches pursued the action against Mrs Mary Paterson and Alexander Farquharson regarding the extent of thirlage over the lands of Greenyards. Belsches argued that the thirlage did not extend to wheat or barley, while Paterson and Farquharson maintained that the lands of Easter Greenyards were thirled to the mill of Skeoch for omnia grana crescentia.
Bennet v. Gordon 1766 Rent, Tack, Aliment, Lease, Reduction, Debt Peter Bennet pursued Alexander Gordon of Cairnfield to challenge interlocutors of removing that Gordon had obtained against him. Bennet petitioned to have these orders remitted or altered, and replied to correct alleged errors in Gordon's answers regarding a nineteen-year lease agreement. He ultimately argued that Gordon had subjected him to unlawful oppression through repeated legal processes and fraudulent tacks.
Benson, &c. v. Stark, &c. 1793 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Tack, Interlocutor, Oath Reuben Benson, William Benson, John Murdoch, and John M'Pherson, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in their action against Stark and the other defenders. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Brodie v. Grant 1767 Interlocutor, Adjudication, Possession, Tack, Reduction, Appeal Alexander Brodie of Lethen, as pursuer, sought to retain possession of the pool of Stockiebanks on the River Findhorn until the boundary of his fishing rights against Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant, Sir Alexander Grant of Delvey, Sir William Dunbar of Durn, Captain Duncan Urquhart of Burdieyards, and others, as defenders, could be finally ascertained. The defenders disputed Brodie’s fishing rights, leading to answers, replies, and duplies. In 1769, the respondents petitioned against the Lords’ affirmation of an amended interlocutor defining the Findhorn boundary, alleging contradictory judgments and complaining that the boundary had been expanded unexpectedly through judicial admission.
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.
Cameron v. McAlpin 1773 Rent, Lease, Proof, Possession, Tack, Interlocutor Defenders Robert M‘Alpin and William Grierson answered the petition of pursuers John Cameron of Callart and Mary Stewart his wife, responding to claims of breach of lease agreement. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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. 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.
Campbell v. Officers of State 1784 Teinds, Tack, Charter, Disposition, Patronage, Stipend General Campbell petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Elliock Ordinary, asserting that he held heritable rights to his teinds. The Officers of State responded, arguing that the tithes of Campbell’s lands in Kilvicocharmaig were heritably held and not subject to local stipend by virtue of ancient charters and possessory prescription.
Campbell v. Tod 1785 Aliment, Succession, Prescription, Possession, Tack, Thirlage Doctor Robert Campbell, pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the action against Tod. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Chalmers v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor 1798 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Trustees, Expenses, Tack Thomas Chalmers petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor issued by Lord Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Charles Lyell v. William Douglas 1791 Valuation, Freeholder, Tack, Aliment, Succession, Commissioners of Supply Charles Lyell pursued an action against William Douglas and other freeholders of the County of Forfar to establish his right to remain on the roll of freeholders, maintaining that his estate was valued at £418 14s 7d Scots. Douglas answered, contending that Lyell’s restricted qualification fell short of the legal valuation once the lands of Easter Glenquharity were struck off. Lyell replied that the objection was legally unfounded, and Douglas duplied that the precedents from Linlithgowshire cited by the pursuer were inapplicable and the evidence insufficient.
Chisholm v. Lord Gardenston's Interlocutor 1791 Aliment, Heritor, Contract, Tack, Adjudication, Sequestration William Chisholm petitioned the Court to alter Lord Gardenston's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Christie v. Cowans, et al 1794 Rent, Tack, Lease, Teinds, Warrandice, Damages David Halket, David Robertson, and Laurence Robertson petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor concerning salmon fishings in the River of Leven. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
College of Glasgow v. Selkirk, Miller, and Stirling 1793 Feu duties, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Factor, Intromission The College of Glasgow petitioned against Selkirk, Miller, and Stirling, challenging a June 1792 interlocutor that limited overpayment offsets to cautionary branches and arguing for proportional application across all revenue branches. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Condie of Strowie v. United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard 1796 Rent, Proof, Teinds, Tack, Teind, Valuation Thomas Condie of Strowie, as pursuer, sought valuation of the teinds of Strowie and Pitquhanatrie against the United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard, disputing the defenders' higher valuations which rested upon hypothetical grass cultivation unsuited to the local conditions. The defenders maintained that the annual value of the teinds should be set at ninety-nine pounds sterling.
Copland v. Ireland 1786 Proof, Interlocutor, Tack, Diligence, Rent, Sequestration William Ireland petitioned the Court for leave to adduce additional proof and to renew diligence against William Birtwhistle, alleging that William Copland of Gregory had failed to report proof regarding Birtwhistle. Copland answered, responding to the claim that he had neglected to report the proof concerning Birtwhistle.
Countess of Sutherland v. Officers of State 1793 Teinds, Lease, Teind, Prescription, Tack, Aliment The Countess of Sutherland pursued the Officers of State to determine whether rents derived from salmon fishings were liable to vicarage teinds. The defenders argued that such rents were not teindable and that deductions ought to be denied, while the respondent maintained that salmon fishings were not subject to vicarage teinds in the absence of proof by forty years' possession and payment. The litigation turned on the criteria for establishing the teindability of salmon-fishing revenues.
