1799–1802
William Little Gilmour pursued Caroline Hunter regarding the lands of Barlaugh, seeking to void a long-term tack as violating a tailzie deed’s restriction against leasing beyond the lifetimes of the tailzie heirs, and claiming entitlement to continue in possession as lawful heir under his father’s will and by continuous possession after a thirty-eight-year lease. After an interlocutor rejected his claim to remain in possession, he petitioned for review of that decision. William Grieve, tenant of the lands, subsequently petitioned the Court to reconsider an inner-house interlocutor that had repelled his defences and decreed for his removing.AI-generated
Documents in this case (7)
- Petition — Miss Caroline Hunter against Lord Armadale's Interlocutor [2]Petitioner seeks to void a long-term tack violating a tailzie deed’s restriction against tacking beyond tailzie heirs’ lifetimes.
- Miss Caroline Hunter v. Walter Little Gilmour — Answers, 26 Nov 1799Defendant defends long-term tacks under a tailzie, claiming they complied with entail restrictions and were lawful as granted within settler’s lifetime.
- Petition — William Grieve against Lord Armadale's InterlocutorPetitioner seeks review of interlocutor rejecting his claim to continue possession of Barlaugh lands after 38-year lease, arguing he is lawful heir under father’s will and continuous possession.
- Petition — William Grieve against an Inner-House InterlocutorPetition of William Grieve, Tenant in the lands of Barlaugh, asking the Court to reconsider an inner-house interlocutor that repelled his defences and decerned in the removing.
Published Reports
William Morison, The Decisions of the Court of Session (1811), pg. 18
| The information regarding this case was derived from an import courteously provided by the Baillii Database of Scottish Court of Session Decisions. In terms of the SCOS project, this databases uses respective BAILII entries as metadata shells for case materials present in the SCOS project partners respective repositories. |
