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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Galloway v. McHutchon, Selkrig & Others	1800	Landlord and tenant, Lease, Secluding Assignes and Subtenants, Irritancy and Removing	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
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.
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.
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.
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.
John Leslie v. The Earl of Kintore, and Others	1794	Tack, Teinds, Lease, Valuation, Teind, Rent	John Leslie of Balquhain petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor sustaining objections to his proof of teind based on rental value, while the Earl of Kintore and others argued that teind value must be calculated from current tenant rents rather than an overlease granted in 1769. Leslie replied to the defenders' answers, denying their allegations regarding the lease, grassums, and profits. The defenders maintained that the 1769 lease had been granted at below-market value to compensate a creditor and therefore ought not to govern the teind valuation.
Lauder v. Gibson	1793	Lease, Tack, Interdict, Possession, Aliment, Interlocutor	Dr. Colin Lauder pursued William Gibson regarding the use of a road, having obtained an interdict against Gibson. Gibson answered that the road was necessary for his farm and that the interdict caused him patrimonial loss, whereupon Lauder petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutors against suspension of the interdict. Gibson responded that the road had been historically used by his predecessors and was not excluded by the terms of his lease.
Low v. Knowles	1796	Rent, Sequestration, Tack, Assignation, Caution, Lease	Andrew Knowles defended an action by John Low and John Richardson regarding rent obligations under the Act of Sederunt 1756, maintaining that he was not liable for the full rent in light of prior payments and the pursuers' conduct. He further alleged that Low had failed to pay rents and had caused ruin to the farm, and that the caution found was insufficient to secure future rents. Knowles also petitioned against a Sheriff's interlocutor requiring double caution for the same rents, arguing that such a requirement was unjust and contrary to the spirit of the Act.
M'Calmond v. Park	1792	Tack, Lease, Deed, Rent, Interlocutor, Possession	James M'Calmond petitioned the Court to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor refusing his bill of advocation against Hugh-Gavin Park, Tacksman of the Lands of Camregan. Park answered, contending that an unstamped obligation was not valid in law or equity.
M'Tier v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor	1789	Tack, Lease, Arrestment, Sequestration, Reparation, Bankruptcy	John M'Tier petitioned to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, which held him liable for rebuilding the byre and kiln at Chang and for the value of moveable goods carried away. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Macdougal v. Duncan	1791	Lease, Tack, Rent, Damages, Roup, Possession	Alexander Macdougal, as pursuer against Duncan, defender, petitioned the Court against Lord Alva's interlocutor to remit the decree of summary removing and damages. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing v. Graham	1789	Lease, Tack, Rent, Charter, Sequestration, Privilege	The Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing pursued George Graham of Kinross for payment of £23 sterling yearly for the customs of the town under the roup of January 1785. They also reclaimed an interlocutor that had granted Graham the sole right to the fairs and markets customs, asserting the burgh’s historic entitlement to levy those same dues.
Magistrates of Perth v. Andrew	1797	Tack, Rent, Lease, Mala Fides, tenant, Possession	The Magistrates of Perth sought John Andrew’s removal from leased lands following the expiration of his lease, while Andrew claimed that permission from his brother to cultivate adjacent land constituted tacit consent to his continued possession. After Lord Armadale pronounced an interlocutor against him, Andrew petitioned the Court to alter that decision, prompting the Magistrates and Town-Council of Perth, along with Charles Bruce as Treasurer, to answer his petition and defend against the charge of horning.
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.
Marquis of Abercorn v. The Magistrates of Edinburgh	1792	Tack, Interlocutor, Suspension, Jurisdiction, Lease, Rent	The Marquis of Abercorn pursued the Magistrates of Edinburgh for damages, alleging that their diversion of Braid's Burn had injured his water and mills, and sought to join his claim to an existing damages action raised by William Laing. The Magistrates responded that the Marquis lacked standing to claim indemnification under the 1785 water statute without first exhausting the process before a sheriff's jury.
Mrs. Euphemia Innes v. Duke of Gordon	1831	Succession, Lease, Rent, Debt, Entail, Res judicata	Mrs. Euphemia Innes, relict and executrix of John Innes, presented a reclaiming note against George, Duke of Gordon, asking the Court to alter the interlocutor sustaining the Duke's defences. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Preston v. Wellwood	1791	Trust, Entail, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Lease	Sir Charles Preston and the other trustees appointed by the deceased Robert Wellwood of Garvock sought suspension and interdict against Robert Wellwood, now of Garvock, to prevent him from cutting timber on the entailed estate. Wellwood answered, claiming he was entitled to cut timber on the estate notwithstanding the deeds of entail and trust executed by his father. The trustees maintained that they possessed the exclusive right to prevent the cutting of growing timber in order to preserve the value of the trust estate.
