AI-transcribed

Livery of seisin. (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: Infeftment

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
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.
Air v. Johnston 1786 Debt, Bankruptcy, Fraud, Creditor, Disposition, Infeftment William Air, merchant in Coldstream and trustee for the creditors of Robert Johnston, baker and feuar there, petitioned to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor, citing that a heritable bond held by Thomas Johnston of Templehall was invalid under the Act of 1696. Johnston answered, defending his heritable security against the trustee’s claim that it was liable to be set aside.
Allardice, et all v. Allardice 1795 Succession, Liferent, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor, Entail
Andrew Zuill v. Thomas Bryce Buchanan 1830 Sequestration, Interlocutor, Liferent, Rent, Reduction, Infeftment Andrew Zuill or Yool, farmer at Bridgend of Boquhan, raised an action of reduction against Thomas Bryce Buchanan to set aside sheriff's decrees and interlocutors obtained for unpaid farm rents and damages, alleging the proceedings were invalid and unlawful. Buchanan reclaimed against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor and lodged defences asserting his heritable proprietorship and the validity of a liferent grant to William Gray. Zuill subsequently reclaimed, arguing that Buchanan possessed title to demand the rents during his possession of the subjects.
Bank of Scotland v. Chalmers 1796 Debt, Adjudication, Teind, Sequestration, Infeftment, Ranking and Sale The Bank of Scotland, pursuer, and William Ramsay reported on the state of debt and entitlements in the division of the estates of George Chalmers, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Bromfield v. Paterson et al 1786 Succession, Debt, Liferent, Entail, Tailzie, Infeftment Stephen Bromfield pursued Mary Paterson, Alexander Campbell, and Henry Campbell regarding the estate of Eccles, contending that the defenders were bound by an entail and could not claim the lands without limitations. The defenders argued that the entail of 1743 and its 1755 amendment bound the succession to the barony of Eccles and lands of Stow, and further maintained that a deed of 1758 continued the prior entail, citing the precedent in Lowrie v. Spalding.
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.
Carnegy v. Gardyne 1796 Sasine, Charter, Register, Freeholder, Infeftment, Disposition James Lindsay Carnegy petitioned to overturn the enrolment of Charles Gardyne as a freeholder at the Michaelmas head-court for Forfar, contending that the sasine of 1789 underlying Gardyne's claim proceeded upon an exhausted precept and that the claim failed to specify the register in which the sasine was recorded as required by statute. Gardyne answered that his claim satisfied the statute of the 16th of the late King and that the omission of the register specification was immaterial. Carnegy replied insisting upon the necessity of specifying the register, while Gardyne reiterated that his claim met all statutory requirements without such specification and had been properly accepted.
College of Glasgow v. Lindsay 1793 Succession, Disposition, Infeftment, Contract of marriage, Creditor, Aliment
Douglas v. Carnegie 1782 Rent, Freeholder, Proof, Sasine, Infeftment, Oath George Carnegie of Pittarrow submitted answers to the petition and complaint of William Douglas of Bridgetown and Robert Graham of Fintray, Esquires, responding to their objections to his freeholder inrolment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Douglas, Heron, and Company v. Fisher 1784 Ranking of Creditors, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Infeftment, Creditor, Debt This case concerned the ranking and sale of the estate of Alexander Campbell of Raschoilley. In that ranking and sale, creditors Douglas, Heron, and Company objected to claims made by Jean Fisher and Barbara Campbell, Alexander’s mother and sister, respectively. In particular, the objectors argued that Jean and Barbara were not entitled to payment on bonds left to them by Alexander’s father, James Campbell, because the women had already obtained the benefits of residing with Alexander for a period of time. The petitioners also made a number of smaller objections.
Dunbar v. Dunbars, et al 1798 Succession, Entail, Tailzie, Infeftment, Debt, Teinds Sir Benjamin Dunbar, pursuer, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter its interlocutor of 2 February 1799, which had assoilzied him from the conclusions of his action against the defenders, the Dunbars, et al. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Francis Fraser v. David Middleton 1793 Tack, Infeftment, Disposition, Succession, Liferent, Lease David Middleton, defender, argued that a lease obtained under a valid personal grant from an apparent heir must be preferable to an infeftment void by reason of non habente potestatem. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
George Dempster and Others v. Charles Lyel, Jr. 1790 Freeholder, Valuation, Sasine, Tack, Infeftment, Decreet-Arbitral George Dempster and others pursued Charles Lyell, Jr., asking the Court to declare that the freeholders of Forfar had wrongly enrolled Lyell as a freeholder. Lyell answered, defending the validity of his enrollment, and the pursuers replied to his answers.
