Legal Subject: Title

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Aitken v. Orr 1802 Title, Property right, Husband who raises action in the name of his wife Jean Aitken originally left her property to her sisters, Mary and Margaret Aitken, but 14 days before her death and on her deathbed, she changed her will and instead left all of her property to her niece, Mary Hugh Orr, the daughter of petitioner Margaret Aitken by a former husband. Mary and Margaret Aitken, as well as their husbands, brought an action of reduction against Mary Hugh Orr. Mary Orr claimed that the Aitkens had not produced proof of their original claim to the inheritance, and also that their husbands had brought the claim in their names without their consent. The Aitkens sisters husbands were ordered to produce written statements in their wives' hand writing indicating their consent, but the date the statements were due to the court passed without their submission. The Lord Ordinary held that the case should be dismissed in favor of the defenders, because the wives may be obligated to produce their concurrence to exercise their right. The Aitken sisters then objected to this ruling claiming that there is a legal presumption that husbands have the authority to speak for their wives, since married women are considered to have the same legal status as minors, and their husbands are their guardians. The marginalia notes that on 11 of February, 1802, the claim was "refused without [?]."
Alexander-James Grant v. Countess of Sutherland 1773 Debt, Adjudication, Ranking of Creditors, Sequestration, Sasine, Title Alexander-James Grant petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the ranking of creditors. The Countess of Sutherland and her Tutors answered the petition, defending the existing determination of priority.
Andrew Wauchope and Others v. The Magistrates of Canongate 1798 Prescription, Possession, Act of Parliament, Statute, Title, Burgh The Magistrates of Canongate, defenders, were authorized by statute to levy customs duties at the Water Gate with respect to certain articles at particular rates. For many years, the Magistrates had charged higher rates and levied duties on articles not mentioned in the statute. In 1795, the Magistrates published a new table of duties that served to increase rates and to add new articles. Pursuers Andrew Wauchope, the Trustees of the Post Road District, and William Scott (Procurator-fiscal of the County of Edinburgh) challenged the Magistrates’ authority to charge duties not specifically authorized by the statute.
Dr William Park of Langlands, v. Robert Craig in Barkip 1771 Land dispute, Title, Adjudication, Creditor, Disposition, Liferent William Park of Langlands, pursuer, claims that the lands of Barkip belong to him. Robert Craig Sr., defender, claims that he has the right to possess half of the lands of Barkip based on a heritable bond dating back to 1726. William Craig, brother of Robert Craig Sr. had the other half but after his death, his oldest son Robert Craig Jr. inherited it. William Park of Mainshill, the pursuer's father, granted a heritable bond to John Hamilton of Auchinvole. This bond apparently stipulated that Park's ancestors would give up the lands of Barkip if the bond was not paid on time. The bond was due in Martinmas 1732. Park claims that the bond was paid in part. He argues that the defenders only have an encumbrance on the lands of Barkip in the form of a debt, and not a right in the lands themselves. Park sets forth a distinction between "termly failzies" (real property obligations) and "ordinary penalties" (personal obligations). Park alleges that the process that put Craig in possession of the lands of Barkip was improper, thus he brings an action of reduction and declarator of extinction of the adjudication to defender.
Erskine v. Hay-Balfour 1766 Bonds, Debt, Adjudication, Succession, Title, Interlocutor In 1717, James Balfour of Randerstoun and Thomas Hay of Edinburgh granted bond to Thomas Erskine. Upon Erskine's death, his three daughters each inherited a one third share of the bond. Janet, the youngest daughter, died without issue. This case involved a dispute over whether or not the other two sisters had a lawful claim to the full bond payment, including Janet's third and its interest. The defender, John Hay-Balfour and his Tutors, claimed that the two living sisters failed to take the legal steps required to vest in them Janet's share of the bond. Handwritten note on front page reads "refused."
Fleming and Elphinston v. Fleming and Grant 1766 Adjudication, Improbation, Succession, Prescription, Title, Reduction This case involved competing claims to the title of the lands of Board and a dispute over the validity of Robert Fleming's descendence from the Flemings of Board. In 1758, Robert Fleming and his trustee John Grant brought an action of reduction against Lady Clementina Fleming to revoke her rights to the lands of Board. In 1761, Lady Clementina and her husband Charles Elphinstone initiated this counter-suit and brought an action of reduction against Robert Fleming and John Grant, in which they claimed that Robert Fleming was an illegitimate heir of the Flemings of Board and therefore had no claim over the lands of Board under dispute.
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.
Lord William Gordon and Others v. Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod and Others 1791 Freeholder, Statute, Possession, Election contest, Title, Court of Session Lord William Gordon, Vice-Admiral of Scotland, presented a petition and complaint against Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod, Arthur Forbes of Culloden, and others regarding the removal of his name from the Inverness-shire freeholders' roll. The complainer alleged that the respondents had acted irregularly in striking off liferent-voters, while the respondents contended that the four-month limitation period did not bar the removal of nominal or fictitious voters and that their conduct was legally justified. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies addressing the procedural regularity of the expunging and the applicability of the limitation period, followed by speeches on whether objections of nominality were competent after four months. Thereafter, Lord William Gordon and Lieutenant Alexander Godsman petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and award expenses, prompting further answers from the respondents defending their freeholder status and maintaining the validity of their prior objections.
Thomas Beattie v. Thomas Tod 1793 Infeftment, Charter, Disposition, Proof, Sasine, Title Petition and Complaint entered by Mr. Thomas Beattie regarding his claim to join the roll of Freeholders. Mr. Beattie bought the rights to the lands of Hartsgarth and Langhaugh from Mr. Sharp. He then purchased the superiority of the lands from the Duke of Buccleugh, the superior of the lordship of Liddiesdale and most of the parish of Castleton, original owner of Hartsgarth and Langhaugh.
Mr. Tod, Writer to the Signet, denied admission to the roll of Freeholders on the grounds that Mr. Beattie had not provided adequate proof that the lands of Hartsgarth and Langhaugh lie within the lordship of Liddiesdale, meaning that the Duke of Buccleugh could not sell the superiority to Mr. Beattie.
Mr. Beattie petitions the court to stipulate that the burden of disproving his claim lies with the the Freedholders, or alternatively, to rule that the additional documents provided by Mr. Beattie establish proof.
Williamson v. Hay 1832 Trustees, Assignees, Title, Expenses, Interlocutor, Action Alexander Williamson, the pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter its interlocutor which found no expenses due to either party. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 230)