Landowner.
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: Heritor |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allan v. Stewart | 1771 | Roads, Property, Servitude, Proof, Interlocutor, Heritor | Sheep drovers commonly used a road through the properties of pursuers Joseph Allan and Alexander Morton to get to a sheep fair in Kilbride. Allan and Morton wanted to mitigate or stop the use of this road for the passage of sheep. Allan and Morton insisted that the sheep-drivers had no right to use this road because there were other routes available. They specifically alleged that another road to the west of Allan and Morton, called the "peat-road," was a suitable path. Defenders John Stewart and James Stewart were heritors of the lands that included this peat-road. John and James Stewart maintained that the peat-road is private, not public. They also claimed that Allan and Morton could not summon them into this case as defenders because Allan and Morton had no legal interest in the peat-road. |
| Allardice, et all v. Allardice | 1795 | Succession, Liferent, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor, Entail | |
| Baillie v. Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow | 1796 | Heritor, Prescription, Act of Parliament, Expenses, Possession, Interlocutor | John Baillie reclaimed against an interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk in an action against the Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow concerning the liability for costs of repairing foot-pavements. The defenders submitted information arguing that adjacent proprietors, and not the public, must bear the cost of such repairs. |
| Baird and Kerr v. Heritors of Stobo and Ministers of Drummelizier and Broughton | 1794 | Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Augmentation, Prescription | Baird and Kerr pursued an action against the heritors of Stobo and the ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton regarding portions of the teinds of Stobo. The ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton claimed a radical and clear prescriptive right to those teinds based on nearly two centuries of enjoyment. The pursuers countered that the teinds had been erroneously paid to the ministers and that they were entitled to evict them. |
| Balfour v. Earl of Moray | 1796 | Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Heritor, Collation, Act of Parliament | Mr Andrew Balfour, Advocate, His Majesty's Solicitor of Tithes, petitioned the Court as pursuer against the Earl of Moray, as defender, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Balfour v. M'Kenzie | 1794 | Teinds, Tack, Succession, Stipend, Prescription, Heritor | Balfour pursued the reduction of decrees of prorogation of tithes for Tarbat and Fearn granted to the Earl of Cromarty, arguing that they had been obtained by fraud and in the absence of the Crown, were inconsistent with the original tack, and exceeded the Court's legal power. M'Kenzie defended the validity of the decrees, maintaining that they were not subject to reduction or challenge. The pursuer replied, reiterating that the prorogations violated the terms of the original tack and lay beyond the Court's jurisdiction. |
| Brown v. Brown | 1787 | Succession, Aliment, Heirship Moveables, Debt, Trust, Heritor | Jean Brown petitioned to alter an interlocutor that had ordered her to return a gold watch and gowns to Janet Brown, relict of George Baird, contending that the items were not marital property. Janet Brown answered, defending her claims of inheritance and possession of the heirship-moveables in dispute. |
| Campbell v. Scott | 1798 | Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Parish, Glebe | Minister Thomas Campbell, as pursuer, sought augmentation from the teinds of the annexed parish of Longnewton, contending that historical precedent and the sole burden of serving both parishes supported his claim. Sir John Scott of Ancrum and the other heritors defended against the action, maintaining that Campbell’s existing stipend was ample and that the circumstances of the parish did not warrant an increase. |
| Chisholm v. Lord Gardenston's Interlocutor | 1791 | Aliment, Heritor, Contract, Tack, Adjudication, Sequestration | William Chisholm petitioned the Court to alter Lord Gardenston's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Cunninghams v. Alexander Cunningham | 1778 | Parishioner, Heritor, Property rights, Natural Rights, Aliment, Succession | This case concerns burial rights to the Currie Kirkyard. Alexander (John) Cunninghame, victual-dealer at Fountainbridge, was not a parishioner of the Currie Kirk. He was, however, a descendant of John Cunninghame of Balerno (d. 1640), who was buried in the Balerno family plot, which ran along the south wall of the parish church. By the end of 1777, Cunninghame had buried his wife and three children in this burial plot, near the wall of the church. When he had