AI-transcribed

Deed of Conveyance. It may signify a will of real property, for in Scotland real property cannot be devised by a will proper, but can only be devised by a conveyance framed to take effect on execution, but which is valid, though not delivered before death.

Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Disposition

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Adam Livingston, Esq. of Bantaskine v. Sir Thomas Dundas, Bart. 1790 Possession, Feu duties, Infeftment, Disposition, Sasine, Charter Adam Livingston of Bantaskine petitioned the Court to overturn the Michaelmas head court's decision striking him from the roll of freeholders for Stirlingshire, asserting his qualification through possession of the two merk land of Kipdarroch. Sir Thomas Dundas resisted the petition, answering that Livingston never possessed the lands, which had been held by the Gourlay family and Mr Moir of Leckie under Crown tenure since the preceding century. The parties exchanged replies and answers regarding the title to stand upon the roll, and Dundas additionally petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, contending that statutory prescription did not bar inquiry into the possession of the lands.
Air v. Johnston 1786 Debt, Bankruptcy, Fraud, Creditor, Disposition, Infeftment William Air, merchant in Coldstream and trustee for the creditors of Robert Johnston, baker and feuar there, petitioned to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor, citing that a heritable bond held by Thomas Johnston of Templehall was invalid under the Act of 1696. Johnston answered, defending his heritable security against the trustee’s claim that it was liable to be set aside.
Alexander Cunnynghame v. William Muir of Caldwall 1760 Possession, Disposition, Retour, Charter, Liferent, Feu duties Alexander Cunnynghame pursued a claim to the Five Pound Land of Craigbeat and Kersemeadow against William Muir of Caldwall, who objected on the basis of tax-roll and vassal land distinctions and argued that Cunnynghame’s title was nominal and fictitious and that he lacked possession. Muir replied to Cunnynghame’s answers, insisting that the pursuer held neither valid title nor actual possession of the lands. Cunnynghame defended his liferent-right to the properties, rebutting the objections by citing historical retours and demonstrating vassal possession.
Alexander Geddes and Allan Clark v. Jean Bull 1796 Marriage, Adjudication, Legitimacy, Reduction, Succession, Disposition Alexander Geddes and Allan Clarke petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor in their action against Jean Bull. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire 1790 Freeholder, Election contest, Freehold Qualification, Penalty, Interlocutor, Disposition Alexander Milne pursued the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire, represented by George Skene of Skene, to reverse his expungement from the county freeholder roll following the Michaelmas meeting of 1790. The defenders answered that Milne’s freehold qualification was nominal and fictitious, contending that the statutory four-month limitation did not bar objections to fraudulent claims, while Milne asserted his independent acceptance of the wadset and denial of political obligation. The litigation proceeded through reclaiming petitions against adverse interlocutors, condescendences regarding the qualification’s validity, and Milne’s objections to the defenders’ account of expenses. The cause culminated in disputes over the award of statutory penalties and the allocation of costs between the parties.
Alexander Spiers and Others v. Thomas Dunlop and Others 1778 Spendthrift provision, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Disposition This case was about a father’s right to impose restrictions on his son’s inheritance under a marriage contract. James Dunlop, elder of Garnkirk, and his wife, Henrietta Maxwell, signed a marriage contract that settled the estate of Garnkirk on the two spouses and any heirs-male of their marriage. Dunlop and Maxwell’s eldest son, James Dunlop the younger, was a Glasgow merchant who contracted substantial debts, with James Sr. as a co-obligant. James Jr. eventually became insolvent and transferred his effects to Alexander Spiers, and others, as trustees for his creditors. The joint debts were purchased by friends of James Sr., including Thomas Dunlop. To secure these debts, James Sr. granted the friends a bond over his estate, and subsequently granted them a trust disposition. On September 17, 1764, James Sr. executed three additional deeds. First, he executed a bond providing a liferent to James Jr.; his wife, Mary Ritchie; and their children, provided that the liferent was an alimentary provision not subject to the son’s debts or to alienation. Second, he executed a provision for his younger children. And third, James Sr. executed a new deed empowering his trustees to sell his estate and apply the proceeds in the following order: (1) to the payment of James Sr.’s debts, (2) to the provision for his younger children, and (3) to the provision for James Jr. The pursuers, James Jr.’s trustees, sought to have these deeds set aside on the ground that the marriage contract barred the elder Dunlop from restricting his son’s inheritance. The defenders, James Sr.’s trustees, responded that a father had the right to provide for his other children and to shield the estate from being taken by creditors.
