AI-transcribed

Charter. A charter is the written evidence of a grant of heritable property, made under the condition that the grantee shall annually pay a sum of money, or perform certain services to the grantor; and by our law it must be in the form of a written deed. The grantor of a charter is termed the superior,—the grantee the vassal,—the vassal is said to hold the subject of the superior,—and the annual sum or service stipulated is termed the duty. Charters are called blench or feu, from the nature of the stipulated prestation,—a me or de me, from the kind of holding,—and original, or by progress, from being first or renewed grants of the same subjects.

Definition source
AI-transcribed
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Charter.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Charter

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Adam Livingston, Esq. of Bantaskine v. Sir Thomas Dundas, Bart. 1790 Possession, Feu duties, Infeftment, Disposition, Sasine, Charter Adam Livingston of Bantaskine petitioned the Court to overturn the Michaelmas head court's decision striking him from the roll of freeholders for Stirlingshire, asserting his qualification through possession of the two merk land of Kipdarroch. Sir Thomas Dundas resisted the petition, answering that Livingston never possessed the lands, which had been held by the Gourlay family and Mr Moir of Leckie under Crown tenure since the preceding century. The parties exchanged replies and answers regarding the title to stand upon the roll, and Dundas additionally petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, contending that statutory prescription did not bar inquiry into the possession of the lands.
Alexander Cunnynghame v. William Muir of Caldwall 1760 Possession, Disposition, Retour, Charter, Liferent, Feu duties Alexander Cunnynghame pursued a claim to the Five Pound Land of Craigbeat and Kersemeadow against William Muir of Caldwall, who objected on the basis of tax-roll and vassal land distinctions and argued that Cunnynghame’s title was nominal and fictitious and that he lacked possession. Muir replied to Cunnynghame’s answers, insisting that the pursuer held neither valid title nor actual possession of the lands. Cunnynghame defended his liferent-right to the properties, rebutting the objections by citing historical retours and demonstrating vassal possession.
Alexander Fergusson, and Others v. The Magistrates of Glasgow 1781 Tack, Arrestment, Reduction, Charter, Tax, Sequestration The pursuers, who were also suspenders in a related action, challenged the authority of the magistrates of Glasgow to impose a duty on potatoes.
Belsches v. Paterson and Anderson 1786 Tack, Thirlage, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Charter, Reduction Robert Belsches pursued the action against Mrs Mary Paterson and Alexander Farquharson regarding the extent of thirlage over the lands of Greenyards. Belsches argued that the thirlage did not extend to wheat or barley, while Paterson and Farquharson maintained that the lands of Easter Greenyards were thirled to the mill of Skeoch for omnia grana crescentia.
Bruce v. Cunynghame 1790 Disposition, Freeholder, Charter, Seisin, Sasine, Assignation James Bruce of Kinnaird petitioned the Court to expunge Sir William Augustus Cunynghame from the freeholders' roll of Stirling, alleging that Cunynghame’s qualification was nominal, fictitious, or held in confidence rather than by real right. Cunynghame answered that his freeholder qualification was genuine and supported by valid titles, a defense joined by David Cunynghame, younger of Livingstone, who asserted that the land titles were fully documented. Bruce replied and Cunynghame duplied, continuing the dispute over whether the enrollment rested on a real or merely nominal qualification.
Campbell v. Officers of State 1784 Teinds, Tack, Charter, Disposition, Patronage, Stipend General Campbell petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Elliock Ordinary, asserting that he held heritable rights to his teinds. The Officers of State responded, arguing that the tithes of Campbell’s lands in Kilvicocharmaig were heritably held and not subject to local stipend by virtue of ancient charters and possessory prescription.
Carnegy v. Gardyne 1796 Sasine, Charter, Register, Freeholder, Infeftment, Disposition James Lindsay Carnegy petitioned to overturn the enrolment of Charles Gardyne as a freeholder at the Michaelmas head-court for Forfar, contending that the sasine of 1789 underlying Gardyne's claim proceeded upon an exhausted precept and that the claim failed to specify the register in which the sasine was recorded as required by statute. Gardyne answered that his claim satisfied the statute of the 16th of the late King and that the omission of the register specification was immaterial. Carnegy replied insisting upon the necessity of specifying the register, while Gardyne reiterated that his claim met all statutory requirements without such specification and had been properly accepted.
