AI-transcribed

A binding sale of heritage may be concluded by an interchange of missives, as well as by a formal minute of sale. In the missives, the one party offers to buy or sell on certain conditions: the other party accepts of the offer. This constitutes a complete contract, which may be afterwards carried into effect by the execution of a disposition. See Disposition. The minute is a regular deed with a clause of registration for diligence, and a testing clause, executed according to all the requisites of the act 1681, c. 5. The missives may be holograph of the parties, the acceptor prefixing a copy of the offer in his own handwriting.

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. “Deed.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Deed

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Messrs Peters, Bogle, and Marshall, arresting Creditors of James Dunlop, late Merchant in Glasgow v. Messrs Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Trustees of said James Dunlop 1770 Trustees, Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Possession, Deed Pursuers Thomas Peter, William Bogle, and Robert Marshall were creditors of James Dunlop, merchant of Glasgow. Defenders Speirs, Blackburn, and Andrew Syme were Dunlop's trustees. Shortly after granting trust-rights to Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Dunlop went bankrupt. The pursuers refused to bind themselves to Dunlop's trust, preferring instead the ordinary remedies of law to collect their debts. The pursuers arrested quantities of tobacco and hogshead staves from Dunlop's ship, en route from Virginia to Port Glasgow. At issue in this case was the validity of the trust-deed granted by James Dunlop, and the effects of it. According to the pursuers' interpretation of The Bankrupt Act of 1696 the deed was void and ineffectual because it was granted in a foreign country. The trustees argued that the deed was effectual and a valid title in their favor.
Andrew Heron v. John Vining Heron 1766 Succession, Debt, Deed, Disposition, Tailzie, Aliment Doctor Andrew Heron pursued John Vining Heron in a dispute concerning the validity of deeds executed in 1715, 1726, and 1728, arguing that the 1715 deed was never delivered or completed while upholding the later deeds as valid settlements. After petitioning twice in July 1766 to alter a recent interlocutor, Heron replied in February 1767 regarding the deeds' validity, and John Vining Heron subsequently submitted duplies in April 1767 in obedience to the Court's interlocutor of March 4, 1767.
Archibald Douglas of Douglas v. Douglas, Duke of Hamilton 1778 Deed, Aliment, Succession, Liferent, Sequestration, Contract This case constitutes an appeal to the House of Lords and Court of Session regarding an infamous earlier case, dubbed "The Douglas Cause." That case, which was settled by the House of Lords in 1769, revolved around the contested inheritance of the vast wealth of the Duke of Douglas, who died in 1761. The heir-male to the Duke of Douglas, the Duke of Hamilton, contested the property claims of Archibald Douglas, the son of the Duke of Douglas' sister, from many angles. In this last-ditch appeal, brought before the Court of Session and House of Lords, the Duke of Hamilton asserted that a 1744 deed of revocation put forth by the late Duke of Douglas was in fact a settlement of succession that disinherited his sister, Lady Jane Douglas, from all properties that had been passed to the family through investiture. On December 19, 1778 the Court of Session found that the Duke of Hamilton had no claim under the deed of October 16th, 1744, declaring it a deed of revocation and not of settlement. On March 27, 1779 the House of Lords dismissed an appeal of the Duke of Hamilton. The memorials submitted to the Court of Session in October of 1778 contain a history of the Angus and Douglas families and their investitures, and an overview of similar cases to "The Douglas Cause."
Bayne v. Belshes 1793 Aliment, Succession, Trust, Deed, Trustee, Reduction Margaret Bayne and David Miller pursued Sir John Wishart-Belsches and James Knox to challenge the validity of a settlement executed by Thomas Ruthven. Sir John Wishart-Belsches defended the action by asserting that the deed constituted a valid deathbed settlement which Mrs. Bayne had ratified.
Bell v. Edgar 1769 Liferent, Aliment, Lease, Succession, Deed, Trustee Andrew Bell, Tackman of Spylaw, and his assignees, as pursuers, argued that a bond granted by Richard Edgar was valid and not subject to reduction. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Binning v. Binning 1766 Succession, Testament, Aliment, Debt, Deed, Legacy The Pursuer, Helen Binning, sought 500 merks (Scots) willed to her father as aliment by her grandfather in a 1733 deed of settlement. The Pursuer's father, Patrick Binning, died young, after marrying at age sixteen. The parties in this case disagreed over whether or not Patrick married with the consent of his father. Helen, the only child of the marriage, was raised in her grandfather's home after the death of her father. The Defender, James Binning, was Helen Binning's uncle, eldest son of James Binning the elder. The Defender claimed that since his brother, Patrick Binning, died before reaching majority and before his father's death, Helen Binning's claim to her father's aliment payment was invalid. Upon the death of Margaret Binning, Helen's grandmother, in 1762, Helen brought action before the sheriff of Linlithgow against her uncle for payment of the 500 merks.
