1795–1797
SuccessionDeedWillEntailAlimentTailzieRobert Henderson pursued a claim against George Wilson regarding the succession to Walter Bowman’s estate, while Catharine and Christian Melvilles argued that a 1763 entail was ineffectual and had revoked an earlier 1757 deed, thereby opening the succession to heirs ab intestato. Henderson petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor, and Wilson answered both Henderson’s petition and the Melvilles’ memorial, contesting their respective positions on the disputed entailments.AI-generated
Documents in this case (8)
- Robert Henderson v. George Wilson — Memorial, 26 May 1795Robert Henderson challenges George Wilson’s claim to Logie lands under Walter Bowman’s 1763 entail, asserting his right as grandnephew under the granter’s reserved power to alter succession.
- Robert Henderson v. George Wilson — Memorial, 26 May 1795 [2]May 26, 1795 Memorial of George Wilson, Grandnephew of Walter Bowman, arguing that the lands of Logie should descend under the valid 1757 entail, against Robert Henderson, another grandnephew.
- Melvilles — Momorial, 16 Jun 1795June 16, 1795 Memorial of Catharine and Christian Melvilles, arguing that the 1763 entail is ineffectual and revokes the 1757 deed, thus opening succession to heirs ab intestato
- Henderson v. Wilson and Melvilles — Petition, 7 Jul 1795July 7, 1795 Petition of Robert Henderson asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
- Robert Henderson v. George Wilson — Answers, 3 Sep 1795September 3, 1795 Answers by George Wilson to the petition of Robert Henderson and Catharine and Christian Melville, responding to claims regarding entailments of Walter Bowman's estate.
- Melvilles — Petition, 10 Feb 1797Petitioners challenge an interlocutor that upholds a 1763 deed as valid, arguing it invalidates their right to inherit Walter Bowman’s estate under the 1757 procuratory and intestacy laws.
- Wilson — Petition, 10 Feb 1797February 10, 1797 Petition of George Wilson, against Inner-House interlocutor, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
People & places in this case
People involved
- Robert Barclay — Party
- Archibald Douglas, Duke of Douglas — Party
- Lady Jane Douglas — Party
- William Douglas, Duke of Queensberry — Party
- Alexander Crichton — Party
- Mark Pringle, of Fairnielee — Party
- John Pringle — Party
- John Ouchterlony — Party
- David Douglas, of Reston — Advocate for Party
- Thomas Thomson — Advocate for Party
- Robert Craigie — Advocate for Party
- Robert Blair, of Avontoun, Lord Avontoun — Advocate for Party
- Mr. James Smith, of Balharry — Advocate for Party
- Patrick Grant, Lord Elchies — Lord Ordinary
- Sir John Nisbet, of Dirleton, Lord Dirleton — Lord Ordinary
- David Smythe, Lord Methven — Lord Ordinary
Where this case took place
Published Reports
William Morison, The Decisions of the Court of Session (1811), pg. 4478
| 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. |
