1794–1795
TeindsTackSuccessionStipendPrescriptionHeritorBalfour pursued the reduction of decrees of prorogation of tithes for Tarbat and Fearn granted to the Earl of Cromarty, arguing that they had been obtained by fraud and in the absence of the Crown, were inconsistent with the original tack, and exceeded the Court's legal power. M'Kenzie defended the validity of the decrees, maintaining that they were not subject to reduction or challenge. The pursuer replied, reiterating that the prorogations violated the terms of the original tack and lay beyond the Court's jurisdiction.AI-generated
Documents in this case (4)
- The Solicitor of Tithes v. Kenneth M'Kenzie — Memorial, 20 Jun 1794June 20, 1794 Information of the pursuer, arguing that decrees of prorogation of tithes obtained by fraud and in absence of Crown are void and liable to reduction
- Kenneth Mackenzie v. Andrew Balfour — Memorial, 7 Jul 1794July 7, 1794 Memorial of Ro. Craigie, arguing that the decrees of prorogation for the tithes of Tarbat and Fearn were valid and not subject to reduction or challenge.
- Andrew Balfour v. Kenneth Mackenzie of Cromarty — Memorial, 3 Mar 1795March 3, 1795 Memorial of the pursuer, arguing that the prorogations granted to the Earl of Cromarty are inconsistent with the original tack and exceed the Court's legal power.
- Mackenzie — Memorial, 7 Mar 1795March 7, 1795 Memorial of the defender, arguing that the Court's recent interlocutor mischaracterizes the Earl of Cromarty's conduct and misapplies the law of prescription.
People & places in this case
People involved
- George Ross, of Cromarty — Party
- Robert Craigie — Advocate for Party
- William Mackenzie, of Belmaduthie — Advocate for Party
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Lord Ordinary
- William Douglas, Duke of Queensberry — Lord Ordinary
- George Vanden Bempde Johnstone, Marquess of Annandale — Lord Ordinary
- Sir Walter Maxwell, of Pollock — Lord Ordinary
- Alexander Smollet, of Bonhill — Lord Ordinary