Countess Dowager of Glencairn v. William Cunningham Cunningham Graham 1800 Debt, Tailzie, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Deed This case determined whether an heir of entail was statutorily bound to honor a liferent provision granted by an earlier heir, John Cunningham, Earl of Glencairn, to his wife, Isabella Erskine, Countess of Glencairn. The provision was not directly effectual against the estate because Earl John died without making up a feudal title (i.e., as heir apparent). After Earl John’s death, the estate passed to Robert Graham and then to his son William Cunningham Cunningham Graham. The Countess of Glencairn brought an action against William seeking to effectuate the liferent provision pursuant to the act 1695, c. 24.
Crawfurd v. Coutts 1795 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Deed, Teinds Thomas Coutts, defender, argued against Crawfurd, pursuer, that deeds conveying Crawfordland and Monkland were valid despite being executed on deathbed and that a prior tailzie did not bar his succession. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cunynnghame v. Whitefood, et al 1797 Succession, Deed, Aliment, Disposition, Reduction, Minor Lieutenant Colonel Francis Cunynghame pursued James Whitefoord and others, seeking to set aside a settlement executed by Whitefoord in 1792 while he was a minor. Cunynghame argued that the deed was void because a minor could not alter the succession to heritable estate established by the former proprietor, and further contended that the settlement lacked proper delivery. The litigation raised the question of whether a minor's deed could effectively convey or settle heritable property.
Dr William Liechman, Principal of the College of Glasgow, and Others v. Dr Robert Trail, and Others 1770 Powers of the Principal and Masters of the University, Deed, Deeds, Faculty, Patronage, Representation The pursuers called into question an attempt by Doctor Leechman and others to impose a rigid interpretation of the constitution of the University of Glasgow, which would bar the rector and faculty from participating in the university's fiscal administration. The parties called attention to the set of rules prescribed by King James VI in 1577 concerning the government of the College and its funds. The Lord Ordinary found that based on the charter granted by the king, the whole revenue and property of the university (excepting such mortifications for bursars and other uses which are otherwise conveyed) was vested in the Principal and Masters. The Defenders asked the Lord Ordinary to alter his interlocutor.
Dunbar v. Sinclair 1789 Freeholder, Aliment, Succession, Election contest, Deed, Teinds Sir William Dunbar, Baronet, and other freeholders of Caithness, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to find that the freeholders had wrongly repelled an objection against defender Sir James Sinclair, now Earl of Caithness, and to grant warrant for expunging him from the roll. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edmonstone v. Tweedale 1772 Debt, Disposition, Deed, Interlocutor, Mala Fides, Rent In 1766, Robert Tweedale, defender, owed money to James Edmonstone, pursuer. Tweedale could not repay Edmonstone at that time. As security for the eventual payment, Tweedale granted Edmonstone the right to "infeft," or take possession of, some old houses in Mid-Calder. Edmonstone agreed to delay seeking payment provided that Tweedale delivered possession of the houses to him. Despite this agreement, Edmonstone did not take possession of the houses and allowed Tweedale to continue living in them. Edmonstone grew tired of the delays in payment and found that the homes were in such a poor state of repair that their sale would not cover the cost of the debt. Edmonstone brought a process against Tweedale before the sheriff-depute of Edinburgh seeking to collect payment. He argued that the homes stood as security for future payment of the debt, and did not constitute the payment itself. Tweedale, however, countered that his infestment to Edmonstone satisfied the debt, an argument that the sheriff-depute accepted. In the Court of Session, the Lord Ordinary initially found for Edmonstone, but later reversed his own ruling. The documents here represent Edmonstone's attempts to convince the full court to rule in his favor.
Elizabeth Wallace v. William Gordon and Others 1766 Succession, Deed, Executor, Debt, Aliment, Trustees Janet Buchanan executed a settlement that made her niece Grizel Gordon the residuary beneficiary of her estate. The settlement provided that if Grizel died before marrying, the substitute beneficiary would be Elizabeth Wallace, Buchanan’s first cousin once removed. Buchanan died in 1762, and Grizel took possession of her effects, including a bond granted by Robert Dundas, Lord President of the Court of Session, for £200 Sterling. In 1763, Grizel discharged the £200 bond and lent the same amount to Charles Dundas, Robert’s brother; for the second loan, Charles and Robert gave their joint bond. After Grizel died, a dispute arose between Elizabeth Wallace and Grizel’s half-siblings, children of Robert Gordon, over who should succeed to the estate. The Gordon siblings claimed that language in the second bond, making it payable to Grizel, “her heirs, executors, and assignees,” altered the substitution in their favor. According to marginalia on the case documents, the court preferred Elizabeth Wallace.