a tombstone made for their graves, William and Laurence Cunninghames, portioners of Ballerno, petitioned the Sheriff of Midlothian to forbid Alexander Cunninghame from placing this stone and from making any further burials. They claimed exclusive possession of this area of the kirkyard due to their status as joint-heritors in Currie parish. The sheriff found that the defender should not "be deprived of the pious satisfaction of placing a stone over the grave of his departed wife.” The pursuers then presented a bill of advocation to the Court. Lord Covington determined that as the defender was neither a heritor nor a parishioner of Currie, he had no right to make use of the kirkyard. When the defender petitioned the Court for review, it upheld Covington's decision. The arguments of the pursuers and defender centered on whether a kirkyard was common or private property. |
| Darling v. Landells | 1796 | Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Interlocutor, Aliment | Darling pursued Landells regarding the stipend of the parish minister of Coldingham. The defenders submitted information arguing that the stipend as modified by the Court's interlocutor was suitable and equitable given the parish's rental and living expenses. The petitioner subsequently petitioned the Court to alter that interlocutor modifying the stipend. |
| David Wight v. William Inglis | 1798 | Succession, Aliment, Disposition, Debt, Heritor, Teinds | David Wight pursued William Inglis, Alexander Inglis, Elizabeth Inglis, Margaret Inglis, Marion Inglis, and James Hay to have them assoilzied from the burdens of the 1774 settlements. The defenders maintained that the provisions in those settlements were not payable to them as heirs of provision, and Wight subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor. The defenders answered, asserting a claim to 12,000 merks Scots legacy payable to their mothers' issue under the will of Andrew Simpson. |
| Dickson v. Irving | 1796 | Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor, Debt, Presbytery, Contract | David Dickson, minister of the Gospel at St Mungo, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutors in a suspension process against William Bell Irving of Whitehill, a heritor of the parish, wherein Dickson acted as Charger and Irving as Suspenders. Irving answered the petition. |
| Douglas and Baillie v. Mitchell | 1797 | Teinds, Valuation, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Aliment | |
| Douglas and Baillie v. Mitchell | 1796 | Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Heritor, Augmentation, Succession | The Reverend Thomas Mitchell answered the petition of Archibald Lord Douglas and Dame Elizabeth Baillie, arguing that the Court could grant victual augmentation despite the teinds having been valued in money. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Dumfries v. Campbell | 1795 | Heritor, Tailzie, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Non-Entry, Rent | Dumfries, as heir to his mother and petitioner, sought to alter an interlocutor of December 1792 that had permitted the transference of an action of non-entry against him. Campbell responded that a declarator of nonentry commenced against the mother could be transferred in statu quo against her son and heir without requiring that he first take a passive title. |
| 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. |
| Dundas v. Thomson 1 of 2 | 1793 | Teinds, Valuation, Rent, Heritor, Tack, Interlocutor | |
| Earl of Mansfield v. The Duke of Queensberry, and other Heritors of the Parish of Dornock | 1797 | Teinds, Stipend, Interlocutor, Heritor, Valuation, Augmentation | During a process of locality in the parish of Dornock, the Earl of Mansfield initiated a legal proceeding to obtain a heritable right to his teinds. This case examined whether he could obtain such a right during the process of locality, so as to affect the order of allocation. |
| Elliot and Others v. Dickieson | 1793 | Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Reduction, Augmentation | Elliot and Others raised a process to prove the tenor of a 1635 decree concerning teinds valuation against the Reverend Mr Benjamin Dickieson, seeking to have that valuation declared binding and perpetual. Dickieson defended by memorial, alleging that the process was vitiated by intrinsic nullities and defective adminicles. The pursuers replied, insisting upon the decree's validity and adducing evidence of its draft, handwriting, and prior references from 1736. |