Allardice, et all v. Allardice 1795 Succession, Liferent, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor, Entail
Andrew Heron v. John Vining Heron 1766 Succession, Debt, Deed, Disposition, Tailzie, Aliment Doctor Andrew Heron pursued John Vining Heron in a dispute concerning the validity of deeds executed in 1715, 1726, and 1728, arguing that the 1715 deed was never delivered or completed while upholding the later deeds as valid settlements. After petitioning twice in July 1766 to alter a recent interlocutor, Heron replied in February 1767 regarding the deeds' validity, and John Vining Heron subsequently submitted duplies in April 1767 in obedience to the Court's interlocutor of March 4, 1767.
Bayne v. Wallace 1796 Teinds, Disposition, Feu, Feu duties, Tack, Sequestration Alexander Bayne of Rires presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter an interlocutor previously pronounced by Lord Craig. John Wallace of Sprettyhall and Rires Mill answered the petition as defender.
Benjamin Greig v. John Scott 1829 Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Disposition, Sasine, Sale Benjamin Greig, as pursuer, sought declarator, multiplepoinding, and exoneration against defender John Scott with respect to lands conveyed under bond to secure a £3000 debt, following unsuccessful sale attempts and disputes regarding title. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Black v. Allason 1788 Bankruptcy, Debt, Creditor, Disposition, Reduction, Sasine William Black, carrier and portioner in Falkirk and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against defender Allason. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Brisbane v. Sempill 1794 Feu, Succession, Feu duties, Infeftment, Assignment, Disposition Brisbane, as pursuer, argued that Lord Sempill, as defender and singular successor, was bound to pay a year's rent for entry rather than the two shillings Scots claimed by the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bruce v. Cunynghame 1790 Disposition, Freeholder, Charter, Seisin, Sasine, Assignation James Bruce of Kinnaird petitioned the Court to expunge Sir William Augustus Cunynghame from the freeholders' roll of Stirling, alleging that Cunynghame’s qualification was nominal, fictitious, or held in confidence rather than by real right. Cunynghame answered that his freeholder qualification was genuine and supported by valid titles, a defense joined by David Cunynghame, younger of Livingstone, who asserted that the land titles were fully documented. Bruce replied and Cunynghame duplied, continuing the dispute over whether the enrollment rested on a real or merely nominal qualification.
Buchannans v. Gray and Hall 1782 Sequestration, Debt, Cautioner, Succession, Creditor, Disposition Alexander and Jean Buchanan initiated a ranking and sale of land that had belonged to Robert Hall of Fulbar. The land was possessed by John Farquhar-Gray of Kilmardinny and Jean Hall, each of whom claimed to have a heritable security on the property. The Buchanans objected to these securities and raised a second process against Farquhar-Gray and Hall to challenge their claims. While the proceedings were pending, the Buchanans petitioned the court to sequestrate the land in question. Farquhar-Gray and Hall argued that it would be improper to sequestrate land that was already in their possession, and that the parties’ rights should be determined in the other proceedings.
Budge v. Lord Henderson's Interlocutor 1794 Teinds, Prescription, Disposition, Infeftment, Succession, Feu duties Budge, as petitioner, submitted a memorial arguing that she and her predecessors had acquired an heritable right to the teinds of Toftingall by positive prescription, despite the lack of infeftment or charter. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Burden alias Campbell v. Campbells and Robertson 1791 Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Legacy, Multiple-Poinding, Disposition Mrs Elizabeth Burden, alias Campbell, pursued the Campbells and Robertson as heir of her predeceased son John Campbell, claiming entitlement to his share of the residue of Duncan Campbell’s estate under the will’s substitution clause. She subsequently advanced additional claims under both the will and intestacy law, citing precedent for representative succession. The dispute centered on whether a mother could represent her deceased son to recover his portion of the inheritance under these competing theories of succession.
