AI-transcribed

It must be remembered that a leasehold for years is heritable, i.e., part of the real estate.

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: Lease

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Bennet v. David Maxwell 1787 Tack, Arrestment, Debt, Lease, Rent, Sasine Alexander Bennet, as pursuer, challenged a tenant’s missive as invalid for lacking formality or stamp, and David Maxwell, as defender, responded asserting the missive’s validity under pacta esse servanda. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Farquharson v. The Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising Thames water in York-buildings 1775 Landlord and tenant, Liferent, Rent, Lease, Tack, Adjudication The York Building Company, defender, leased the mansion and property of Fingask to John Drummond of Megginch for a term of 99 years. Pursuer Alexander Farquharson subsequently acquired the right to the lease. The mansion had fallen into a state of disrepair, and Farquharson sued the Company, alleging that the Company was required to pay for repairs. The Company argued that the lease was written specifically to absolve it of this responsibility.
Alexander Grant v. James Grant 1768 Rent, Aliment, Lease, Succession, Possession, Tack Alexander Grant, Writer in Edinburgh, as pursuer, claimed the right to prolong a lease by years of delayed possession, and James Grant of Grant, Esq., as defender, answered the petition. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Mudie v. John Ouchterlony 1766 Mandate, Debt, Rent, Lease, Arrestment, Proof Pursuer Alexander Mudie claimed that Alexander Ouchterlony had verbally commissioned him to purchase a tenement in Arbroath without disclosing that Oucterlony was his principal. Mudie was sued in connection with the deal and, in turn, raised an action against Ouchterlony; however, Ouchterlony died while the litigation was pending. Mudie then renewed the process against Ouchterlony’s representatives. They denied any knowledge of the commission and argued that it could only be proved by a writing.
Archibald Cooper v. Sir William Maxwell 1775 Tack, Rent, Aliment, Interlocutor, Lease, Arrestment In this case, the parties disputed the boundaries of tack that included a lime-work. Archibald Cooper alleged that Sir William Maxwell of Calderwood had encroached on his tack, and therefore sought to have Maxwell's work enjoined.
Archibald McLachlan v. Archibald McArthur Stewart 1789 Adjudication, Rent, Lease, Possession, Teinds, Tack Archibald M'Lachlan younger of Craigin-terve pursued a Bill of Advocation against Archibald McArthur Stewart, asking the Court to remit the sheriff-substitute's interlocutor ordering his removal from the lands of Letternamolt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bakers of Dundee v. Magistrates of Dundee 1803 Abstracted Multures, Burgh Royal, Mill, Rent, Lease, Statute Under Dundee's town charter of 1641, its bakers were placed under the servitude of thirlage when making use of the burgh's mills. In 1740, the Magistrates of Dundee converted these mills to other purposes, and purchased two mills upon the water of Dighty, two miles from town. Dundee's Incorporation of Bakers became lessees of the Dighty mills until 1799, when the Magistrates withdrew the lease. That same year they raised prosecution against members of the Incorporation for abstraction of multures. In response, the Incorporation brought action against the Magistrates, charging that they were liable for the great expense of transporting wheat to distant mills; for the legal expenses arising from the dispute over multures; and for other expenses related to the insufficient service of the Dighty mills. Furthermore, the Incorporation petitioned to be allowed to purchase their thirlage from the Magistrates of Dundee, as laid out in 39 Geo. III c. 35. The Sheriff of Fife heard the case, and appointed a jury to determine the price of thirlage. The cause was then moved to the Court of Session by advocation, and Lord Cullen made avisandum with the cause to the whole Lords. The Court sided with the Incorporation of Bakers, determining that they had the right to purchase an exemption from thirlage.