| Farquhar et al, Heritors in Brechin v. Garie | 1798 | Church of Scotland, Succession, Presbytery, Agent, Heritor, Ministers | Farquhar and the other heritors in Brechin, as pursuers, challenged defender Mr James Garie’s ordination and parish eligibility, citing his lack of Scottish theological training and his dissenting ordination by non-Presbyterian bodies. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Fleming v. Montgomery | 1794 | Succession, Teinds, Stipend, Contract, Tack, Heritor | Lady Clementina Fleming pursued Montgomery regarding the tithes of the barony of Stobo, seeking to convert the payment from meal to money in accordance with a 1730 decree of valuation. The defender maintained that the Lord Chief Baron and ministers of Stobo were bound by historical tacks and prior decrees of modification that governed the form of payment. The litigation proceeded through competing memorials addressing whether the 1730 valuation or the historical obligations should determine how the tithes were rendered. |
| Francis Pinkerton Drummond v. William Abernethy Drummond, &c | 1792 | Succession, Liferent, Prescription, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor | Francis Pinkerton Drummond, as pursuer, sought against William Abernethy Drummond and others the correction of a charter or infeftment to reflect the true succession under a 1722 marriage contract rather than heirs-male in general. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff | 1792 | Debt, Heritor, Aliment, Contract, Arrestment, Interlocutor | James Gentle, writer in Edinburgh, pursued the Heritors of Crieff for exoneration from a bond of caution and relief from expenses arising from a church contract, contending that unpaid shares and material cost increases since 1778 rendered the Heritors liable for the losses. The Heritors answered that the loss was Gentle's own, and the cause proceeded through replies and duplies disputing the contractual responsibility. William Lumsdain separately petitioned for remit of answer expenses and delivery of his bond of caution, and after the Heritors petitioned to alter an Inner-house interlocutor, Gentle responded reaffirming his claim for exoneration based on the church cost claims. |
| Gibson v. Watson | 1768 | Interlocutor, Game, Caution, Heritor | Gibson sought revision of an interlocutor against Watson, arguing that strict statutory interpretation, pre-Union hunting rights, magistrate authorization, and the 1768 Act's repeal of the 1734 statute justified the request. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Gleig v. Stephen | 1794 | Stipend, Teinds, Heritor, Augmentation, Parish, Act of Parliament | Gleig pursued Stephen to determine whether lands situated in the parish of St. Vigians were liable for stipend to the minister of that parish or subject to augmentation for the minister of Arbroath. The memorialists argued that the lands were liable to the St. Vigians minister and could not be subjected to augmentation for Arbroath, while the memorialist responded that lands locally situated in St. Vigeans but paying stipend to Arbroath belonged to that parish quoad stipend. |
| Gordon et al v. Abell | 1792 | Teinds, Augmentation, Interlocutor, Stipend, Valuation, Heritor | The Duke of Gordon, the Trustees of Archibald Duff of Drummuir, and Alexander Milne of Chapelton petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The Reverend George Abell answered, arguing that the augmentation granted to him did not prejudice the heritors' rights. |
| Gordon v. Representatives of Michie | 1794 | Tack, Possession, Rent, Liferent, Heritor, Sequestration | Gordon pursued the Representatives of Michie regarding possession of the Craig of Clunie lands. The petitioners, as heirs of a liferent-tacksman, maintained that they were entitled to continue in possession without summary removal, arguing that the law presumed tacit agreement and required warning before ejection. They initially submitted a memorial advancing this principle, and subsequently petitioned for an order permitting them to remain in possession and restraining the respondents from entering and inclosing the grounds. |
| Graham v. Pate | 1798 | Teinds, Heritor, Prescription, Teind, Tack, Stipend | Catharine Pate, John Dickson, and Robert Dickson petitioned against Lord Swinton's interlocutor, arguing that bygone teinds were cut off by quinquennial prescription. Lady Christian Graham, Executrix, answered through her Commissioner and Factor, responding to this prescription argument. |
| Grants v. Nicol | 1796 | Arrestment, Creditor, Contract, Debt, Bankruptcy, Heritor | William Grant, Daniel Grant, and Alexander Grant petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Swinton concerning their claim to payment preference for work completed after Cruickshanks' default under a contract for church construction. David Monypenny, appearing for the respondent Nicol, submitted a memorial arguing that Nicol was entitled to preference over the petitioners in recovering payment for timber supplied under the contract. |
| Halliday v. Craig's Interlocutor | 1793 | Tack, Interlocutor, Lease, Aliment, Succession, Heritor | William Robertson petitioned the Court on behalf of Halliday to alter Lord Craig’s recent interlocutor against Messrs Riddell and Mr Davidson. The respondents opposed the removal petition, arguing that the lease allowed Ravenscroft to retake possession at Whitsunday after majority with nine months’ notice. |
