Thomas Thomson and the Earl of Kintore v. Anthony Donald and George Roger — Proof, 5 May 1828 [2]
Abstract
Pursuers claim land and rights at Streamhead and Heugh Butts; witnesses dispute ownership and use near Inverury bridge and ford.
Anthony Donald v. Thomas Thomson and Anthony Adrian, Earl of Kintore — Pleas in Law, 3 Jun 1829
Abstract
Respondent Donald claims title to Streamhead lands via public roup and magistrates’ grants, opposing advocators’ servitude claims lacking title or possession.
Thomas Thomson and Earl of Kintore v. Anthony Donald and George Roger — Note, 18 May 1829
Abstract
Petitioners seek restoration of access rights and damages against respondent who ploughed roads and boundaries while proceedings were sub judice.
Thomas Thomson and the Earl of Kintore v. Anthony Donald and George Roger — Minute, 30 Mar 1829
Abstract
Minute and Answers for Thomas Thomson and Earl of Kintore vs. Anthony Donald and George Roger, addressing boundary, road access, and Heugh Butts claims.
Thomas Thomson and the Earl of Kintore v. Anthony Donald and George Roger — Condescendence
Abstract
Pursuers claim historic use and ownership of Streamhead land, roads, and a well; defenders dispute boundaries and deny prescriptive rights.
Thomas Thomson and the Earl of Kintore v. Anthony Donald — Answers, 11 Apr 1829
Abstract
Respondent Anthony Donald defends against petitioners’ claim his dike and march-stones blocked access, asserting lawful feu boundaries and lack of authority to interfere.
Thomas Thomson and Earl of Kintore v. Anthony Donald and George Roger — Reclaiming Petition, 5 Dec 1829 [2]
Abstract
Complainers seek to restore access to land, road, and well blocked by respondent who claims lawful feu rights.
Reclaiming Note, Thomas Thomson, & the Earl of Kintore against Lord Newton's Interlocutor
Abstract
Lord Ordinary remits Sheriff’s ruling to allow Stonehouse tenant limited Pen-fold access, rejecting other claims as abandoned or unnecessary.
James Pedie v. David Hatton — Report, 20 Nov 1829
Abstract
Hamilton reports deviations in Pedie’s building from feu missives and Brown’s plan, as confirmed in the suspender’s condescendence.
