Tack

Lease.

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.

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Elliot and Others v. Dickieson	1793	Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Reduction, Augmentation	Elliot and Others raised a process to prove the tenor of a 1635 decree concerning teinds valuation against the Reverend Mr Benjamin Dickieson, seeking to have that valuation declared binding and perpetual. Dickieson defended by memorial, alleging that the process was vitiated by intrinsic nullities and defective adminicles. The pursuers replied, insisting upon the decree's validity and adducing evidence of its draft, handwriting, and prior references from 1736.
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.
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.
Fullarton & Fullarton v. Dalrymple	1796	Succession, Deed, Possession, Prescription, Debt, Tack
Gardiner, et al v. Andrews	1788	Debt, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Rent, Fraud	Robert Gardiner, with the concurrence of Ebenezer Marshall and George Arnot, pursued Robert Andrew to have declared void a lease granted by Gardiner to Andrew, alleging that Gardiner had acted under incapacity and that the defender had procured the tack by fraud. Andrew defended the action, maintaining that the lease had been granted freely and voluntarily without undue practice or fraudulent conduct. The litigation proceeded upon competing memorials addressing the validity of the lease and the questions of Gardiner's capacity and Andrew's alleged fraud.
George and Wilsons v. Wilson	1789	Succession, Tack, Aliment, Lease, Trustee, Interest	George, David, and Mary Wilsons, children of the deceased George Wilson, answered the petition of James Wilson concerning Foulden-Newton, maintaining that the petitioner's claims were without foundation and that the case had been fully determined. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
George Dalziel v. Lockhart of Cleghorn	1765	Rent, Lease, Tack, Arrestment, Oath, Decreet-Arbitral	George Dalziel, innkeeper at Linton, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor in his dispute with Allan Lockhart of Cleghorn regarding a lease agreement. Lockhart answered, denying allegations of deception and false averments in the lease, and Dalziel replied defending his possession and disputing claims of fraud and misrepresentation.
George Dempster and Others v. Charles Lyel, Jr.	1790	Freeholder, Valuation, Sasine, Tack, Infeftment, Decreet-Arbitral	George Dempster and others pursued Charles Lyell, Jr., asking the Court to declare that the freeholders of Forfar had wrongly enrolled Lyell as a freeholder. Lyell answered, defending the validity of his enrollment, and the pursuers replied to his answers.
George Dempster and Others v. Charles Lyel, Sr.	1790	Freeholder, Statute, Jurisdiction, Tack, Disposition, Adjudication	George Dempster and others sought to remove Charles Lyell from the freeholder roll for Forfar, contending that his valuation improperly included Easter Glenquharity lands not held in his title, thereby reducing his qualification below the requisite 400l Scots. The respondents initially denied the allegations and asserted that statutory limits restricted the court’s jurisdiction, while the complainants maintained that the court possessed authority over all wrongful freeholder enrolments and cited precedent. Lyell subsequently answered the petition and complaint, denying that he had been wrongfully retained on the roll.
George Gordon and Alexander Stewart v. Alexander Lawrence	1832	Contract, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Aliment, Expenses	George Gordon and Alexander Stewart pursued Alexander Lawrence, a slater in Keith, regarding disputes over slate supply, pricing, and carriage. Lawrence reclaimed against the interlocutor of Lord Corehouse, and the parties lodged a mutual appendix detailing their competing claims concerning the slate transactions.
Gibson v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor	1795	Tack, Interdict, Damages, Lease, Possession, Interlocutor	Walter Scott petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor that found him liable for expenses only, seeking instead an award of damages for loss caused by an interdict against road access. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gordon of Cluny v. John Anderson	1801	Lease, Damages, Interlocutor, Tack, Sequestration, Arrestment	Lieutenant-Colonel John Gordon of Cluny raised an action of damages against John Anderson and others, seeking reparation for their failure to use the fodder of the way-going crop in accordance with lease regulations. The defenders lodged additional defences maintaining that the action was incompetent, and subsequently argued that the pursuer had no equitable claim for straw lost due to interdict and that they were entitled to be assoilzied. The litigation concerned the application of lease regulations to the fodder of the last crop following a House of Lords judgment on the interpretation of the lease.