Cunynghame v. Watson 1788 Jurisdiction, Freeholder, Retour, Charter, Sasine, Tax Sir William Augustus Cunynghame petitioned the Court to overturn the freeholders' interlocutor admitting Charles Watson as a freeholder, challenging whether the heritable bailie office and lands qualified Watson for that status. David Williamson answered for the defender, responding to Cunynghame's objections regarding the extent of the office and lands.
Davidson v. Hill 1802 Retour, Charter, Statute, Election contest, Freeholder, Sasine At a meeting of the freeholders of Stirlingshire, Robert Hill claimed to be enrolled upon the lands of Western Glenboig. He produced two extracts of retours which he claimed proved his title. Harry Davidson, one of the freeholders, objected to Hill's enrollment, arguing that Hill’s retours were insufficient. The Court found that the 16th Act of George II required an old extent of lands to be established by a retour, but that this could be done by one or more retours, and that, accordingly, a freeholder who produced two separate retours of two parcels of land had a right to be enrolled (Morison's Decisions of the Court of Session).
Duke of Gordon v. Lord Swinton's Interlocutor 1787 Patronage, Charter, Succession, Act of Parliament, Interlocutor, Conveyance Alexander, Duke of Gordon petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edmonstone v. Morehead 1790 Freeholder, Disposition, Teinds, Charter, Sasine, Assignation George Edmonstone, a minister, petitioned the Court to overturn the Stirlingshire freeholders' refusal to admit him to the electoral roll, while William Morehead of Herbertshire defended the decision by challenging Edmonstone's qualification. Edmonstone submitted replies and duplies addressing objections to his qualification, and his agent William Craig filed answers to Morehead's condescendence. The pleadings repeatedly referenced parallel litigation involving Edmonstone's brother Charles Edmonstone and another freeholder, Mr. Cheape.
Incorporation of Weavers in Glasgow v. James Freeland and Others 1777 Charter, Weaving, Silk, Statute, Corporation, Prescription In 1528, the Crown granted the Incorporation of Weavers in Glasgow an exclusive charter to practice weaving in that burgh. In 1681, however, they lost the exclusive privilege of weaving linen and hemp. Around 1760, a number of craftsmen in Glasgow began operating as silk-weavers despite being neither freemen of the Incorporation of Weavers nor, in some cases, freemen of Glasgow Burgh. In 1775, after the Incorporation of Weavers brought a complaint against a number of them, Bailie Duncan Niven had them imprisoned and fined. After obtaining a bill of suspension and liberation, these silk-weavers brought an action of oppression and damages against certain members of the Incorporation, and against Bailie Niven. At the same time, the Incorporation of Weavers requested a declaration that only members of their guild could practice silk-weaving within Glasgow. These actions were conjoined and came before Lord Gardenstone, who reported the case. The Court found that if the silk-weavers wished to practice their craft, they must join the Incorporation of Weavers. The case reports only cover the action of declarator brought by the Incorporation of Weavers.
John Ballenden v. The Duke of Argyle 1791 Feu duties, Interlocutor, Infeftment, Charter, Reduction, Irritancy John Ballenden petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor and subsequently petitioned against an Inner-house interlocutor, seeking reversal of the orders. The Duke of Argyll answered, resisting Ballenden's arguments that the interlocutor should be altered.
John Johnston v. William Morehead 1790 Liferent, Disposition, Tailzie, Charter, Entail, Succession John Johnston sought to overturn the enrollment of William Morehead junior as a freeholder in Stirling county, alleging that Morehead’s liferent qualification was nominal and fictitious. Morehead defended his title as valid and absolute, maintaining that the conveyance was not revocable and that the entail did not entitle Johnston to recall the liferent right. The parties exchanged replies and duplies, followed by a condescendence and answers debating whether the liferent was absolute, and Johnston subsequently noted a reclaiming petition regarding the non-existence of a deed of entail dated November 28, 1786.
John Wilson and Others v. James Scott and Others 1792 Debt, Aliment, Corporation, Charter, Succession, Interlocutor John Wilson and others pursued James Scott, late Deacon, and other members of the Incorporation of Hammermen in Glasgow, contending that the defenders had unlawfully applied £20 from the corporation's funds to burgh reform. The defenders maintained that the Incorporation possessed legal power to apply its funds for public reform purposes. After the pursuers noted the financial history and assessment of the corporation, the defenders petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
Knox v. Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow 1798 Procurator, Charter, Faculty, Penalty, Interlocutor, Contract Hugh Knox, Writer in Glasgow, petitioned the Court against the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, seeking to remit their regulation that imposed £30 of entry money upon him on the grounds that his apprenticeship had ended before the regulation was enacted and the charge was therefore retrospective and oppressive. The Faculty answered, defending the regulation against his claims.
