Legal Subject: Freehold Qualification

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
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.
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.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Alexander M'Kenzie 1790 Debt, Liferent, Succession, Proof, Freehold Qualification, Election contest Lieutenant Alexander Mackenzie, defender, answered the petition of Robert Home-Gordon and George Mackay, pursuers, asserting that the interlocutor dismissing the complaint was final and unalterable. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Hugh Rose 1790 Freehold Qualification, Sasine, Wadset, Freeholder, Bill of Exchange, Possession Robert Home-Gordon of Embo and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to expunge Hugh Rose of Aitnoch from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland, alleging that Rose's qualification was nominal and fictitious. Rose answered the petition and subsequent condescendence, defending his wadset qualification and land possession against the pursuers' allegations of insufficient freehold status. The cause proceeded through replies and further answers regarding the validity of Rose's entitlement to remain on the freeholders' roll.

Documents discussing this subject (98)