Frank and his Tutor v. Frank, et al. 1793 Witness, Succession, Reduction, Aliment, Deed, Forgery Frank and his Tutor sought to reduce a disposition granted by the deceased Charles Frank in February 1791 in favor of the defenders. The defenders argued that the instrumentary witnesses to the deed were incompetent to depose whether they saw the party subscribe, while the pursuers challenged the competency of Janet Smith, a witness for the defenders, on the ground that her annuity depended upon the validity of the deed, and petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing to admit her. The pursuers subsequently presented a formal petition for reduction and annulment of the disposition.
Fullarton & Fullarton v. Dalrymple 1796 Succession, Deed, Possession, Prescription, Debt, Tack
Gordon v. Wemyss 1764 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Disposition, Deed, Teinds Alexander Wemyss and his father, as administrator, pursued Isobel Gordon for delivery of the lands of Edintore under a deed granting her brother's estate to Wemyss, while Gordon defended on the ground that the deed was revokable. After the court pronounced an interlocutor against her, Gordon petitioned to have it altered.
Haldane v. Duncan 1802 Deed, Liferent, Property rights After the death of Mr. George Haldane, his widow, Margaret Haldane, claimed that she had the life-rent right over the lands of Gleneagles, Haldane, and Aberuthven. Margaret said that her husband had left her such property rights which he had inherited from his uncle, Robert Haldane. The defendant, Viscount Duncan, objected the petition arguing that the transfer to Margaret was irregular and contrary to the conditions to settle the succession to real property.
Hamilton v. MacTaggart 1793 Debt, Bankruptcy, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Deed William M'Taggart answered the petition of Messrs. Hamilton and Co. and James Provan and Co., who claimed that a sale of goods was void under the 1696 Act. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Henderson v. Wilson and Melvilles 1795 Succession, Deed, Will, Entail, Aliment, Tailzie Robert Henderson pursued a claim against George Wilson regarding the succession to Walter Bowman’s estate, while Catharine and Christian Melvilles argued that a 1763 entail was ineffectual and had revoked an earlier 1757 deed, thereby opening the succession to heirs ab intestato. Henderson petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor, and Wilson answered both Henderson’s petition and the Melvilles’ memorial, contesting their respective positions on the disputed entailments.
Hill v. Swinton 1796 Contract, Security, Deed, Breach of Contract, Debt, Copyright Peter Hill, bookseller in Edinburgh, sought to relinquish his interest in the copyright of a book he had contracted to publish with John Swinton, Advocate. Swinton maintained that Hill remained bound by the agreement to accept delivery of sixty copies annually until all four hundred and eighty-six remaining copies were delivered. The pleadings set forth the parties' competing positions on the enforceability of the publication contract and the disposition of the unsold stock.
Horn v. Reid 1787 Deed, Teinds, Witness, Disposition, Debt, Liferent Mrs Alison Horn pursued John Reid, a cooper in Whitby, to reduce deeds executed in May 1779, alleging that they had been improperly framed and delivered without her knowledge or consent. Reid defended the validity of a deed subscribed by Horn, contending that it could not be reduced upon the sole testimony of Kilgour that he had not witnessed the subscription at the time of execution.
Jamieson v. Kyle 1778 Jus Quaesitum Tertio, Tocher, Aliment, Succession, Contract, Deed In June 1756, Janet Jamieson and David Kyle signed a post-nuptial contract, naming each other as heirs, and after that the heirs of the longest-lived. Under the same contract, John Jamieson, Janet's father, transferred some lands to the couple. Seven years later, David Kyle and Janet Jamieson entered into another contract, which unreservedly conveyed and transferred the lands in question to Kyle's heirs. Kyle then brought action to reduce the contract of 1756, and John Jamieson and his son, John, defended against it. Kyle claimed that the 1756 contract was invalid because Janet Jamieson was unable to sign her name in her own hand, but did not produce any proof. The action went dormant until 1777, when David Kyle advertised a sale of these lands. John Jamieson, junior, executed an inhibition of this sale, and in return Kyle sought to overturn the inhibition. The case came before Lord Kennet, who sustained Kyle's claims. Jamieson petitioned the Court for review, arguing that he was the feur of the lands in question, and had acquired this right from the onerous obligations in the 1756 marriage contract. According to handwritten marginalia, the Court unanimously refused Jamieson's petition.