M'Leod v. Incorporation of Bakers 1784 Tack, Thirlage, Possession, Aliment, Tax, Charter Malcolm M'Leod, tackman of the ladle-dues, pursued the Incorporation of Bakers of Glasgow for payment of ladle-dues on wheat and flour, including grain ground at the Partick mills. After M'Leod proved that such dues applied to all wheat entering Glasgow including that ground at Partick, the Bakers petitioned to alter the interlocutor and claimed immunity, whereupon M'Leod answered and produced a 1693 decree-arbitral between the Town and the Bakers. Following remits from the Lord Ordinary, the Bakers argued that the Magistrates had no right to levy dues on grain brought to Partick without entering the city, while the Magistrates maintained their entitlement to levy on such grain.
Mackay v. Houston 1795 Wadset, Charter, Seisin, Freeholder, Factor Loco Tutoris, Disposition Æneas Mackay petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his inrolment as a freeholder of Sutherland, while Hugh Houston objected that Mackay had failed to specify whether he claimed as a wadsetter or absolute proprietor and that his titles were defective. Mackay replied that his claim fully complied with statutory requirements for inrolment, but Houston maintained that the titles remained insufficient and the specification of interest inadequate. The dispute turned on whether Mackay's property rights satisfied the legal prerequisites for freeholder status.
Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing v. Graham 1789 Lease, Tack, Rent, Charter, Sequestration, Privilege The Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing pursued George Graham of Kinross for payment of £23 sterling yearly for the customs of the town under the roup of January 1785. They also reclaimed an interlocutor that had granted Graham the sole right to the fairs and markets customs, asserting the burgh’s historic entitlement to levy those same dues.
Marshall, et al v. Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow 1788 Interlocutor, Interdict, Suspension, Charter, Act of Parliament, Possession The Examinators of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow, including Dr Robert Marshall, petitioned the Court to continue an interdict restraining the Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow from quartering soldiers upon them, pending a determination of their claimed charter-based immunity from such burdens. The Magistrates answered, responding to the physicians' argument that their faculty charter rendered them exempt from the quartering of soldiers.
Mary, &c Stewarts v. Sir John Scott and Others 1795 Teinds, Stipend, Patronage, Charter, Possession, Heritor Miss Mary, Helen, and Isabella Stewarts of Barnhills pursued Sir John Scott for a conveyance of the teinds of Ancrum upon payment of six years' purchase, contending that Scott held the teinds only as patron under the Act 1690 and thus could be compelled to convey. Scott defended on the ground that his charters conveyed an heritable right to the teinds, not merely patronage.
Melville v. Heritors of Leslie 1799 Teinds, Feu, Charter, Charter of Confirmation To fund an increased stipend for the minister of Leslie parish, Lord Glenlee prepared a “scheme of locality,” which allocated the stipend among the heritors liable to pay. During proceedings on the locality, Lord Glenlee found that John Melvill had failed to show that his lands at Prinlaws were held cum decimis inclusis, which would exempt them from liability for the stipend. Melvill challenged the interlocutor, and the court held that charters from the commendator of Inchcolm, dated 1550 and 1568, and confirmed by King James in 1584, rendered the lands exempt.
Ministers of Kingbarns v. Hay, et al 1793 Glebe, Heritor, Teinds, Succession, Charter, Presbytery The ministers of Kingbarns, by the Reverend James Beatson, pursued David Balfour Hay of Leys and Randerston and other heritors concerning the designation of glebe lands for the parish. The heritors initially argued that glebe must be drawn from church lands rather than temporal lands, which they claimed were exempt from such burdens, while Beatson contended that temporal lands adjacent to the kirk and manse could properly be designated. Following an adverse interlocutor, Beatson petitioned for its alteration, and subsequent pleadings saw Hay insist that glebe must be designed from Fallside lands before Newton lands under statutory order, the College of St Andrews defend Fallside's exemption based on parliamentary charters of 1587 and 1693, and both the ministers' representatives and other heritors submit answers addressing the liability of temporal lands and the validity of the Presbytery's designation.
