Legal Subject: Rent

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Bennet v. David Maxwell 1787 Tack, Arrestment, Debt, Lease, Rent, Sasine Alexander Bennet, as pursuer, challenged a tenant’s missive as invalid for lacking formality or stamp, and David Maxwell, as defender, responded asserting the missive’s validity under pacta esse servanda. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Andrew Zuill v. Thomas Bryce Buchanan 1830 Sequestration, Interlocutor, Liferent, Rent, Reduction, Infeftment Andrew Zuill or Yool, farmer at Bridgend of Boquhan, raised an action of reduction against Thomas Bryce Buchanan to set aside sheriff's decrees and interlocutors obtained for unpaid farm rents and damages, alleging the proceedings were invalid and unlawful. Buchanan reclaimed against Lord Mackenzie's interlocutor and lodged defences asserting his heritable proprietorship and the validity of a liferent grant to William Gray. Zuill subsequently reclaimed, arguing that Buchanan possessed title to demand the rents during his possession of the subjects.
Bernard Love v. George Foster 1832 Arrestment, Sequestration, Rent, Caution, Aliment, Factor Bernard Love, as pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor in his action against George Foster, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Borthwick 1802 Rent, Teind, Property rights The petitioner, John Borthwick of Crookston, challenged a locality that apportioned liability for the minister's stipend in the parish of Stow.
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.
Christie v. Cowans, et al 1794 Rent, Tack, Lease, Teinds, Warrandice, Damages David Halket, David Robertson, and Laurence Robertson petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor concerning salmon fishings in the River of Leven. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Copland v. Ireland 1786 Proof, Interlocutor, Tack, Diligence, Rent, Sequestration William Ireland petitioned the Court for leave to adduce additional proof and to renew diligence against William Birtwhistle, alleging that William Copland of Gregory had failed to report proof regarding Birtwhistle. Copland answered, responding to the claim that he had neglected to report the proof concerning Birtwhistle.
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.
Davidson v. Officers of State 1793 Rent, Teinds, Evidence The Officers of State objected to deductions claimed by Duncan Davidson of Tulloch, disputing the inclusion of non-monetary casualities in rent deductions. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Donald Campbell v. John Johnston 1793 Tack, Lease, Interlocutor, Possession, Inhibition, Rent In an action of removing from Middle Craigs, Captain Donald Campbell petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo. John Johnston answered the petition, resisting Campbell's request to overturn the earlier decision.
Duff v. Freeholders of Elgin and Forres 1792 Interlocutor, Freeholder, Res judicata, Tack, Lease, Rent The Honourable Alexander Duff petitioned the Court to alter its prior interlocutor and restore him to the roll of freeholders for Elgin and Forres. Archibald Duff, Sheriff-clerk of Elgin, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter the same interlocutor. The petitions raised the question of whether the Court should reverse its order removing Alexander Duff from the freeholders' roll.
Dumfries v. Campbell 1795 Heritor, Tailzie, Adjudication, Interlocutor, Non-Entry, Rent Dumfries, as heir to his mother and petitioner, sought to alter an interlocutor of December 1792 that had permitted the transference of an action of non-entry against him. Campbell responded that a declarator of nonentry commenced against the mother could be transferred in statu quo against her son and heir without requiring that he first take a passive title.
Dundas v. Thomson 1 of 2 1793 Teinds, Valuation, Rent, Heritor, Tack, Interlocutor
Dundas, et al v. Cameron 1794 Succession, Debt, Tack, Rent, Teinds, Aliment Dundas and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to remit to the Lord Justice Clerk the case of Donald Cameron of Lochiel against the defender Alan Cameron concerning a disputed disposition and sasine of lands. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Earl of Cassillis v. James Finlay, Common Agent for carrying on the Locality of the Stipend of the Parish of Dalrymple 1795 Teinds, Rent, Tack, Stipend, Interlocutor, Valuation
Earl of Northesk & Factor v. Rolland, et al 1797 Lease, Tack, Assignment, Sublease, Rent, Possession
Earl of Rothes v. Shepherd 1766 Landlord and tenant, Rent Alexander Shepherd, a tenant farmer, rented land in Begg from the Earl of Rothes. After failing to pay a year's rent, Shepherd sought a bill of suspension from the court to avoid getting evicted, claiming that the time and money that he had invested in enclosing the land with hedges and ditches, at the Earl's encouragement, had rendered it impossible to pay his rent. The Earl of Rothes argued that Shepherd was not the industrious farmer and improver that he claimed to be.