| Henry Peirse and Others v. Mrs Elizabeth Ross | 1791 | Adjudication, Conveyance, Infeftment, Security, Heritor, Reduction | Mrs Elizabeth Ross defended her adjudication of multiple Ayrshire lands against objections by Henry Peirse and others, asserting her right as heir and the validity of her Crown charter in response to their claims of prior or superior rights. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Heritors and Patrons of Lochell and Cushny v. Gordon and Reverend of Alford | 1794 | Teinds, Heritor, Stipend, Presbytery, Succession, Manse | The heritors and patrons of Lochell and Cushny pursued an action against Gordon and the Reverend of Alford seeking to annex the parish of Lochell to Cushny, arguing that the union was necessary to relieve their financial burden and provide adequate stipend and accommodation for the minister. The proprietor of the lands of Linturk maintained that the proposed annexation should not impose immediate expense upon him without future equivalent. The dispute presented the question of whether the annexation could proceed without subjecting individual proprietors to such immediate burdens. |
| Heritors of Ardnamurchan v. Campbell | 1796 | Teinds, Stipend, Heritor, Augmentation, Interlocutor, Tack | The Heritors of Ardnamurchan, represented by Sir James Riddell, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the stipend of the Reverend Alexander Campbell, alleging that the allowance was excessive and improperly distributed. Campbell answered, defending the stipend against these claims. |
| Heritors of Bourtie v. Minister of Bourtie | 1798 | Teinds, Stipend, Aliment, Augmentation, Heritor, Interlocutor | The heritors of Bourtie petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor augmenting the stipend of their minister, the Rev. William Smith, contending that the sum awarded was excessive. Smith answered, defending the augmentation, and subsequently lodged duplies also requesting alteration of the interlocutor. |
| Heritors of Kirkcudbright v. Birtwhistle | 1790 | Teinds, Adjudication, Disposition, Prescription, Heritor, Tack | The Heritors of Kirkcudbright sought to establish a scheme of locality for the lands of Balmae against William Birtwhistle, who claimed the teinds of those lands and objected to the proposed arrangement. They petitioned the Court to repel Birtwhistle's objection after Lord Monboddo pronounced an interlocutor adverse to their scheme, and Birtwhistle answered while maintaining his claim to the teinds. Birtwhistle later petitioned to alter the Court's subsequent interlocutor, and the Heritors, represented by the Earl of Selkirk, answered to resist his teind claim and defend the locality scheme. |
| Heritors of Lessudden v. Inner-House Interlocuter | 1793 | Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Tack, Communion Elements, Heritor | The Duke of Buccleugh and other heritors of Leffudden petitioned the Court to reserve power to restrict the stipend in the event that the parish of Maxton was annexed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Heritors of Stewarton v. Trustees on the High Roads, and Cunningham | 1797 | Debt, Trustees, Trustee, Contract, Assignment, Heritor | The Heritors of Stewarton pursued the Trustees on the High Roads and William Cunningham regarding the administration of statute conversion money for highway repairs in the parish. The heritors argued that such funds were required to be expended annually on the public roads and could not be assigned to other purposes, while Cunningham contended that the trustees were not bound to yearly expenditure or to repay past misapplications, and further claimed that the trustees had unlawfully refused to apply the money to reimburse his personal advances for road works. The process included trustees' minutes from 1774 to 1791, which recorded road repairs, toll assignments, and Cunningham's appointment as principal overseer and collector, together with a report by the Sheriff-Depute on road conditions recommending specific repairs and toll-bars. |
| Hunter v. Roxburgh | 1794 | Tack, Teinds, Lease, Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor | The pursuer Hunter petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, seeking a finding that he was entitled to the ipsa corpora of the vicarage-teinds specified in his libel, or alternatively requesting letters of incident diligence for further evidence. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Inhabitants of the Parish of Crailing v. Hunter | 1791 | Prescription, Heritor, Adjudication, Inhibition, Aliment, Thirlage | The inhabitants of the Parish of Crailing petitioned as pursuers in May 1791 to overturn a recent interlocutor against the defender Mr. Hunter, citing ancestral burial rights and a 1763 Sheriff judgment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Isabel Howie, Martha Buik, and the Kirk-Session of Alyth v. The Kirk-Sessions of Arbroath and St Vigean's | 1799 | Aliment, Statute, Interlocutor, Thirlage, Estate Settlement, Heritor | This case was about how to determine which parish should pay for the maintenance of an impoverished child. The child, Anne Coathill, was born in Arbroath, but she and her parents, James Coathill and Janet Buik, soon moved to St Vigeans. After Janet died, Anne was sent to live with relatives in Alyth, including pursuers Martha Buik and Isabel Howie. Joined by the Kirk-session of Alyth, these relatives sought maintenance from the parishes of Arbroath and St Vigeans. Case documents include several depositions. |
