AI-transcribed

Succession, vol. ii. p. 7. See Cognition and Sasine. Burgage-Holding.

Definition source
AI-transcribed
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Succession.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Succession

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Agnes Watson v. Mary Rae 1773 Bonds, Debt, Aliment, Intromission, Adjudication, Succession This case was about the ability of minors, when choosing their own curators, to agree that those curators would not be liable for omissions (as opposed to active interference with the minors’ property). Greenock merchant James Watson, the father of pursuer Agnes Watson, died leaving three minor children. The children chose several curators to manage their affairs, including James’s business partner Robert Rae. The “act of curatory” that empowered these curators included a clause absolving them of liability for omissions. After the Watson children came of age, they sued the curators for mishandling the estate. The proceeding stretched over many years, and after the curators died, Agnes Watson continued the action against their representatives. One of these representatives was defender Mary Rae, daughter of Robert, who contested a number of Agnes’s claims. In particular, Mary argued that she could not be held responsible for the curators’ failure to collect certain debts, because the act of curatory shielded the curators from liability for omissions. In response, Agnes argued that minors could not elect curators subject to such a condition.
Aitcheson v. Stalker 1777 Bill (Financial Instrument), Death - Presumption of, Mala Fides, Debt, Succession, Prescription In January 1770, Andrew Stalker accepted a bill for £42 sterling payable to his sister-in-law, Rebecca Spreull. Both of them died shortly afterward. Spreull's husband, John of Milton, sued Stalker's nephew, Samuel, for payment of this bill. The Sheriff of Lanark found Samuel Stalker liable, but around that time (March 1771) John Spreull died. The trustees of Spreull's son, who had been abroad, then obtained confirmation and charged Stalker upon the Sheriff's order. The case went dormant for several years, but in January 1777 Lord Kennet found Stalker liable. Stalker then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor, claiming several additional grounds of compensation. He also contended that the confirmation of John Aitcheson, the surviving trustee, was inept, for the person in whose name it was given - John Spreull, junior - had perished in a shipwreck shortly before his father's death. Furthermore, Stalker claimed that the original decreet charged on was null and void, for John Spreull, senior, had died shortly beforehand. John Aitcheson countered the suspender's various pleas of compensation, and declared that Stalker's contention regarding the death of Spreull, senior, was clearly false. He also claimed that there was no evidence that Spreull, junior, had been lost at sea, and that he was merely "abroad on business."
Alexander Bruce v. The Representatives of John Stein 1792 Succession, Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Tack, Cautioner Alexander Bruce pursued the representatives of John Stein for a debt arising from a 1770 bond involving Robert Stein, with trustees and spouses' portions also forming part of the dispute. The defenders resisted the action, leading Bruce and his trustee Alexander Abercromby to argue that the defenders, as representatives of the deceased John Stein, remained liable for the bond obligation.
Alexander Cuming v. Alexander Macdonald, Esq. 1801 Minor, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Creditor In a process of ranking and sale, Alexander Cuming sought to be ranked on a bill that was signed by the decedent, James Macdonald, three months before James came of age. The common agent raised an objection based on James's minority, and the Lord Ordinary sustained it. Cuming sought further review, making several arguments for enforcing the bill: (1) the funds were advanced for James's benefit, (2) James accepted the bill while exercising a profession, and (3) James's father joined in accepting the bill.
Alexander Fyffe v. James John Fraser 1832 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Trust, Trustees Dr Alexander Fyffe, surgeon in Haddington and pursuer, presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter the interlocutor and remit the bill for suspension and interdict in his case against James John Fraser, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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 Gordon of Culvenan, and Jean Macculloch, Elder Daughter of John Macculloch, Elder of Barholm v. James Dewar of Vogrie, John Macculloch Elder, and John Macculloch Younger, of Barholm 1771 Debt, Adjudication, Tailzie, Entail, Succession, Liferent John Macculloch's estate, which encompassed a considerable land-estate in the stewarty of Kirkcudbright and shire of Wigtown, was subject to a settlement containing strict prohibitive, irritant, and resolutive clauses. This case is a dispute over inheritance claims following Macculloch's death.