Officers of State v. Skene 1796 Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Heritor, Stipend, Charter The Officers of State pursued Messrs Skene and Elmslie regarding the tithes of Daviot parish, contending that the teinds belonged to the Bishop of Aberdeen as a mensal church rather than to the minister as parsonage, and asserting the Crown's right to allocate augmentation ultimo loco. The defenders maintained that the teinds of their lands were payable to the minister of Daviot as parsonage teinds, rejecting the claim that the church was mensal to the bishop. The parties exchanged memorials presenting these opposing arguments on the destination of the teinds and the Crown's consequent augmentation rights.
Ogilvie v. Scott 1792 Teinds, Patronage, Charter, Heritor, Debt, Parish
Proctor v. Carnegy 1796 Disposition, Sasine, Charter, Infeftment, Assignation, Seisin Patrick 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.
Robert Fram and Others v. The Magistrates of Dumbarton 1786 Aliment, Lease, Tack, Charter, Adjudication, Rent This case was about the right of the residents of Dumbarton to receive fish from the rivers Clyde and Leven. Dumbarton’s crown charter conferred the right to certain salmon fishings on “the bailies, burgesses, counsellors, community, and inhabitants” of the town. For more than a century, the town had let the salmon fishings to tacksmen, who were required to sell their catch in the town market at a low rate. In 1783, the magistrates decided to issue tacks with no such restriction. Certain residents of Dumbarton sued, arguing that they had a personal interest in the salmon fishings. The magistrates responded that the new arrangement would benefit the town.
Sir Alexander Ramsay Irvine v. The Honourable William Maule 1794 Teinds, Heritor, Valuation, Statute, Act of Parliament, Charter
Sir John Ogilvie of Inverquharity v. Sir David Carnegie of Southesk 1795 Valuation, Charter, Disposition, Commissioners of Supply, Proof, Succession Sir John Ogilvie of Inverquharity pursued Sir David Carnegie of Southesk and other freeholders regarding their refusal to inroll him on the roll of freeholders for the county of Forfar in respect of the lands of Baldovan. The dispute centered on whether Ogilvie had sufficiently established the lands' valuation at £386:5:8 Scots through cess-book entries and receipts to qualify for the roll, or whether the freeholders had properly rejected his proof as insufficient. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies debating the adequacy of the valuation evidence and the applicability of precedents.
Stewarts v. Scott 1794 Teinds, Charter, Patronage, Heritor, Stipend, Tack Miss Bien and Isabella Stewarts of Barnhills pursued an action against Scott regarding bygone teinds in the parish of Ancrum. They petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Henderland Ordinary on the matter. Scott defended his title by memorial, maintaining that his charters conveyed an heritable right to the teinds rather than mere patronage.
The Duke of Argyle v. The Earl of Dunmore 1795 Succession, Charter, Entail, Tailzie, Infeftment, Adjudication The Duke of Argyll, pursuer, argued against the Earl of Dunmore, defender, that he was entitled to reserve a year's rent from heirs of entail who were not heirs of line of the last investiture. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. The Freeholders and Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew 1792 Arrestment, Burgh, Burgh of Barony, Charter, Debt, Aliment The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley pursued the Freeholders and Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew regarding liability for expenses incurred in maintaining prisoners committed to the burgh's custody. Sir Michael Stewart and others, representing the defenders, argued that the magistrates were personally liable for costs arising from prisoners committed on their own warrants. The pursuers countered that, as a burgh of barony with a sufficient prison, they were entitled to be relieved of such expenses from the public rogue money fund.
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.
Tod and Stoddart v. The Town of Edinburgh, and the Edinburgh Glass-house Company 1793 Feu, Charter, Property, Prescription, Tack, Interlocutor Tod and Stoddart pursued the Town of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh Glasshouse Company to block the Company’s proposed alteration of the road to the sands of Leith, arguing that the change would deprive them of access and injure public uses. The defenders maintained that the ground was validly feu’d for their use and not prejudicial to others, while the Justices of Peace of the County of Edinburgh supported the pursuers in insisting that public access to the sands could not be narrowed. Following an interlocutor of 4 July 1793, the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Glasshouse Company petitioned the Court to alter that order, and the Justices of Peace answered in opposition.
Wemyss v. Heritors of Newburn 1799 Feu, Sasine, Teinds, Charter, Arrestment, Succession This case was about how to allocate an augmentation to the minister’s stipend in the parish of Newburn. Pursuer David Wemyss argued that his titles to the lands of West Lathallan exempted him from paying the stipend. However, the court held that there was no exemption.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 491)