Gordon v. Kissock	1785	Landlord & Tenant, Rent, Tack, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Aliment	Robert Gordon, the proprietor of Threave Grange, and John Kissock, a tacksman there, agreed that Kissock would renounce his existing tack and accept a new, smaller tack. The parties later negotiated for Kissock to renounce the substitute tack. They entered into arbitration concerning the price at which he would do so, and a decree arbitral was pronounced. After Gordon refused to turn over the amount established by the decree, Kissock charged him for payment. Gordon applied for a suspension, arguing that the charge should be offset by certain claims he made against Kissock.
Gordon v. Representatives of Michie	1794	Tack, Possession, Rent, Liferent, Heritor, Sequestration	Gordon pursued the Representatives of Michie regarding possession of the Craig of Clunie lands. The petitioners, as heirs of a liferent-tacksman, maintained that they were entitled to continue in possession without summary removal, arguing that the law presumed tacit agreement and required warning before ejection. They initially submitted a memorial advancing this principle, and subsequently petitioned for an order permitting them to remain in possession and restraining the respondents from entering and inclosing the grounds.
Graham v. Pate	1798	Teinds, Heritor, Prescription, Teind, Tack, Stipend	Catharine Pate, John Dickson, and Robert Dickson petitioned against Lord Swinton's interlocutor, arguing that bygone teinds were cut off by quinquennial prescription. Lady Christian Graham, Executrix, answered through her Commissioner and Factor, responding to this prescription argument.
Greig v. Johnston	1782	Aliment, Proof, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Tack, Witness	Helen Greig sued Archibald Johnston for maintenance of a child alleged to be his. Johnston argued that Greig had already discharged her maintenance claim as part of a settlement agreement. Greig denied having discharged the claim, and challenged the evidence offered by Johnson.
Halliday v. Craig's Interlocutor	1793	Tack, Interlocutor, Lease, Aliment, Succession, Heritor	William Robertson petitioned the Court on behalf of Halliday to alter Lord Craig’s recent interlocutor against Messrs Riddell and Mr Davidson. The respondents opposed the removal petition, arguing that the lease allowed Ravenscroft to retake possession at Whitsunday after majority with nine months’ notice.
Hately v. Dunlop	1771	Property, Encroachment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Contract, Tack	Pursuer Joseph Hately was an engineer who specialized in coal mining. In May 1770 Hately obtained a tack (lease) of coal in the lands of Hutchison near Glasgow. Defender Colin Dunlop was a merchant in Glasgow who also worked in the coal trade. Hately accused Dunlop and his business partner Alexander Houston of trying to monopolize the Glaswegian coal trade. Hately was able to sell his coal at a lower price than Dunlop and Houston, who owned adjoining coal property in the lands of Carmyle. Dunlop accused Hately of encroaching upon his lands, petitioned the local sheriff of Lanark to allow three of his servants to inspect Hately's mines. Hately maintained that he did not encroached on Dunlop's property and only wanted to protect his interest in the coal-trade. Hately then sought the appointment of a land-surveyor, who was not a coallier or connected with the coal trade, to evaluate the land.
Henry v. Caldwell	1765	Aliment, Tack, Adjudication, Rent, Arrestment, Proof	Hector Henry, bleacher in Loanhead, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. John Caldwell, mason in Beith, and Elizabeth Swan, daughter to Robert Swan, answered the petition.
Hepburn and Massow v. Duff and Davidson	1793	Prescription, Tack, Aliment, Thirlage, tenant, Sasine	Robert William Duff and his tenant John Donaldson, defenders in the action by Hepburn and Massow, petitioned against Lord Monboddo's interlocutors. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Heritors of Ardnamurchan v. Campbell	1796	Teinds, Stipend, Heritor, Augmentation, Interlocutor, Tack	The Heritors of Ardnamurchan, represented by Sir James Riddell, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the stipend of the Reverend Alexander Campbell, alleging that the allowance was excessive and improperly distributed. Campbell answered, defending the stipend against these claims.
Heritors of Kirkcudbright v. Birtwhistle	1790	Teinds, Adjudication, Disposition, Prescription, Heritor, Tack	The Heritors of Kirkcudbright sought to establish a scheme of locality for the lands of Balmae against William Birtwhistle, who claimed the teinds of those lands and objected to the proposed arrangement. They petitioned the Court to repel Birtwhistle's objection after Lord Monboddo pronounced an interlocutor adverse to their scheme, and Birtwhistle answered while maintaining his claim to the teinds. Birtwhistle later petitioned to alter the Court's subsequent interlocutor, and the Heritors, represented by the Earl of Selkirk, answered to resist his teind claim and defend the locality scheme.
