Legal Subject: Encroachment

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Hately v. Dunlop 1771 Property, Encroachment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Contract, Tack Pursuer Joseph Hately was an engineer who specialized in coal mining. In May 1770 Hately obtained a tack (lease) of coal in the lands of Hutchison near Glasgow. Defender Colin Dunlop was a merchant in Glasgow who also worked in the coal trade. Hately accused Dunlop and his business partner Alexander Houston of trying to monopolize the Glaswegian coal trade. Hately was able to sell his coal at a lower price than Dunlop and Houston, who owned adjoining coal property in the lands of Carmyle. Dunlop accused Hately of encroaching upon his lands, petitioned the local sheriff of Lanark to allow three of his servants to inspect Hately's mines. Hately maintained that he did not encroached on Dunlop's property and only wanted to protect his interest in the coal-trade. Hately then sought the appointment of a land-surveyor, who was not a coallier or connected with the coal trade, to evaluate the land.
John Reid and Richard Thomson v. United Incorporation of Mary's Chapel 1792 Aliment, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Encroachment, Penalty, Suspension John Reid and Richard Thomson, masons and builders, and others, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Henderland's interlocutor in their action against the United Incorporation of Mary's Chapel. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mrs. Anne Cuninghame v. David Neil 1774 Encroachment, Aliment, Property, Feu, Possession, Tack Defender David Neil purchased a house, in feu, from Colonel William Cuninghame of Enterkine. In 1765, Neil extended the house by six feet in the direction of a high road. At the time, he obtained permission from the overseers of highways in Tarbolton parish, on the condition that he widen the road by six feet. In 1772, however, two tutors for Colonel Cuninghame’s heir, also named William Cuninghame, sued Neil over the addition. They claimed that the structure encroached on Cuningham’s property and sought to have it demolished. Neil responded that the area in question was public property.

Documents discussing this subject (48)