| 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. |
| Anstruther-Paterson v. Rutherfurd |
1791
|
Election contest, Election, Oath, Aliment, Collusion, Feu duties |
Documents available Full description in progress. |
| 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. |
| Bruce v. Davidson |
1791
|
Valuation, Feu duties, Sasine, Process, Security, Property |
Colonel Andrew Bruce, pursuer, led proof by James Ferrier, writer to the signet, against defender Harry Davidson to the effect that the proof should proceed as agreed by both parties and commissioners. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Budge v. Lord Henderson's Interlocutor |
1794
|
Teinds, Prescription, Disposition, Infeftment, Succession, Feu duties |
Budge, as petitioner, submitted a memorial arguing that she and her predecessors had acquired an heritable right to the teinds of Toftingall by positive prescription, despite the lack of infeftment or charter. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Col. Andrew Bruce v. Freeholders of Stirlingshire |
1790
|
Valuation, Disposition, Sasine, Teinds, Commissioners of Supply, Feu duties |
Colonel Andrew Bruce younger of Stenhouse pursued the Freeholders of Stirlingshire, represented by Harry Davidson, Writer to the Signet, to compel his enrolment as a freeholder after they rejected his claim based on the valuation of his lands in Slamanan. The dispute turned on whether the valuation-book entries established his qualification and the relative authority of such records versus cess books. Davidson answered that the valuation evidence was unsatisfactory and required re-establishment before the commissioners of supply, while Bruce condescended upon his title and led proof at John's Coffee-house despite Davidson's absence. |
| College of Glasgow v. Selkirk, Miller, and Stirling |
1793
|
Feu duties, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Factor, Intromission |
The College of Glasgow petitioned against Selkirk, Miller, and Stirling, challenging a June 1792 interlocutor that limited overpayment offsets to cautionary branches and arguing for proportional application across all revenue branches. 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. |
| Creditors of Fergusson v. Swinton |
1795
|
Creditor, Debt, Succession, Aliment, Feu duties, Property |
Hugh Ferguson, David Steuart, and other creditors of Walter Ferguson pursued an action against Mrs Catharine Swinton, his spouse, to set aside her marital settlements as fraudulent preferences prejudicial to their claims against the insolvent estate. They challenged the postnuptial contract granting her an annuity and provisions as voidable for preference. Mrs Swinton, represented by Alexander Keith as her curator ad litem, defended the deed as fair, onerous, and legally valid, resisting reduction. |
| Dickie v. Lord Henderland's Interlocutor |
1789
|
Reduction, Succession, Improbation, Feu duties, Disposition, Liferent |
Patrick Dickie, eldest lawful son of William Dickie and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Lord Henderland. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| Earl of Galloway v. Earl of Morton |
1757
|
Feu duties, Aliment, Tack, Succession, Teinds, Evidence |
As proprietors of land in Orkney, the pursuers owed defender James, Earl of Morton, annual feu duties that were generally paid in products such as grain, oil, and butter. These duties were measured in the weight units customarily used in Orkney and Shetland, including the Mark, the Lispund, the Meil, and the Last. The pursuers alleged that these units had increased from their original standards and should be adjusted to match their values in Norway, where they originated. Case documents include diagrams of weighing instruments, numerous depositions, and references to many individuals (including some not listed below). |
| Earl of Strathmore v. Captain George Oliphant-Kinloch |
1766
|
Feu duties, Succession, Warrandice, Disposition, Debt, Aliment |
This case involved a Scottish land tenure known as the feu, in which a superior granted perpetual enjoyment of land to a vassal in return for an annual payment known as the feu duty. Patrick Lyon, Earl of Strathmore, feued the estates of Little Blair and Lochend to his factor James Coupar of Coupar Grange in return for a feu duty of £20 Scots. Feu duties on the property were also due to Viscount Stormont, who was Lord of Erection. After being transferred in two judicial sales, Lochblair came to be held by pursuer Captain George Oliphant Kinloch. Kinloch initiated a court proceeding to determine who was liable for the feu duties due to Viscount Stormont, claiming that the duties should be paid the Earl of Strathmore. |
| Forbes v. Home |
1772
|
Construction, Property, Feu, Feu duties, Succession, Condition |