George-Alexander Gordon v. Janet Gordon 1784 Tailzie, Succession, Disposition, Prescription, Infeftment, Reduction This case involved a dispute between women who sought to inherit property as heirs of line and another relative who sought to inherit under an entail. Near the end of his life, Bailie Charles Gordon executed an entail granting the lands of Pitlurg and Achorties to his son Alexander or, in the alternative, to a series of substitutes. Alexander inherited the property, but rather than claiming it as heir of entail, he took the lands under a precept of clare constat (a type of deed). Alexander also obtained a decree voiding the entail on the ground that it was completed on deathbed. Alexander held the property for more than 40 years, the length of the statutory prescription (limitations) period. When Alexander died in 1783, his sister Janet Gordon and niece Magdalene Grant claimed the property as heirs of line. Another relative, George-Alexander Gordon, claimed under the entail. Janet and Magdalene defended their claim with two arguments: (1) the entail was void; and (2) Alexander had defeated the entail by possessing the property for more than 40 years under an unlimited title. George-Alexander argued that the prescription period had been interrupted because he was a minor when he became the immediate substitute. He also challenged the decree voiding the entail.
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.
Henry Pierce, and his Attorney v. David Limond 1791 Creditor, Adjudication, Disposition, Infeftment, Seisin, Ranking of Creditors Henry Pierce and other creditors of Hugh Ross of Kerse contended against David Limond that their adjudication ranked as the first effectual by infeftment against the lands of Breckonhill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hope v. Mutter 1797 Aliment, Trust, Sequestration, Warrandice, Infeftment, Caution The defender William Mutter, Esq. petitioned the Court to remit the pursuer Hope's proceedings against him for the lands of Camps, which he claimed to have held in peaceable possession for nearly twenty-four years. 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.
Inglis v. Gray 1785 Tack, Lease, Sequestration, Title, Infeftment, Removing This case was about defender Walter Gray’s tack on the estate of Langwell. Shortly after Walter agreed to the tack, his brother William purchased Langwell. William granted bonds over the estate to Hugh Inglis and John Cartier as security for certain debts. Later, Inglis and Carter initiated court proceedings involving the property, which was sequestered under the supervision of a factor. Inglis also sought to void Walter’s tack or have Walter removed from the estate. Inglis alleged that Walter’s rent was far below the value of the property as stated on a rent roll that Walter had endorsed. Inglis also claimed that the tack would expire soon and that Walter was in arrears on his rent. Walter objected that Inglis’s security right, unlike a full property right, did not entitle him to challenge the tack or remove a tenant; when Inglis attempted to add the factor as a pursuer, Walter argued that this was a procedural irregularity. Walter also argued that William had granted him a new lease and that he was not in arrears on rent.
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.
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.
James Gordon v. Robert Grant 1783 Aliment, Succession, Tack, Infeftment, Disposition, Debt James Gordon pursued Robert Grant for feu-duties and casualties, claiming superiority over lands in non-entry that Grant refused to enter or pay. Grant defended by seeking a declarator of non-entry against Gordon and Francis Gordon regarding a 1775 marriage contract that had granted him lands and an annuity from his father John Grant. In February 1783, the defenders condescended, arguing that the marriage contract and its settlement were not fraudulent and that Rothmaise was solvent at the time.
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 Earl of Rothes v. John Philp 1758 Debt, Succession, Entail, Infeftment, Tailzie, Creditor John Philp pursued John Earl of Rothes for 5000 merks and interest due under a bond dated 1716. The Earl defended on the ground that the estate was entailed by a 1684 deed and 1687 charter, rendering it immune from ancestral debts. The litigation turned on whether the 1685 Tailzie Act required judicial registration of pre-1685 entails to render them valid against creditors, with the Earl asserting that the entail was binding under common law and a 1662 Court of Session decision and that the Act did not apply retroactively.
John Gordon of Auchanachy v. Grizel Ogilvie 1757 Succession, Debt, Disposition, Infeftment, Prescription, Reduction John Gordon of Auchanachy, pursuer, and his trustee Alexander Gordon of Whiteley, Advocate, challenged the title of Grizel, Katharine, and Anne Ogilvie, daughters of John Ogilvy, to the Estate of Balbegno, arguing that the defenders' claim founded on a 1713 obligation of their mother Elizabeth Middleton was voidable on grounds of prescription and res judicata. The defenders maintained that the pursuer was barred from reducing their infeftment by ratified obligations binding his parents and by forty years' prescription, while the pursuer contended that he was not subject to his father's debts and that a prior decreet-absolvitor against Lady Auchanachy did not bar the present action. The parties exchanged memorials and answers disputing the validity of a 1709 estate settlement, the production of evidence, and allegations of fraud and misconduct in the original disposition.
