The Officers of State represent a renter who lived on the property of the Earl of Selkirk. The renter claimed that he had made improvements on the land, and was thus entitled to a deduction in his rental teinds because of the expenses he incurred in making these improvements. The Earl of Selkirk argued that only permanent improvements should be entitled to deductions, and that improvements such as laying manure for crops and adding lime to the soil were temporary and were paid off in the profits yielded by a higher crop. Marginalia on the front page of the first document notes that the court found that the pursuer was not entitled to any deduction in the rental teinds.
Documents in this case (2)
People involved
- Sir Robert Dundas, 1st Baronet of Beechwood — Agent
- Charles Hope, Lord Granton — Advocate for Pursuer
- Henry Erskine — Advocate for Defender
- Thomas Douglas, 5th Earl of Selkirk — Defender
- W. Anderson — Agent
Places
The Officers of State represent a renter who lived on the property of the Earl of Selkirk. The renter claimed that he had made improvements on the land, and was thus entitled to a deduction in his rental teinds because of the expenses he incurred in making these improvements. The Earl of Selkirk argued that only permanent improvements should be entitled to deductions, and that improvements such as laying manure for crops and adding lime to the soil were temporary and were paid off in the profits yielded by a higher crop. Marginalia on the front page of the first document notes that the court found that the pursuer was not entitled to any deduction in the rental teinds.
Locations
Session Papers
| Petition | The Petition of The Officers of State |
12 Jan 1802 |
| Answers | Answers for The Right Honourable Thomas, Earl of Selkirk |
12 Nov 1802 |