Alexander Grant v. James Grant 1768 Rent, Aliment, Lease, Succession, Possession, Tack Alexander Grant, Writer in Edinburgh, as pursuer, claimed the right to prolong a lease by years of delayed possession, and James Grant of Grant, Esq., as defender, answered the petition. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Irvine v. George Earl and others 1769 Debt, Succession, Adjudication, Entail, Bankruptcy, Liferent Alexander Irvine of Drum, represented by his curators, pursued George Earl of Aberdeen, Mrs. Margaret Duff of Culter, and Alexander Udney of Udny, her husband, for an order to produce writs and deeds. The defenders filed answers to the petition in which they responded to the pursuer's demand for production.
Alexander Kinloch and Others v. James Rocheid 1799 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Prescription, Teinds, Creditor Elizabeth Rocheid executed a strict entail of her one-half share of Inverleith and Darnchester. She conveyed the rest of her estate to the heirs of entail, conditioned on their paying Elizabeth’s debts and legacies, and using any surplus to purchase and entail the remainder of Inverleith and Darnchester. Alexander Kinloch, the institute, and James Rocheid, his son (represented by tutors), paid Elizabeth's debts and legacies, but they did not purchase the lands specified in Elizabeth’s deed. The next substitutes brought an action against James, seeking an accounting and enforcement of the deed. James responded that because Elizabeth had died more than forty years earlier, the action was barred by the negative prescription. Case documents refer to additional family members and other individuals. They also describe transactions relating to the creation of the South Bridge.
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.
Alexander v. Ross 1767 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Interlocutor, Contract of marriage, Representation In the action between Alexander, pursuer, and Ross, defender, Marjory Ross and John Baillie petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Watson v. John Pyot 1800 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Entail, Contract This case concerned a father’s power to dispose of an estate that was the subject of a marriage contract, to the detriment of his son by that marriage. The son, Alexander Watson Jr., was the pursuer. A marriage contract between his parents, Alexander Watson Sr. and Jane Fulertoun, required Alexander Sr. to resign the estate of Turin to himself and the heirs-male of the marriage (and failing that, to certain substitutes). While still living, Alexander Sr. gave Alexander Jr. a portion of the lands included in the contract, along with certain lands that he acquired after making the contract. Subsequently, Alexander Sr. executed a series of deeds curtailing his son’s right to the estate, including a disposition of the remaining lands in favor of John Pyot, a distant relative. Alexander Jr. sought to have these deeds set aside on the ground that they violated the marriage contract. However, John Pyot claimed that Alexander Jr. had relinquished his claim by accepting the previous conveyance from his father.
Alexander Young and others v. Andrew Johnston and others 1767 Election contest, Debt, Aliment, Reduction, Succession, Election The pursuers alleged that Andrew Johnston Sr., bailie of Anstruther Easter, and his son Andrew Jr. accepted money to pay off the town's debt from men who wished to run for the borough's parliament seat. The pursuers therefore sought to have the election reduced.
Alexander-Charles Maitland, & Others v. Dame Helen Maitland Gibson, & Spouse 1830 Compensation, Security, Succession, Debt, Tailzie, Entail Alexander-Charles Maitland and other heirs of entail pursued Dame Helen Maitland Gibson and her spouse regarding £7000 paid by a canal company for consent to route a canal through the entailed estate. The pursuers sought to have the sum paid into a bank for lawful investment under the 1827 Act, asserting it was compensation for permanent damage belonging to the entail, while the defenders answered that it represented merely the value of the land and payment for temporary inconvenience. The court found that the defenders must compensate the heirs for the permanent damage sustained by the estate from the canal deviation, with the compensation to be paid from the £7000 received for the consent.
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.
Arbuthnott v. Gilmour 1765 Debt, Adjudication, Succession, Reduction, Creditor, Trust John Arbuthnott petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor ordering him to convey a debt and diligence to the representatives of the late James Justice. Elizabeth Gilmour, Justice’s widow, answered, arguing that the assignation to Arbuthnott had been granted as collateral security rather than in trust.
Archbishop of York, and Others v. Haldane 1769 Highways, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession, Property, Sequestration After purchasing the estate of Airthrey, Captain Robert Haldane sought to close a road that crossed the property. Residents and property owners in the parishes of Callender, Kincardine, Kilmadock, Dunblane, Leckropt, and Logie objected that the road was a necessary public highway that provided the most expedient route to coalfields in the vicinity of Alloa. The case materials refer to many locations in the affected countryside, describe the history of the road, and name numerous deponents who discussed their use of the road and other matters relevant to the case.