John Melville v. TheCreditors of George Smiton 1794 Infeftment, Liferent, Succession, Ranking of Creditors, Security, Conveyance John Melville petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had held void the infeftment in favor of George Gordon's heirs, opposing the creditors of George Smiton. 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.
Macadam v. Creditors of Campbell and Company 1787 Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Penalty, Adjudication, Debt, Infeftment John Macadam of Craigingillan petitioned the Court to alter Lord Alva's interlocutor, which had restricted his right to rank for penalty in his heritable bond against Campbell and Company. The heritable creditors of the firm answered, opposing his claim for penalty beyond the expenses of recovery.
Macdowal v. Borthwick 1772 Rent, Lease, Possession, Tack, Interlocutor, Infeftment John Borthwick, as defender, petitioned the Court to remit the sheriff's interlocutor ordering his removal from the leasehold lands at Bankton Park and Blackgutter Park. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Mathie v. McIntyre 1789 Lease, Sasine, Trustees, Tack, Interlocutor, Infeftment The pursuer John Mathie petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against the defender McIntyre. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Munro v. Robertson 1778 Adjudication, Arrestment, Sequestration, Sasine, Interlocutor, Infeftment Pursuer George Munro petitioned the Court, in the action against defender Robertson, for permission to use his inhibitions on three debts to draw payment from the parcel of lands where infeftment followed, rather than his arrestments. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Murdoch and Miller v. Home and Scott 1718 Debt, Competition, Ranking of Creditors, Adjudication, Infeftment, Disposition Andrew Wilson, writer in Bo'ness, died with debts owed to creditors. His eldest son James Wilson sought to pay off the debts by a judicial sale of a tenement in Bo'ness, owned by the father. The pursuers and defenders in this case were competing creditors. Pursuers Murdoch and Millar (alternatively spelled "Miller") claim rightful ownership of the tenement based on a heritable bond dating back to Andrew Wilson's purchase of the tenement. In 1725 Wilson granted a heritable bond to two merchants in Edinburgh, who then assigned their interests to Peter Murdoch and William Millar, the fathers of the pursuers. The defenders argued the adjudication to Messrs. Murdoch and Miller was null and void. The pursuers asserted an interest in the tenement based on a separate creditor proceeding ("decree cognitionis causa") brought against Andrew Wilson through his heir James. Thus, the pursuers claimed they should be ranked side by side with Defenders.
Murdoch v. Lord Rockville's Interlocutor 1791 Reduction, Disposition, Insanity, Verdict, Interlocutor, Infeftment William Murdoch petitioned the Court to alter Lord Rockville's interlocutor, which required him to extract proceedings from Cupar in an action of reduction. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Park v. Glen 1778 Deathbed, Bonds, Liferent, Cautioner, Succession, Infeftment Elizabeth Park owned some bonds from the sale of her late brother's lands. She later conveyed these bonds to her cousin, Robert Park. Robert Park had a sister, Margaret, but disliked Margaret's husband. Shortly before his death, Robert Park conveyed the aforementioned bonds to his cousin, William Glen. Because Robert Park died less than a month after this disposition, Margaret Park challenged it upon the head of deathbed. Glen argued before Lord Braxfield that the subjects in question constituted a personal right and could not be challenged on the head of deathbed. The pursuer, Margaret Park, argued that as their price was made a burden upon land, they could not be alienated upon deathbed. Lord Braxfield found that one of the bonds in question, granted by Adam Walker for the lands of Wooden, constituted a heritable right. He refused further representation from Glen, who then petitioned the Court for review.
Proctor v. Carnegy 1796 Disposition, Sasine, Charter, Infeftment, Assignation, Seisin Patrick Proctor pursued an action against Sir David Carnegie to establish the validity of a sasine, maintaining that the seisin was legally complete without a commission from Lord Strathmore and that the freeholders and Court had improperly rejected his inrolment. Carnegie defended by contending that the commission was an essential part of the title which Proctor had failed to produce to the freeholders, rendering the seisin null. The parties exchanged informations and memorials debating the necessity of the commission and the legal effect of the sasine.
Ranking of the Creditors of Jarvieston 1782 Debt, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Ranking of Creditors, Infeftment, Penalty This case was about whether creditors could be ranked for the penalties specified in heritably secured bonds. The affected creditors argued that they should be ranked for the penalties to the extent of their actual expenses. They further argued that the court had previously used its equitable powers to limit recovery with respect to penalty provisions, but not foreclosed recovery altogether. The respondents contended that creditors could never be ranked for penalties.
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.
