1799
AlimentThirlageTrusteesArbitrationSuccessionSaleThomas Bruce pursued General Greme's Trustees to void his purchase of the Braco estate, alleging the trustees had concealed a material alteration to the course of Keir Burn that diminished the property's value and safety. The trustees denied withholding information and argued that any damage was compensable and insufficient to annul the bargain. Bruce additionally sought authority to alter the burn's course, prompting disputes over jurisdiction and damages, while technical reports assessed flooding risks and construction costs.AI-generated
Documents in this case (6)
- Appendix [2]Trustees of General Graeme's estate negotiate farm leases for Haugh and Keir Burn, address objections to submission clauses, consult Lord Methven on flood damage and repair costs, and respond to a petition from turnpike…
- Thomas Bruce v. General Græme's Trustees — Bill of Suspension, 8 Jan 1799Thomas Bruce seeks to suspend Braco estate sale over undisclosed dispute over Keir Burn’s altered course, materially affecting value and safety.
- Appendix, 21 Jan 1799Memorandum and report on proposed alteration of Keir burn’s course through Haugh farm, assessing risks of flooding, bank maintenance, land loss, and cost of new channel construction; includes engineer’s estimate and obj…
- Thomas Bruce v. George Brooks and the other Trustees of the late General David Grame of Braco — Replies, 22 Feb 1799Thomas Bruce seeks to void his purchase, alleging sellers concealed a major alteration to Keir burn’s course that materially affected estate value and risk.
- General Greme's Trustees v. Thomas Bruce — Duplies, 18 Apr 1799Respondents deny withholding information about the burn's course and argue the claim by public trustees does not invalidate the sale, as any potential damage is compensable and not sufficient to annul the bargain.
- Thomas Bruce v. George Brooks and others, Trustees of the late General David Graeme of Braco — Bill of Suspension, 17 May 1799Bruce seeks to alter the burn of Keir’s course via trustees’ authority, but trustees and purchaser dispute jurisdiction and damages.
People & places in this case
People involved
- Archibald Roy — Party
- William Erskine, Lord Kinneder — Advocate for Party
- Robert Paton — Advocate for Party
- Charles Hay, of Newton, Lord Newton — Advocate for Party
- David Smythe, Lord Methven — Lord Ordinary