Pringle v. M'Laggan	1802	Lease, Sublease	Frederick M'Laggan owned the land known as the Annay of Melrose, but then sold it to John Layell. John Layell in turn leased the land to M'Laggan, who resided on it for some time. After his relations with the surrounding community soured, M'Laggan decided to live elsewhere, but sublet his residence in the Annay of Melrose to David Kyle. Mr. Layell passed away, and ownership of the land passed to Alexander Pringle. Alexander Pringle brought the case to court seeking the removal of Kyle and M'Laggan from the land claiming that the lease had expired, and also that M'Laggan never had the power to sublet in the first place. The case was decided in favor of Mr. M'Laggan, with the Court finding that the lease contained an implied power to sublet (Scots Digest).
Procurator-Fiscal of the County of Edinburgh v. Wilson	1787	Mala Fides, Interlocutor, Oath, Libel, Arrestment, Lease	David Wilson, gardener at Roslin, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his bill of advocation against the Procurator-Fiscal of Edinburgh’s complaint charging him with hunting without a licence. William Scott, as Procurator-Fiscal, answered the petition, defending the interlocutor and responding to Wilson’s allegation that the reference to his oath was incompetent.
Purdie v. Tod	1789	Succession, Debt, Tack, Lease, Rent, Disposition	Thomas Purdie, clerk to the Charity Work-house of Edinburgh, pursued claims of heritable interest in a tan-work against Thomas Tod, merchant in Edinburgh, and Tod answered the petition. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Renfew alias Watt v. Campbell	1795	Lease, Tack, Rent, Aliment, Succession, Implied Obligation	Katharine Renfrew, alias Watt, sought to suspend payment of rent to Sir James Campbell of Inverniel and to obtain an interdict restraining him from operating a new inn on his estate as a rival to her establishment. Campbell opposed the suspension, maintaining that Watt had no right to claim damages or abatement of rent for the new inn erected on his property.
Riddell v. Hope	1796	Lease, Tack, Rent, Possession, Adjudication, Interlocutor	Sir James Riddell pursued Robert Hope, petitioning the Court to find the defender not entitled to damages and to remit the cause to the Sheriff simpliciter. Hope subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
Scott and Cruikshank v. New College of St. Andrews	1793	Tack, Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Rent, Lease	The New College of St. Andrews defended an action by Scott and Cruikshank regarding deductions from rental, arguing that deductions based on old improvements and tenant accommodations were not legally or reasonably justifiable. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Simsons v. Nasmyth	1797	Lease, Tack, Possession, Rent, Interlocutor, Locus Poenitentiae	William and Walter Simsons petitioned against Lord Ankerville's interlocutors to assert their right to possess the lands of Easter Dawick and Newholmhope under a minute of tack. Sir James Nasmyth rejected their claim, contending that the alleged lease rested upon an unsigned and undated offer deficient in essential terms, and further alleging that the tenants' misconduct warranted their removal.
Sir William Eliott v. George and Thomas Currie	1796	Lease, Tack, Rent, Trustees, Entail, Succession	Sir William Eliott of Stobs, Baronet, pursued George and Thomas Currie to determine whether an heir of entail could grant a lease at a diminished rent in consideration of a grassum. Eliott maintained that such a lease was prohibited, while George Currie argued that the entail's silence on the letting of leases permitted him to enter a lease below the former rental. After the court pronounced an interlocutor, Eliott presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter that decision.
Skirving and Young v. Vernor	1796	Tack, Lease, Rent, Teinds, Interlocutor, Heritor	Skirving and Young, as tenants of Monktonhall lands under the Earl of Wemyss, claimed a proportional share of the church seats in Inveresk parish against Vernor, who asserted that his title to the aisle derived from a direct and express missive of 1763. The pursuers sought to compel a division of the seats, while the defender argued that they possessed no legal right to enforce such a partition. The case turned on whether tenants could claim proportional seating against an express title and compel division of the church accommodation.
Stevensons v. M'Gruther	1791	Tack, Lease, Rent, Possession, Teinds, Aliment	John and William Stevensons, tacksmen of Blairinroir and Longside, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor suspending their lease of the Hill of Longside, claiming entitlement to a disputed meadow as part of their three-fifths share of the hill under the lease terms and historical proportion. Janet Millar, relict of Duncan M'Gruther, and others answered that the meadow had never been connected with the hill but was held by the tenants of Straid, Cruitack, and Carnock prior to the Stevensons' leases. The parties subsequently exchanged replies and duplies debating whether the meadow formed part of the common muir of Longside or constituted separate grounds.
Stobie v. Scotland	1786	Tack, Interlocutor, Aliment, Lease, Possession, Sasine	John Stobie, a writer in Edinburgh, petitioned the Court to overturn a sheriff’s interlocutor that had absolved John Scotland, tenant in Lufcar, from the complaint. The dispute concerned legal objections to a holograph agreement. Scotland answered the petition, responding to the pursuer’s challenges to the instrument.