Bell v. Edgar 1769 Liferent, Aliment, Lease, Succession, Deed, Trustee Andrew Bell, Tackman of Spylaw, and his assignees, as pursuers, argued that a bond granted by Richard Edgar was valid and not subject to reduction. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bell v. Rutherford 1793 Debt, Lease, Tack, Bankruptcy, Aliment, Arrestment Suit over fees for repairs of houses on the lands of Scraesburgh, part of the estate of Hunthill. In 1787, James Bell (Petitioner) signed a tack to lease the lands in Scraesburgh from Captain Rutherford (Defender/respondent). He signed a clause which stipulated that he accepted the houses “in a habitable and tenantable condition” as they were left by Robert Dickieson, the previous tenant. Mr. Bell argues that this clause was fraudulent because Mr. Dickieson did not leave the homes in a habitable condition. Bell received a judgment against Mr. Dickieson to pay for the repairs, but Dickieson went bankrupt, Dickieson’s trustees refused to pay, and the houses remained in disrepair for three years. In February, 1790, Captain Rutherford sold his estate to Benjamin Bell, who then sued James Bell for the condition of the houses. James Bell sued to hold Captain Rutherford liable for the repairs. In 1792, Lord Dunsinnan found for defender, and James Bell appeals.
Bennet v. Gordon 1766 Rent, Tack, Aliment, Lease, Reduction, Debt Peter Bennet pursued Alexander Gordon of Cairnfield to challenge interlocutors of removing that Gordon had obtained against him. Bennet petitioned to have these orders remitted or altered, and replied to correct alleged errors in Gordon's answers regarding a nineteen-year lease agreement. He ultimately argued that Gordon had subjected him to unlawful oppression through repeated legal processes and fraudulent tacks.
Burrell v. Lord Glenlee's Interlocutor 1798 Proof, Interlocutor, Servitude, Property, Aliment, Lease William George Burrell petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Glenlee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cameron v. Cameron 1792 Lease, Succession, Tack, Aliment, Liferent, Adjudication Ro. Craigie petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors sustaining claims to the lands of Laick and Branahawn. The respondent argued that the lease of those lands secured by her father ought to be upheld notwithstanding contested settlements and allegations of hardship.
Cameron v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor 1797 Succession, Tack, Multiple-Poinding, Lease, Warrandice, Interlocutor Ewen Cameron sought reimbursement of court and House of Lords expenses incurred in defending against lease claims brought by Helen and Janet Cameron, the daughters of his deceased father John Cameron, regarding the disincumbering of lands. He petitioned against Lord Craig’s interlocutor refusing to allow retention of these costs, proceeding against the trustees and the daughters, whereupon Helen’s counsel argued the claim was procedurally barred and legally unsound. Cameron subsequently lodged a reclaiming petition against the Inner-House interlocutor.
Cameron v. McAlpin 1773 Rent, Lease, Proof, Possession, Tack, Interlocutor Defenders Robert M‘Alpin and William Grierson answered the petition of pursuers John Cameron of Callart and Mary Stewart his wife, responding to claims of breach of lease agreement. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell v. Arbuthnott 1793 Lease, Rent, Tack, Succession, Homologation, Possession James Campbell, tenant in Broombank, as pursuer argued that a missive from the Viscount of Arbuthnott dated 1755 did not constitute a valid lease agreement. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell v. Davidson 1770 Rent, Aliment, Lease, Sale, Possession, Tack David Davidson of Cantray answered the petition of Colin Campbell, pretended Tackman of Easter Galcantray, and his spouse and subtenants, responding to their claim that a clandestine tack is valid against a purchaser. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Christie v. Cowans, et al 1794 Rent, Tack, Lease, Teinds, Warrandice, Damages David Halket, David Robertson, and Laurence Robertson petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor concerning salmon fishings in the River of Leven. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Countess of Sutherland v. Officers of State 1793 Teinds, Lease, Teind, Prescription, Tack, Aliment The Countess of Sutherland pursued the Officers of State to determine whether rents derived from salmon fishings were liable to vicarage teinds. The defenders argued that such rents were not teindable and that deductions ought to be denied, while the respondent maintained that salmon fishings were not subject to vicarage teinds in the absence of proof by forty years' possession and payment. The litigation turned on the criteria for establishing the teindability of salmon-fishing revenues.
Creditors of Jackson and Esten v. Kemble (Two Folders) 1793 Patent, Creditor, Sequestration, Interdict, Trust, Lease The creditors of Jackson and Esten petitioned for possession of the Edinburgh Theatre in order to manage the property under a disputed patent held by Mrs Esten. Kemble, defending as lessee and trustee of the Theatre Royal, resisted the grant of an interdict against his possession, asserting his lawful title and the public interest and arguing that the Court ought first to investigate the validity of Mrs Esten's patent claim before removing him from the theatre.
