1794
TackPossessionRentLiferentHeritorSequestrationGordon 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.AI-generated
Documents in this case (2)
- Gordon v. Representatives of Michie — Petition, 26 Nov 1794November 26, 1794 Memorial of the petitioners, arguing that the heir of a liferent-tacksman must be entitled to continue possession without summary removal, as the law presumes tacit agreement and requires warning.
- Mrs Barbara Michie and Mrs Elizabeth Michie v. The Honourable Cosmo Gordon — Answers, 11 Dec 1794December 11, 1794 Petition of Mr M'Kenzie asking the Court to permit the petitioners to remain in possession of the Craig of Clunie lands and to prevent the respondent from entering and inclosing the grounds
People & places in this case
People involved
- Alexander Gordon, 4th Duke of Gordon — Party
- Allan Maconochie, Lord Meadowbank — Advocate for Party
- William Mackenzie, of Belmaduthie — Advocate for Party
- Henry Home, of Kames, Lord Kames — Lord Ordinary
- George Broun, of Coalston, Lord Coalston — Lord Ordinary
