Legal Subject: Freeholder

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Abercromby v. Speirs and others	1802	Peerage of Scotland, Freeholder	George Abercromby brought a case to be found and maintain as the freeholder (an estate in land, inherited or held for life) of Scotland, on his being the oldest son of a Peeress created by the Sovereign of United Kingdom. Defendants, some freeholders of the County of Stirling questioned that Pursuer did not have such a privilege, because he did not have connection at all with with the old Scots Peerage.
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.
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.
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.
Cunynghame v. Watson	1788	Jurisdiction, Freeholder, Retour, Charter, Sasine, Tax	Sir William Augustus Cunynghame petitioned the Court to overturn the freeholders' interlocutor admitting Charles Watson as a freeholder, challenging whether the heritable bailie office and lands qualified Watson for that status. David Williamson answered for the defender, responding to Cunynghame's objections regarding the extent of the office and lands.
Davidson v. Elphinstone	1802	Mandate, Freeholder, Property rights, Title (detour), Landlord	Robert Hill, as the agent of the Honourable Charles Elphinstone, Captain of the Royal Navy, claimed property rights of Eastern Glenboig, otherwise known as Endboig, with the mill, mill-lands, and other land (County of Stirling). The Title-deeds (Detour) and other records related to the case were submitted in order to support the enrollment of C. Elphinstone. Harry Davidson objected, first that the titles were not legal evidence of the old extend, and second, that Hill was not entitled to act in name and on behalf of H. Charles Elphinstone, because he was out of the Kingdom and there was no special mandate granted to Hill for such purposes. Taking into consideration the objections, the Lords sustained that H. Charles Elphinstone could not be enrolled as a freeholder (landlord) of the Glenboig.
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.
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.
Fraser v. Fraser	1802	Retour, Freeholder, Estate	Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser of Lower Grosvenor's Street, London, petitions to be enrolled as a freeholder of the lands and barony of Durris for the county of Inverness, and to serve in Parliament on behalf of Inverness. Simon Fraser protests approval of Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser's enrollment as a freeholder on the grounds that the source Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser uses to prove his title and the value of the land is inaccurate. The others overrule him and approve the enrollment. Simon Fraser subsequently files a complaint with the Lords of Council and Session to dispute the sufficiency of Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser's claim to the lands, and thus his claim to a position on the roll of freeholders. In the course of the proceedings, Simon Fraser dies, and his case is taken up on his behalf by his uncle, William Fraser, Esq. of Queen's Square, Bloomsbury, London.
Ilay Ferrier v. William Morehead	1789	Disposition, Infeftment, Freeholder, Liferent, Feu duties, Valuation	Ilay Ferrier, Esquire, Colonel of the late Scotch Brigade, petitioned the Court to overturn the freeholders' rejection of his claim to be enrolled as a freeholder of Stirlingshire, which William Morehead of Herbertshire opposed by alleging that Ferrier's liferent infeftment was nominal, fictitious, and subservient to Sir Archibald Edmonstone's political design. The parties exchanged replies, answers, and condescendences regarding the validity of the land descriptions, valuations, and the genuineness of the qualification, with Ferrier responding to claims of illusory price and interference in vassal arrangements. Ferrier subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, and Morehead answered maintaining that the superiorities were illusory and the enrollment improper.
M'Whinnie v. Goldie	1801	Estate, Freeholder, Property	William M'Whinnie had claimed to be enrolled in the roll of freeholders of Kirkcudbright, and had presented documents to support his ownership of the estate of Dunjarg in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright. At the meeting of the Kirkcudbright freeholders, Major-General thomas Goldie objected to M'Whinnie's enrollment, arguing that there was no evidence that the lands of Dunjarg were a five-merk land of old extent, and also that the title Mr. M'Whinnie claimed was nominal and fictitious due to the fact that the name of the estate was spelled differently in the older documents. Due to an indisposition, Mr. M'Whinnie was not at the meeting, and could not answer the accusations. Major-General Goldie believed that Mr. M'Whinnie was not in ill health, but had missed the meeting intentionally to avoid interrogation. The freeholders decided against enrolling him due to his absence, and Mr. M'Whinnie then took the case to the Lords of Council and Session, including written answers to the freeholders' questions. In his reply to the petition, Major-General Goldie requested that the Court ordain Mr. M'Whinnie to undergo oral examination and answer the interrogatory accusations in person as to the integrity of his claim upon the Dunjarg estate, because he believed that Mr. M'Whinnie had commissioned others to draft his responses for him.
Mackay v. Houston	1795	Wadset, Charter, Seisin, Freeholder, Factor Loco Tutoris, Disposition	Æneas Mackay petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his inrolment as a freeholder of Sutherland, while Hugh Houston objected that Mackay had failed to specify whether he claimed as a wadsetter or absolute proprietor and that his titles were defective. Mackay replied that his claim fully complied with statutory requirements for inrolment, but Houston maintained that the titles remained insufficient and the specification of interest inadequate. The dispute turned on whether Mackay's property rights satisfied the legal prerequisites for freeholder status.
Penrose-Cumming v. Lawson	1785	Freeholder, Perjury, Oath, Libel	This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament, alleged that his opponent, James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was John Lawson, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Lawson argued that his oath was not false, because he was, in fact, entitled to vote. Lawson further argued that whether or not he was lawfully entitled to vote, he had reasonably believed that his oath was true.
Penrose-Cumming v. Rev. Leslie	1785	Libel, Oath, Perjury, Freeholder	This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament and a freeholder in Moray, alleged that James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was Rev. William Leslie, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Leslie’s qualification to vote rested on a wadset (similar to a mortgage) of a superiority over part of the lands of Kinneddar. During the proceeding against him, Leslie raised a number of arguments against the charges. These included that Penrose-Cumming lacked the kind of specific injury that would give him title to pursue the case, that Penrose-Cumming had failed to allege sufficiently detailed facts, and that Leslie's rights were not, in fact, fictitious.
Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet v. David Ballingall	1791	Feu duties, Possession, Freeholder, Liferent, Election contest, Entail	Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet and others pursued David Ballingall, alleging that altered circumstances had affected his possession or right since enrollment and that his qualification was nominal or fictitious. Ballingall answered the condescendence and petition, denying any alteration of circumstances and maintaining that his qualification was genuine and valid. The dispute turned on whether Ballingall's enrollment remained effective given the alleged changes and the nature of his qualification.
Stewart V. Ireland	1796	Conveyance, Disposition, Mandate, Diligence, Freeholder, Election contest	Charles Stewart petitioned to overturn the freeholders' refusal to enroll him on the roll of freeholders, resting his claim upon titles and a valuation certificate, and William Ireland answered that the qualification was nominal and fictitious and that no mandate had been produced. The parties exchanged replies and duplies disputing the validity of the claim and seeking commission to recover material writings, after which Ireland petitioned against an Inner-House interlocutor that had found the freeholders erred in refusing admission. Stewart subsequently moved the court to apply a recent judgment of the House of Peers and to modify the account of expenses.