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.
Documents in this case (5)
- Petition, 1779July 16 1779 petition from James Corbet of Kenmuir, pursuer, to have a decision made by the Lord Ordinary overturned.
- James Corbet v. John M'Kenzie — Answers, 4 Aug 1779August 4, 1779, John M'Kenzie responds to the complaints made against him by James Corbet
- Corbet v. MacKenzie — Petition, 9 Dec 1779December 9 1779, the pursuer James Corbet of Kenmuir petitions the Court of Sessions to restore his access to the burn-march between Kenmuir and Carmyle
- James Corbet of Kenmuir v. John M'Kenzie — Answers, 26 Feb 1780February 26, 1780 John M'Kenzie responds to the second petition of James Corbet
People & places in this case
People involved
- James Corbet, of Kenmuir — Pursuer
- John MacKenzie — Defender
- Adam Rolland, of Gask — Advocate for Pursuer
- John Morthland, of Rindmuir — Advocate for Defender
- Sir David Dalrymple, Lord Hailes, 3rd Baronet of Nova Scotia — Lord Ordinary
- James Murray, of Boghall — Named in case documents
- James Murray, of Daldowie — Named in case documents
- Alexander Whiston — Named in case documents
- John Moffat — Named in case documents
- Robert Raison — Named in case documents
- Thomas Bell — Named in case documents
- Andrew Scott — Named in case documents
- John Walker — Named in case documents
- James Ralston — Named in case documents
- James Colquhoun — Named in case documents
- Thomas Burns — Named in case documents
- William Burns — Named in case documents
- Robert Sinclair — Named in case documents
- William Wallace, of Cairnhill — Named in case documents
Places
Where this case took place
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.