Creditors of Sir James Carnegie v. David Carnegie 1780 Rent, Lease, Sequestration, Possession, Trustees, Tack Sir David Carnegie petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the action brought by the creditors of Sir James Carnegie against him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Dick v. Drysdale 1800 Tailzie, Liferent, Lease, Sasine, Tack, Interlocutor Sir Alexander held Prestonfield and Corstorphine under several strict entails dating to 1720, one of which prevented any heir from setting tacks for more than one lifetime. Sir Alexander's father, Sir William, set a tack in Drysdale that John Dick, as tutor to his nephew, sought to have voided. An Act of Parliament allowed certain types of tacks in contravention of entail clauses, but Dick maintained that the statute did not apply in this case.
Donald Campbell v. John Johnston 1793 Tack, Lease, Interlocutor, Possession, Inhibition, Rent In an action of removing from Middle Craigs, Captain Donald Campbell petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo. John Johnston answered the petition, resisting Campbell's request to overturn the earlier decision.
Duff v. Freeholders of Elgin and Forres 1792 Interlocutor, Freeholder, Res judicata, Tack, Lease, Rent The Honourable Alexander Duff petitioned the Court to alter its prior interlocutor and restore him to the roll of freeholders for Elgin and Forres. Archibald Duff, Sheriff-clerk of Elgin, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter the same interlocutor. The petitions raised the question of whether the Court should reverse its order removing Alexander Duff from the freeholders' roll.
Duggan v. Wight 1795 Debt, Aliment, Lease, Trust, Tack, Trustee Francis Duggan pursued Alexander Wight regarding the lands of Kevockmill, contesting Lord Elkgrove's title and claiming that Wight held the property in trust for him, asserting a beneficial interest despite his absence from the conveyance. Wight denied serving as trustee and relied upon rent receipts to reject Duggan's claim, citing contradictions and lack of funds. After the court pronounced an interlocutor against him, Duggan reclaimed; subsequently, Wight petitioned with correspondence disputing ownership, and Duggan answered maintaining his trust claim.
Earl of Dalhousie v. Wilson 1802 Property rights, Lease, Assignment, Possession Charles Wilson was a farm tenant in Millholm, which was originally leased to his father, William Wilson. The landlord of the property was the pursuer, Earl Dalhousie. The lease was then assigned to John Wilson, son of Charles Wilson, who did not reside in the farm, but hired a servant or a manger, James Keddie, to cultivate the land. John Wilson moved to Jamaica. The Pursuer brought an action to remove John Wilson and James Keddie from the possession of the farm, alleging that it has been subleased without his written consent as the proprietor. The Court concluded that John Wilson must be held as having abandoned his lease, and as the farm remained without a tenant, the landlord was entitled to enter to the possession.
Earl of Aberdeen v. Officers of State 1799 Teind, Rent, Teinds, Lease, Valuation, Tack The Earl of Aberdeen claimed a deduction on a quarter of the rent from several estates in order to reduce his teinds payment. The Officers of State objected to his activities on three grounds, 1) his deduction for use of peat on his land was unjustifiable, 2) by allowing cottagers to live on his land but pay rent to a third party meant that he did not get income directly, and 3) through patronage he claimed deductions on rent from lands outside the areas subject to those tithes.
Earl of Galloway v. McHutchon, Selkrig & Others 1800 Landlord and tenant, Lease, Secluding Assignes and Subtenants, Irritancy and Removing, Rent, Succession A lease was granted to tenant and his heirs, secluding assignees and subtenants, for 21 years. The tenant died two years thereafter in considerable debt; and the question was, Whether certain transactions gone into with the heir, by which the latter entered into possession cum benefico inventarii, giving the creditors the benefit thereof, was not a covered assignation, and the tenant had thereby incurred an irritancy of the lease? The heir, pending the action, entered into an agreement with the creditors, whereby the latter discharged there claims, and transferred the stock for a certain sum; Went to the House of Lords; Held that there was no ground for removal, and the defenders assoilized (Freed from guilt). Affirmed in the House of Lords.