| John Kelly v. John Smith | 1780 | Statute, Property, Sequestration, Tack, Regalia, Heritor | John Kelly, huntsman to Major Blair of Blair, brought a complaint against John Smith for hunting without the proper qualification. Smith argued that he satisfied the only statutory qualification that was currently in effect. The dispute raised a question of first impression as to the correct interpretation of certain statutes. |
| John Scott and Others v. The College of Glasgow | 1792 | Teinds, Valuation, Heritor, Teind, Tack, Thirlage | John Scott of Heatherieknow and others pursued the Principal and Professors of the College of Glasgow regarding the payment of valued teinds in victual. The College petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor on 28 May 1792, submitting a reclaiming petition, and Scott and others answered on 11 October 1792, responding to the demand for payment. |
| John Smith v. Marion Wilson, and Others | 1791 | Succession, Aliment, Heirship Moveables, Heritor, Sasine, Recompence | John Smith petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Justice Clerk regarding a garden at Muirend. Marion Wilson, wife of Robert Mann, and others answered, asserting that the garden was not a præcipuum and thus not entitled to exclusive claim by the eldest sister. The litigation turned on whether the property constituted a præcipuum subject to the eldest sister's exclusive right. |
| John Ure, and other Heritors within the Royalty of the Burgh of Forfar v. Patrick Carnegy, and Others, Heritors of the Landward District of the Parish of Forfar | 1792 | Decreet-Arbitral, Heritor, Burgh, Teinds, Contract, Debt | John Ure and the other heritors within the royalty of the burgh of Forfar pursued Patrick Carnegy and the other heritors of the landward district of the parish regarding the method of dividing the church. The pursuers argued that the church ought to be divided in proportion to population, while the defenders maintained that it should be divided according to valued rent as settled by Lord Coalston's decree. Both parties presented informations to the Court setting forth these competing claims. |
| Johnston v. Home | 1800 | Public Burden, Aliment, Teinds, Disposition, Heritor, Debt | The deceased defendant Sir John Home sold land to the pursuer, Thomas Johnston. The contract's terms included a notation that the land was free of all public burdens except those explicitly defined in the contract. Johnston sued Sir John Home's heirs, Sir Alexander Stirling and Sir John Stirling, as entails are still on the property. Johnston argued that he should have been been free of them given the contract's terms. |
| Lamont v. The Heritors of Urr | 1796 | Teinds, Augmentation, Stipend, Ranking and Sale, Heritor, Interlocutor | The Reverend Dr. David Lamont pursued the heritors of the parish of Urr to remit an interlocutor approving their scheme of locality, asserting that he held a proper heritable right to the teinds. The heritors petitioned the court, arguing that Lamont’s right had been acquired pendente lite and was therefore protected by the principle of nihil innovandum. Lamont answered their petition, contesting this argument. |
| Macdonald v. Macarthur | 1791 | Debt, Succession, Executor, Aliment, Next of Kin, Heritor | D. Macdonald, as executor qua nearest of kin, argued that he held a clear right to recover from Captain Neil Macarthur the balance of a debt due to the estate. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| MacLaggan v. Heritors of Melrose | 1780 | Aliment, Heritor, Reduction, Glebe, Suspension, Interlocutor | Digitization in Progress |
| Marjoribanks and Ramsay v. Spottiswoods | 1795 | Tack, Adjudication, Heritor, Lease, Possession, Removing | Marjoribanks and Ramsay raised an action to remove Spottiswoods from Hallyards farm after the lease expired, alleging that the defenders refused to vacate despite implied notice and prior conduct indicating an intent to leave. The defenders maintained that no lawful intimation had been given forty days prior to Whitsunday as required by the tack. The litigation turned on whether the statutory or conventional notice period for removal had been satisfied. |
Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 891)
- (SUPPLEMENTARY ACTION.)
