1790–1791
John Johnston sought to overturn the enrollment of William Morehead junior as a freeholder in Stirling county, alleging that Morehead’s liferent qualification was nominal and fictitious. Morehead defended his title as valid and absolute, maintaining that the conveyance was not revocable and that the entail did not entitle Johnston to recall the liferent right. The parties exchanged replies and duplies, followed by a condescendence and answers debating whether the liferent was absolute, and Johnston subsequently noted a reclaiming petition regarding the non-existence of a deed of entail dated November 28, 1786.AI-generated
Documents in this case (9)
- John Johnston Esquire v. William Morehead Esquire — Petitionand Complaint, 9 Jul 1790July 9, 1790 Petition of John Johnston Esquire, asking the Court to overturn the inrolment of William Morehead Esquire in the roll of freeholders of Stirling county, on grounds that his qualification is nominal and fict…
- John Johnston v. William Morehead — Petition and Complaint, 9 Jul 1790July 9, 1790 Petition of John Johnston Esquire, asking the Court to overturn the interlocutor permitting William Morehead junior to be enrolled as a freeholder on a nominal liferent qualification.
- John Johnston v. William Morehead — Answers, 12 Nov 1790William Morehead jun. defends his liferent qualification to vote in Stirling county, challenging John Johnston’s objection that it is nominal and fictitious.
- John Johnstone v. William Morehead — Answers, 12 Nov 1790November 12, 1790 Answers by William Morehead jun. to the petition and complaint of John Johnstone, responding that the respondent's liferent qualification is tantamount to a fee and entitled to vote.
- John Johnston v. William Morehead — Replies, 23 Nov 1790November 23, 1790 Replies by John Johnston Esq. to the argument of William Morehead Esq. that his liferent qualification is valid
- John Johnstone v. William Morehead — Duplies, 7 Dec 1790December 7, 1790 Duplies of W. Morehead, junior, to Rep.—John Johnstone, arguing that his qualification as liferent of a superiority is not nominal or fictitious, and that the conveyance is not revokable.
- John Johnston, Esq. of Alva v. William Morehead, Younger of Herbertshire — Condescendence, 14 Dec 1790December 14, 1790 Condescendence of John Johnston, Esq. against William Morehead, Esq., arguing that the respondent's liferent is nominal and fictitious, not absolute.
- John Johnston v. William Morehead — Answers, 21 Dec 1790December 21, 1790 Answers by William Morehead junior to the condescendence of John Johnston Esquire, asserting that the respondent's titles are valid and the entail does not entitle the complainer to recall the liferent…
- John Johnston v. William Morehead — Note, 19 Jan 1791January 19, 1791 Note of John Johnston of Alva, against William Morehead younger, concerning a reclaiming petition and the non-existence of a deed of entail dated November 28, 1786.
