AI-transcribed

Possession, if not founded on one or other of those titles, confers no right to land; and hence, in absence of such a written title, the land may be claimed by the King or by his donatory. So also moveables which have once had an owner, who is now unknown, or treasures which have been hidden, and are discovered, belong to the King. The King's right in regard to land is constituted jure corona; no sasine is necessary, nor indeed competent, since a sasine implies a superior, by whom the possession may be given, while, upon feudal principles, the King has no superior.

Definition source
AI-transcribed
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Possession.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Possession

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Messrs Peters, Bogle, and Marshall, arresting Creditors of James Dunlop, late Merchant in Glasgow v. Messrs Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Trustees of said James Dunlop 1770 Trustees, Debt, Bankruptcy, Arrestment, Possession, Deed Pursuers Thomas Peter, William Bogle, and Robert Marshall were creditors of James Dunlop, merchant of Glasgow. Defenders Speirs, Blackburn, and Andrew Syme were Dunlop's trustees. Shortly after granting trust-rights to Speirs, Blackburn, and Syme, Dunlop went bankrupt. The pursuers refused to bind themselves to Dunlop's trust, preferring instead the ordinary remedies of law to collect their debts. The pursuers arrested quantities of tobacco and hogshead staves from Dunlop's ship, en route from Virginia to Port Glasgow. At issue in this case was the validity of the trust-deed granted by James Dunlop, and the effects of it. According to the pursuers' interpretation of The Bankrupt Act of 1696 the deed was void and ineffectual because it was granted in a foreign country. The trustees argued that the deed was effectual and a valid title in their favor.
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.
Alexander Cunnynghame v. William Muir of Caldwall 1760 Possession, Disposition, Retour, Charter, Liferent, Feu duties Alexander Cunnynghame pursued a claim to the Five Pound Land of Craigbeat and Kersemeadow against William Muir of Caldwall, who objected on the basis of tax-roll and vassal land distinctions and argued that Cunnynghame’s title was nominal and fictitious and that he lacked possession. Muir replied to Cunnynghame’s answers, insisting that the pursuer held neither valid title nor actual possession of the lands. Cunnynghame defended his liferent-right to the properties, rebutting the objections by citing historical retours and demonstrating vassal possession.
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.
Anderson v. Saunders 1829 Sasine, Interdict, Aliment, Feu, Interlocutor, Possession James Anderson and others raised an action of suspension and interdict against Robert Saunders concerning Saunders’ obstruction of a common stair leading to Anderson’s cellars and back-green, which Saunders used to access a sunk storey via a locked spar-door. Saunders answered the reasons of suspension and interdict, resisting the claims of nuisance and exclusive use. Following an interlocutor by Lord Medwyn, Ordinary, Anderson reclaimed against the decision, and Saunders subsequently appealed the interdict and suspension order barring his access. Both parties then submitted Cases arguing their competing rights to the stair, with Anderson contending that Saunders had no right to shut up the common passage and Saunders seeking alteration of the interlocutor granting the interdict against him.
Andrew Wauchope and Others v. The Magistrates of Canongate 1798 Prescription, Possession, Act of Parliament, Statute, Title, Burgh The Magistrates of Canongate, defenders, were authorized by statute to levy customs duties at the Water Gate with respect to certain articles at particular rates. For many years, the Magistrates had charged higher rates and levied duties on articles not mentioned in the statute. In 1795, the Magistrates published a new table of duties that served to increase rates and to add new articles. Pursuers Andrew Wauchope, the Trustees of the Post Road District, and William Scott (Procurator-fiscal of the County of Edinburgh) challenged the Magistrates’ authority to charge duties not specifically authorized by the statute.
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.
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.
Barry, et al v. Incorporation of Weavers, et al 1789 Possession, Prescription, Interlocutor, Damages, Representation, Kirk Session The Reverend Mr George Barry and the remanent members of the Kirk-session of Kirkwall and St Ola defended against a petition by the Incorporation of Weavers, Hammermen, Taylors, and Shoemakers of Kirkwall to alter Lord Henderland’s interlocutor. The incorporations sought to modify the court’s earlier decision, and the Kirk-session submitted answers resisting the proposed alteration.
Brodie v. Grant 1767 Interlocutor, Adjudication, Possession, Tack, Reduction, Appeal Alexander Brodie of Lethen, as pursuer, sought to retain possession of the pool of Stockiebanks on the River Findhorn until the boundary of his fishing rights against Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant, Sir Alexander Grant of Delvey, Sir William Dunbar of Durn, Captain Duncan Urquhart of Burdieyards, and others, as defenders, could be finally ascertained. The defenders disputed Brodie’s fishing rights, leading to answers, replies, and duplies. In 1769, the respondents petitioned against the Lords’ affirmation of an amended interlocutor defining the Findhorn boundary, alleging contradictory judgments and complaining that the boundary had been expanded unexpectedly through judicial admission.
