Legal Subject: Rent

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.
Alexander, Duke of Gordon, v. The Commissioners for Managing the Forfeited Estates annexed to the Crown 1771 Landlord and tenant, Clan Act, Rent, Trustee, Forfeiture, Adjudication The Clan Act, as subsequently amended, enabled agents of the Crown to hold lands previously owned by participants in the 1715 rebellion. These agents, called "commissioners," could appoint new tenants to the lands. Superiors of the lands were forced to either sell their land to the Crown or accept new tenants selected by the commissioners. Petitioner, Alexander Duke of Gordon, was one such superior who had yet to sell his land in Clunie, Callart, and part of Lochiel. Alexander maintained that the commissioners of the Crown must pay an entry fine (approximately one year's rent) to hold his land. The commissioners of the Crown argued that they are not obligated to pay an entry fine. The Lords concluded that a superior was not entitled, upon an entry, to demand from the Crown's donatary, or trustee for the Crown's behalf, the composition of a year's rent.
Anderson v. Izat 1781 Ministers Stipend, Rent, Stipend, Sasine, Teinds, Patronage This case was about a dispute over a minister's stipend in the newly formed parish of Gorbals.
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.
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.
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.
Bernard Love v. George Foster 1832 Arrestment, Sequestration, Rent, Caution, Aliment, Factor Bernard Love, as pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor in his action against George Foster, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Borthwick 1802 Rent, Teind, Property rights The petitioner, John Borthwick of Crookston, challenged a locality that apportioned liability for the minister's stipend in the parish of Stow.
Briggs v. Stark and Balfour 1778 Hypothec, Arrestment, Debt, Rent, Sequestration, Creditor This case was about the effect of a landlord’s “hypothec,” which was a right to retain or recover the fruits of leased property as security for rent. David Peebles, a tenant, fell behind on rent that was due to his landlord, Janet Balfour. Balfour obtained a Sheriff’s decree to sequester Peebles’s crops; the order covered the current year’s rent, as well as past and future years. Defender Robert Stark, as sequestrator, auctioned off the crops and used the proceeds to compensate Balfour. However, John Briggs, another creditor of Peebles, challenged Balfour’s right to anything more than the current year’s rent. Stark and Balfour responded that the Sheriff’s decree entitled Balfour to any proceeds up to the amount of her entire claim. The Sheriff found no balance due by Stark to Peebles, and Briggs' arrestment was rendered useless. Briggs then submitted his case to the Court of Session by bill of advocation, and it came before Lord Alva. Alva ultimately repelled the reasons of advocation and Briggs petitioned the Court to alter this decision. Marginalia on the case documents indicates that the Court may have indeed altered Alva's decision.
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.
Chalmers v. The Duke of Gordon 1786 Stipend, Teinds, Interlocutor, Rent, Jurisdiction, Augmentation The Reverend Alexander Chalmers pursued the Duke of Gordon and the heritors of Cairney and Bottary for augmentation of his stipend, memorializing that the existing provision was inadequate to the weight of his charge. After the Court pronounced an interlocutor in the teind-cause, Chalmers petitioned for its alteration to secure a competent sum, and the heritors replied, contesting the Court’s authority to modify stipends already decreed.
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.
Condie of Strowie v. United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard 1796 Rent, Proof, Teinds, Tack, Teind, Valuation Thomas Condie of Strowie, as pursuer, sought valuation of the teinds of Strowie and Pitquhanatrie against the United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard, disputing the defenders' higher valuations which rested upon hypothetical grass cultivation unsuited to the local conditions. The defenders maintained that the annual value of the teinds should be set at ninety-nine pounds sterling.
Copland v. Ireland 1786 Proof, Interlocutor, Tack, Diligence, Rent, Sequestration William Ireland petitioned the Court for leave to adduce additional proof and to renew diligence against William Birtwhistle, alleging that William Copland of Gregory had failed to report proof regarding Birtwhistle. Copland answered, responding to the claim that he had neglected to report the proof concerning Birtwhistle.
Cowan v. M'Intosh and Others 1795 Adjudication, Interest, Disposition, Feu duties, Rent, Feu Robert Cowan petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor that had dismissed his process against Mary and Katharine Gordon, the exposers of lands in Blythwoodholme. M'Intosh and others, as respondents, opposed the suspension by arguing that Cowan had breached the articles of roup by failing to grant bond for the purchase price and drawing rents without security.
Creditors of Hynd v. M'Kechny 1777 Expenses, Adjudication, Rent, Interlocutor, Oath, Creditor In 1764, Alexander M'Kechny became a tenant of a dwelling-house and offices in Port-Glasgow, which had been the property of James Hynd. Hynd, a land-waiter, died in debt. In 1770 Hynd's son renounced his claim to his father's estate and Hynd's effects were then sold to pay his creditors. In June 1775, a remit was made to Lord Stonefield to divide the funds from the sale, and at this time Stonefield discovered that no rents had been paid on the property occupied by Alexander M'Kechny. The creditors of John Hynd brought action against M'Kechny, and various facts of the tenancy were disputed: The year M'Kechny took up residence in the dwelling-house, the yearly rent, and the sums expended by M'Kechny on repairs and legal defenses against encroachment. While M'Kechny was eventually vindicated in court, he argued that the verity of his claim had been known to his creditors from the beginning, and that they were therefore responsible for his legal expenses. The pursuers, on the other hand, argued that M'Kechny was at fault for providing incomplete records and making himself unavailable to be deponed.
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.
