1796
SasineCharterRegisterFreeholderInfeftmentDispositionJames Lindsay Carnegy petitioned to overturn the enrolment of Charles Gardyne as a freeholder at the Michaelmas head-court for Forfar, contending that the sasine of 1789 underlying Gardyne's claim proceeded upon an exhausted precept and that the claim failed to specify the register in which the sasine was recorded as required by statute. Gardyne answered that his claim satisfied the statute of the 16th of the late King and that the omission of the register specification was immaterial. Carnegy replied insisting upon the necessity of specifying the register, while Gardyne reiterated that his claim met all statutory requirements without such specification and had been properly accepted.AI-generated
Documents in this case (8)
- James Lindsay Carnegy v. George Robertson Scott — Petition and Complaint, 12 Jan 1796January 12, 1796 Petition of the complainer against the enrolment of George Robertson Scott, asking the Court to overturn the freeholders' decision to enrol him in right of his wife's lands.
- James Lindsay Carnegy v. Charles Gardyne — Petitionand Complaint, 12 Jan 1796January 12, 1796 Petition and Complaint of James Lindsay Carnegy, Esq. asking the Court to overturn the enrolment of Charles Gardyne, Esq. at the Michaelmas head-court for Forfar
- James Lindsay Carnegie v. George Robertson Scott — Answers, 29 Jan 1796January 29, 1796 Petition of Charles Hay asking the Court to remit the complaint brought by Mrs Robertson Scott against his inrolment as freeholder in right of his wife's estate
- James Lindsay Carnegie v. Charles Gardyne — Answers, 2 Feb 1796February 2, 1796 Answers by Charles Gardyne, Esq. to the petition and complaint of James Lindsay Carnegie, Esq., asserting that his claim for enrolment satisfied the statute of the 16th of the late King.
- James Lindsay Carnegy v. George Robertson Scott — Replies, 4 Feb 1796February 4, 1796 Information of the complainer, arguing that the sasine 1789 is invalid as it proceeds upon an exhausted precept and that extraneous evidence was not improperly introduced.
- James Lindsay Carnegy v. Charles Gardyne — Replies, 10 Feb 1796February 10, 1796 Replies for James Lindsay Carnegy, Esquire, of Spynie and Boyfack, to the Answers for Charles Gardyne, Esq., arguing that a claim of enrolment must specify the register in which the sasine is recorded.
- James Lindsay Carnegie v. George Robertson Scott — Duplies, 24 Feb 1796February 24, 1796 Information of the respondent, arguing that the seisin of 1773 was void and null, and therefore the 1789 seisin is valid and entitled to inrolment.
- James Lindsay Carnegie v. Charles Gardyne — Duplies, 24 Feb 1796Respondent Gardyne argues his claim meets statutory requirements without specifying sasine registration date or register type, asserting omission is immaterial and claim was properly accepted.
People & places in this case
People involved
- James Scott, of Scalloway — Party
- George Robertson Scott, of Benholm — Party
- George Fergusson, of Hermand, Lord Hermand — Party
- John Cameron — Party
- Charles Hay, of Newton, Lord Newton — Advocate for Party
- Sir James Fergusson, of Kilkerran, Lord Kilkerran — Lord Ordinary