Campbell v. Officers of State 1784 Teinds, Tack, Charter, Disposition, Patronage, Stipend General Campbell petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Elliock Ordinary, asserting that he held heritable rights to his teinds. The Officers of State responded, arguing that the tithes of Campbell’s lands in Kilvicocharmaig were heritably held and not subject to local stipend by virtue of ancient charters and possessory prescription.
Carnegie v. Turnbull 1796 Freeholder, Election contest, Aliment, Sequestration, Disposition, Freehold Qualification Carnegie complained of his removal from the roll of freeholders, arguing that he had departed the meeting before being called to take the trust oath and that no formal intimation had been given. Turnbull answered that Carnegie had been struck off for evading the oath after warning, and further asserted that Carnegie had divested himself of all land in the county prior to appearing at Forfar to assert a vote, thereby denying his qualification.
Carnegy v. Gardyne 1796 Sasine, Charter, Register, Freeholder, Infeftment, Disposition James 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.
Col. Andrew Bruce v. Freeholders of Stirlingshire 1790 Valuation, Disposition, Sasine, Teinds, Commissioners of Supply, Feu duties Colonel Andrew Bruce younger of Stenhouse pursued the Freeholders of Stirlingshire, represented by Harry Davidson, Writer to the Signet, to compel his enrolment as a freeholder after they rejected his claim based on the valuation of his lands in Slamanan. The dispute turned on whether the valuation-book entries established his qualification and the relative authority of such records versus cess books. Davidson answered that the valuation evidence was unsatisfactory and required re-establishment before the commissioners of supply, while Bruce condescended upon his title and led proof at John's Coffee-house despite Davidson's absence.
College of Glasgow v. Lindsay 1793 Succession, Disposition, Infeftment, Contract of marriage, Creditor, Aliment
Cowan v. M'Intosh and Others 1795 Adjudication, Interest, Disposition, Feu duties, Rent, Feu Robert Cowan petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor that had dismissed his process against Mary and Katharine Gordon, the exposers of lands in Blythwoodholme. M'Intosh and others, as respondents, opposed the suspension by arguing that Cowan had breached the articles of roup by failing to grant bond for the purchase price and drawing rents without security.
Crawfords v. Russell, et al 1789 Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Debt, Arrestment, Disposition Agnes and Margaret Crawfurds, as pursuers, argued that they were absolute fiars during their lives and that their children were heirs to the sums bequeathed in fee. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cunynnghame v. Whitefood, et al 1797 Succession, Deed, Aliment, Disposition, Reduction, Minor Lieutenant Colonel Francis Cunynghame pursued James Whitefoord and others, seeking to set aside a settlement executed by Whitefoord in 1792 while he was a minor. Cunynghame argued that the deed was void because a minor could not alter the succession to heritable estate established by the former proprietor, and further contended that the settlement lacked proper delivery. The litigation raised the question of whether a minor's deed could effectively convey or settle heritable property.
David and Henry Lillie v. Mrs. Lillie or Smith, and Others 1832 Succession, Debt, Creditor, Legacy, Disposition, Aliment David and Henry Lillie pursued Mrs. Lillie or Smith and others to prove the tenor of a holograph letter written by Miss Margaret Seton that their sister Catherine Lillie had destroyed, asserting that the letter directed legacies to them. The defenders denied that the letter contained any such bequests in favor of the pursuers. The pursuers lodged a revised condescendence and note of pleas in law, the defenders answered, and the pursuers subsequently led proof regarding the contents of the destroyed letter.
David and Hugh Mitchell v. William Ferguson 1779 Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Creditor, Disposition, Debt These case documents constitute a prelude to the reported case of David and Hugh Mitchell v. William Ferguson. In 1769, Agnes Carsan purchased a house in Ayr from William Donald. Because she believed her son-in-law to be holding money for the house on her behalf, no bills or securities were filed, and the disposition of the house was held by James Fergusson, Provost and writer in Ayr. Later William Donald became bankrupt and arrestments (securities) were laid in the hands of Carsan and Hair-Campbell. William Ferguson, claiming that he had paid Donald for the price of the house on behalf of Carsan, brought action against Carsan for either a disposition of the house or repayment. On March 3, 1779 the Court ruled that Ferguson was entitled to either the price or a disposition on the house. Donald's creditors, David and Hugh Mitchell, later brought action, in competition with Fergusson for rights to the house. On February 13, 1781 the Court determined that the infeftment (legal claim) possessed by the Mitchells was preferable to the personal right claimed by Fergusson.