Earl of Northesk & Factor v. Rolland, et al 1797 Lease, Tack, Assignment, Sublease, Rent, Possession
Eliott v. Curries 1796 Debt, Succession, Tack, Lease, Aliment, Rent
Forsyth v. Paterson 1780 Landlord & Tenant, Jus Crediti, Debt, Rent, Aliment, Lease Robert Forsyth rented two properties, Bellfield and Wormerlaw, from Sir John Paterson of Eccles. Robert possessed Bellfield by himself, but he rented Wormerlaw jointly with his father, George Forsyth, who resided on the property. The rents of Wormerlaw fell into arrears, and Paterson demanded payment from Robert. In the course of this dispute, believing that Paterson had improperly failed to credit a certain sum to the account of Wormerlaw, Robert withheld rent for his own farm of Bellfield. However, Paterson claimed that even if the facts were as Robert claimed, they provided no defense to a claim for the rent of Bellfield. The parties also contested whether Robert had produced sufficient evidence to support his claim.
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.
Gardiner, et al v. Andrews 1788 Debt, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Rent, Fraud Robert Gardiner, with the concurrence of Ebenezer Marshall and George Arnot, pursued Robert Andrew to have declared void a lease granted by Gardiner to Andrew, alleging that Gardiner had acted under incapacity and that the defender had procured the tack by fraud. Andrew defended the action, maintaining that the lease had been granted freely and voluntarily without undue practice or fraudulent conduct. The litigation proceeded upon competing memorials addressing the validity of the lease and the questions of Gardiner's capacity and Andrew's alleged fraud.
George and Wilsons v. Wilson 1789 Succession, Tack, Aliment, Lease, Trustee, Interest George, David, and Mary Wilsons, children of the deceased George Wilson, answered the petition of James Wilson concerning Foulden-Newton, maintaining that the petitioner's claims were without foundation and that the case had been fully determined. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
George Dalziel v. Lockhart of Cleghorn 1765 Rent, Lease, Tack, Arrestment, Oath, Decreet-Arbitral George Dalziel, innkeeper at Linton, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor in his dispute with Allan Lockhart of Cleghorn regarding a lease agreement. Lockhart answered, denying allegations of deception and false averments in the lease, and Dalziel replied defending his possession and disputing claims of fraud and misrepresentation.
George Earl of Tyrconnel v. Sir Archibald Grant 1777 Debt, Assignment, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Lease, Proof Sir Archibald Grant defended an action by George Earl of Tyrconnel and the Representatives of Richard Shergold concerning annuity bonds, maintaining that the defeasance of the bonds was valid notwithstanding suppressed indorsements. The pursuers thereafter petitioned the Court to resume consideration of the competition.
Gibson v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1795 Tack, Interdict, Damages, Lease, Possession, Interlocutor Walter Scott petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor that found him liable for expenses only, seeking instead an award of damages for loss caused by an interdict against road access. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gordon of Cluny v. John Anderson 1801 Lease, Damages, Interlocutor, Tack, Sequestration, Arrestment Lieutenant-Colonel John Gordon of Cluny raised an action of damages against John Anderson and others, seeking reparation for their failure to use the fodder of the way-going crop in accordance with lease regulations. The defenders lodged additional defences maintaining that the action was incompetent, and subsequently argued that the pursuer had no equitable claim for straw lost due to interdict and that they were entitled to be assoilzied. The litigation concerned the application of lease regulations to the fodder of the last crop following a House of Lords judgment on the interpretation of the lease.
Gordon v. Traill 1832 Debt, Creditor, Interest, Trust, Lease, Interlocutor William Gordon and others, as pursuers, presented a reclaiming note against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Mackenzie in their action against the defender Traill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Grays v. Brown 1832 Decreet-Arbitral, Lease, Damages, Arbitration, Interdict, Roads Patrick Gray, Patrick Gray Junior, and Robert Gray pursued William Henry Brown for damages arising from an interdict against their use of private roads on the farm of Freelands. Brown denied the claim. The pursuers subsequently lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor, asserting the action was incompetent and seeking remission of expenses.
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.