Eliott v. Curries 1796 Debt, Succession, Tack, Lease, Aliment, Rent
Fleshers of Glasgow v. Magistrates of Glasgow 1802 Tax, Rent, Duty (Tax), Magistrate In 1744, the Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow erected a slaughterhouse for the city's butchers use, and an act of council decided that those who used the slaughterhouse would pay a rate proportionate to the amount of cattle slaughtered. In 1755, public markets were erected for the butchers to use, and the Magistrates made regulations that rents and duties should be paid by those who used these markets. In 1799, the Magistrates raised the dues of the beef and mutton markets one-third more than the former rate, and reserved the right to themselves to adjust this rate after a year's time. The Incorporation of Fleshers brought a case against the Magistrates, and the case was decided in their favor, holding that the Magistrates of a royal burgh have no right to impose a tax upon the inhabitants without the consent of the Legislature--they have as little right to increase any duties that have been previously imposed, and as the Sovereign himself has no power of levying such taxes, any reservation of such a right in the articles of the Union is altogether mefiectual. (Scot's digest)
Gardiner, et al v. Andrews 1788 Debt, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Rent, Fraud Robert Gardiner, with the concurrence of Ebenezer Marshall and George Arnot, pursued Robert Andrew to have declared void a lease granted by Gardiner to Andrew, alleging that Gardiner had acted under incapacity and that the defender had procured the tack by fraud. Andrew defended the action, maintaining that the lease had been granted freely and voluntarily without undue practice or fraudulent conduct. The litigation proceeded upon competing memorials addressing the validity of the lease and the questions of Gardiner's capacity and Andrew's alleged fraud.
Gordon v. Representatives of Michie 1794 Tack, Possession, Rent, Liferent, Heritor, Sequestration Gordon pursued the Representatives of Michie regarding possession of the Craig of Clunie lands. The petitioners, as heirs of a liferent-tacksman, maintained that they were entitled to continue in possession without summary removal, arguing that the law presumed tacit agreement and required warning before ejection. They initially submitted a memorial advancing this principle, and subsequently petitioned for an order permitting them to remain in possession and restraining the respondents from entering and inclosing the grounds.
Graham v. E of Hopetoun. 1796 Succession, Aliment, Debt, Teinds, Creditor, Rent Lady Christian Graham, Sir Richard Bempde Johnstone, and Charles Johnstone pursued James Hope Johnstone, Earl of Hopetoun, regarding whether expenditures made by the Earl as legal curator of the Marquis of Annandale's estate affected rights of succession to Scots funds. The pursuers argued that the curator's payments did not impair succession rights, while the Earl maintained he was entitled to credit for his administrative expenditures and petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The pursuers subsequently answered the petition, responding to the seventh article concerning management charges.
Grinlay &c v. Lord Gardenstone's Interlocutor 1792 Arrestment, Sequestration, Hypothec, Roup, Possession, Rent Grinlay and others petitioned the court to revise Lord Gardenstone’s interlocutor, arguing that as bona fide purchasers at public sale they were not liable for furniture from Mrs. Campbell and that the sheriff’s rent preference was improper. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
James Lockhart v. John Cathcart 1832 Lease, Rent, Valuation, Possession, Adjudication, Debt James Lockhart, as pursuer, presented a reclaiming note asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against John Cathcart, defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Janet Barber v. John Caddell 1789 Rent, Possession, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Proof Janet Barber, relict of James Renny, pursued John Caddell of Cockenzie in a suspension bill alleging he had unlawfully sold her crop and seized her land without authority. Caddell petitioned the Court to remit the suspension, asserting claims of possession and rent arrears against her. Barber answered, defending her suspension and responding to Caddell’s allegations regarding possession and arrears.
John Leslie v. The Earl of Kintore, and Others 1794 Tack, Teinds, Lease, Valuation, Teind, Rent John Leslie of Balquhain petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor sustaining objections to his proof of teind based on rental value, while the Earl of Kintore and others argued that teind value must be calculated from current tenant rents rather than an overlease granted in 1769. Leslie replied to the defenders' answers, denying their allegations regarding the lease, grassums, and profits. The defenders maintained that the 1769 lease had been granted at below-market value to compensate a creditor and therefore ought not to govern the teind valuation.
Leggat v. Inner-House Interlocutor 1787 Debt, Sequestration, Adjudication, Rent, Power of Attorney, Tack David Leggat petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor, raising the question of whether the Court should modify its prior order. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Low v. Knowles 1796 Rent, Sequestration, Tack, Assignation, Caution, Lease Andrew Knowles defended an action by John Low and John Richardson regarding rent obligations under the Act of Sederunt 1756, maintaining that he was not liable for the full rent in light of prior payments and the pursuers' conduct. He further alleged that Low had failed to pay rents and had caused ruin to the farm, and that the caution found was insufficient to secure future rents. Knowles also petitioned against a Sheriff's interlocutor requiring double caution for the same rents, arguing that such a requirement was unjust and contrary to the spirit of the Act.
