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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.