Landlord's or superior's right of distress. The superior's is for the amount of the feu-duty, and has priority over the landlord's. The landlord's hypothec extends over the crop for the rent of the year in which it was grown, and over the stock on the farm for the current year's rent. (See Sequestration for Rent.) In the case of houses, &c., the landlord has a hypothec on the invecta et illata, i.e., the household furniture of his tenant. The law agent's hypothec is a solicitor's lien over title-deeds.
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: Hypothec |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Briggs v. Stark and Balfour | 1778 | Hypothec, Arrestment, Debt, Rent, Sequestration, Creditor | This case was about the effect of a landlord’s “hypothec,” which was a right to retain or recover the fruits of leased property as security for rent. David Peebles, a tenant, fell behind on rent that was due to his landlord, Janet Balfour. Balfour obtained a Sheriff’s decree to sequester Peebles’s crops; the order covered the current year’s rent, as well as past and future years. Defender Robert Stark, as sequestrator, auctioned off the crops and used the proceeds to compensate Balfour. However, John Briggs, another creditor of Peebles, challenged Balfour’s right to anything more than the current year’s rent. Stark and Balfour responded that the Sheriff’s decree entitled Balfour to any proceeds up to the amount of her entire claim. The Sheriff found no balance due by Stark to Peebles, and Briggs' arrestment was rendered useless. Briggs then submitted his case to the Court of Session by bill of advocation, and it came before Lord Alva. Alva ultimately repelled the reasons of advocation and Briggs petitioned the Court to alter this decision. Marginalia on the case documents indicates that the Court may have indeed altered Alva's decision. |
| Eliott v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor | 1797 | Trustees, Debt, Succession, Hypothec, Election contest, Action | Sir William Eliott petitioned to reclaim an interlocutor of the Lord Justice Clerk denying his claim to £50:10s. paid to the writer Thomas Tod, arguing that the account was not prescribed and fell outside the scope of triennial prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Grinlay &c v. Lord Gardenstone's Interlocutor | 1792 | Arrestment, Sequestration, Hypothec, Roup, Possession, Rent | Grinlay and others petitioned the court to revise Lord Gardenstone’s interlocutor, arguing that as bona fide purchasers at public sale they were not liable for furniture from Mrs. Campbell and that the sheriff’s rent preference was improper. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| John Finlay v. Robert Syme Clerk to the Signet | 1772 | Hypothec, Debt security, Debt, Trustee, Interlocutor, Diligence | Robert Syme, defender, had in his possession a number of papers belonging to John Finlay, pursuer. Finlay sued his own father, Robert Finlay, and asked Syme for the papers as evidence in the suit against his father. Syme sought to retain Finlay's papers because Finlay was indebted to him. The court twice ordered Syme, by interlocutor, to return the papers to Finlay's custody. Syme refused, claiming that he had a hypothec (security) on the writings in his custody. Syme argued that he was not required to return the papers until Finlay satisfied his debt to Syme. Syme cited authorities for the proposition that agents have a right of hypothec or retention in their client's writings for claims of payment. |
| Milne v. Robinson, W.S | 1798 | Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Agent, Adjudication, Hypothec | Alexander Milne, George Taylor, and John Fife petitioned the Court to overturn Lord Armadale's interlocutor granting George Robinson, Writer to the Signet, preference over their arrestments. Robinson answered, defending his priority against the pursuers' challenge. |
| Rutherford v. Rutherford and Potts | 1788 | Arrestment, Sequestration, Hypothec, Debt, Rent, Cautioner | Jane Rutherford, widow of Robert Robson, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Hailes’s interlocutor regarding the Sheriff’s refusal to grant advocation. The respondents, Rutherford and Potts, defended that refusal and asserted their preference over rent arrears and crop proceeds from 1783 roup sales. |
| Smart v. Interlocutor of Court | 1793 | Hypothec, Debt, Interlocutor, Bankruptcy, Collusion, Contract | John Smart presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| The Interim Factor on the Sequestrated Estate of Bertram, Gardner & Co v. David Thomson | 1794 | Debt, Bankruptcy, Hypothec, Sequestration, Mandate, Election contest | Richard Hotchkis, as interim factor on the sequestrated estate of Bertram, Gardner & Co, petitioned the Court to ordain David Thomson to deliver up all writings in his possession belonging to the bankrupts, with reservation of Thomson's hypothec. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Thomson v. Scott | 1780 | Rent, Arrestment, Hypothec, Sequestration, Interlocutor, Factor | Documents available. For description in progress. |
Documents discussing this subject (72)
- Alexander Burns v. Duncan Cameron — Duplies, 3 Apr 1823
- Alexander Burns v. Duncan Cameron — Memorial, 4 Sep 1823 [2]
- Alexander Melvil v. James Barclay — Petition, 13 Dec 1777
- Andrew Blane v. David Morison, William Bone, Andrew Hair, and William Smith — Memorial, 8 Dec 1784
- Andrew Blane v. David Morrison, William Bone, Andrew Hair, and William Smith — Memorial, 14 Dec 1784 [2]
- ANSWERS to the CONDESCENDENCE and CLAIM for Mrs Jane Galt and Dr Black, her husband; and to the CLAIM for Mrs Captain Denniston and her Son. PLEA IN LAW. ANSWERS to the CLAIM for W
- APPENDIX.