M'Calmond v. Park 1792 Tack, Lease, Deed, Rent, Interlocutor, Possession James M'Calmond petitioned the Court to alter Lord Stonefield's interlocutor refusing his bill of advocation against Hugh-Gavin Park, Tacksman of the Lands of Camregan. Park answered, contending that an unstamped obligation was not valid in law or equity.
Macdougal v. Duncan 1791 Lease, Tack, Rent, Damages, Roup, Possession Alexander Macdougal, as pursuer against Duncan, defender, petitioned the Court against Lord Alva's interlocutor to remit the decree of summary removing and damages. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing v. Graham 1789 Lease, Tack, Rent, Charter, Sequestration, Privilege The Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Inverkeithing pursued George Graham of Kinross for payment of £23 sterling yearly for the customs of the town under the roup of January 1785. They also reclaimed an interlocutor that had granted Graham the sole right to the fairs and markets customs, asserting the burgh’s historic entitlement to levy those same dues.
Magistrates of Perth v. Andrew 1797 Tack, Rent, Lease, Mala Fides, tenant, Possession The Magistrates of Perth sought John Andrew’s removal from leased lands following the expiration of his lease, while Andrew claimed that permission from his brother to cultivate adjacent land constituted tacit consent to his continued possession. After Lord Armadale pronounced an interlocutor against him, Andrew petitioned the Court to alter that decision, prompting the Magistrates and Town-Council of Perth, along with Charles Bruce as Treasurer, to answer his petition and defend against the charge of horning.
Marquis of Abercorn v. The Magistrates of Edinburgh 1792 Tack, Interlocutor, Suspension, Jurisdiction, Lease, Rent The Marquis of Abercorn pursued the Magistrates of Edinburgh for damages, alleging that their diversion of Braid's Burn had injured his water and mills, and sought to join his claim to an existing damages action raised by William Laing. The Magistrates responded that the Marquis lacked standing to claim indemnification under the 1785 water statute without first exhausting the process before a sheriff's jury.
Monro v. Sutherlands and Sutherland 1793 Debt, Creditor, Reduction, Rent, Aliment, Sequestration William Ross Monro pursued an action against the heirs of John Sutherland and Ann Ross regarding debts Monro had owed to his uncle. William Ross of Aldie submitted a memorial arguing that the Court should not revive the tenor of unproduced obligations without proof of a special casus amissionis. The respondents challenged a decree in the suit, maintaining that prescription and a prior settlement barred the claim.
Mrs. Euphemia Innes v. Duke of Gordon 1831 Succession, Lease, Rent, Debt, Entail, Res judicata Mrs. Euphemia Innes, relict and executrix of John Innes, presented a reclaiming note against George, Duke of Gordon, asking the Court to alter the interlocutor sustaining the Duke's defences. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Officers of State v. Thomas 1802 Teind, Rent, Improvement, Property The Officers of State represent a renter who lived on the property of the Earl of Selkirk. The renter claimed that he had made improvements on the land, and was thus entitled to a deduction in his rental teinds because of the expenses he incurred in making these improvements. The Earl of Selkirk argued that only permanent improvements should be entitled to deductions, and that improvements such as laying manure for crops and adding lime to the soil were temporary and were paid off in the profits yielded by a higher crop. Marginalia on the front page of the first document notes that the court found that the pursuer was not entitled to any deduction in the rental teinds.
Palmer and Others v. Macmillan 1794 Interlocutor, Advocation, Contract, Property, Sequestration, Rent Palmer and Others, as defenders, argued that the Court of Session should affirm a Sheriff's interlocutor prohibiting Macmillan from exposing butcher-meat in front of his house. They presented information maintaining that the prohibition ought to be upheld.
Petrie v. Lord Ankerville's Interlocutor 1789 Debt, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Creditor, Rent, Security Pursuer Joseph Petrie petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his dispute with defender Lord Ankerville. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Playfair v. Riddell and Riddell 1 of 2 1793 Possession, Bargain, Sale, Rent, Locus Poenitentiae, Disposition William Robertson petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Messrs Riddell and Mr Davidson. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Purdie v. Tod 1789 Succession, Debt, Tack, Lease, Rent, Disposition Thomas Purdie, clerk to the Charity Work-house of Edinburgh, pursued claims of heritable interest in a tan-work against Thomas Tod, merchant in Edinburgh, and Tod answered the petition. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Renfew alias Watt v. Campbell 1795 Lease, Tack, Rent, Aliment, Succession, Implied Obligation Katharine Renfrew, alias Watt, sought to suspend payment of rent to Sir James Campbell of Inverniel and to obtain an interdict restraining him from operating a new inn on his estate as a rival to her establishment. Campbell opposed the suspension, maintaining that Watt had no right to claim damages or abatement of rent for the new inn erected on his property.