- 11A-1756-64 doc0029
- 11A-1756-64 doc0030
- 180-1785-1800 doc0035
- 180-1785-1800 doc0049
- 180-1785-1800 doc0055
- 180-1785-1800 doc0062
- 690-1811-19-691-1821-28 doc0013
- 690-1811-19-691-1821-28 doc0016
- Add. Pet.—Charles Boyd against Inner-House Interlocutor
- Agnes Carruthers v. Jean Watson and John Carruthers Weaver — Answers, 5 Jul 1790
- Agnes Watson v. Agnes Mathie and James Weir — Answers, 22 Feb 1776
- Agnes Watson v. Agnes Mathie — Answers, 18 Jul 1775
- Agnes Watson, and James Taylor, her Husband v. Agnes Mathie, and James Weir, her Husband — Condescendence, 6 Jul 1775
- Aitchison v. Allan — Summons, 16 Jan 1830
- Alexander Anderson v. John Burnet — Information [2]
- Alexander Batley v. William Small — Answers, 27 Jan 1815 [2]
- Alexander Batley v. William Small — Petition, 8 Sep 1814
- Alexander Bayne v. John Wallace — Answers, 17 Feb 1797
- Alexander Bruce v. Andrew Stein — Information, 5 Mar 1792
- Alexander Buchanan v. Charles S. Parker — Report, 7 Sep 1826
- Alexander Burns v. Duncan Cameron — Answers, 3 Jan 1823
- Alexander Charles Maitland & Others v. Dame Helen Maitland Gibson and Sir Alexander Charles Maitland Gibson — Answers, 4 Jun 1830
- Alexander Corse v. John Miller — Answers, 5 Jan 1761
- Alexander Crombie, Esq. Advocate in Aberdeen, Assignee of Lady Gordon, and of Sir James Gordon of Letter-fourie, Bart. her Husband ; in the Process of Ranking and Division of the Price of Parton
- Alexander Cunninghame v. William and Laurence Cunninghames — Answers, 10 Oct 1778
- Alexander Duke of Gordon v. Sir James Grant of Grant, Colonel James Grant of Ballendalloch, Colonel Alexander Grant of Arndillie, James Earl Fife, and others — Memorial, 20 Jul 1775
- Alexander Duke of Gordon, the Trustees of the deceased Archibald Duff of Drummuir, and Alexander Milne of Chappleton v. The Rev. Mr George Abell — Answers, 26 Feb 1793
- Alexander Duncan v. William Skirling and George Johnston — Answers, 23 Jun 1767
- Alexander Earl of Galloway v. David Thomson of Inglifton — Memorial, 15 Feb 1762 [2]
- Alexander Earl of Galloway, and others v. James Earl of Morton — Information, 16 Feb 1759
- Alexander Earl of Galloway, James Traill younger of Hobister, John Traill of Westness, and others v. James Earl of Morton — Memorial, 12 Jun 1758
- Alexander Earl of Galloway, John Traill of Westness, and others, Proprietors of Lands in the Islands of Orkney v. James Earl of Morton — Memorial, 13 Nov 1758
- Alexander Farquharson v. Katharine Sinclair, Henrietta Sinclair, and Janet Sinclair — Answers, 11 Jul 1778
- Alexander Farquharson v. Katharine Sinclair, Henrietta Sinclair, and Janet Sinclair — Replies, 10 Oct 1778
- Alexander Fraser and John Black Gracie v. Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Vans Agnew — Reclaiming Note, 24 Nov 1829
- Alexander Gordon of Whitley v. Grizel, Katharine, and Anne Ogilvies — Memorial, 27 Jul 1759
- Alexander Hariot v. Agnes Cunninghame and William Howie, and Janet Cunninghame — Answers, 22 Feb 1791
- Alexander Henderson, of Stempster, Esquire, and Others, Trustees of the late Mrs Menie Sinclair, or Henderson v. John Tulloch, Esquire, and Donald Ross — Reclaiming, 6 Sep 1832
- Alexander Innes v. Dame Georgina Lamont or Keith — Appendix to Reclaiming Note, 12 May 1859 [2]
- Alexander Leslie v. John Gordon — Answers, 21 Jun 1799
- Alexander Lord Elibank and Commissioners v. Patrick Murray Esq. of Simprim — Revised, 24 Mar 1833