- Archibald Scott and William Baillie v. Charles Thomson — Answers, 7 Dec 1780
- Briggs v. Stark and Balfour — Petition, 4 Aug 1778
- Catharine MacTavish v. Dundonnell's Trustee — Petition, 2 Feb 1831
- Charles Stewart v. John Bell — Answers, 4 Jan 1814
- Charles Thomson v. Archibald Scott and William Baillie — Answers, 7 Dec 1780
- Colonel James Stewart Oliphant v. John, Walter, William, Margaret, Catherine, and Janet Thomsons — Condescendence, 22 Jan 1823
- CSP-81 unsorted seg011
- David Steuart v. John Ramsden — Replies, 21 Jun 1793 [2]
- Eliott v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor — Petition, 27 Jan 1797
- Frederick Gordon v. Thomas Crawford — Answers, 8 Dec 1824
- George Arnott Walker Arnott v. John David Stewart — Minute, 9 Mar 1842
- George Provand v. James Provand and Others — Interlocutor, 7 Mar 1843 [2]
- George Provand v. James Provand — Minute, 1843
- Grinlay &c v. Lord Gardenstone's Interlocutor — Petition, 9 Mar 1792
- Henry Paul v. David Mathie — Petition, 23 Dec 1825 [2]
- Hotchkis — Petition, 13 Jan 1794
- Jean Rutherford v. John Rutherford Ainslie and James Potts — Answers, 21 Feb 1788
- John Briggs v. Robert Stark and Mrs Janet Balfour — Answers, 12 Nov 1778
- John Finlay v. Robert Syme Clerk to the Signet — Petition, 16 Dec 1772
- John Gordon v. Mrs Janet Ramage Liston and Alexander Johnston — Duplies
- John Harper v. Andrew Faulds — Information, 23 Nov 1790
- John Marnoch v. Peter Hewat — Answers, 9 Jun 1818
- John Syme Writer to the Signet and James Graham Writer v. Douglas Heron and Company and others, Creditors of the deceased Col. Patrick Gordon of King's-Grange — Answers, 30 Jul 1788
- Lindsay and Allan v. John Campbell Junior — information, 3 Jan 1800
- Mackenzie — Petition, 22 Nov 1792
- Milne v. Robinson, W.S — petition, 4 Jul 1798
- Nathaniel Stevenson v. David Cooper and Duncan Clark — Bill of Advocation, 14 Apr 1821
- Nathaniel Stevenson v. David Cooper and Duncan Clerk — Answers, 8 Dec 1821
- Peter Robertson and Others v. Archibald Lyle — Revised Case, 2 Mar 1827
- PETIT.—John Sime, AGAINST Lord Ankerville's Interlocutor, Nov. 24. THE PETITION OF John Sime, Ship-builder in Leith,
- Petition — Appendix [2]
- Petition — Charles Thomson, Writer in Montrose
- Petition — David Steuart. the Petition of David Steuart, Merchant in Leith
- Petition — James Graham against Ld Ankerville's Interlocutor
- Petition — John Bell, Esq. against Lord Craigie's Interlocutors [2]
- Petition — John Smart against Interlocutor of Court
- Petition — John Smart. against Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor
- Petition — John Sturrock, Merchant in Canongate, Humbly Sheweth
- Petition — Mrs Catharine Macdonell, otherwise Mactavish, Relict and Executrix of the deceased John Mactavish, Solicitor in Inverness
- Petition — Nathaniel Stevenson against Lord Pitmilly's Interlocutor
- Petition — Poor John Boag against Lord Ankerville's Interlocutor
- Petition — William Cavens against L. Dunsinnan's Interlocutor
- PLEA in LAW for the Petitioner, Mr Dobs, appended to Petition for Sequestration. PLEAS in LAW for Mr Dobs, appended to Revised Statement of Facts, No. 18 of Process of Advocation.
- Reclaiming Note, Mrs. Margaret Campbell and Husband against Lord Moncreiff's Interlocutor
- Reclaiming Petition — Donald M'MARTIN against Lord Eldin's Interlocutor
- Reclaiming Petition — Hugh M'LACHLAN against Inner-House Interlocutor
- Reclaiming Petition — John Innes, Esq; against Lord Meadowbank's Interlocutor
- Reclaiming Petition — William Campbell against Lord Pitmilly's Interlocutor
- Robert Arthur, Merchant in Irvine v. Messrs Hastie & Jamieson, Merchants in Glasgow — Petition, 21 Dec 1770
- Robert M'Arthur v. Messrs Peter Forbes & Co. and George and John Dobbies — Answers, 2 Dec 1822
- Rutherford v. Rutherford and Potts — Petition, 7 Feb 1788
- Samuel C. Hardie v. Charles Tait — Answers
- Sir W. Cunninghame Fairlie v. John Neilson and John Fulton — Condescendence
- Smart v. Interlocutor of Court — Petition, 19 Dec 1793
- STATEMENT of FACTS for the Defenders, William and Francis Leyden, and ANSWERS thereto for Pursuers.
- Steuart v. Ramsden — Answers, 28 Jan 1794
- Steuart v. Ramsden — Petition, 11 Apr 1793
- Thomas Ogilvie v. Charles Hamilton — Answers, 12 Nov 1746
- Thomson — Petition, 18 Nov 1780
- William Campbell v. Mrs Mary Black MacNeill or Jolly and Robert Jolly — Answers, 14 May 1824
- William Clark v. Christian Thomson or Morrison and Alexander Thomson and John Grieve — Respondents' Case, 6 Apr 1837
- William Clark v. John Grieve and Others — Revised Case, 6 Apr 1837
- William Clark v. Mrs Thomson and Husband, and John Grieve — Condescendence
- William Clark v. Thomson and Husband, and John Grieve — Complainers' Case, 6 Apr 1837
- William Good v. Robert Fleming — Answers, 17 Dec 1766