Archer v. Lord Eskgrove's Interlocutor 1793 Cautioner, Creditor, Reduction, Interlocutor, Succession, Bankruptcy
Archibald Craig v. Emilia Brodie 1773 Succession, Debt, Adjudication, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration Archibald Craig obtained a court order for payment of a debt owed to him by Emilia Brodie. After Emilia died, Craig sought to collect the funds from her daughter, Margaret Brodie, who had intromitted with the estate.
Archibald Douglas of Douglas v. Douglas, Duke of Hamilton 1778 Deed, Aliment, Succession, Liferent, Sequestration, Contract This case constitutes an appeal to the House of Lords and Court of Session regarding an infamous earlier case, dubbed "The Douglas Cause." That case, which was settled by the House of Lords in 1769, revolved around the contested inheritance of the vast wealth of the Duke of Douglas, who died in 1761. The heir-male to the Duke of Douglas, the Duke of Hamilton, contested the property claims of Archibald Douglas, the son of the Duke of Douglas' sister, from many angles. In this last-ditch appeal, brought before the Court of Session and House of Lords, the Duke of Hamilton asserted that a 1744 deed of revocation put forth by the late Duke of Douglas was in fact a settlement of succession that disinherited his sister, Lady Jane Douglas, from all properties that had been passed to the family through investiture. On December 19, 1778 the Court of Session found that the Duke of Hamilton had no claim under the deed of October 16th, 1744, declaring it a deed of revocation and not of settlement. On March 27, 1779 the House of Lords dismissed an appeal of the Duke of Hamilton. The memorials submitted to the Court of Session in October of 1778 contain a history of the Angus and Douglas families and their investitures, and an overview of similar cases to "The Douglas Cause."
Baillie v. Eskgrove's Interlocutor 1795 Bankruptcy, Cautioner, Succession, Prescription, Trustee, Diligence Baillie, as petitioners, challenged Eskgrove’s interlocutor rejecting their defense that a 1785 judicial bond was exempt from the 1695 Act’s seven-year limit by prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Balfour v. M'Kenzie 1794 Teinds, Tack, Succession, Stipend, Prescription, Heritor Balfour pursued the reduction of decrees of prorogation of tithes for Tarbat and Fearn granted to the Earl of Cromarty, arguing that they had been obtained by fraud and in the absence of the Crown, were inconsistent with the original tack, and exceeded the Court's legal power. M'Kenzie defended the validity of the decrees, maintaining that they were not subject to reduction or challenge. The pursuer replied, reiterating that the prorogations violated the terms of the original tack and lay beyond the Court's jurisdiction.
Ballantyne v. Malcolm 1793 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Defamation, Interlocutor, Fraud Alexander Malcolm, defender, petitioned against an interlocutor issued by Lord Monboddo in the action raised by Ballantyne, pursuer. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ballingall v. Ogilvie 1769 Debt, Adjudication, Inhibition, Bankruptcy, Improbation, Succession John Ballingall, Writer in Dundee, pursued John Ogilvie of Rochelhill, objecting to an inhibition and minute of sale. Ogilvie answered the petition, and subsequently submitted a condescendence accounting for debt and expenses while claiming to investigate Ballingall's payment.
Bannerman v. Shaw and Ritchie 1795 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Interest, Interlocutor The Reverend Mr. James Bannerman, as executor of Mrs Beatrix Goldie, petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor ordering him to condescend on a bond granted by his late husband. David Shaw of Jamaica and his attorney Alexander Ritchie answered, responding to claims under a bond dated 1771. Bannerman then petitioned to alter the interlocutor and be assoilzied, whereupon Shaw and Ritchie answered again, this time responding to the claim for a bond due from Bannerman’s late uncle Patrick Bannerman.
Bayne and Miller v. Wisheart-Belshes 1792 Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Reduction, Fraud, Cautioner Margaret Bayne and David Miller, baker in Perth, objected to the examination of James Dick Junior as a witness for Sir John Wisheart-Belshes in the process against him, arguing that Dick was disqualified by interest and relation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bayne v. Belshes 1793 Aliment, Succession, Trust, Deed, Trustee, Reduction Margaret Bayne and David Miller pursued Sir John Wishart-Belsches and James Knox to challenge the validity of a settlement executed by Thomas Ruthven. Sir John Wishart-Belsches defended the action by asserting that the deed constituted a valid deathbed settlement which Mrs. Bayne had ratified.