Bushby 1796 Entail, Retour, Freeholder, Possession, Sasine, Teinds John Bushby petitioned to have James Gordon’s name removed from the freeholder roll for Kirkcudbright Stewartry, challenging the validity of Gordon’s land title on grounds of discrepancies and partial entailment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Campbell v. Tod 1785 Aliment, Succession, Prescription, Possession, Tack, Thirlage Doctor Robert Campbell, pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the action against Tod. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Clark v. Macgill 1773 Res judicata, Title Dispute, Adjudication, Possession, Interlocutor, Reduction This case was about the disputed ownership of a small piece of property on Jeffry's Close, Glasgow. In 1763, before pursuer Peter Clark purchased his property on the close, defender James Macgill petitioned the dean of guild for a warrant to enclose the disputed area. James Herbertson, Clark’s predecessor, failed to mount a challenge. However, by the time Macgill was ready to start work on the project, Clark had purchased Herbertson’s former property, which he understood to include the area proposed for enclosure. Clark complained to the dean of guild that the enclosure would be an encroachment. The dean-of-guild court ruled for Macgill, finding that the matter had been decided in the earlier proceeding, and Clark sought review. Case documents name numerous property owners and tenants in The Bridgegate (or Goosedubs) area of Glasgow.
Corbet v. MacKenzie 1777 Property rights, Bleachfield, Thirlage, Aliment, Possession, Succession In November 1740, John MacKenzie's father (John MacKenzie) feued part of Carmyle. He was granted exclusive rights to the water in the bogs adjacent to the property, which had previously been commonly-held. The late MacKenzie then converted part of his lands to a bleachfield, and diverted the rivulet between Carmyle and Kenmuir to his property. After the death of his father, the younger John MacKenzie extended the bleachfield, and built wash-mills and a print-field on the land. He built a reservoir and a dam in the stream that James Corbet claimed diverted "every drop" of the burn-march to his property. In the late 1770s James Corbet brought action against John MacKenzie, declaring that a company in Glasgow had proposed that Corbet establish a bleachfield in Kenmuir, and he now required use of the burn-march. James Corbet argued that John MacKenzie was required to undo his diversions so that the rivulet could be shared with Kenmuir. John MacKenzie answered that his business depended on this diversion, which neither James Corbet nor his father had objected to in the past. He further argued that Kenmuir was not suitable land for a bleachfield owing to its lack of sun. Indeed, MacKenzie contended that Corbet was acting out of malice, and desired the destruction of the Carmyle bleachfield. Numerous local inhabitants acted as deponents in the case.
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.
Cunningham v. Veitch 1791 Adjudication, Property, Prescription, Possession, Sasine, Teinds The Merchants in Edinburgh, defenders, answered a petition by James Cunningham, pursuer, asserting that Covenant Close was their private property and not a common passage, citing historical deeds and a former gate. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cunynghame and Gray v. Whitefoord 1796 Succession, Sequestration, Reduction, Aliment, Arrestment, Possession Francis Cunynghame, Esquire, and Gray pursued Sir John Whitefoord, Baronet, seeking sequestration of the estate of Dunduff and an order remitting to Lord Dreghorn Ordinary to name a factor. Whitefoord answered, arguing that Cunynghame had no legal claim to the estate and that sequestration was inappropriate given the defender's lawful possession and feudal titles. The dispute thus turned on whether sequestration should be granted in the face of competing assertions of right and possession.
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.
Dover v. Forsyth 1784 Property, Sale, Debt, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Possession Agnes Dover, pursuer, alleged that she had made a verbal agreement with Thomas Forsyth regarding a parcel in the village of Glenluce. Under this agreement, Dover would transfer her right to the parcel in exchange for a sale price and payment of a feu duty associated with the property. According to Dover, Forsyth paid part of the sale price and began building a house on the parcel, but he became bankrupt before the house was completed; Forsyth failed to pay the balance of the price or the feu duty. Dover sued Forsyth to recover either the money Forsyth allegedly owed her or, in the alternative, possession of the parcel. In response, the factor on Forsyth’s sequestrated estate argued that Dover should be required to pay for the improvements Forsyth made to the property.
Duke of Atholl v. Robertson 1797 Contract, Servitude, Decreet-Arbitral, Interlocutor, Possession, Suspension James Robertson petitioned the Court of Session to challenge a 1761 arbitral decree affirming the Duke of Atholl’s ownership of seven shealings, arguing that the underlying 1716 contract was void under statute and contrary to public interest. The Duke defended the contractual and arbitral rulings, maintaining his title to the forest lands while acknowledging that the decrees reserved limited pasturage rights to Lude under specified conditions.