Riddell v. Grosset 1791 Tack, Reduction, Rent, Agent, Aliment, Damages Sir James Riddell petitioned the Court of Session to apply the judgment of the House of Lords reversing the interlocutor that assoilzied him from the process of reduction against Grosset. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Riddell v. Hope 1796 Lease, Tack, Rent, Possession, Adjudication, Interlocutor Sir James Riddell pursued Robert Hope, petitioning the Court to find the defender not entitled to damages and to remit the cause to the Sheriff simpliciter. Hope subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
Robert Wark v. William Wotherspoon 1830 Expenses, Assignation, Tack, Rent, Interlocutor, Irritancy William Wotherspoon sought suspension of a decree obtained by Robert Wark ordering him to pay £9, 13s. 5½d. and extract dues. Wotherspoon defended the suspension on the ground that an assignation of lease from Mr Young was necessary for debt recovery, while denying Wark’s allegations of arrears and encroachment. He subsequently lodged a reclaiming note asking the Court to recall the interlocutor and suspend the letters simpliciter, and obtained an additional appendix allowing him to print the defences, replies, condescendence, and answers from the inferior court process.
Rutherford v. Rutherford and Potts 1788 Arrestment, Sequestration, Hypothec, Debt, Rent, Cautioner Jane Rutherford, widow of Robert Robson, petitioned the Court to alter Lord Hailes’s interlocutor regarding the Sheriff’s refusal to grant advocation. The respondents, Rutherford and Potts, defended that refusal and asserted their preference over rent arrears and crop proceeds from 1783 roup sales.
Scott and Cruikshank v. New College of St. Andrews 1793 Tack, Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Rent, Lease The New College of St. Andrews defended an action by Scott and Cruikshank regarding deductions from rental, arguing that deductions based on old improvements and tenant accommodations were not legally or reasonably justifiable. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Simsons v. Nasmyth 1797 Lease, Tack, Possession, Rent, Interlocutor, Locus Poenitentiae William and Walter Simsons petitioned against Lord Ankerville's interlocutors to assert their right to possess the lands of Easter Dawick and Newholmhope under a minute of tack. Sir James Nasmyth rejected their claim, contending that the alleged lease rested upon an unsigned and undated offer deficient in essential terms, and further alleging that the tenants' misconduct warranted their removal.
Sir Robert Pollock v. Thomas Paton 1777 Penalty, Rent In 1770, Sir Robert Pollock of Pollock let the lands of Floak and Floakside to Thomas Paton, a tenant of some years. The missives of the new agreement contained an additional clause that if Paton were to plough any land in addition to what he had ploughed the previous year, he would pay £100 Scots for each additional acre. After Paton had quit Floak and Floakside, Pollock brought action before the Sheriff of Renfrewshire, requesting the requisite payment on a newly-ploughed acre and a half. The sheriff-substitute initially ruled in Pollock's favour, however after consulting with the sheriff-depute he declared the extra provision to be a penalty that must correspond with real damages. Sir Robert, the pursuer, then applied to the Court by bill of advocation, claiming to have undertaken many costly improvements of his land, which would come to nought should tenants such as Paton be allowed to plough a meadowland of rich soil. He pointed out that Paton had been under no obligation to enter into the tack, and under no obligation to plough the extra land. The defender, on the other hand, stated that Pollock was severely exaggerating the quality of the land in question; he described it as a bare moor farm whose sole improvement was a stone dike on the common march. Furthermore, he claimed that in previous years he had been allowed to plough the land in question at no additional cost. The Court found in favour of the pursuer, determining the money asked for to be a form of rent.
Sir William Eliott v. George and Thomas Currie 1796 Lease, Tack, Rent, Trustees, Entail, Succession Sir William Eliott of Stobs, Baronet, pursued George and Thomas Currie to determine whether an heir of entail could grant a lease at a diminished rent in consideration of a grassum. Eliott maintained that such a lease was prohibited, while George Currie argued that the entail's silence on the letting of leases permitted him to enter a lease below the former rental. After the court pronounced an interlocutor, Eliott presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter that decision.
Skene v. Hogg 1796 Valuation, Teinds, Heritor, Rent, Augmentation, Stipend Skene, as pursuer, argued that the Court of Session lacked authority to lay victual augmentation upon teinds or to modify victual to a minister where the teinds had been valued in money. He submitted successive memorials contending that the commutation to a fixed monetary payment precluded any subsequent augmentation or modification in grain.