Heritors of Kirkton v. Dickieson 1793 Rent, Lease, Stipend, Teinds, Tack, Augmentation Benjamin Dickieson, defender, argued that the Heritors of Kirkton's process to prove the tenor of a 1635 decree was invalid due to defective adminicles and intrinsic nullities. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Heron v. MacLellan 1775 Landlord and tenant, Debt, Rent, Tack, Lease, Aliment Thomas MacLellan and Patrick Heron formed a co-partnership according to which MacLellan would make improvements on Heron's farms. In addition, MacLellan was put in possession of a small piece of property called Gelston Wood for his own use. The partnership dissolved in 1772, but MacLellan stayed on in Gelston Wood, where he had been residing and farming. In June 1772, the Old Ayr Bank failed, at great cost to Patrick Heron, a founding partner. Sir Robert Maxwell, a relative of Heron’s, was ruined by the bank failure. He seems to have laid claim to lands held by Heron that had formerly been possessed by the Maxwell family, including Gelston Wood. In 1773 Heron raised a summons against MacLellan, ordaining him to quit Gelston Wood, and accusing him of irritancy by not paying rent. In response, MacLellan pleaded compensation. In February of 1775 Lord Kennet assoilzied MacLellan, and Heron brought a separate process before the Stewart-substitute of Kirkcudbright, who decerned in the removing. MacLellan then presented a bill of suspension to Lord Kennet, who upheld the Stewart-substitute’s ruling, and a second bill presented to Lord Ankerville was refused. MacLellan petitioned the Court for review, but, according to handwritten marginalia, they adhered.

The first two documents in this record constitute the first case between the two litigants, which concluded in 1775. The second set of petitions is a sequel case, which began in 1776.
Howe v. Bland 1782 Copartnership, Debt, Lease, Tack, Creditor, Aliment This case was about liability for a debt owed to John Howe, a wright, for his work for the Theatre Royal of Edinburgh. Howe alleged that the defender, John Bland, was liable as a joint lessee and partner to West Digges in the business of the theater. According to Howe, Bland and Digges were jointly and severally liable for the sum that was owed to him; because Digges was bankrupt, Howe sought to collect from Bland. Bland argued that he had given up his interest in the theater to Digges in exchange for a monthly fixed payment. Trained as a barrister, Bland signed case documents presenting his arguments.
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.
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 Ayton v. James Bruce 1785 Aliment, Lease, Succession, Tack, Interlocutor, tenant James Ayton of Kippo leased his mill to James Bruce, along with the right to mill grain produced on surrounding properties that were possessed by tenants. While the lease to Bruce was still in effect, Ayton took back the land that had been leased to tenants and stopped taking that land’s produce to the mill. Bruce claimed that he should receive a corresponding abatement of his rent.
James Coutts v. Sir Francis Blake 1775 Lease, Arrestment, Property, Proof, Jurisdiction, Possession This case addressed the court's jurisdiction to resolve a dispute over fishing rights in the river Tweed, where that river forms the border between Scotland and England. Pursuer James Coutts claimed that defender Sir Francis Blake of Twizell, who possessed a fishing right on the English side of the Tweed, had demolished a portion of Coutts’s dam, causing severe harm to his fishery. Blake claimed that the alleged demolition site was on the English side of the border, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts. Many local residents are mentioned in case documents.
James Lockhart v. John Cathcart 1832 Lease, Rent, Valuation, Possession, Adjudication, Debt James Lockhart, as pursuer, presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against John Cathcart, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
James Waddel v. John Brown 1794 Tack, Lease, Possession, Succession, Adjudication, Disposition James Waddel pursued John Brown concerning a lease of burgage subjects, seeking to determine whether such a lease bound a singular successor under the Act of 1449 without regard to the purchaser's knowledge. Waddel, by his agent Robert Craigie, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and either grant decree in terms of the libel or ordain Brown to answer facts and produce correspondence. Brown responded by information, arguing that a lease of burgage subjects was binding against a singular successor under the 1449 Act regardless of whether the purchaser had notice of it.
Janet Barber v. John Caddell 1789 Rent, Possession, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Proof Janet Barber, relict of James Renny, pursued John Caddell of Cockenzie in a suspension bill alleging he had unlawfully sold her crop and seized her land without authority. Caddell petitioned the Court to remit the suspension, asserting claims of possession and rent arrears against her. Barber answered, defending her suspension and responding to Caddell’s allegations regarding possession and arrears.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 650)