Creditors of Sir James Carnegie v. David Carnegie 1780 Rent, Lease, Sequestration, Possession, Trustees, Tack Sir David Carnegie petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the action brought by the creditors of Sir James Carnegie against him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
David Hepburn v. William Skirving 1792 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Tack, Heirship Moveables, Creditor David Hepburn, farmer in Pleasance, pursued William Skirving, farmer in Kedlaw, regarding claims for sheep balance, heirship moveables, and disputed debts. After Lord Dreghorn pronounced an interlocutor in the cause, Skirving petitioned the Court to alter that order, prompting Hepburn to lodge answers resisting the petition and adhering to his original claims.
Dick v. Drysdale 1800 Tailzie, Liferent, Lease, Sasine, Tack, Interlocutor Sir Alexander held Prestonfield and Corstorphine under several strict entails dating to 1720, one of which prevented any heir from setting tacks for more than one lifetime. Sir Alexander's father, Sir William, set a tack in Drysdale that John Dick, as tutor to his nephew, sought to have voided. An Act of Parliament allowed certain types of tacks in contravention of entail clauses, but Dick maintained that the statute did not apply in this case.
Donald Campbell v. John Johnston 1793 Tack, Lease, Interlocutor, Possession, Inhibition, Rent In an action of removing from Middle Craigs, Captain Donald Campbell petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo. John Johnston answered the petition, resisting Campbell's request to overturn the earlier decision.
Duff v. Freeholders of Elgin and Forres 1792 Interlocutor, Freeholder, Res judicata, Tack, Lease, Rent The Honourable Alexander Duff petitioned the Court to alter its prior interlocutor and restore him to the roll of freeholders for Elgin and Forres. Archibald Duff, Sheriff-clerk of Elgin, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter the same interlocutor. The petitions raised the question of whether the Court should reverse its order removing Alexander Duff from the freeholders' roll.
Duggan v. Wight 1795 Debt, Aliment, Lease, Trust, Tack, Trustee Francis Duggan pursued Alexander Wight regarding the lands of Kevockmill, contesting Lord Elkgrove's title and claiming that Wight held the property in trust for him, asserting a beneficial interest despite his absence from the conveyance. Wight denied serving as trustee and relied upon rent receipts to reject Duggan's claim, citing contradictions and lack of funds. After the court pronounced an interlocutor against him, Duggan reclaimed; subsequently, Wight petitioned with correspondence disputing ownership, and Duggan answered maintaining his trust claim.
Dundas v. Baikie and others 1792 Feu duties, Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Feu Sir Thomas Dundas petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had ordered the allocation of teind-duties before those to which heritors held heritable rights. Robert Baikie of Tankerness and other heritors of the United Parishes of St Andrews and Deerness answered the petition.
Dundas v. Thomson 1 of 2 1793 Teinds, Valuation, Rent, Heritor, Tack, Interlocutor
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.
Earl of Aberdeen v. Officers of State 1799 Teind, Rent, Teinds, Lease, Valuation, Tack The Earl of Aberdeen claimed a deduction on a quarter of the rent from several estates in order to reduce his teinds payment. The Officers of State objected to his activities on three grounds, 1) his deduction for use of peat on his land was unjustifiable, 2) by allowing cottagers to live on his land but pay rent to a third party meant that he did not get income directly, and 3) through patronage he claimed deductions on rent from lands outside the areas subject to those tithes.
Earl of Cassillis v. James Finlay, Common Agent for carrying on the Locality of the Stipend of the Parish of Dalrymple 1795 Teinds, Rent, Tack, Stipend, Interlocutor, Valuation
Earl of Galloway v. Earl of Morton 1757 Feu duties, Aliment, Tack, Succession, Teinds, Evidence As proprietors of land in Orkney, the pursuers owed defender James, Earl of Morton, annual feu duties that were generally paid in products such as grain, oil, and butter. These duties were measured in the weight units customarily used in Orkney and Shetland, including the Mark, the Lispund, the Meil, and the Last. The pursuers alleged that these units had increased from their original standards and should be adjusted to match their values in Norway, where they originated. Case documents include diagrams of weighing instruments, numerous depositions, and references to many individuals (including some not listed below).
Earl of Lauderdale v. George Inglis of Reidhall 1764 Prescription, Teinds, Tack, Inhibition, Adjudication, Bankruptcy James Earl of Lauderdale pursued George Inglis of Reidhall for the teinds of Reidball, asserting title by inheritance and inhibition and denying the defender’s claims of sale and prescription. Inglis defended his right, contending that his prescription remained valid and unbroken by the inhibitions relied upon by the pursuer. The Earl then petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, urging that prior inhibitions and judicial processes barred the defender’s prescriptive claim, and Inglis answered by maintaining his prescriptive title to the tithes.
Earl of Northesk & Factor v. Rolland, et al 1797 Lease, Tack, Assignment, Sublease, Rent, Possession
Earl of Rothes v. Shepherd 1766 Landlord and tenant, Rent, Arrestment, Sequestration, Possession, Tack Alexander Shepherd, a tenant farmer, rented land in Begg from the Earl of Rothes. After failing to pay a year's rent, Shepherd sought a bill of suspension from the court to avoid getting evicted, claiming that the time and money that he had invested in enclosing the land with hedges and ditches, at the Earl's encouragement, had rendered it impossible to pay his rent. The Earl of Rothes argued that Shepherd was not the industrious farmer and improver that he claimed to be.
Eliott v. Curries 1796 Debt, Succession, Tack, Lease, Aliment, Rent

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 1530)