Dundas v. Duncan 1801 Lordship, Decree of adjudication, Possession, Prescription right, Debt, Prescription Dundas continued the case as assignee of Miss Helen Bucknay who initially brought the petition. Ms. Bucknay asked the Court to declare that she (now Dundas) has the only good and undoubted right and title to some houses situated in the burgh of Linlithgow over the defendant (Jean Duncan). Therefore he should cede his possession of these subjects. Defendant submitted and explained the title and deeds of the premises, such as a decree of adjudication and bond granted by the prior landlord who transferred the ownership to him and his family, in payment and in satisfaction of a debt.
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 Northesk & Factor v. Rolland, et al 1797 Lease, Tack, Assignment, Sublease, Rent, Possession
Earl of Rothes v. Shepherd 1766 Landlord and tenant, Rent, Arrestment, Sequestration, Possession, Tack Alexander Shepherd, a tenant farmer, rented land in Begg from the Earl of Rothes. After failing to pay a year's rent, Shepherd sought a bill of suspension from the court to avoid getting evicted, claiming that the time and money that he had invested in enclosing the land with hedges and ditches, at the Earl's encouragement, had rendered it impossible to pay his rent. The Earl of Rothes argued that Shepherd was not the industrious farmer and improver that he claimed to be.
Erskine and Burns v. Thomson and Son 1789 Debt, Aliment, Roup, Possession, Apprentice David Erskine and Robert Burns submitted proof as pursuers against defenders Alexander Thomson and Son, asserting the necessity of repairs to a ruinous house. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Forrester v. Wright 1785 Witness, Debt, Rent, Arrestment, Possession, Interlocutor This case was about the admissibility of a witness’s testimony in a dispute between Thomas Forrester of Inchlees, the landlord of some property in Kilsyth, and Daniel Wright, a tenant on the property. An important fact in the dispute was the date of a letter handwritten by William Bow of Cairnoch; the letter stated that in granting a new lease on the property, Thomas Forrester would prefer Wright over other prospective tenants. Forrester sought to have Bow testify as to the date of the letter, but Wright objected on the ground that Bow had given partial counsel to Forrester in the matter. After the Lord Ordinary excluded Bow’s testimony, Forrester petitioned the Lords of Session to alter the interlocutor.
Fullarton & Fullarton v. Dalrymple 1796 Succession, Deed, Possession, Prescription, Debt, Tack
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 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.
Gow v. Russel 1794 Inhibition, Adjudication, Aliment, Possession, Evidence, Property Nathaniel Gow pursued James Russel, an upholsterer, to abate a nuisance allegedly created by Russel's workshop operations in the upper floor, which Gow's family claimed caused excessive noise and ceiling damage contrary to Edinburgh's police rules. Gow argued that the workshop use violated the police regulations and warranted removal, while Russel maintained that the occasional noise inherent to an upholsterer's trade did not constitute a nuisance justifying such relief.
Grinlay &c v. Lord Gardenstone's Interlocutor 1792 Arrestment, Sequestration, Hypothec, Roup, Possession, Rent Grinlay and others petitioned the court to revise Lord Gardenstone’s interlocutor, arguing that as bona fide purchasers at public sale they were not liable for furniture from Mrs. Campbell and that the sheriff’s rent preference was improper. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hon. Mrs Maria Hay Mackenzie and Hugh Munro v. Magistrates of Dingwall and Others 1832 Sequestration, Possession, Tack, Expenses, Interlocutor, Res judicata Mrs. Maria Hay Mackenzie and Hugh Munro petitioned the Court for interim execution pending their appeal against the interlocutor of 11th July 1832 in their action against the Magistrates of Dingwall and others. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Irving v. Lowther 1765 Rent, Sequestration, Possession, Tack, Removing, Bankruptcy John Irving, feuar in Dornock and brother-german and heir to William Irving, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against George Lowther, portioner of Dornock. Lowther answered, claiming active title to remove sub-tenants who held only from him and contending that their lease from a factor was invalid.
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.
Johnston v. Robertson 1784 Decreet-Arbitral, Rent, Aliment, Sequestration, Possession, Tack Defender Thomas Johnston of Templehall obtained a tack of Prenderguest from Robert Robertson. The tack contained a clause allowing Robert to retake possession of forty acres in the event that he decided to build a house and offices on it. After granting the tack, Robert transferred the lands to his son Alexander, who sought to invoke this clause. A dispute arose between Alexander and Johnston, and the case was submitted to arbiters. Robert, the father, then raised an action before the Sheriff of Berwickshire seeking immediate possession of forty acres; his son Alexander was subsequently added as pursuer. Johnston argued that under a decree pronounced by the arbiters, Alexander could not take possession of the full forty acres until he had actually built a house.