Davidson v. Officers of State 1793 Rent, Teinds, Evidence The Officers of State objected to deductions claimed by Duncan Davidson of Tulloch, disputing the inclusion of non-monetary casualities in rent deductions. Based on the single document cataloged for 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.
Douglas v. Carnegie 1782 Rent, Freeholder, Proof, Sasine, Infeftment, Oath George Carnegie of Pittarrow submitted answers to the petition and complaint of William Douglas of Bridgetown and Robert Graham of Fintray, Esquires, responding to their objections to his freeholder inrolment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Dumfries v. Campbell 1795 Heritor, Tailzie, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Non-Entry, Rent Dumfries, as heir to his mother and petitioner, sought to alter an interlocutor of December 1792 that had permitted the transference of an action of non-entry against him. Campbell responded that a declarator of nonentry commenced against the mother could be transferred in statu quo against her son and heir without requiring that he first take a passive title.
Dundas v. Thomson 1 of 2 1793 Teinds, Valuation, Rent, Heritor, Tack, Interlocutor
Dundas, et al v. Cameron 1794 Succession, Debt, Tack, Rent, Teinds, Aliment Dundas and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to remit to the Lord Justice Clerk the case of Donald Cameron of Lochiel against the defender Alan Cameron concerning a disputed disposition and sasine of lands. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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 Cassillis v. James Finlay, Common Agent for carrying on the Locality of the Stipend of the Parish of Dalrymple 1795 Teinds, Rent, Tack, Stipend, Interlocutor, Valuation
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
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.
Edmonstone v. Tweedale 1772 Debt, Disposition, Deed, Interlocutor, Mala Fides, Rent In 1766, Robert Tweedale, defender, owed money to James Edmonstone, pursuer. Tweedale could not repay Edmonstone at that time. As security for the eventual payment, Tweedale granted Edmonstone the right to "infeft," or take possession of, some old houses in Mid-Calder. Edmonstone agreed to delay seeking payment provided that Tweedale delivered possession of the houses to him. Despite this agreement, Edmonstone did not take possession of the houses and allowed Tweedale to continue living in them. Edmonstone grew tired of the delays in payment and found that the homes were in such a poor state of repair that their sale would not cover the cost of the debt. Edmonstone brought a process against Tweedale before the sheriff-depute of Edinburgh seeking to collect payment. He argued that the homes stood as security for future payment of the debt, and did not constitute the payment itself. Tweedale, however, countered that his infestment to Edmonstone satisfied the debt, an argument that the sheriff-depute accepted. In the Court of Session, the Lord Ordinary initially found for Edmonstone, but later reversed his own ruling. The documents here represent Edmonstone's attempts to convince the full court to rule in his favor.
Eliott v. Curries 1796 Debt, Succession, Tack, Lease, Aliment, Rent
Fleshers of Glasgow v. Magistrates of Glasgow 1802 Tax, Rent, Duty (Tax), Magistrate In 1744, the Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow erected a slaughterhouse for the city's butchers use, and an act of council decided that those who used the slaughterhouse would pay a rate proportionate to the amount of cattle slaughtered. In 1755, public markets were erected for the butchers to use, and the Magistrates made regulations that rents and duties should be paid by those who used these markets. In 1799, the Magistrates raised the dues of the beef and mutton markets one-third more than the former rate, and reserved the right to themselves to adjust this rate after a year's time. The Incorporation of Fleshers brought a case against the Magistrates, and the case was decided in their favor, holding that the Magistrates of a royal burgh have no right to impose a tax upon the inhabitants without the consent of the Legislature--they have as little right to increase any duties that have been previously imposed, and as the Sovereign himself has no power of levying such taxes, any reservation of such a right in the articles of the Union is altogether mefiectual. (Scot's digest)
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.
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.
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 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.
Gordon v. Kissock 1785 Landlord & Tenant, Rent, Tack, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Aliment Robert Gordon, the proprietor of Threave Grange, and John Kissock, a tacksman there, agreed that Kissock would renounce his existing tack and accept a new, smaller tack. The parties later negotiated for Kissock to renounce the substitute tack. They entered into arbitration concerning the price at which he would do so, and a decree arbitral was pronounced. After Gordon refused to turn over the amount established by the decree, Kissock charged him for payment. Gordon applied for a suspension, arguing that the charge should be offset by certain claims he made against Kissock.
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.
Graham v. E of Hopetoun. 1796 Succession, Aliment, Debt, Teinds, Creditor, Rent Lady Christian Graham, Sir Richard Bempde Johnstone, and Charles Johnstone pursued James Hope Johnstone, Earl of Hopetoun, regarding whether expenditures made by the Earl as legal curator of the Marquis of Annandale's estate affected rights of succession to Scots funds. The pursuers argued that the curator's payments did not impair succession rights, while the Earl maintained he was entitled to credit for his administrative expenditures and petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The pursuers subsequently answered the petition, responding to the seventh article concerning management charges.
Grant v. Duffus 1777 Debt, Bankruptcy, Rent, Aliment, Teinds, Interlocutor In the action between Grant, as pursuer, and Duffus, as defender, the Magistrates, Town Council, and Community of Glasgow petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor regarding the rate of impost on twopenny and small beer charged to brewers at Anderstoun. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Henry v. Caldwell 1765 Aliment, Tack, Adjudication, Rent, Arrestment, Proof Hector Henry, bleacher in Loanhead, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. John Caldwell, mason in Beith, and Elizabeth Swan, daughter to Robert Swan, answered the petition.
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.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 841)