|Beck v. M'Clone
||This case was about a contract dispute. The defenders, Samuel Macclone Jr. and Samuel Macclone Sr., lived on the farm of Ross. The pursuer, John Beck, alleged that Samuel Jr. had agreed to sell him the farm’s entire output of oats. The Macclones responded that Samuel Jr. had no authority to make the bargain on behalf of his father, who was the sole tenant, and that Beck had known this when he allegedly entered into the transaction.
|M'Farlane v. Buchanan
||12 Jan 1779
||Hereditas Jacens, Factor, Charter of Confirmation
||Dougal Macfarlane, merchant in Dumfries, died in debt in 1730 shortly after purchasing Auchendennan Dennistoun. George Buchanan, Glasgow merchant, became factor for the estate in 1746, and in 1761 he secretly obtained a charter of confirmation and adjudication from the superior of Auchendennan. Sixteen years later, John Macfarlane, the nephew of Dougal, brought action against Buchanan before the Sheriff of Dunbarton, asking for exhibition of all bonds or other writs wherein his uncle had been bound to Buchanan. Buchanan countered that because forty-seven years had passed since Dougal Macfarlane had died, his nephew's right of insisting in a court-enforced delivery of documents was lost by barred claims. The Sheriff rejected Buchanan's defenses, and after Buchanan applied to the Court of Session, Lord Barskimming accepted the cause through a Bill of Advocation. In his argument to the Court, Macfarlane argued that because Buchanan had originally possessed the lands in question as a factor, he could not invert his possession without communicating this fact to their heir. In obtaining the charter of confirmation in secret, therefore, Buchanan had carried off Macfarlane's unclaimed estate. Buchanan, on the other hand, argued that Macfarlane must produce relevant grounds to challenge his right as heritor before gaining access to his charter-chest. Barskimming ordained Buchanan to produce the adjudication and factory in his possession, and the Court adhered to this interlocutor. Nevertheless, Buchanan's charter was never revoked; in 1784, he entailed his estate of Arden, formed from the lands of Auchendennan Dennistoun and Bannachra.
|Naismith v. M'Morrow
||This case was about competing claims to rents on the estate of William Maxwell of Ardwell. In 1780, Maxwell’s tenants initiated a proceeding to prioritize various claims made by Maxwell’s creditors. As part of that proceeding, the Lord Ordinary sequestrated the disputed rents and appointed Thomas Naismith as factor. However, in 1781, two of Maxwell’s tenants initiated a second proceeding regarding their rents. In the second proceeding, Elizabeth M’Morrow obtained a preference based on an arrestment she had served on the tenants. Naismith challenged M’Morrow’s preference. However, M’Morrow responded that the earlier sequestration was improperly obtained and that, in any case, her arrestment predated the sequestration.
|Representatives of Bryce Blair v. Walter Graham, and Others
||Factor, Stipend, Feu duties
||Bryce Blair served as factor of the sequestered estates of Crieve and Mossknowe from 1742 until his death in 1762. During that time, he failed to make regular court filings detailing the estate’s accounts. After Blair’s death, the estates were sold in a judicial sale, which raised enough proceeds to provide the heirs of Crieve with a reversion after the relevant debts were paid. This led to a dispute over the amount of the reversion. In particular, the heirs of Crieve disputed certain charges for a minister’s stipend, on the ground that the payments ought to have been made by tenants on the estate. The heirs also contested charges for feu duties to the Marquis of Annandale, contending that there was no proof of payment.
|William Cuningham and Company v. Gilbert Lang
||Defender Gilbert Lang formed a partnership with John Wright Jr. for the purpose of manufacturing and selling snuff tobacco. The firm failed, and to accomplish payment of its debts, Lang assigned the partnership’s assets to Cuningham and Company, its principal creditor; Cuningham, in return, granted Lang a factory to dispose of the goods and collect any debts due to the partnership. A dispute arose over Lang’s management of the assets, and Cuningham and Company filed suit.