Robert Home-Gordon v. John Gordon 1790 Infeftment, Wadset, Freeholder, Election contest, Hereditas Jacens, Aliment Robert Home-Gordon of Embo and others petitioned the Court to expunge John Gordon of Carroll from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland, objecting to his qualification for the roll. Gordon answered, asserting his eligibility by wadset-right and inheritance, and the parties subsequently exchanged replies and duplies disputing whether his wadset was merely nominal and fictitious and whether his possession had altered since enrolment.
Robert Wellwood v. Robert Wellwood and Others 1791 Liferent, Tailzie, Entail, Infeftment, Succession, Tack Robert Wellwood of Garvock pursued Robert Wellwood and others, contending that he was not an heir of tailzie and therefore not bound by the entail’s fetters. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robertson v. Inner-House Interlocutor 1797 Aliment, Divorce, Terce, Marriage, Infeftment, Inhibition William Henry Ralston, defender in the action brought by Robertson, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Swinton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Shanks v. Kirk-Session of Creditors 1796 Succession, Liferent, Disposition, Infeftment, Terce, Seisin Margaret Shanks pursued the Kirk-Session of Creditors to establish her right to terce in lands which she claimed her late husband Thomas Howie had held in fee by precept of sasine and infeftment at his death. The defenders maintained that the fee had been vested in Thomas's father John Howie rather than in Thomas himself, and accordingly sought to be assoilzied from Shanks's claim.
Smith v. Moffat 1765 Adjudication, Liferent, Succession, Tack, Infeftment, Lease The pursuers, Smith, sought reduction of a liferent-tack granted by Mary Moffat, relict of George Colvin, contending that Moffat’s right to the liferent had terminated upon her remarriage and the majority of her children, thereby voiding the tack under the principle of *resoluto jure dantis*. Moffat defended the validity of the lease, arguing that a restrictive clause in the marriage-contract was inoperative because it had not been ingrossed in the infeftment and the tenant had acted in *optima fide*.
Steuart v. Craig 1793 Debt, Trust, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Infeftment, Aliment David Steuart, trustee on the sequestrated estate of James Stein, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Justice-Clerk, and James Craig, trustee on the sequestrated estate of John Stein, answered that a heritable bond ought to be held in trust for John Stein to the extent of £6,437:7:6. The litigation thus presented a contest between competing trustees regarding the allocation of assets between the two bankrupt estates.
The Creditors of James Stein v. Newnham, Everett and Company 1792 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Infeftment, Sasine, Sequestration The creditors of James Stein, represented by David Steuart as trustee, pursued Newnham, Everett and Company regarding a heritable bond conveyed to the defenders as collateral security for a cash account. The trustee argued that the bond was ineffectual as to all sums because it constituted indefinite security for future advances, while the defenders maintained that it remained valid notwithstanding the bankrupt estate.
The Duke of Argyle v. The Earl of Dunmore 1795 Succession, Charter, Entail, Tailzie, Infeftment, Adjudication The Duke of Argyll, pursuer, argued against the Earl of Dunmore, defender, that he was entitled to reserve a year's rent from heirs of entail who were not heirs of line of the last investiture. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Thomas Beattie v. Thomas Tod 1793 Infeftment, Charter, Disposition, Proof, Sasine, Title Petition and Complaint entered by Mr. Thomas Beattie regarding his claim to join the roll of Freeholders. Mr. Beattie bought the rights to the lands of Hartsgarth and Langhaugh from Mr. Sharp. He then purchased the superiority of the lands from the Duke of Buccleugh, the superior of the lordship of Liddiesdale and most of the parish of Castleton, original owner of Hartsgarth and Langhaugh.
Mr. Tod, Writer to the Signet, denied admission to the roll of Freeholders on the grounds that Mr. Beattie had not provided adequate proof that the lands of Hartsgarth and Langhaugh lie within the lordship of Liddiesdale, meaning that the Duke of Buccleugh could not sell the superiority to Mr. Beattie.
Mr. Beattie petitions the court to stipulate that the burden of disproving his claim lies with the the Freedholders, or alternatively, to rule that the additional documents provided by Mr. Beattie establish proof.
Thomas Buchanan v. John Adam 1775 Debt, Succession, Possession, Infeftment, Annual Rent, Reduction This case was about a “wadset,” an arrangement in which a debtor conveyed property to a creditor as security for a debt. The facts of the case were somewhat unusual in that the same debt was secured partly by a wadset and partly by an annual-rent. Interest rates had dropped considerably since the wadset was established in 1615; Pursuer Thomas Buchanan argued that in light of this changed circumstance, the annual-rent represented a full security, and the wadset should be considered “improper.” (The parties' immediate predecessors are listed on this case page; more detailed chains of title are described in the case documents.)

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 669)