Janet Rennie v. Thomas Rennie and William Walker 1798 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Deed, Marriage, Teinds Janet Rennie, widow of the deceased James Brown, pursued Thomas Rennie and William Walker, arguing that she was entitled to the household plenishing outright and insight, heirship moveables, and the £500 tocher and other claims under her marriage contract. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Lamb v. Neilson 1784 Apprentice, Cautioner, Deed, Interlocutor, Penalty, Representation Andrew Lamb raised a charge to enforce an indenture executed by George Neilson, his apprentice, and William Neilson, a cautioner. The Neilsons sought a suspension of the charge, arguing that the indenture was void because it had not been properly stamped. Lamb argued that he could still obtain the stamp and pursue the action.
M'Calmond v. Park 1792 Tack, Lease, Deed, Rent, Interlocutor, Possession James M'Calmond petitioned the Court to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor refusing his bill of advocation against Hugh-Gavin Park, Tacksman of the Lands of Camregan. Park answered, contending that an unstamped obligation was not valid in law or equity.
McNish v. Scougal and Ogilvy 1787 Witness, Deed, Reduction, Cautioner, Improbation, Act of Parliament John M'Nish pursued the reduction of a bond of caution he had granted to Messrs Scougal and Ogilvy, merchants in Leith, contending that the deed was void for lack of witnesses to his subscription and because he had not acknowledged his signature at the time of execution. Scougal and Ogilvy argued that the bond remained valid despite M'Nish's denial and the absence of attesting witnesses. The parties filed opposing informations regarding the formal validity of the instrument.
Montgomery v. Fowlis 1794 Succession, Deed, Debt, Prescription, Disposition, Creditor Montgomery, as pursuer, asserted that his adjudging creditor titles to the lands of Warrix and others were valid and complete while those of the defenders Fowlis were void. The defenders countered that a deed of tailzie executed in 1729, though not formally delivered, had been homologated by Janet Simpson's acceptance of a debt from the estate and thus constituted a valid title. Robert Barclay subsequently petitioned the Court for permission to present further argument against the defenders' claims based on an adjudication of heir rights under a disposition dated 1722.
Mrs. Julian (Steel) Porterfield v. Boyd Porterfield 1770 Marriage, Contract, Obligations, Liferent, Aliment, Deed Defender Julian Steel was married to William Porterfield, the uncle of pursuer Boyd Porterfield. William Porterfield died without children, leaving Boyd Porterfield as his only heir. The marriage contract between Steel and Porterfield stipulated that, should Steel survive her husband, Steel would receive an annuity of 2,000 merks and a dwelling house (or the financial equivalent) from the Porterfield estate. Following the death of William Porterfield, Steel and Boyd Porterfield entered into a contract regarding rents from the lands of the estate. Steel alleged that she should have received more from the rents from the lands.
Ogilvie v. Mercer 1793 Succession, Deed, Reduction, Disposition, Entail, Tailzie Sir John Ogilvy of Invercarity, Hope Stewart of Ballechin, and Miss Margaret Mercer Elphinstone challenged the validity of a deed of entail executed by Robert Mercer on 22 February 1791, arguing that it was void as a death‑bed settlement. Katharine Mercer subsequently petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor pronounced in the case.
Robert Wellwood v. Trustees of the Estate of Robert Wellwood 1796 Debt, Entail, Aliment, Succession, Trust, Deed Robert Wellwood, Esq., as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Justice Clerk's interlocutor continuing an interdict against cutting timber on the estate of Garvock, with the Trustees of the Estate of Robert Wellwood as defenders. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ross, et al. v. Aglianby 1796 Debt, Terce, Jus Relictæ, Deed, Succession, Interlocutor Ross and others pursued Aglianby in a dispute over estate distribution involving competing claims to terce and conventional provisions. Mrs Lowthian challenged an interlocutor voiding her conventional provisions and sought to retain funds and claim terce from her late husband's estate, prompting the respondents to answer regarding the exclusion of terce and the effect of obligations to George Mackenzie's trustees. Mrs Sarah Aglianby subsequently petitioned the court to alter its recent interlocutor respecting her own claim to terce from her husband's Scottish lands.
Rutherford v. Caverhill, et al 1787 Succession, Debt, Aliment, Deed, Mala Fides, Creditor Mrs Helen Rutherford sought to reduce deeds of settlement executed by the deceased Archibald Jerdon in favour of Jerdon Caverhill, contending that the instruments were invalid owing to his dotage and undue influence. Archibald Jerdon of Bonjedward and his Tutors, with others, defended the deeds and argued that the Court should not reduce them.
