||Rent, Teind, Property rights
||The petitioner, John Borthwick of Crookston, challenged a locality that apportioned liability for the minister's stipend in the parish of Stow.
|Corbet v. MacKenzie
||Property rights, Bleachfield
||In November 1740, John MacKenzie's father (John MacKenzie) feued part of Carmyle. He was granted exclusive rights to the water in the bogs adjacent to the property, which had previously been commonly-held. The late MacKenzie then converted part of his lands to a bleachfield, and diverted the rivulet between Carmyle and Kenmuir to his property. After the death of his father, the younger John MacKenzie extended the bleachfield, and built wash-mills and a print-field on the land. He built a reservoir and a dam in the stream that James Corbet claimed diverted "every drop" of the burn-march to his property. In the late 1770s James Corbet brought action against John MacKenzie, declaring that a company in Glasgow had proposed that Corbet establish a bleachfield in Kenmuir, and he now required use of the burn-march. James Corbet argued that John MacKenzie was required to undo his diversions so that the rivulet could be shared with Kenmuir. John MacKenzie answered that his business depended on this diversion, which neither James Corbet nor his father had objected to in the past. He further argued that Kenmuir was not suitable land for a bleachfield owing to its lack of sun. Indeed, MacKenzie contended that Corbet was acting out of malice, and desired the destruction of the Carmyle bleachfield. Numerous local inhabitants acted as deponents in the case.
|Cunninghams v. Alexander Cunningham
||5 Dec 1778
||Parishioner, Heritor, Property rights, Natural Rights
||This case concerns burial rights to the Currie Kirkyard. Alexander (John) Cunninghame, victual-dealer at Fountainbridge, was not a parishioner of the Currie Kirk. He was, however, a descendant of John Cunninghame of Balerno (d. 1640), who was buried in the Balerno family plot, which ran along the south wall of the parish church. By the end of 1777, Cunninghame had buried his wife and three children in this burial plot, near the wall of the church. When he had a tombstone made for their graves, William and Laurence Cunninghames, portioners of Ballerno, petitioned the Sheriff of Midlothian to forbid Alexander Cunninghame from placing this stone and from making any further burials. They claimed exclusive possession of this area of the kirkyard due to their status as joint-heritors in Currie parish. The sheriff found that the defender should not "be deprived of the pious satisfaction of placing a stone over the grave of his departed wife.” The pursuers then presented a bill of advocation to the Court. Lord Covington determined that as the defender was neither a heritor nor a parishioner of Currie, he had no right to make use of the kirkyard. When the defender petitioned the Court for review, it upheld Covington's decision. The arguments of the pursuers and defender centered on whether a kirkyard was common or private property.
|Davidson v. Elphinstone
||6 Jul 1802
||Mandate, Freeholder, Property rights, Title (detour), Landlord
||Robert Hill, as the agent of the Honourable Charles Elphinstone, Captain of the Royal Navy, claimed property rights of Eastern Glenboig, otherwise known as Endboig, with the mill, mill-lands, and other land (County of Stirling). The Title-deeds (Detour) and other records related to the case were submitted in order to support the enrollment of C. Elphinstone. Harry Davidson objected, first that the titles were not legal evidence of the old extend, and second, that Hill was not entitled to act in name and on behalf of H. Charles Elphinstone, because he was out of the Kingdom and there was no special mandate granted to Hill for such purposes. Taking into consideration the objections, the Lords sustained that H. Charles Elphinstone could not be enrolled as a freeholder (landlord) of the Glenboig.
|Earl of Dalhousie v. Wilson
||1 Dec 1802
||Property rights, Lease, Assignment, Possession
||Charles Wilson was a farm tenant in Millholm, which was originally leased to his father, William Wilson. The landlord of the property was the pursuer, Earl Dalhousie. The lease was then assigned to John Wilson, son of Charles Wilson, who did not reside in the farm, but hired a servant or a manger, James Keddie, to cultivate the land. John Wilson moved to Jamaica. The Pursuer brought an action to remove John Wilson and James Keddie from the possession of the farm, alleging that it has been subleased without his written consent as the proprietor. The Court concluded that John Wilson must be held as having abandoned his lease, and as the farm remained without a tenant, the landlord was entitled to enter to the possession.
|Haldane v. Duncan
||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.
|Logan and Others v. Reid
||31 May 1799
||Property rights, Glebe
||Reid, the minister of the Parish of New Cumnock, life on lands owned by Logan. The previous minister had planted trees surrounding his Glebe lands and they were admired by the community, but when the Minister died and Reid succeeded him, Reid began to chop down the trees. Logan, as the owner of the land, sued to stop the further removal of the trees.
|M'Math v. Campbell
||9 Jul 1802
||Prescription, Property rights, Creditor
||Pursuer brought an action to claim his preference right over a property in Daill that he had taken possession of as creditor of Neil MacKellar, who was the original landlord. It was found that Duncan Fisher, creditor of Neil MacKellar, was entitled to have part of such land, which Donald MacMath (petitioner) had in his possession. The defendant, Duncan Campbell, appeared as posterior assignee of the land in virtue of an assignation granted by Duncan Fisher. The pursuer alleged that he had had the land for a considerable time, so a prescription period was in course. Then, the discussion was if the prescription was interrupted.