1793
LeaseTackInterdictPossessionAlimentInterlocutorDr. 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.AI-generated
Documents in this case (3)
- Dr Colin Lauder v. William Gibson — Answers, 5 Feb 1793February 5, 1793 Answers by William Gibson to the petition and complaint of Dr Colin Lauder, responding that the road in dispute was necessary for his farm and that the interdict caused him great patrimonial loss.
- Lauder — Petition, 11 Apr 1793April 11, 1793 Petition of Doctor Colin LAUDER asking the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutors against his suspension of the interdict
- William Gibson v. Colin Lauder — Answers, 23 May 1793May 23, 1793 Answers by William Gibson to the petition of Dr Colin Lauder, arguing that the road in question was historically used by his predecessors and is not excluded by his lease.
People & places in this case
People involved
- William Gibson — Party
- John Dalrymple, Earl of Stair — Party
- David Douglas, of Reston — Advocate for Party
- John Swinton, Lord Swinton — Lord Ordinary
- John MacLaurin, Lord Dreghorn — Lord Ordinary
Places
- Fala and Soutra (principal)
- Edinburgh
- Dalkeith
- Dreghorn
- London
