Decimae Debentur Parocho. The meaning of this maxim is, that teinds belong to the minister of the parish, where the subject from which they arise was produced; and that, consequently, he cannot be deprived of them by any species of alienation; which is to have a permanent effect to his prejudice.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Teinds.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Teinds |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| Allardice v. The Officers of State, and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews | 1798 | Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Stipend, Tack, Prescription | Robert Barclay Allardice pursued the Officers of State and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews regarding the modification of the teinds of Hallgreen lands. The Reverend Robert Croll submitted that the teinds should be fixed at a fair and equitable rate, while Allardice argued they ought to be valued at a fifth of the rent prior to improvements rather than the current improved rent. The parties exchanged competing memorials on the proper basis for calculating the teind duty. |
| Anderson v. Izat | 1781 | Ministers Stipend, Rent, Stipend, Sasine, Teinds, Patronage | This case was about a dispute over a minister's stipend in the newly formed parish of Gorbals. |
| Archibald McLachlan v. Archibald McArthur Stewart | 1789 | Adjudication, Rent, Lease, Possession, Teinds, Tack | Archibald M'Lachlan younger of Craigin-terve pursued a Bill of Advocation against Archibald McArthur Stewart, asking the Court to remit the sheriff-substitute's interlocutor ordering his removal from the lands of Letternamolt. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Baird and Kerr v. Heritors of Stobo and Ministers of Drummelizier and Broughton | 1794 | Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Augmentation, Prescription | Baird and Kerr pursued an action against the heritors of Stobo and the ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton regarding portions of the teinds of Stobo. The ministers of Drummelzier and Broughton claimed a radical and clear prescriptive right to those teinds based on nearly two centuries of enjoyment. The pursuers countered that the teinds had been erroneously paid to the ministers and that they were entitled to evict them. |
| Balfour v. Earl of Moray | 1796 | Teinds, Tack, Patronage, Heritor, Collation, Act of Parliament | Mr Andrew Balfour, Advocate, His Majesty's Solicitor of Tithes, petitioned the Court as pursuer against the Earl of Moray, as defender, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Bushby | 1796 | Entail, Retour, Freeholder, Possession, Sasine, Teinds | John Bushby petitioned to have James Gordon’s name removed from the freeholder roll for Kirkcudbright Stewartry, challenging the validity of Gordon’s land title on grounds of discrepancies and partial entailment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| Campbell v. Scott | 1798 | Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Parish, Glebe | Minister Thomas Campbell, as pursuer, sought augmentation from the teinds of the annexed parish of Longnewton, contending that historical precedent and the sole burden of serving both parishes supported his claim. Sir John Scott of Ancrum and the other heritors defended against the action, maintaining that Campbell’s existing stipend was ample and that the circumstances of the parish did not warrant an increase. |
| Campbell v. Stuart | 1794 | Sasine, Libel, Teinds, Reversion, Prescription, Arrestment | Andrew Stuart petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Frederick Campbell that assoilzied Campbell from the counter-action raised by Stuart. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Chalmers v. The Duke of Gordon | 1786 | Stipend, Teinds, Interlocutor, Rent, Jurisdiction, Augmentation | The Reverend Alexander Chalmers pursued the Duke of Gordon and the heritors of Cairney and Bottary for augmentation of his stipend, memorializing that the existing provision was inadequate to the weight of his charge. After the Court pronounced an interlocutor in the teind-cause, Chalmers petitioned for its alteration to secure a competent sum, and the heritors replied, contesting the Court’s authority to modify stipends already decreed. |
| 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. |
| 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. Selkirk, Miller, and Stirling | 1793 | Feu duties, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Factor, Intromission | The College of Glasgow petitioned against Selkirk, Miller, and Stirling, challenging a June 1792 interlocutor that limited overpayment offsets to cautionary branches and arguing for proportional application across all revenue branches. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Condie of Strowie v. United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard | 1796 | Rent, Proof, Teinds, Tack, Teind, Valuation | Thomas Condie of Strowie, as pursuer, sought valuation of the teinds of Strowie and Pitquhanatrie against the United Colleges of St. Salvator and St. Leonard, disputing the defenders' higher valuations which rested upon hypothetical grass cultivation unsuited to the local conditions. The defenders maintained that the annual value of the teinds should be set at ninety-nine pounds sterling. |