David Wight v. William Inglis 1798 Succession, Aliment, Disposition, Debt, Heritor, Teinds David Wight pursued William Inglis, Alexander Inglis, Elizabeth Inglis, Margaret Inglis, Marion Inglis, and James Hay to have them assoilzied from the burdens of the 1774 settlements. The defenders maintained that the provisions in those settlements were not payable to them as heirs of provision, and Wight subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor. The defenders answered, asserting a claim to 12,000 merks Scots legacy payable to their mothers' issue under the will of Andrew Simpson.
Dickie v. Lord Henderland's Interlocutor 1789 Reduction, Succession, Improbation, Feu duties, Disposition, Liferent Patrick Dickie, eldest lawful son of William Dickie and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Lord Henderland. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Dr William Park of Langlands, v. Robert Craig in Barkip 1771 Land dispute, Title, Adjudication, Creditor, Disposition, Liferent William Park of Langlands, pursuer, claims that the lands of Barkip belong to him. Robert Craig Sr., defender, claims that he has the right to possess half of the lands of Barkip based on a heritable bond dating back to 1726. William Craig, brother of Robert Craig Sr. had the other half but after his death, his oldest son Robert Craig Jr. inherited it. William Park of Mainshill, the pursuer's father, granted a heritable bond to John Hamilton of Auchinvole. This bond apparently stipulated that Park's ancestors would give up the lands of Barkip if the bond was not paid on time. The bond was due in Martinmas 1732. Park claims that the bond was paid in part. He argues that the defenders only have an encumbrance on the lands of Barkip in the form of a debt, and not a right in the lands themselves. Park sets forth a distinction between "termly failzies" (real property obligations) and "ordinary penalties" (personal obligations). Park alleges that the process that put Craig in possession of the lands of Barkip was improper, thus he brings an action of reduction and declarator of extinction of the adjudication to defender.
Dunlops, and Others v. Spiers, and Others 1775 Ranking of Creditors, Debt, Succession, Creditor, Aliment, Disposition James Dunlop Jr. incurred substantial debts, in which his father, James Dunlop of Garnkirk, became jointly bound. In 1763, James Jr. became insolvent and transferred his effects to Alexander Spiers, and others, as trustees for his creditors. To protect James Sr., several friends, including Thomas Dunlop, purchased the debts for which James Sr. was jointly liable. To secure these debts, James Sr. granted the friends a bond over his estate; he subsequently conveyed the estate to them in trust, subject to certain provisions for his children. As a result, Thomas Dunlop et al. were creditors with respect to the joint debts, as well as trustees of James Sr.’s estate. In 1772, Spiers et al. advertised a dividend from James Jr.’s estate and invited creditors to submit their claims. Thomas Dunlop et al. submitted a claim but were refused; they then sued. Spiers et al. argued that the refusal was justified because James Sr.’s marriage contract promised the entire estate of Garnkirk to James Jr. Therefore, according to Spiers et al, Thomas Dunlop et al. should collect payment from the estate that they already controlled. Further, Spiers et al. argued that James Sr.’s trust disposition required the same result. However, Thomas Dunlop et al. argued that as creditors, they were entitled to attack James Dunlop Jr. for payment. On June 26, 1776 the Court determined the pursuers as creditors of Dunlop, junior were entitled to be ranked along with his other creditors. On July 31, 1778 they limited the amount the pursuers could draw upon Dunlop, junior's estate, however they reversed this ruling on November 28. The defenders then petitioned the Court to alter their last interlocutor. The issue of the marriage contract was eventually resolved in Alexander Spiers and Others v. Thomas Dunlop and Others.