Heritors of Kirkton v. Dickieson	1793	Rent, Lease, Stipend, Teinds, Tack, Augmentation	Benjamin Dickieson, defender, argued that the Heritors of Kirkton's process to prove the tenor of a 1635 decree was invalid due to defective adminicles and intrinsic nullities. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Heritors of Lessudden v. Inner-House Interlocuter	1793	Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Tack, Communion Elements, Heritor	The Duke of Buccleugh and other heritors of Leffudden petitioned the Court to reserve power to restrict the stipend in the event that the parish of Maxton was annexed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Heron v. MacLellan	1775	Landlord and tenant, Debt, Rent, Tack, Lease, Aliment	Thomas MacLellan and Patrick Heron formed a co-partnership according to which MacLellan would make improvements on Heron's farms. In addition, MacLellan was put in possession of a small piece of property called Gelston Wood for his own use. The partnership dissolved in 1772, but MacLellan stayed on in Gelston Wood, where he had been residing and farming. In June 1772, the Old Ayr Bank failed, at great cost to Patrick Heron, a founding partner. Sir Robert Maxwell, a relative of Heron’s, was ruined by the bank failure. He seems to have laid claim to lands held by Heron that had formerly been possessed by the Maxwell family, including Gelston Wood. In 1773 Heron raised a summons against MacLellan, ordaining him to quit Gelston Wood, and accusing him of irritancy by not paying rent. In response, MacLellan pleaded compensation. In February of 1775 Lord Kennet assoilzied MacLellan, and Heron brought a separate process before the Stewart-substitute of Kirkcudbright, who decerned in the removing. MacLellan then presented a bill of suspension to Lord Kennet, who upheld the Stewart-substitute’s ruling, and a second bill presented to Lord Ankerville was refused. MacLellan petitioned the Court for review, but, according to handwritten marginalia, they adhered. The first two documents in this record constitute the first case between the two litigants, which concluded in 1775. The second set of petitions is a sequel case, which began in 1776.
Hon. Mrs Maria Hay Mackenzie and Hugh Munro v. Magistrates of Dingwall and Others	1832	Sequestration, Possession, Tack, Expenses, Interlocutor, Res judicata	Mrs. Maria Hay Mackenzie and Hugh Munro petitioned the Court for interim execution pending their appeal against the interlocutor of 11th July 1832 in their action against the Magistrates of Dingwall and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Howe v. Bland	1782	Copartnership, Debt, Lease, Tack, Creditor, Aliment	This case was about liability for a debt owed to John Howe, a wright, for his work for the Theatre Royal of Edinburgh. Howe alleged that the defender, John Bland, was liable as a joint lessee and partner to West Digges in the business of the theater. According to Howe, Bland and Digges were jointly and severally liable for the sum that was owed to him; because Digges was bankrupt, Howe sought to collect from Bland. Bland argued that he had given up his interest in the theater to Digges in exchange for a monthly fixed payment. Trained as a barrister, Bland signed case documents presenting his arguments.
Hugh Montgomery v. Strang, Lennox and Company	1798	Decreet-Arbitral, Tack, Arbitration, Usury, Reduction, Interlocutor	Strang, Lennox and Company, cotton-spinners in Eaglesham, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor respecting their claim for damages against Hugh Montgomery of Bogstown, suspender, arising from a prior loan and arbitration dispute. Montgomery submitted answers opposing the chargers' application.
Hunter v. Roxburgh	1794	Tack, Teinds, Lease, Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor	The pursuer Hunter petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, seeking a finding that he was entitled to the ipsa corpora of the vicarage-teinds specified in his libel, or alternatively requesting letters of incident diligence for further evidence. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Inglis v. Gray	1785	Tack, Lease, Sequestration, Title, Infeftment, Removing	This case was about defender Walter Gray’s tack on the estate of Langwell. Shortly after Walter agreed to the tack, his brother William purchased Langwell. William granted bonds over the estate to Hugh Inglis and John Cartier as security for certain debts. Later, Inglis and Carter initiated court proceedings involving the property, which was sequestered under the supervision of a factor. Inglis also sought to void Walter’s tack or have Walter removed from the estate. Inglis alleged that Walter’s rent was far below the value of the property as stated on a rent roll that Walter had endorsed. Inglis also claimed that the tack would expire soon and that Walter was in arrears on his rent. Walter objected that Inglis’s security right, unlike a full property right, did not entitle him to challenge the tack or remove a tenant; when Inglis attempted to add the factor as a pursuer, Walter argued that this was a procedural irregularity. Walter also argued that William had granted him a new lease and that he was not in arrears on rent.
