AI-transcribed

Old form of mortgage.

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: Wadset

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Children of Macneil v. Reps. of Campbell, et al 1793 Succession, Wadset, Aliment, Arrestment, Debt, Creditor
James Scott v. John Bruce-Stewart 1776 Positive Prescription, Wadset, Female Succession, Reversion, Prescription, Sasine This case concerns a property dispute over a number of landholdings throughout Shetland, "within the parishes of Dunrosnes, Burray, Tingwall, Aithsting, Walls, Detline, Northmaven, Yell, Fetkor, Bressa, and Lerwick." The cause dated back to the late 17th century, when Sinclair of Scalloway granted wadsets to Stewart of Bigtown over the lands of "Blosta, Aithsetter, and Flathabister, and certain other lands" as well as "Houland, Reafirth, Sellafirth, Woodwick, and Gravone." The wadset was never redeemed and the lands passed to Clementina Stewart, who conveyed them to her husband, John Bruce of Symbister. Around the same time the two co-heirs of Scalloway, Philadelphia Scott and Katherine Sinclair, conveyed this property to Sinclair's husband, James Scott. Scott, now of Scalloway, then brought a process of reduction and declarator, demanding that Bruce-Stewart cede the wadset-lands, or at least return them after receiving the wadset fee. Bruce-Stewart produced various documents that he argued proved the positive prescription, namely a 1706 disposition of these lands by Stewart of Bigtown in favor of his heir. In July 1776, Lord Kennet assoilzied (absolved) Bruce-Stewart from the reduction, and Scott petitioned the Court for review. Scott argued that the right of reversion was heritable and perpetual, and not subject to the positive prescription. Furthermore, he argued that as a result of various technicalities, the disposition upon which the defender made his claim of the positive prescription was null and void. The Court found in favor of Scott at first, but later overturned their previous interlocutor, determining that Bruce-Stewart had produced sufficient evidence to exclude.
James Sutherland v. Elizabeth Countess of Sutherland 1773 Teinds, Wadset, Disposition, Aliment, Succession, Stipend James Sutherland pursued Elizabeth Countess of Sutherland and her Tutors regarding wadset lands of Pronsie and Evelicks, disputing whether the lands had been redeemed, whether the wadsetting of Evelicks was lawful, and whether the wadset contracts were valid. The Countess and her Tutors filed answers responding to the pursuer's petitions on each of these grounds.
Leslie v. Brodie, et al 1792 Sequestration, Wadset, Disposition, Succession, Infeftment, Feu duties Reverend William Leslie, minister of the United Parishes of St. Andrews and Langbride, petitioned the court challenging his removal from the parliamentary roll by James Brodie, Alexander Penrose Cumming of Altyre, and other freeholders of the County of Elgin and Forres, who answered that his title was merely nominal and had been abandoned for an inconsistent grant from Lord Fife. Leslie replied asserting an unaltered freeholder qualification held continuously since 1774, and the respondents duplicated, maintaining that the qualification was nominal and fictitious.
Mackay v. Houston 1795 Wadset, Charter, Seisin, Freeholder, Factor Loco Tutoris, Disposition Æneas Mackay petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his inrolment as a freeholder of Sutherland, while Hugh Houston objected that Mackay had failed to specify whether he claimed as a wadsetter or absolute proprietor and that his titles were defective. Mackay replied that his claim fully complied with statutory requirements for inrolment, but Houston maintained that the titles remained insufficient and the specification of interest inadequate. The dispute turned on whether Mackay's property rights satisfied the legal prerequisites for freeholder status.
Murray Grant & Alexander Sharp v. Countess of Sutherland 1788 Debt, Adjudication, Succession, Trustee, Interlocutor, Wadset Murray Grant and Alexander Sharp, as pursuers, filed an information arguing that the claimant was entitled to be ranked as heir of line of Sutherland of Pronzie and to assert five claims against the Countess of Sutherland and her creditors. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Neilson, et al v. Sinclairs 1786 Feu duties, Teinds, Wadset, Reversion, Disposition, Intromission George Neilson, Benjamin Sinclair, and other creditors of Robert Manson-Sinclair of Bridge-end pursued Mrs Henrietta Sinclair, Janet Sinclair, and their husbands regarding debts owed by the debtor, petitioning the Court to alter Lord Ankerville's interlocutor of 9 August 1786. The defenders answered the petition, responding to the creditors' claims against Robert Manson-Sinclair.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Hugh Rose 1790 Freehold Qualification, Sasine, Wadset, Freeholder, Bill of Exchange, Possession Robert Home-Gordon of Embo and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to expunge Hugh Rose of Aitnoch from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland, alleging that Rose's qualification was nominal and fictitious. Rose answered the petition and subsequent condescendence, defending his wadset qualification and land possession against the pursuers' allegations of insufficient freehold status. The cause proceeded through replies and further answers regarding the validity of Rose's entitlement to remain on the freeholders' roll.
Robert Home-Gordon v. John Gordon 1790 Infeftment, Wadset, Freeholder, Election contest, Hereditas Jacens, Aliment Robert Home-Gordon of Embo and others petitioned the Court to expunge John Gordon of Carroll from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland, objecting to his qualification for the roll. Gordon answered, asserting his eligibility by wadset-right and inheritance, and the parties subsequently exchanged replies and duplies disputing whether his wadset was merely nominal and fictitious and whether his possession had altered since enrolment.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Lieutenant-General James Grant of Ballindalloch 1790 Freeholder, Possession, Election contest, Proof, Interlocutor, Wadset Robert Home-Gordon of Embo, George M'Kay of Bighouse, and other freeholders of Sutherland pursued Lieutenant-General James Grant of Ballindalloch to expunge him from the county roll of freeholders on the ground that his qualification rested upon a nominal and fictitious possession of wadset lands in the county. The pursuers alleged that Grant had not truly possessed the lands of Navidale since Whitsunday 1789 as required, while Grant defended his enrollment by asserting continuous possession from that date and denying any change in circumstances warranting removal. The litigation proceeded through successive pleadings, proof regarding payment and stewardship of the wadset lands, and repeated petitions by both sides to alter interlocutors or enlarge the record, with Robert Grant of Elchies also becoming enmeshed in the dispute over similar allegations of nominal qualification and electoral solicitation.
Rose v. Duff 1796 Liferent, Freeholder, Sasine, Fiar, Oath, Wadset William Rose of Ballivat petitioned the Court to alter the freeholders' enrolment that recorded him as fiar of Gaval and to restore his right to vote in virtue of his original qualification as freeholder of Newton and Easter Gauldwal. Colonel Patrick Duff of Carnousie resisted the petition, asserting that Rose could not remain enrolled for those lands because he had refused to swear the qualifying oath upon them, and that the qualification was nominal and fictitious. Rose replied that Duff's answers were designed to prejudice the Court against his titles rather than meet the substance of the complaint, and subsequently sought to homologate a reversion granted by the Earl of Fife in 1790, while Duff continued to deny that Newton and Gauldwall could be included under the designation 'Gaval and others' in any trust-oath.

Documents discussing this subject (73)