Belchier v. Palmer 1776 Debt, Estate, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Liferent, Succession In 1759, William Belchier purchased the estate of Grange in Scotland. Belchier died without children, leaving his estate to his older brother, John Belchier, in liferent and to his nephew, James-William Belchier, in fee. Several creditors of the decedent William Belchier brought actions of constitution and adjudication against his estate. Defenders Charlton Palmer and William Walker, creditors of William Belchier, sought a sale of William Belchier's estate and a ranking of the creditors. (The defenders mistakenly brought the action only against the liferenter, John Belchier, but later amended the action to include the apparent heir, James-William Belchier.) To expedite the process and reserve some of the estate for themselves, the pursuers also brought an action for the sale and ranking of the estate. This led to a dispute concerning which action—the creditors' or the apparent heirs'—should proceed.
Bell v. Edgar 1769 Liferent, Aliment, Lease, Succession, Deed, Trustee Andrew Bell, Tackman of Spylaw, and his assignees, as pursuers, argued that a bond granted by Richard Edgar was valid and not subject to reduction. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bellinger v. Monboddo's Interlocutor 1793 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Proof, Statute, Witness Reclaiming petition brought by William Bellinger challenging the interlocutor from the process of advocation and the judgment of the lower court finding for pursuer, Alexander Smith under the statute 9 of Queen Anne. The statute at cap. 14 sec. 2 states that "if any person shall, at any time or sitting, by playing at cards, dice or other games, lose in the whole, the value of 10 £, and shall pay or deliver the same, or any part thereof, the person losing, shall be at liberty, within three months, to sue for the money and goods lost, or any part thereof, from the winner, with costs, by action of debt founded on this act, in any of her Majesty's courts of record." The judgment orders payment to Smith by Bellinger of the sum lost by Mr. Smith to Mr. Bellinger in a dice game on December 24, 1789. Bellinger appeals on three points: 1. Does the act of 9th of Queen Anne apply to Scotland, as there are various Scottish statutes which conflict; 2. What does the statute mean by "one sitting," as the gambling happened over several hours; and 3. Was pursuer's oath in supplement properly admitted?
Binning v. Binning 1766 Succession, Testament, Aliment, Debt, Deed, Legacy The Pursuer, Helen Binning, sought 500 merks (Scots) willed to her father as aliment by her grandfather in a 1733 deed of settlement. The Pursuer's father, Patrick Binning, died young, after marrying at age sixteen. The parties in this case disagreed over whether or not Patrick married with the consent of his father. Helen, the only child of the marriage, was raised in her grandfather's home after the death of her father. The Defender, James Binning, was Helen Binning's uncle, eldest son of James Binning the elder. The Defender claimed that since his brother, Patrick Binning, died before reaching majority and before his father's death, Helen Binning's claim to her father's aliment payment was invalid. Upon the death of Margaret Binning, Helen's grandmother, in 1762, Helen brought action before the sheriff of Linlithgow against her uncle for payment of the 500 merks.
Birnie and Co. v. Weir 1799 Warranty, Debt, Aliment, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Succession Samuel Birnie and Co. sold “British potashes” for use as a bleaching agent. In certain printed materials, the company claimed that these British potashes had been “found to answer every purpose in bleaching, &c. equal to the best American pot.” Helen Weir of Longloch, the Defender, ordered several casks of the potashes for her bleaching business; however, she was dissatisfied with the product and refused to pay her bill. Samuel Birnie and Co. brought suit to collect on the account. In response, Mrs. Weir argued that the British potashes were inferior to American potashes and contained a “radical” latent defect: Although materials bleached with the British potashes initially appeared white, they turned a reddish or bluish color after being exposed to the air. Based on the resulting harms to her business, Mrs. Weir raised a claim for damages. Samuel Birnie and Co. maintained that British potashes were suitable for use in certain stages of the bleaching process, that the company’s representations had been made in good faith, and that Mrs. Weir had used the British potashes unskillfully. The court found that Mrs. Weir was not liable for the price of the potashes and awarded her damages.