Earl of Rednor v. Macarthur 1791 Succession, Disposition, Trust, Debt, Assignation, Adjudication Archibald Macarthur Stewart, defender in the action by the Earl of Rednor, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Earl of Strathmore v. Captain George Oliphant-Kinloch 1766 Feu duties, Succession, Warrandice, Disposition, Debt, Aliment This case involved a Scottish land tenure known as the feu, in which a superior granted perpetual enjoyment of land to a vassal in return for an annual payment known as the feu duty. Patrick Lyon, Earl of Strathmore, feued the estates of Little Blair and Lochend to his factor James Coupar of Coupar Grange in return for a feu duty of £20 Scots. Feu duties on the property were also due to Viscount Stormont, who was Lord of Erection. After being transferred in two judicial sales, Lochblair came to be held by pursuer Captain George Oliphant Kinloch. Kinloch initiated a court proceeding to determine who was liable for the feu duties due to Viscount Stormont, claiming that the duties should be paid the Earl of Strathmore.
Edie, Laird, and Others v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor 1794 Creditor, Ranking of Creditors, Disposition, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Teinds Edie, Laird, and others challenged Lord Craig's interlocutor ranking creditors' claims on Kerse lands, contending that objections to Elizabeth Dickie, Janet Gray, and Elizabeth Weir were wrongly omitted and that representation was valid under the Act of Sederunt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edmonstone v. Morehead 1790 Freeholder, Disposition, Teinds, Charter, Sasine, Assignation George Edmonstone, a minister, petitioned the Court to overturn the Stirlingshire freeholders' refusal to admit him to the electoral roll, while William Morehead of Herbertshire defended the decision by challenging Edmonstone's qualification. Edmonstone submitted replies and duplies addressing objections to his qualification, and his agent William Craig filed answers to Morehead's condescendence. The pleadings repeatedly referenced parallel litigation involving Edmonstone's brother Charles Edmonstone and another freeholder, Mr. Cheape.
Edmonstone v. Tweedale 1772 Debt, Disposition, Deed, Interlocutor, Mala Fides, Rent In 1766, Robert Tweedale, defender, owed money to James Edmonstone, pursuer. Tweedale could not repay Edmonstone at that time. As security for the eventual payment, Tweedale granted Edmonstone the right to "infeft," or take possession of, some old houses in Mid-Calder. Edmonstone agreed to delay seeking payment provided that Tweedale delivered possession of the houses to him. Despite this agreement, Edmonstone did not take possession of the houses and allowed Tweedale to continue living in them. Edmonstone grew tired of the delays in payment and found that the homes were in such a poor state of repair that their sale would not cover the cost of the debt. Edmonstone brought a process against Tweedale before the sheriff-depute of Edinburgh seeking to collect payment. He argued that the homes stood as security for future payment of the debt, and did not constitute the payment itself. Tweedale, however, countered that his infestment to Edmonstone satisfied the debt, an argument that the sheriff-depute accepted. In the Court of Session, the Lord Ordinary initially found for Edmonstone, but later reversed his own ruling. The documents here represent Edmonstone's attempts to convince the full court to rule in his favor.
Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier v. Trustees of General Simon Fraser 1791 Debt, Succession, Trustee, Entail, Disposition, Trust Edmonstone, Fraser, and Ferrier pursued the Trustees of General Simon Fraser for payment of a Crown-gifted debt, insisting that the trustees were bound to pay the specified heirs rather than apply the funds to the entailed estate. The trustees maintained that the Crown’s gift of the debt to Archibald Fraser could not be enforced against the entailed estate of Lovat. They subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the cause.
Erskine v. Erskine 1795 Succession, Creditor, Adjudication, Debt, Disposition, Prescription The respondent Erskine argued that the marriage contract of 1738 constituted an onerous deed in favour of George Erskine that bound his heir to denude the lands. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Fotheringham and Hume v. Ogilvie and Others 1795 Succession, Debt, Aliment, Liferent, Disposition, Creditor William Fotheringham and Hume pursued claims to the Balfour estate against Ogilvie and others, petitioning the Court in 1795 and again in 1797 to alter interlocutors respecting the succession. The respondents defended these interlocutors, maintaining that under a marriage contract the estate had vested in fee-simple in the second son, who predeceased his parents, thereby excluding the pursuers' claims as heirs. The litigation turned on whether the second son's fee-simple right to the Balfour estate took precedence over the pursuers' asserted rights in the Powrie succession.