King & Caldwall v. King 1765 Debt, Rent, Aliment, Possession, Tack, Creditor John Caldwall and John King, tenant, petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors and discharge Caldwall from liability for the rents of Park and Hall. James King, Gavin Ralston, and John King, portioner, answered, asserting their tacit possession of the Park lands and claiming the full rent with an abatement of three pounds for that property.
Kirkpatrick v. Maxwells 1795 Succession, Possession, Contract, Prescription, Tack, Trustee William Kirkpatrick claimed title to Kirkcudbright lands against the heirs and husbands of Sir Robert Maxwell’s sisters, who defended by asserting their own prior title founded upon ancient charters and prescription. After the Court issued an interlocutor, Kirkpatrick petitioned to have it altered, and the defenders subsequently disputed his claim.
Laird v. Grindlay 1790 Tack, Creditor, Succession, Debt, Possession, Interlocutor John Laird and Company, merchants in Greenock, pursued Walter Grindlay, farmer at Seabegs, and John Buchanan, his mandatory, regarding a mill lease and Henderson’s employment, charging the defenders with unlawful possession and subtenancy. The cause proceeded to proof in June 1790, after which the pursuers petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor in February 1791, and the defenders answered in April 1791, contesting the allegations of unlawful possession.
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.
Lieutenant-Colonel James St Clair v. Miss Jean Alexander of Rosebank 1776 Kirk, Succession, Feu, Prescription, Possession, Disposition This case was about whether the defender could claim an exclusive property right to a seat in a church. In 1728, the proprietor of an estate called Roslin transferred part of the estate to one Yaxly Davidson; the transferred land came to be known as Rosebank. The proprietor also gave Davidson access to certain seats in the local church, which had been reserved for the estate of Roslin. (The exact nature of this access, and the number of seats affected, were matters of dispute.) In time, Jean Alexander became the proprietor of Rosebank and began using the associated seats. She sought to exclude Roslin tenants from the seats, and Colonel James St. Clair, the contemporaneous proprietor of Roslin, sued. St. Clair claimed that he held the sole right to the disputed seats. In response, Alexander argued that the proprietors of Rosebank had acquired the seats by prescription—in other words, that by possessing the seats for a long period of time, they had obtained a property right. St. Clair argued that a church seat could not be obtained by prescription, and that in any case, Alexander had not enjoyed the sort of exclusive possession that was necessary for prescription to apply.
Lord William Gordon and Others v. Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod and Others 1791 Freeholder, Statute, Possession, Election contest, Title, Court of Session Lord William Gordon, Vice-Admiral of Scotland, presented a petition and complaint against Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod, Arthur Forbes of Culloden, and others regarding the removal of his name from the Inverness-shire freeholders' roll. The complainer alleged that the respondents had acted irregularly in striking off liferent-voters, while the respondents contended that the four-month limitation period did not bar the removal of nominal or fictitious voters and that their conduct was legally justified. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies addressing the procedural regularity of the expunging and the applicability of the limitation period, followed by speeches on whether objections of nominality were competent after four months. Thereafter, Lord William Gordon and Lieutenant Alexander Godsman petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and award expenses, prompting further answers from the respondents defending their freeholder status and maintaining the validity of their prior objections.
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'Ghie and Attorney v. Forbes and Hay 1794 Debt, Succession, Creditor, Prescription, Possession, Compensation M'Ghie and Attorney pursued Forbes and Hay, maintaining that William M'Ghie and Jean Forbes had possessed the houses without title and that their intromissions could not be enforced against the defenders. The defenders answered that Mrs Jean Forbes, as assignee of her husband's debt, had no claim beyond her jointure, and that they as trustees were not liable for her intromissions.
M'Leod v. Incorporation of Bakers 1784 Tack, Thirlage, Possession, Aliment, Tax, Charter Malcolm M'Leod, tackman of the ladle-dues, pursued the Incorporation of Bakers of Glasgow for payment of ladle-dues on wheat and flour, including grain ground at the Partick mills. After M'Leod proved that such dues applied to all wheat entering Glasgow including that ground at Partick, the Bakers petitioned to alter the interlocutor and claimed immunity, whereupon M'Leod answered and produced a 1693 decree-arbitral between the Town and the Bakers. Following remits from the Lord Ordinary, the Bakers argued that the Magistrates had no right to levy dues on grain brought to Partick without entering the city, while the Magistrates maintained their entitlement to levy on such grain.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 752)