Irving v. Lowther	1765	Rent, Sequestration, Possession, Tack, Removing, Bankruptcy	John Irving, feuar in Dornock and brother-german and heir to William Irving, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against George Lowther, portioner of Dornock. Lowther answered, claiming active title to remove sub-tenants who held only from him and contending that their lease from a factor was invalid.
James Ayton v. James Bruce	1785	Aliment, Lease, Succession, Tack, Interlocutor, tenant	James Ayton of Kippo leased his mill to James Bruce, along with the right to mill grain produced on surrounding properties that were possessed by tenants. While the lease to Bruce was still in effect, Ayton took back the land that had been leased to tenants and stopped taking that land’s produce to the mill. Bruce claimed that he should receive a corresponding abatement of his rent.
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.
James Goodfellow v. Andrew Madder	1785	Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Tack, Fraud	James Goodfellow charged Andrew Madder for payment of a bill. Madder alleged that the bill had been given for no value and sought to have Goodfellow judicially examined. Goodfellow contested Madder’s claim and argued that his allegation could only be proved by a writing.
James Gordon v. Robert Grant	1783	Aliment, Succession, Tack, Infeftment, Disposition, Debt	James Gordon pursued Robert Grant for feu-duties and casualties, claiming superiority over lands in non-entry that Grant refused to enter or pay. Grant defended by seeking a declarator of non-entry against Gordon and Francis Gordon regarding a 1775 marriage contract that had granted him lands and an annuity from his father John Grant. In February 1783, the defenders condescended, arguing that the marriage contract and its settlement were not fraudulent and that Rothmaise was solvent at the time.
James Waddel v. John Brown	1794	Tack, Lease, Possession, Succession, Adjudication, Disposition	James Waddel pursued John Brown concerning a lease of burgage subjects, seeking to determine whether such a lease bound a singular successor under the Act of 1449 without regard to the purchaser's knowledge. Waddel, by his agent Robert Craigie, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and either grant decree in terms of the libel or ordain Brown to answer facts and produce correspondence. Brown responded by information, arguing that a lease of burgage subjects was binding against a singular successor under the 1449 Act regardless of whether the purchaser had notice of it.
Janet Barber v. John Caddell	1789	Rent, Possession, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Proof	Janet Barber, relict of James Renny, pursued John Caddell of Cockenzie in a suspension bill alleging he had unlawfully sold her crop and seized her land without authority. Caddell petitioned the Court to remit the suspension, asserting claims of possession and rent arrears against her. Barber answered, defending her suspension and responding to Caddell’s allegations regarding possession and arrears.
John Carmichael v. Gabriel Peter	1765	Debt, Rent, Aliment, Tack, Assignation, Lease	John Carmichael pursued Gabriel Peter, a baker in Edinburgh, regarding rent claimed under a tack. The Lord Ordinary having found Peter liable for the full rent, Peter petitioned the Court to alter that interlocutor on the ground that an additional rent agreement with Cundell remained unfulfilled. Carmichael answered, contending that the assignation of the tack was void because it rested upon an unenforceable verbal agreement.
John Kelly v. John Smith	1780	Statute, Property, Sequestration, Tack, Regalia, Heritor	John Kelly, huntsman to Major Blair of Blair, brought a complaint against John Smith for hunting without the proper qualification. Smith argued that he satisfied the only statutory qualification that was currently in effect. The dispute raised a question of first impression as to the correct interpretation of certain statutes.
John Leslie v. The Earl of Kintore, and Others	1794	Tack, Teinds, Lease, Valuation, Teind, Rent	John Leslie of Balquhain petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor sustaining objections to his proof of teind based on rental value, while the Earl of Kintore and others argued that teind value must be calculated from current tenant rents rather than an overlease granted in 1769. Leslie replied to the defenders' answers, denying their allegations regarding the lease, grassums, and profits. The defenders maintained that the 1769 lease had been granted at below-market value to compensate a creditor and therefore ought not to govern the teind valuation.
John Minto and John Gavin v. John Kirkpatrick	1831	Succession, Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Liferent, Tack	John Minto and John Gavin pursued John Kirkpatrick for a decree compelling exhibition of title-deeds and accounts relating to Margaret Sime's inheritance and annuity rights. They reclaimed against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Medwyn.