Francis Fraser v. David Middleton 1793 Tack, Infeftment, Disposition, Succession, Liferent, Lease David Middleton, defender, argued that a lease obtained under a valid personal grant from an apparent heir must be preferable to an infeftment void by reason of non habente potestatem. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Francis Pinkerton Drummond v. William Abernethy Drummond, &c 1792 Succession, Liferent, Prescription, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor Francis Pinkerton Drummond, as pursuer, sought against William Abernethy Drummond and others the correction of a charter or infeftment to reflect the true succession under a 1722 marriage contract rather than heirs-male in general. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
George Dempster and Others v. Charles Lyel, Sr. 1790 Freeholder, Statute, Jurisdiction, Tack, Disposition, Adjudication George Dempster and others sought to remove Charles Lyell from the freeholder roll for Forfar, contending that his valuation improperly included Easter Glenquharity lands not held in his title, thereby reducing his qualification below the requisite 400l Scots. The respondents initially denied the allegations and asserted that statutory limits restricted the court’s jurisdiction, while the complainants maintained that the court possessed authority over all wrongful freeholder enrolments and cited precedent. Lyell subsequently answered the petition and complaint, denying that he had been wrongfully retained on the roll.
George-Alexander Gordon v. Janet Gordon 1784 Tailzie, Succession, Disposition, Prescription, Infeftment, Reduction This case involved a dispute between women who sought to inherit property as heirs of line and another relative who sought to inherit under an entail. Near the end of his life, Bailie Charles Gordon executed an entail granting the lands of Pitlurg and Achorties to his son Alexander or, in the alternative, to a series of substitutes. Alexander inherited the property, but rather than claiming it as heir of entail, he took the lands under a precept of clare constat (a type of deed). Alexander also obtained a decree voiding the entail on the ground that it was completed on deathbed. Alexander held the property for more than 40 years, the length of the statutory prescription (limitations) period. When Alexander died in 1783, his sister Janet Gordon and niece Magdalene Grant claimed the property as heirs of line. Another relative, George-Alexander Gordon, claimed under the entail. Janet and Magdalene defended their claim with two arguments: (1) the entail was void; and (2) Alexander had defeated the entail by possessing the property for more than 40 years under an unlimited title. George-Alexander argued that the prescription period had been interrupted because he was a minor when he became the immediate substitute. He also challenged the decree voiding the entail.
Gibb v. Speirs 1779 Locus Poenitentiae, Sale, Bargain, Creditor, Disposition, Debt Robert Gibb had given heritable securities of his land to certain merchants in Paisley. In order to retrieve these securities, Gibb ventured to sell part of his land, Laigh-lyon-crosses (Lower Lyoncross) to Alexander Speirs. He sent Speirs a valuation, and after not receiving a reply, visited him the evening before his own lands were to be auctioned. The two verbally agreed that Gibb would sell his lands to Speirs and then hold a twelve-year lease on the lands; Speirs wrote a letter to Hugh Snodgrass, his agent in Paisley, saying as much. When Speirs later refused to carry out this agreement, Gibb presented a petition to the Sheriff of Renfrewshire, requesting that the defenders be compelled to produce the letter and the initial valuation. When the Sheriff's summons went ignored, the case came before the Court. Speirs argued that his agreement with the Gibb was merely verbal, and he was therefore in locus poenitentae (not yet legally obliged to stand by the agreement). He further argued that Gibb's lands had in fact been conveyed to his creditors, and they were no longer his to sell. Gibb disputed both of these claims.
