| 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. |
| Lord Frederick Campbell, Lord Clerk-Register of Scotland v. Andrew-Stuart, Keeper of the General and Particular Register of Sasines at Edinburgh |
1792
|
Register, Teinds, Prescription, Sasine, Reversion, Statute |
Lord Frederick Campbell, Lord Clerk-Register of Scotland, sued Andrew Stuart, Keeper of the General and Particular Register of Sasines, to recover authority over the sasine registers. Stuart, together with John Davidson and Andrew Steele, had claimed that a Crown commission conferred upon them lawful authority over the general Register of Seisins and custody of the particular register books. Campbell challenged the validity of that commission and asserted his own statutory authority under the 1617 Act, demanding surrender of the unmarked books. |