John Scott and Others v. The College of Glasgow	1792	Teinds, Valuation, Heritor, Teind, Tack, Thirlage	John Scott of Heatherieknow and others pursued the Principal and Professors of the College of Glasgow regarding the payment of valued teinds in victual. The College petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor on 28 May 1792, submitting a reclaiming petition, and Scott and others answered on 11 October 1792, responding to the demand for payment.
Johnston v. Robertson	1784	Decreet-Arbitral, Rent, Aliment, Sequestration, Possession, Tack	Defender Thomas Johnston of Templehall obtained a tack of Prenderguest from Robert Robertson. The tack contained a clause allowing Robert to retake possession of forty acres in the event that he decided to build a house and offices on it. After granting the tack, Robert transferred the lands to his son Alexander, who sought to invoke this clause. A dispute arose between Alexander and Johnston, and the case was submitted to arbiters. Robert, the father, then raised an action before the Sheriff of Berwickshire seeking immediate possession of forty acres; his son Alexander was subsequently added as pursuer. Johnston argued that under a decree pronounced by the arbiters, Alexander could not take possession of the full forty acres until he had actually built a house.
King & Caldwall v. King	1765	Debt, Rent, Aliment, Possession, Tack, Creditor	John Caldwall and John King, tenant, petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors and discharge Caldwall from liability for the rents of Park and Hall. James King, Gavin Ralston, and John King, portioner, answered, asserting their tacit possession of the Park lands and claiming the full rent with an abatement of three pounds for that property.
Kirkpatrick v. Maxwells	1795	Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Tack, Trustee	William Kirkpatrick claimed title to Kirkcudbright lands against the heirs and husbands of Sir Robert Maxwell’s sisters, who defended by asserting their own prior title founded upon ancient charters and prescription. After the Court issued an interlocutor, Kirkpatrick petitioned to have it altered, and the defenders subsequently disputed his claim.
Laidlaw v. Elliot	1797	Aliment, Sequestration, Feu, Tack, Glebe, Manse	To provide the minister of Peebles with a grass glebe, the presbytery appropriated a small field that was held in feu by the pursuer, William Laidlaw. The field was part of a tract commonly understood to have been the vicar’s glebe before church lands fell to the sovereign at the Reformation. While not contesting the appropriation of his land, Mr. Laidlaw claimed that certain statutes entitled him to relief from the heritors of all other church lands within the parish. However, Ann Elliot argued that only heritors of the vicar’s glebe were required to contribute. The court found that Act 1594, c. 202, provided a general right of relief from heritors of church lands in the parish.
Laird v. Grindlay	1790	Tack, Creditor, Succession, Debt, Possession, Interlocutor	John Laird and Company, merchants in Greenock, pursued Walter Grindlay, farmer at Seabegs, and John Buchanan, his mandatory, regarding a mill lease and Henderson’s employment, charging the defenders with unlawful possession and subtenancy. The cause proceeded to proof in June 1790, after which the pursuers petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor in February 1791, and the defenders answered in April 1791, contesting the allegations of unlawful possession.
Lamont v. His Creditors	1781	Cessio Bonorum, Fraudulent-Bankrupt, Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Tack	Pursuer Robert Lamont, who was imprisoned in the Tolbooth of Canongate, brought an action of cessio bonorum (voluntary surrender of goods) against his creditors. The creditors objected on the grounds that Lamont: (1) Improperly fled the country after selling his livestock and carrying off his effects; (2) Fraudulently disposed of produce that had been promised to one of the creditors; (3) Failed to prove his losses; and (4) Failed to account for large sums of money that he inherited.
Lauder v. Gibson	1793	Lease, Tack, Interdict, Possession, Aliment, Interlocutor	Dr. Colin Lauder pursued William Gibson regarding the use of a road, having obtained an interdict against Gibson. Gibson answered that the road was necessary for his farm and that the interdict caused him patrimonial loss, whereupon Lauder petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutors against suspension of the interdict. Gibson responded that the road had been historically used by his predecessors and was not excluded by the terms of his lease.
Leggat v. Inner-House Interlocutor	1787	Debt, Sequestration, Adjudication, Rent, Power of Attorney, Tack	David Leggat petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor, raising the question of whether the Court should modify its prior order. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 1530)