Gilbert Moses v. William Craig, Robert M'Lintock, and James Clark, Trustees for the Creditors of John M'Ewan 1772 Parole Evidence, Bankruptcy, Inhibition, Creditor, Disposition, Debt John McEwen (alternatively spelled McEwan), a flax-dresser in Glasgow, went into bankruptcy. Defenders William Craig, Robert McLintock, and James Clerk were named trustees for the creditors in McEwen's bankruptcy. Pursuer Gilbert Moses, a meal-merchant in Glasgow, was one of McEwen's creditors. The trustees entered into a concert of joint measures, signed by the creditors, for the payment of McEwen's debts to the creditors. In contravention of this concert among the creditors, however, Moses joined McEwen in an action of reduction to overturn the sale and division of McEwen's effects. Among other points, Moses maintained that he was not allowed to read the creditors' agreement prior to signing it. Moses also argued that a tenement of houses that he bought from McEwen prior to McEwen's bankruptcy and in partial satisfaction of McEwen's debt to Moses should remain as Moses' property, and not conveyed to the trustees in McEwen's bankruptcy. The trustees argued that, by acceding to the concert among creditors, Moses agreed to set aside any preferences he may have had to McEwen's debts, including the tenement of houses.
Gordon v. Wemyss 1764 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Disposition, Deed, Teinds Alexander Wemyss and his father, as administrator, pursued Isobel Gordon for delivery of the lands of Edintore under a deed granting her brother's estate to Wemyss, while Gordon defended on the ground that the deed was revokable. After the court pronounced an interlocutor against her, Gordon petitioned to have it altered.
Hamilton v. Hamilton's Creditors 1777 Ranking and Sale, Process, Adjudication, Debt, Disposition, Bankruptcy In 1761, George Hamilton inherited Easter-Queenslie and Provanhall from his brother, Robert, along with some heavy debts. Hamilton later accumulated additional debts, and his other brother, John, acted as cautioner for many of them. In 1769, George Hamilton executed an absolute disposition in favor John over the Wester-Mailing of Easter-Queenslie, as security over the aforementioned debts. Over the years George Hamilton granted other wadsets to his creditors over other parts of his estate. By 1773, he had gone bankrupt, and the Court sequestrated the rents of his lands. George's brother, John, petitioned the Court to strike the Wester-Mailing of Easter-Queenslie from the estate sale, given the disposition held by him. The other creditors of George Hamilton objected to this petition, arguing that Hamilton's disposition, being in fact a security, did not endow him with preferable ranking. Furthermore, they argued that because Hamilton had received a confirmation of his interest only in 1776, after the ranking of the sale had begun, his confirmation was null and void. To this John Hamilton responded that regardless of the details of his disposition, "at all events he has security on the lands, and it is a matter of no great importance to him whether he be considered as real proprietor under the [aforesaid] personal obligation, or a preferable creditor." Handwritten marginalia indicates that the Court repelled the objections.
Helen Fergus or M'Leish, and Husband v. Isobel Fergus or Izat, and Husband 1830 Debt, Succession, Aliment, Trust, Disposition, Liferent Helen Fergus or M'Leish and her husband John M'Leish pursued Isobel Fergus or Izat and her husband John Izat for exhibition of debts and payment from the estate of James Fergus. The defenders counterclaimed that prior payments they had made for M'Leish's debts exceeded the £300 legacy and half of the moveable estate due to them, leaving a balance of £60 1 3 owed by the pursuers. The pursuers maintained the validity of an 1814 settlement and denied allegations of preferential treatment, while the defenders subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor of the court.
Henry Pierce, and his Attorney v. David Limond 1791 Creditor, Adjudication, Disposition, Infeftment, Seisin, Ranking of Creditors Henry Pierce and other creditors of Hugh Ross of Kerse contended against David Limond that their adjudication ranked as the first effectual by infeftment against the lands of Breckonhill. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Henry v. Russell 1794 Succession, Entail, Disposition, Sasine, Tailzie, Teinds
Heritors of Kirkcudbright v. Birtwhistle 1790 Teinds, Adjudication, Disposition, Prescription, Heritor, Tack The Heritors of Kirkcudbright sought to establish a scheme of locality for the lands of Balmae against William Birtwhistle, who claimed the teinds of those lands and objected to the proposed arrangement. They petitioned the Court to repel Birtwhistle's objection after Lord Monboddo pronounced an interlocutor adverse to their scheme, and Birtwhistle answered while maintaining his claim to the teinds. Birtwhistle later petitioned to alter the Court's subsequent interlocutor, and the Heritors, represented by the Earl of Selkirk, answered to resist his teind claim and defend the locality scheme.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 1601)