Blyth v. Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor 1789 Debt, Adjudication, Creditor, Arrestment, Aliment, Succession Walter Blyth, as pursuer, presented a petition challenging an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Dreghorn. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Boyd Porterfield of Porterfield v. Joanna, Margaret, and Lilias Porterfields 1771 Land, Title Dispute, Debt, Tailzie, Succession, Prescription Boyd Porterfield, the pursuer, claimed that he was entitled to the lands of the Porterfield family in Hapland following the death of his cousin, Gabriel. Boyd was the grandson and heir of Alexander Porterfield, who, in turn, was a cousin of Gabriel Porterfield. In 1716, Gabriel granted a bond of tailzie to Alexander. Boyd claimed that he was entitled to the lands based on the tailzie. Gabriel's three daughters, Joanna, Margaret, and Lilias, along with their husbands, challenged Boyd's claim to the lands and sought to control their father's estate.
Braimer v. Innes and Lothian 1788 Aliment, Debt, Succession, Interdiction, Trustee, Trust John Braimer, late of Edrom, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, which maintained Braimer's interdiction and declared the trustees not bound to pay over the balance. Gilbert Innes of Stow and John Lothian, merchant in Edinburgh, as defenders, answered the petition, resisting Braimer's claim for reversion and discharge of the interdiction.
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.
Bromfield v. Paterson et al 1786 Succession, Debt, Liferent, Entail, Tailzie, Infeftment Stephen Bromfield pursued Mary Paterson, Alexander Campbell, and Henry Campbell regarding the estate of Eccles, contending that the defenders were bound by an entail and could not claim the lands without limitations. The defenders argued that the entail of 1743 and its 1755 amendment bound the succession to the barony of Eccles and lands of Stow, and further maintained that a deed of 1758 continued the prior entail, citing the precedent in Lowrie v. Spalding.
Brown v. Brown 1787 Succession, Aliment, Heirship Moveables, Debt, Trust, Heritor Jean Brown petitioned to alter an interlocutor that had ordered her to return a gold watch and gowns to Janet Brown, relict of George Baird, contending that the items were not marital property. Janet Brown answered, defending her claims of inheritance and possession of the heirship-moveables in dispute.
Bruce and Selkrig v. Bruce and Others 1798 Debt, Adjudication, Entail, Succession, Sequestration, Teinds James Bruce and Charles Selkrig, Trustee, argued that the entail of Tillicoultry did not bar the sale of the estate to satisfy debts. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Burt v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1789 Succession, Aliment, Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Defamation Robert Burt petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor that the Court had pronounced against the Lord Justice Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cadell and Davies, and Others v. Stewart 1803 Intellectual property rights, Copyright, Interdict, Aliment, Literary Property, Succession Defender Thomas Stewart, a bookseller in Glasgow, released a book consisting of previously unpublished letters from the late poet Robert Burns to "Clarinda" (Agnes Macelhose), who consented to the letters’ publication. Booksellers Cadell and Davies in London and William Creech in Edinburgh owned the rights to all of Burns's compositions, and they petitioned the court for an interdict against Stewart's publication. The brother and children of Robert Burns appeared in court to support the petition. The booksellers and family members, as pursuers, claimed that the interdict was warranted because Burns had not transferred his rights to the letters by sending the documents to Clarinda.
Cameron v. Cameron 1792 Lease, Succession, Tack, Aliment, Liferent, Adjudication Ro. Craigie petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors sustaining claims to the lands of Laick and Branahawn. The respondent argued that the lease of those lands secured by her father ought to be upheld notwithstanding contested settlements and allegations of hardship.
Cameron v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor 1797 Succession, Tack, Multiple-Poinding, Lease, Warrandice, Interlocutor Ewen Cameron sought reimbursement of court and House of Lords expenses incurred in defending against lease claims brought by Helen and Janet Cameron, the daughters of his deceased father John Cameron, regarding the disincumbering of lands. He petitioned against Lord Craig’s interlocutor refusing to allow retention of these costs, proceeding against the trustees and the daughters, whereupon Helen’s counsel argued the claim was procedurally barred and legally unsound. Cameron subsequently lodged a reclaiming petition against the Inner-House interlocutor.
Campbell v. Arbuthnott 1793 Lease, Rent, Tack, Succession, Homologation, Possession James Campbell, tenant in Broombank, as pursuer argued that a missive from the Viscount of Arbuthnott dated 1755 did not constitute a valid lease agreement. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbell v. Irvine 1794 Aliment, Marriage, Creditor, Succession, Debt, Interlocutor

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 2872)