| Archibald Douglas of Douglas v. Douglas, Duke of Hamilton |
27 Mar 1779
|
Deed |
This case constitutes an appeal to the House of Lords and Court of Session regarding an infamous earlier case, dubbed "The Douglas Cause." That case, which was settled by the House of Lords in 1769, revolved around the contested inheritance of the vast wealth of the Duke of Douglas, who died in 1761. The heir-male to the Duke of Douglas, the Duke of Hamilton, contested the property claims of Archibald Douglas, the son of the Duke of Douglas' sister, from many angles. In this last-ditch appeal, brought before the Court of Session and House of Lords, the Duke of Hamilton asserted that a 1744 deed of revocation put forth by the late Duke of Douglas was in fact a settlement of succession that disinherited his sister, Lady Jane Douglas, from all properties that had been passed to the family through investiture. On December 19, 1778 the Court of Session found that the Duke of Hamilton had no claim under the deed of October 16th, 1744, declaring it a deed of revocation and not of settlement. On March 27, 1779 the House of Lords dismissed an appeal of the Duke of Hamilton. The memorials submitted to the Court of Session in October of 1778 contain a history of the Angus and Douglas families and their investitures, and an overview of similar cases to "The Douglas Cause." |
| Haldane v. Duncan |
1802
|
Deed, Liferent, Property rights |
After the death of Mr. George Haldane, his widow, Margaret Haldane, claimed that she had the life-rent right over the lands of Gleneagles, Haldane, and Aberuthven. Margaret said that her husband had left her such property rights which he had inherited from his uncle, Robert Haldane. The defendant, Viscount Duncan, objected the petition arguing that the transfer to Margaret was irregular and contrary to the conditions to settle the succession to real property. |
| Thomson v. Christie |
1784
|
Competition, Deed |
This case was about the effect of two deeds granted by the late James Christie. In the first deed, James granted all of his property to his daughter Jean, his son-in-law Robert Thomson, and their children. Immediately after the deed was granted, Robert Thomson obtained infeftment on the property. In the second deed, James granted a parcel of the property to his daughter Janet, her husband John Morice, and their children. When James died, Janet took possession of the parcel, and the Thomsons took possession of James’s remaining property. However, twelve years later, the Thomson children sued Janet and her children to enforce the first deed. They sought past-due rent, compensation for James’s household furniture, and Janet’s removal from the parcel. Janet argued that the first deed was not meant to take effect until James’s death, and that it reserved to James the power to grant the second deed. |