Sir William Forbes, along with many others, were proprietors of feus (a type of land tenure) in the extended royalty of the city of Edinburgh. The properties at issue were located on Princes Street, George Street, Queen Street, and near St. Andrew's Square. Forbes and his fellow pursuers claimed that the town council had imposed some sort of restrictive covenant, prohibiting construction south of Princes Street, which would have given them an unobstructed view from their properties. John Homes and his fellow defenders secured permission, apparently from the town council, to construct houses, warehouses, and other buildings south of Princes Street. Forbes and the other pursuers sought to stop the construction while the defenders argued that they had permission to build. |
| Forfar v. Oliphant |
1796
|
Debt, Aliment, Stipend, Valuation, Teinds, Feu duties |
James Oliphant of Over Kinnedder answered the petition of the Reverend William Forfar, Minister of Saline, responding to the claim for white oats in lieu of gray horse corn. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Ilay Ferrier v. William Morehead |
1789
|
Disposition, Infeftment, Freeholder, Liferent, Feu duties, Valuation |
Ilay Ferrier, Esquire, Colonel of the late Scotch Brigade, petitioned the Court to overturn the freeholders' rejection of his claim to be enrolled as a freeholder of Stirlingshire, which William Morehead of Herbertshire opposed by alleging that Ferrier's liferent infeftment was nominal, fictitious, and subservient to Sir Archibald Edmonstone's political design. The parties exchanged replies, answers, and condescendences regarding the validity of the land descriptions, valuations, and the genuineness of the qualification, with Ferrier responding to claims of illusory price and interference in vassal arrangements. Ferrier subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, and Morehead answered maintaining that the superiorities were illusory and the enrollment improper. |
| James Cheap v. William Morehead [Copy 3] |
1790
|
Liferent, Disposition, Valuation, Sasine, Infeftment, Feu duties |
Documents available. Full description in progress. Related documents to this case are located in UVALL Box 16 and UVALL Box 22 - Vol. 02. |
| John Aitchison v. Thomas Hopkirk and Others |
1774
|
Rent, Feu, Non-Entry, Feu duties, Creditor, Teind |
This case was about the feudal requirement for possessors of land to enter with the superior as a prerequisite to obtaining title. The dispute arose after John Aitcheson of Rochsolloch purchased the estate of Airdrie. A former proprietor of that estate had feued out many small parcels, which became the site of a village. Many of the feus passed to singular successors, meaning that the property rights were transferred by separate title (e.g., through a sale or gift) rather than descending to an heir as part of the ancestor’s whole estate. These singular successors disagreed with Aitcheson about the fee he was entitled to demand for entry and whether that fee was due for houses as well as land. |
| 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 Gordon v. Dugald Gilchrist |
1790
|
Succession, Feu duties, Disposition, Debt, Liferent, Freeholder |
John Gordon pursued Dugald Gilchrist to overturn the freeholders' decision expunging his name from the roll of Sutherland freeholders. Gilchrist objected that Gordon's liferent-right of superiority had been extinguished by his father's sale of Pulrossie and an obligation to Dempster freeing the purchaser from feudal dues. Gordon replied that his freehold right remained unaffected by his father's transaction, while Gilchrist duplied that Gordon was bound by his father's deeds and obligations. |
| 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. |
| Leslie v. Brodie, et al |
1792
|
Sequestration, Wadset, Disposition, Succession, Infeftment, Feu duties |
Reverend William Leslie, minister of the United Parishes of St. Andrews and Langbride, petitioned the court challenging his removal from the parliamentary roll by James Brodie, Alexander Penrose Cumming of Altyre, and other freeholders of the County of Elgin and Forres, who answered that his title was merely nominal and had been abandoned for an inconsistent grant from Lord Fife. Leslie replied asserting an unaltered freeholder qualification held continuously since 1774, and the respondents duplicated, maintaining that the qualification was nominal and fictitious. |
| Neilson, et al v. Sinclairs |
1786
|
Feu duties, Teinds, Wadset, Reversion, Disposition, Intromission |
George Neilson, Benjamin Sinclair, and other creditors of Robert Manson-Sinclair of Bridge-end pursued Mrs Henrietta Sinclair, Janet Sinclair, and their husbands regarding debts owed by the debtor, petitioning the Court to alter Lord Ankerville's interlocutor of 9 August 1786. The defenders answered the petition, responding to the creditors' claims against Robert Manson-Sinclair. |
| Orr v. Paterson, and Others |
1773
|
Competent, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Tack, Feu duties |
This case was about a testator's mental capacity to execute a series of deeds. Orr, the pursuer, asked the court to set aside three deeds that John Logan executed in favor of his wife, his nephew, and another individual. Orr alleged that Logan was not of sound mind when he executed the deeds. The defenders claimed that while Logan showed certain symptoms of old age, his mental capacity was not impaired. |