- Alexander M'Lean v. Her Majesty's Officers of State for Scotland — Reclaiming Note, 11 Jul 1839
- Alexander Nimmo and Robert Hunter v. George Alexander — Answers, 8 Apr 1824
- Alexander Penrose-Cuming v. William Leslie — Information, 1 Jan 1785 [2]
- Alexander Smart v. William Toshach — Answers, 11 Jul 1771
- Alexander Watson v. Ann & Isobel Watsons — State of the Process, 1833
- Alexander Welsh v. Mrs. Jean Welsh Maxwell and Lieutenant-Colonel William Newall — Minute, 16 Jan 1806 [2]
- Alexander Wighton, Andrew Coats, and John M'Fie, Bailies of the Village and Barony of Gorbals; George Strang, Preses, George Young, late Preses, and Robert Shaw, James M'Lachlan, James... v. The Rev. Dr James M'Lean — Information, 27 Nov 1823
- Alexander Wylie v. Alexander Pagan and James Hunter — Information, 12 May 1792
- Alexander Æneas Grant v. Mrs Wilhelmina Chalmers or Walker — Summons, 30 Dec 1835 [2]
- Allan M'Lean v. John Sutherland — Answers, 27 May 1812
- Allan Maclean v. Earl of Elgin — Answers, 28 May 1812
- Allan Maclean v. Thomas Earl of Elgin and others, Heritors of the Parish of Dunfermline, and John Sutherland of Todbank — Replies, 9 Jun 1812
- Allan MacLean v. Thomas, Earl of Elgin and John Sutherland of Fodbank — Memorial, 8 Oct 1812
- Allan v. Stewart — Answers, 2 Aug 1773
- Allan v. Stewart — Information, 23 Oct 1771
- Allan v. Stewart — Memorial, 26 Jan 1773
- Allan v. Stewart — Petition, 29 Jun 1773
- AMENDMENT of the LIBEL at the instance of ALEXANDER MACDONALD, AGAINST FARQUHAR MACGILLIVRAY. MARY PATERSON and others, AGAINST JAMES BALFOUR.
- Andrew Balfour v. Kenneth Mackenzie of Cromarty — Memorial, 3 Mar 1795
- Andrew Blane v. David Morison, William Bone, Andrew Hair, and William Smith — Memorial, 8 Dec 1784
- Andrew Blane v. David Morrison, William Bone, Andrew Hair, and William Smith — Memorial, 14 Dec 1784 [2]
- Andrew Grant, Daniel Duff and M'Kie, and Ebenezer M'George v. Richard Oswald — Memorial, 25 Apr 1772
- Andrew Gray and Others vs. David Wilson and Others — Petition and Complaint, 13 Nov 1790
- Andrew Heron v. John Vining-Heron — Replies, 25 Feb 1767
- Andrew Mitchell and David Bell v. Robert Hepburn — Answers, 2 Jul 1828
- Andrew Stevens v. Robert Grahame Burden — Condescendence
- Andrew Storie v. The Reverend Dr William Burn — Answers, 2 Jul 1795
- Andrew Wauchope of Niddry v. Captain John Macdowall, Archibald Hope, and John Wauchope of Edmonstone — Information, 14 Nov 1770
- Ann & Isobel Watsons v. Alexander Watson — State of the Process, 28 Feb 1834
- Anna Mackenzie and Richard Paterson Slater v. Robert Bruce Æneas Macleod of Cadboll and his Tutors — Answers, 24 Apr 1773
- Anne Macgillivray v. John Fraser — Memorial, 15 Jul 1780
- Anne Vernona Simmons Gaskain Anderson v. Andrew Anderson — Summons, 24 Jan 1827
- Anne, Barbara, Elizabeth, Henrietta and Agnes Maxwells v. William Kirkpatrick — Memorial, 9 Oct 1794
- ANS.—William Higgins, &c. TO PET.—Charles Boyd, &c. ANSWERS William Higgins, Candlemaker in Glasgow; Catherine Higgins, Wife of Charles Boyd, Soap-boiler there, and the said Charle
- ANSWERS FOR Henry Davidson of Tulloch, Dr William Anderson of Udall, Captain John Forbes of New, factor for the annexed estate of the late Earl of Cromarty, and William Forsyth mer
- ANSWERS for John Watson Writer to the Signet, to the PETITION of Mr. Andrew Ramsay, Son to the deceast Mr. Alexander Ramsay Minister of the Gospel in Edinburgh.