| Countess of Sutherland v. Officers of State | 1793 | Teinds, Lease, Teind, Prescription, Tack, Aliment | The Countess of Sutherland pursued the Officers of State to determine whether rents derived from salmon fishings were liable to vicarage teinds. The defenders argued that such rents were not teindable and that deductions ought to be denied, while the respondent maintained that salmon fishings were not subject to vicarage teinds in the absence of proof by forty years' possession and payment. The litigation turned on the criteria for establishing the teindability of salmon-fishing revenues. |
| Crawfurd v. Coutts | 1795 | Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Deed, Teinds | Thomas Coutts, defender, argued against Crawfurd, pursuer, that deeds conveying Crawfordland and Monkland were valid despite being executed on deathbed and that a prior tailzie did not bar his succession. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Cunningham v. Veitch | 1791 | Adjudication, Property, Prescription, Possession, Sasine, Teinds | The Merchants in Edinburgh, defenders, answered a petition by James Cunningham, pursuer, asserting that Covenant Close was their private property and not a common passage, citing historical deeds and a former gate. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Darling v. Landells | 1796 | Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Interlocutor, Aliment | Darling pursued Landells regarding the stipend of the parish minister of Coldingham. The defenders submitted information arguing that the stipend as modified by the Court's interlocutor was suitable and equitable given the parish's rental and living expenses. The petitioner subsequently petitioned the Court to alter that interlocutor modifying the stipend. |
| 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. |
| David Wilkie v. The Heritors of the Parish of Cult | 1792 | Teinds | Rev. David Wilkie pursued the Heritors of the Parish of Cult for payment of the full free teind as his stipend and communion allowance, arguing that the parish rental exceeded the old teind valuations and citing prior local precedents. The heritors replied, contending that the Court lacked jurisdiction to award any stipend beyond the teinds already allocated. The litigation thus presented the question of the Court’s power to augment a minister’s stipend from surplus teinds against the defenders’ jurisdictional objection. |
| 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. |
| Douglas and Baillie v. Mitchell | 1797 | Teinds, Valuation, Stipend, Augmentation, Heritor, Aliment | |
| Douglas and Baillie v. Mitchell | 1796 | Teinds, Stipend, Valuation, Heritor, Augmentation, Succession | The Reverend Thomas Mitchell answered the petition of Archibald Lord Douglas and Dame Elizabeth Baillie, arguing that the Court could grant victual augmentation despite the teinds having been valued in money. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Duff v. Chalmers | 1769 | Aliment, Succession, Statute, Jurisdiction, Teinds, Glebe | Archibald Duff of Drummuir answered the petition of Alexander Chalmers, Minister of Cairny, responding to the argument that the presbytery possessed authority to designate moss for peats beyond the minister's immemorial privilege. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Dunbar v. Dunbars, et al | 1798 | Succession, Entail, Tailzie, Infeftment, Debt, Teinds | Sir Benjamin Dunbar, pursuer, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter its interlocutor of 2 February 1799, which had assoilzied him from the conclusions of his action against the defenders, the Dunbars, et al. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Dunbar v. Sinclair | 1789 | Freeholder, Aliment, Succession, Election contest, Deed, Teinds | Sir William Dunbar, Baronet, and other freeholders of Caithness, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to find that the freeholders had wrongly repelled an objection against defender Sir James Sinclair, now Earl of Caithness, and to grant warrant for expunging him from the roll. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Dundas v. Baikie and others | 1792 | Feu duties, Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Feu | Sir Thomas Dundas petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had ordered the allocation of teind-duties before those to which heritors held heritable rights. Robert Baikie of Tankerness and other heritors of the United Parishes of St Andrews and Deerness answered the petition. |
| 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 Aberdeen v. Officers of State | 1799 | Teind, Rent, Teinds, Lease, Valuation, Tack | The Earl of Aberdeen claimed a deduction on a quarter of the rent from several estates in order to reduce his teinds payment. The Officers of State objected to his activities on three grounds, 1) his deduction for use of peat on his land was unjustifiable, 2) by allowing cottagers to live on his land but pay rent to a third party meant that he did not get income directly, and 3) through patronage he claimed deductions on rent from lands outside the areas subject to those tithes. |
| 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 Galloway v. Earl of Morton | 1757 | Feu duties, Aliment, Tack, Succession, Teinds, Evidence | As proprietors of land in Orkney, the pursuers owed defender James, Earl of Morton, annual feu duties that were generally paid in products such as grain, oil, and butter. These duties were measured in the weight units customarily used in Orkney and Shetland, including the Mark, the Lispund, the Meil, and the Last. The pursuers alleged that these units had increased from their original standards and should be adjusted to match their values in Norway, where they originated. Case documents include diagrams of weighing instruments, numerous depositions, and references to many individuals (including some not listed below). |