| Representatives of Bryce Blair v. Walter Graham, and Others |
1766
|
Factor, Stipend, Feu duties, Tack, Rent, Teind |
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. |
| Rev. Peter Brydie v. James Johnstone and Others |
1832
|
Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Feu duties, Process, Heritor |
The Reverend Peter Brydie pursued James Johnstone, Alexander Drysdale, Adam Drysdale, Thomas Drysdale, David Drysdale, and John Reid regarding the surrender of teinds for the stipend of the United Parishes of Fossaway and Tullibole. The defenders, represented by Robert Wilson, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Fullerton. |
| Robert Alexander v. Charles Dalrymple |
1774
|
Title Dispute, Succession, Sasine, Heir, Infeftment, Feu duties |
Based on titles to the lands of Boghall and Dalmelling, Robert Alexander of Blackhouse sought to be enrolled as a freeholder in the county of Ayr. Charles Dalrymple of Orangefield objected to Alexander's enrollment on the ground that Dalrymple's family held prior titles to the claimed lands. The Court of Freeholders dismissed Alexander's claim, and he appealed to the Court of Session. |
| Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet v. David Ballingall |
1791
|
Feu duties, Possession, Freeholder, Liferent, Election contest, Entail |
Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet and others pursued David Ballingall, alleging that altered circumstances had affected his possession or right since enrollment and that his qualification was nominal or fictitious. Ballingall answered the condescendence and petition, denying any alteration of circumstances and maintaining that his qualification was genuine and valid. The dispute turned on whether Ballingall's enrollment remained effective given the alleged changes and the nature of his qualification. |
| Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet v. David Ballingall |
1790
|
Freeholder, Election contest, Feu duties, Possession, Entail, Liferent |
Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet, and other freeholders of Stirlingshire pursued David Ballingall to expunge him from the county roll of freeholders, alleging that he lacked possession of his liferent title because he had acquiesced since 1781 in vassals' possession and payment of feu-duties to Lady Elphinston and because Lady Elphinston's conveyance had been revoked after Lord Elphinston's death. Ballingall answered that the complaint was inept as no judgment had pronounced his expulsion, and later denied that any act of his had altered his right or possession, while the complainers demanded his titles and lodged a condescendence elaborating the grounds for disqualification. Campbell subsequently petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor, maintaining his challenge to Ballingall's voting qualification. |
| Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet v. Peter Spiers |
1790
|
Valuation, Oath, Reduction, Commissioners of Supply, Feu duties, Disposition |
Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet, as pursuer, sought admission to the roll of freeholders, while Peter Spiers of Culcroich, Esquire, as defender, argued in his duplies that the freeholders had rightly refused to admit him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Solicitor of Tithes v. Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising Thames water in York-buildings |
1776
|
Teinds, Feu duties, Disposition, Aliment, Lease, Sale |
This case was about the right to teinds on lands that the York Building Company purchased from the Barons of Exchequer. The lands, as part of the estate of Southesk, had been forfeited to the Crown after their owner participated in the Jacobite rising of 1715. The York Building Company then purchased the estate from the public. In the 1770s, a dispute arose over teinds on a portion of the estate in the parish of Leuchar. According to the Solicitor of Tithes, the York Building Company only possessed these teinds by tacit relocation (i.e., by holding over on a lease), and was required to get a new lease; the Solicitor eventually brought an action for payment of tithes. The Company claimed a right to the teinds based on a 1744 disposition from the Barons of Exchequer. Additionally, it claimed to have purchased the lands in reliance on a rent-roll that did not include a deduction for teinds. The Solicitor argued that the teinds were never part of the forfeited estate, and therefore could not have been sold to the Company. |
| William Hart v. John and James Naesmith |
1775
|
Debt, Adjudication, Poinding, Annual Rent, Penalty, Feu duties |
Michael Naesmith borrowed £480 from William Hamilton in 1731 and by 1740 John and James Naesmith, defenders, had become bound for the debt. After Michael's death, John and James received adjudication against a tenement he had owed, in order to recover what he owed them. In 1774, Hart, pursuer, and son of another creditor of Michael, brought an adjudication against the tenement. |
