A freehold held of a superior lord. In Scotland the feudal system is still in full force with respect to land, and subinfeudation is permitted to any extent. FEU RIGHT, is the estate of the vassal. FEU CONTRACT, or CHARTER, or DISPOSITION, the deed by which the superior grants the vassal's estate. FEU DUTY, rent service. FEUAR, vassal. (See Title to Land.)
Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.
Legal Subject: Feu |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson v. Saunders | 1829 | Sasine, Interdict, Aliment, Feu, Interlocutor, Possession | James Anderson and others raised an action of suspension and interdict against Robert Saunders concerning Saunders’ obstruction of a common stair leading to Anderson’s cellars and back-green, which Saunders used to access a sunk storey via a locked spar-door. Saunders answered the reasons of suspension and interdict, resisting the claims of nuisance and exclusive use. Following an interlocutor by Lord Medwyn, Ordinary, Anderson reclaimed against the decision, and Saunders subsequently appealed the interdict and suspension order barring his access. Both parties then submitted Cases arguing their competing rights to the stair, with Anderson contending that Saunders had no right to shut up the common passage and Saunders seeking alteration of the interlocutor granting the interdict against him. |
| Bayne v. Wallace | 1796 | Teinds, Disposition, Feu, Feu duties, Tack, Sequestration | Alexander Bayne of Rires presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter an interlocutor previously pronounced by Lord Craig. John Wallace of Sprettyhall and Rires Mill answered the petition as defender. |
| Brisbane v. Sempill | 1794 | Feu, Succession, Feu duties, Infeftment, Assignment, Disposition | Brisbane, as pursuer, argued that Lord Sempill, as defender and singular successor, was bound to pay a year's rent for entry rather than the two shillings Scots claimed by the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Cowan v. M'Intosh and Others | 1795 | Adjudication, Interest, Disposition, Feu duties, Rent, Feu | Robert Cowan petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor that had dismissed his process against Mary and Katharine Gordon, the exposers of lands in Blythwoodholme. M'Intosh and others, as respondents, opposed the suspension by arguing that Cowan had breached the articles of roup by failing to grant bond for the purchase price and drawing rents without security. |
| Dundas v. Baikie and others | 1792 | Feu duties, Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Feu | Sir Thomas Dundas petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had ordered the allocation of teind-duties before those to which heritors held heritable rights. Robert Baikie of Tankerness and other heritors of the United Parishes of St Andrews and Deerness answered the petition. |
| James Farquharson v. Alexander Keay | 1799 | Creditor, Debt, Infeftment, Adjudication, Feu, Succession | James Farquharson pursued Alexander Keay regarding the lands of Wester Kinloch, asserting a pre-emption right under the feudal charter against the vassal’s sale to third parties. Farquharson sought to strike out or clog Keay’s claim as an onerous creditor proceeding in diligence against the estate of Thomas Mitchell, challenging the validity of the sale and prior decrees as res judicata. Keay defended his position as a bona fide onerous creditor entitled to proceed against the estate notwithstanding Farquharson’s pre-emption claim, while Farquharson petitioned the Court to remit its prior interlocutor on the binding effect of the charter’s irritant clause. |
| John Murray v. James Scott | 1794 | Feu duties, Teinds, Interlocutor, Feu, Sasine, Assignation | John Murray petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against James Scott. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Moir v. Harlaw | 1801 | Feu, Church, Construction | In the parish of Peterhead, the church had fallen into disrepair. The landowners in Peterhead advocated for building a new church, with expenses for its construction being dispersed across the population of the parish. Renters in the town, or feuars, believed this approach to be unfair given that they would be the ones bearing the majority of the cost of construction. Instead, they claimed that the landowners had decided to build a new church in order to put the financial burden on the feuars. Since the landowners owned the old church exclusively, they would have been responsible for financing all repairs made to it, and so the feuars believed that the landowners purposely pronounced the old church unsafe rather than making repairs to it in order to avoid paying more. Marginalia notes that the case was reversed on June 24, 1802 with the holding that the expense of building a new church in a parish with both heritors and feuars should be divided between them based on their respective populations. |
| Sir James Boswell v. Alexander Hamilton | 1830 | Succession, Burgh, Aliment, Teinds, Feu, Parish | |
| Skinner v. Bell | 1832 | Expenses, Trustee, Sist, Advocation, Tax, Feu | J. R. Skinner, pursuer, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter Lord Corehouse's interlocutor in the action against Bell. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