- ANSWERS FOR The Magistrates and Town-council of the borough of Taine, and for David Ross of Inverchasly, William Ross of Aldie, and Captain Alexander Ross of Culrossie, landward he
- ANSWERS to the Condescendence and Claim for Mrs. Jean Currie or Ponton. ANSWERS to the Condescendence and Claim for George Ponton. ANSWERS to the Re-revised Condescendence for Mrs.
- Answers — February 10. 1813. Ans.—William Dallas, W. S. to the Pet.—Lord Viscount Duncan
- APPENDIX FOR PURSUER, TO RECLAIMING NOTE FOR THE REV. DAVID MACRAE (Forbes Falconer's Trustee) and OTHERS, AGAINST LORD BENHOLME'S INTERLOCUTOR. Hill & Robertson, W.S., Pursuers' A
- APPENDIX MINUTES OF A MEETING, HELD FOR CHOOSING A COMMON AGENT IN LOCALITIES OF ST CUTHBERT'S. PRESENT,
- APPENDIX PRINTED BY THE OBJECTORS, I.—OBJECTIONS for the Heritors and Common Agent, in the Locality of Kinnoull, TO THE RECTIFIED LOCALITY, prepared by the Teind Clerk, and craved
- APPENDIX, CONTRACT of MARRIAGE between Mr ANDREW JOHNSTON and Miss ELIZABETH CHEYNE, with consent of her Father, dated 21st, and registered in Books of Session 28th November 1842.
- APPENDIX. CHARTER of CONFIRMATION, extracted from the Charter of Resignation and Confirmation.
- APPENDIX. CONDESCENDENCE for ARCHIBALD DUFF, referred to in the foregoing Petition.
- APPENDIX. CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE between Thomas Brown, Esq. Surgeon in Musselburgh, and Miss Jean Cochran.
- APPENDIX. COPY Disposition by John Cameron late of Carntyne, in favour of Richard Cameron, now of Carntyne.
- APPENDIX. Copy Resolution of Carron Company, No. 545. 1st June 1772. Extract of Carron Company's Entries of forfeited Stock, 30th June 1772.
- APPENDIX. CORRESPONDENCE between ALEXANDER PEARSON, Writer to the Signet, and ALEXANDER DOUGLAS, Writer to the Signet. 1.—LETTER ALEXANDER DOUGLAS, W. S. to Mr. ALEXANDER PEARSON,
- APPENDIX. DEPOSITION of WILLIAM IRVINE, Esq.
- APPENDIX. DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDERS.
- APPENDIX. DISPOSITION and TAILZIE, Archibald M'Laine, Esq; of Lochbuy, with consent of his Father, in favour of Heirs-Male, dated the 31st May 1776, and recorded in the Register of
- APPENDIX. EXCERPT from INTERIM DECREET-ARBITRAL by Mr. FERRIER.—No. 6 of Process.
- APPENDIX. EXCERPTS from the Books of Maccrone and Fullarton, Messengers in Glasgow, referred to in the Depositions of James Maccrone and Allan Fullarton.
- APPENDIX. I.—SUMMONS in the former Action of Declarator, &c.
- APPENDIX. INSTRUMENTUM SASINÆ, in favorem ALEXANDRI NISBIT de Greinholme in Quadraginta solidat. Terrarum de Greinholme, Mylnrig aliorumque, Super præceptum e Cancellaria Regia.
- APPENDIX. Minutes of the Presbytery of Stirling relative to the Glebe of Dollar, 9th December 1761, and 2d March 1762.
- APPENDIX. No. I. BOND by James Stewart and Others, in favour of James Miller.