This case was about defender Walter Gray’s tack on the estate of Langwell. Shortly after Walter agreed to the tack, his brother William purchased Langwell. William granted bonds over the estate to Hugh Inglis and John Cartier as security for certain debts. Later, Inglis and Carter initiated court proceedings involving the property, which was sequestered under the supervision of a factor. Inglis also sought to void Walter’s tack or have Walter removed from the estate. Inglis alleged that Walter’s rent was far below the value of the property as stated on a rent roll that Walter had endorsed. Inglis also claimed that the tack would expire soon and that Walter was in arrears on his rent. Walter objected that Inglis’s security right, unlike a full property right, did not entitle him to challenge the tack or remove a tenant; when Inglis attempted to add the factor as a pursuer, Walter argued that this was a procedural irregularity. Walter also argued that William had granted him a new lease and that he was not in arrears on rent.
Documents in this case (1)
People involved
- Hugh Inglis, Esq. — Pursuer
- Captain Walter Gray — Defender
- Sir William Honyman, Lord Armadale — Advocate for Defender
- Henry Home, of Kames, Lord Kames — Lord Ordinary
- James Erskine, Lord Barjarg and Alva — Lord Ordinary
- Robert Sutherland — Named in case documents
- William Gray — Named in case documents
- John Cartier — Named in case documents
- John Fraser, W.S. — Named in case documents
Places
This case was about defender Walter Gray’s tack on the estate of Langwell. Shortly after Walter agreed to the tack, his brother William purchased Langwell. William granted bonds over the estate to Hugh Inglis and John Cartier as security for certain debts. Later, Inglis and Carter initiated court proceedings involving the property, which was sequestered under the supervision of a factor. Inglis also sought to void Walter’s tack or have Walter removed from the estate. Inglis alleged that Walter’s rent was far below the value of the property as stated on a rent roll that Walter had endorsed. Inglis also claimed that the tack would expire soon and that Walter was in arrears on his rent. Walter objected that Inglis’s security right, unlike a full property right, did not entitle him to challenge the tack or remove a tenant; when Inglis attempted to add the factor as a pursuer, Walter argued that this was a procedural irregularity. Walter also argued that William had granted him a new lease and that he was not in arrears on rent.
Locations
Session Papers
Repository & Extent
Similar cases
- James M'Harg v. Marquis of Tweeddale
- Oliver Melvil v. Mr Robert Arnot, Minister at Ceres
- Howe v. Bland
- Peter Ramsay and Others, Councillors and Burgesses of Pittenweem v. Andrew Martin and Others
- Elizabeth and Isobel Grays, Daughters of John Gray of Rogart, deceased v. John Wood, and Others, Creditors of said John Gray