1796
DispositionSasineCharterInfeftmentAssignationSeisinPatrick Proctor pursued an action against Sir David Carnegie to establish the validity of a sasine, maintaining that the seisin was legally complete without a commission from Lord Strathmore and that the freeholders and Court had improperly rejected his inrolment. Carnegie defended by contending that the commission was an essential part of the title which Proctor had failed to produce to the freeholders, rendering the seisin null. The parties exchanged informations and memorials debating the necessity of the commission and the legal effect of the sasine.AI-generated
Documents in this case (6)
- Patrick Proctor v. Sir David Carnegy — Petition and Complaint, 12 Jan 1796January 12, 1796 Petition of Patrick Proctor asking the Court to overturn the Michaelmas head-court 1795 rejection of his claim to enrolment in the county of Forfar
- Carnegie — Answers, 2 Feb 1796February 2, 1796 Petition of the complainer asking the Court to overturn the freeholders' refusal to inrol him on the grounds that the commission from Lord Strathmore was not produced at the Michaelmas head-court.
- Patrick Proctor v. Sir David Carnegy of Southesk, Baronet — Replies, 11 Feb 1796February 11, 1796 Information of the complainer, arguing that the commission by Lord Strathmore was not an essential part of the claimant's title and that the sasine was complete in law.
- Patrick Proctor v. Sir David Carnegie — Duplies, 25 Feb 1796February 25, 1796 Information of the respondents, arguing that the complainer's inrolment is invalid because his titles were not produced to the freeholders, and the commission from Lord Strathmore was essential to his …
- Proctor v. Carnegy — Petition, 5 Mar 1796March 5, 1796 Memorial of the petitioner, arguing that his sasine is valid and effectual in law, and that the freeholders and Court were not entitled to reject it
- Patrick Proctor v. Sir David Carnegie — Answers, 11 May 1796May 11, 1796 Answers by Sir David Carnegie to the petition of Patrick Proctor, arguing that the seisin granted to the petitioner is null because it fails to deduce the essential commission from Lord Strathmore.
People & places in this case
People involved
- John Lyon, Earl of Strathmore — Party
- William Nisbet — Party
- Captain James Moodie, of Melsetter — Party
- Mr. Haldane, of Gleneagles — Party
- Sir David Carnegie, of Southesk, 4th Baronet — Party
- John Dalrymple, Earl of Stair — Party
- Alexander Gordon, of Whiteley — Party
- Charles Hay, of Newton, Lord Newton — Advocate for Party
- Adam Rolland, of Gask — Advocate for Party
- John Bell, W.S. — Advocate for Party