Susanna Vere v. The Earl of Hyndford, and Others 1791 Deed, Reduction, Aliment, Succession, Arbitration, Adjudication Susanna Vere pursued the Earl of Hyndford, John Hamilton of Westburn, William Porteous of Carmacoup, John Bannatyne of Castlebank, and Robert Bell regarding the authority to control the proceedings of tutors, and the defenders argued that Vere possessed no power to impose a negative upon such proceedings. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Thomas Earl of Hyndford v. Susanna Vere 1791 Deed, Aliment, Succession, Adjudication, Rent, Sequestration Thomas Earl of Hyndford and his fellow tutors pursued the case against Susanna Vere, who served as sine qua non tutor to an estate. The litigation concerned the extent of a sine qua non tutor’s authority, specifically whether she could veto the other tutors’ administrative acts or was merely required to concur in them. Mrs Vere asserted that her role demanded concurrence in every act and sought to reclaim a deed of restriction in order to resume full control, but the tutors refused to return the deed and threatened to assume complete estate management if she persisted, while maintaining that she possessed no power to negative their decisions.
Thomas Wright v. John Ure 1766 Deathbed, Succession, Witness, Proof, Deed, Evidence James Ure of Shirgarton, W.S., executed a settlement of his estate in favor of his nephew James. The settlement also named a series of substitutes, including any heirs-male born of John Wright of Easter Glinns and Christian Ure, Shirgarton’s sister. After Shirgarton died, his brother John challenged the settlement on the ground that it was executed on deathbed. With the settlement’s validity in question, John and young James came to an agreement that gave John a life rent and promoted Mary Ure, young James’s sister, in the line of succession. Mary eventually succeeded to her brother’s fee. After many years, however, Thomas Wright, the son of John Wright and Christian Ure, sought to void the titles held by John and Mary. In response, John renewed his action to void the alleged deathbed deed. Case documents discuss issues relating to the proof of certain facts, including Shirgarton’s health when the settlement was executed and alleged efforts to influence witnesses.
Thomson v. Christie 1784 Competition, Deed, Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Succession This case was about the effect of two deeds granted by the late James Christie. In the first deed, James granted all of his property to his daughter Jean, his son-in-law Robert Thomson, and their children. Immediately after the deed was granted, Robert Thomson obtained infeftment on the property. In the second deed, James granted a parcel of the property to his daughter Janet, her husband John Morice, and their children. When James died, Janet took possession of the parcel, and the Thomsons took possession of James’s remaining property. However, twelve years later, the Thomson children sued Janet and her children to enforce the first deed. They sought past-due rent, compensation for James’s household furniture, and Janet’s removal from the parcel. Janet argued that the first deed was not meant to take effect until James’s death, and that it reserved to James the power to grant the second deed.
Trustees of Lady Douglas v. Hutchison 1782 Succession, Trust, Possession, Deed, Witness, Suspension The Trustees of Lady Douglas, as pursuers, submitted a memorial against Hutchison arguing that a deed from William Douglas to his wife Isobel Douglas was valid despite partial obliteration of the testing clause and precept of seisin. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Wallaces v. Brown 1792 Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Deed, Marriage, Contract of marriage Poor Elizabeth and Margaret Wallace petitioned the Court to alter the late Lord Hailes's interlocutor in their action against Brown. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
William Stewart v. Mrs. Garland or Pirie and James Pirie 1831 Succession, Liferent, Assignation, Debt, Tack, Deed William Stewart, Sheriff-Clerk of Kincardineshire, pursued Mrs. Garland or Pirie and James Pirie for multiple poinding and exoneration of debts owed to the deceased John Pirie, tenant in Cairnbeg. Stewart condescended on the fund in medio against the relict and representatives of the late tenant, and James Pirie subsequently lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Corehouse's interlocutor.
Yorkston, et al. v. Grieve 1794 Deed, Witness, Testament, Succession, Assignation, Executor Yorkston and his co-petitioners pursued Grieve concerning the validity of a testamentary deed executed by the illiterate Jean Ferguson. They argued that the instrument was valid despite the notary’s docquet failing to record that it was read over to the testatrix, whereas Grieve maintained that because Ferguson could neither read nor write, the deed required to be read to her before she authorized the notary’s signature, and was void for want of that formality.
Young v. Thompson 1794 Arrestment, Insanity, Deed, Succession, Debt, Aliment

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 502)