Legal Subject: Decreet-Arbitral

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Belsches v. Paterson and Anderson	1786	Tack, Thirlage, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Charter, Reduction	Robert Belsches pursued the action against Mrs Mary Paterson and Alexander Farquharson regarding the extent of thirlage over the lands of Greenyards. Belsches argued that the thirlage did not extend to wheat or barley, while Paterson and Farquharson maintained that the lands of Easter Greenyards were thirled to the mill of Skeoch for omnia grana crescentia.
Chrystie and Chrystie v. Ferguson, et al	1788	Election contest, Decreet-Arbitral, Reduction, Election, Bribery, Corruption	Alexander Chrystie and another pursued Ferguson and others to reduce and set aside the election of the Magistrates and Counsellors of Burntisland, alleging bribery, corruption, and invalid form. The defenders answered, maintaining the validity of the 1789 election and arguing that a majority of uncorrupted votes sustained the result.
Counsellors of the Burgh of Burntisland	1789	Election contest, Magistrate, Election, Aliment, Decreet-Arbitral, Reduction	The Provost, magistrates, and counsellors of Burntisland defended the validity of the burgh’s 1789 election of counsellors against complaints alleging bribery and seeking voidance or partial relief. Alexander Pitcairn petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor that had ruled against his election as a counsellor, while William Muir and James Davidson also pursued complaints regarding the election, prompting answers from the magistrates and subsequent duplies. The magistrates later submitted a memorial arguing that Muir and Davidson’s election was void due to their non-residence and foreign status.
Duke of Atholl v. Robertson	1797	Contract, Servitude, Decreet-Arbitral, Interlocutor, Possession, Suspension	James Robertson petitioned the Court of Session to challenge a 1761 arbitral decree affirming the Duke of Atholl’s ownership of seven shealings, arguing that the underlying 1716 contract was void under statute and contrary to public interest. The Duke defended the contractual and arbitral rulings, maintaining his title to the forest lands while acknowledging that the decrees reserved limited pasturage rights to Lude under specified conditions.
Grays v. Brown	1832	Decreet-Arbitral, Lease, Damages, Arbitration, Interdict, Roads	Patrick Gray, Patrick Gray Junior, and Robert Gray pursued William Henry Brown for damages arising from an interdict against their use of private roads on the farm of Freelands. Brown denied the claim. The pursuers subsequently lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor, asserting the action was incompetent and seeking remission of expenses.
Hugh Montgomery v. Strang, Lennox and Company	1798	Decreet-Arbitral, Tack, Arbitration, Usury, Reduction, Interlocutor	Strang, Lennox and Company, cotton-spinners in Eaglesham, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor respecting their claim for damages against Hugh Montgomery of Bogstown, suspender, arising from a prior loan and arbitration dispute. Montgomery submitted answers opposing the chargers' application.
Incorporated trades of Aberdeen v. The Magistrates, Council, & Guildry of Aberdeen	1793	Decreet-Arbitral, Foreign Trade, Trade, Interlocutor, Statute, Monopoly
James Duff and William Duff v. Laurence Sutherland	1793	Arrestment, Decreet-Arbitral, Debt, Assignation, Magistrate, Sequestration	James Duff in Nethertown and William Duff in Hillockhead of Glass pursued Laurence Sutherland, bailie of Elgin, for obstructing the execution of a caption and withholding consigned money and papers. The complainers asked the court to remit the bailie’s conduct, while Sutherland defended his refusal to incarcerate the debtor and retain the funds, asserting that the complaint was incompetent and that his actions were proper given the complainers’ unlawful proceedings and acquiescence in their own error. He further answered claims of damages and wrongful seizure, maintaining that his conduct had been justified under the circumstances.
John Davidson v. Alexander Kyde, and Others	1797	Decreet-Arbitral, Succession, Trustee, Arrestment, Executor, Will	John Davidson, Esquire, trustee for Rachael Lindsay, spouse of Major James Dickson in the East India Company's service, and for his own interest, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Stonefield. Major Alexander Kyde answered the petition. Robert Strang, Andrew Lennox, and James Alexander, in company, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
John Ure, and other Heritors within the Royalty of the Burgh of Forfar v. Patrick Carnegy, and Others, Heritors of the Landward District of the Parish of Forfar	1792	Decreet-Arbitral, Heritor, Burgh, Teinds, Contract, Debt	John Ure and the other heritors within the royalty of the burgh of Forfar pursued Patrick Carnegy and the other heritors of the landward district of the parish regarding the method of dividing the church. The pursuers argued that the church ought to be divided in proportion to population, while the defenders maintained that it should be divided according to valued rent as settled by Lord Coalston's decree. Both parties presented informations to the Court setting forth these competing claims.
Johnston v. Robertson	1784	Decreet-Arbitral	Defender Thomas Johnston of Templehall obtained a tack of Prenderguest from Robert Robertson. The tack contained a clause allowing Robert to retake possession of forty acres in the event that he decided to build a house and offices on it. After granting the tack, Robert transferred the lands to his son Alexander, who sought to invoke this clause. A dispute arose between Alexander and Johnston, and the case was submitted to arbiters. Robert, the father, then raised an action before the Sheriff of Berwickshire seeking immediate possession of forty acres; his son Alexander was subsequently added as pursuer. Johnston argued that under a decree pronounced by the arbiters, Alexander could not take possession of the full forty acres until he had actually built a house.
Murdoch v. Lord Dunsinnan's Interlocutor	1787	Decreet-Arbitral, Arbitration, Reduction, Interlocutor, Intromission, Suspension	Elizabeth Murdoch, Alexander Smith, Jean Murdoch, and Christian Murdoch petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dunsinnan's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Riddell v. King	1796	Debt, Creditor, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Trustee, Representation	Sir James Riddell of Ardnamurchan and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had found them personally liable for a debt due by the deceased Mrs Paterson, explaining that they had not yet recovered any executry funds. The deceased’s executors subsequently petitioned for permission to delay further the recovery of those funds, despite admitting liability and acknowledging that ample estate assets remained available.
Woddrop v. Finlay	1793	Decreet-Arbitral, Tack, Arbitration, Interlocutor, Reduction, Debt	John Finlay, defender, answered the petition of William Woddrop, pursuer, arguing that the interlocutor should not be altered and that the arbiters’ explanation was necessary to ascertain material justice. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.