| Earl of Lauderdale v. George Inglis of Reidhall | 1764 | Prescription, Teinds, Tack, Inhibition, Adjudication, Bankruptcy | James Earl of Lauderdale pursued George Inglis of Reidhall for the teinds of Reidball, asserting title by inheritance and inhibition and denying the defender’s claims of sale and prescription. Inglis defended his right, contending that his prescription remained valid and unbroken by the inhibitions relied upon by the pursuer. The Earl then petitioned to alter the court’s interlocutor, urging that prior inhibitions and judicial processes barred the defender’s prescriptive claim, and Inglis answered by maintaining his prescriptive title to the tithes. |
| Earl of Mansfield v. The Duke of Queensberry, and other Heritors of the Parish of Dornock | 1797 | Teinds, Stipend, Interlocutor, Heritor, Valuation, Augmentation | During a process of locality in the parish of Dornock, the Earl of Mansfield initiated a legal proceeding to obtain a heritable right to his teinds. This case examined whether he could obtain such a right during the process of locality, so as to affect the order of allocation. |
| 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. |
| Elliot and Others v. Dickieson | 1793 | Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Reduction, Augmentation | Elliot and Others raised a process to prove the tenor of a 1635 decree concerning teinds valuation against the Reverend Mr Benjamin Dickieson, seeking to have that valuation declared binding and perpetual. Dickieson defended by memorial, alleging that the process was vitiated by intrinsic nullities and defective adminicles. The pursuers replied, insisting upon the decree's validity and adducing evidence of its draft, handwriting, and prior references from 1736. |
| Fergusson v. Mosman, et al | 1796 | Debt, Teinds, Creditor, Bankruptcy, Roup, Stipend | William Fergusson sought abatement of a retained sum from the sale of the Arrochar estate on the ground that unvalued teinds had been evicted following the purchase, arguing that this undisclosed burden warranted equitable relief. Hugh Mosman and John Anderson, common agents for the Macfarlan creditors, answered, asserting that the teinds had been exhausted and that no deduction from the price was therefore due. The dispute turned on whether the post-sale eviction of unvalued teinds entitled the purchaser to abatement where the burden had not been disclosed, or whether the exhaustion of those teinds precluded such relief. |
| Fleming v. Montgomery | 1794 | Succession, Teinds, Stipend, Contract, Tack, Heritor | Lady Clementina Fleming pursued Montgomery regarding the tithes of the barony of Stobo, seeking to convert the payment from meal to money in accordance with a 1730 decree of valuation. The defender maintained that the Lord Chief Baron and ministers of Stobo were bound by historical tacks and prior decrees of modification that governed the form of payment. The litigation proceeded through competing memorials addressing whether the 1730 valuation or the historical obligations should determine how the tithes were rendered. |
| Fordyce v. Robertson, et al | 1785 | Teinds | John Fordyce of Ayton, the pursuer, defended a 1713 decree of valuation and sale against objections by the heritors of the parish, who petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor. Robert Robertson, Alexander Robertson of Prenderguest, John Renton of Chesterbank, and their fellow heritors replied to Fordyce's answers, maintaining their challenge to the decree. |
| Forfar v. Oliphant | 1796 | Debt, Aliment, Stipend, Valuation, Teinds, Feu duties | James Oliphant of Over Kinnedder answered the petition of the Reverend William Forfar, Minister of Saline, responding to the claim for white oats in lieu of gray horse corn. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| George Gordon and Alexander Stewart v. Alexander Lawrence | 1832 | Contract, Debt, Tack, Teinds, Aliment, Expenses | George Gordon and Alexander Stewart pursued Alexander Lawrence, a slater in Keith, regarding disputes over slate supply, pricing, and carriage. Lawrence reclaimed against the interlocutor of Lord Corehouse, and the parties lodged a mutual appendix detailing their competing claims concerning the slate transactions. |
| Gleig v. Stephen | 1794 | Stipend, Teinds, Heritor, Augmentation, Parish, Act of Parliament | Gleig pursued Stephen to determine whether lands situated in the parish of St. Vigians were liable for stipend to the minister of that parish or subject to augmentation for the minister of Arbroath. The memorialists argued that the lands were liable to the St. Vigians minister and could not be subjected to augmentation for Arbroath, while the memorialist responded that lands locally situated in St. Vigeans but paying stipend to Arbroath belonged to that parish quoad stipend. |
| Gordon et al v. Abell | 1792 | Teinds, Augmentation, Interlocutor, Stipend, Valuation, Heritor | The Duke of Gordon, the Trustees of Archibald Duff of Drummuir, and Alexander Milne of Chapelton petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The Reverend George Abell answered, arguing that the augmentation granted to him did not prejudice the heritors' rights. |
| 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. |
Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 968)
- 11A-1756-64 doc0029
- 180-1785-1800 doc0035
- 180-1785-1800 doc0037
- 180-1785-1800 doc0049
- 180-1785-1800 doc0055
- 180-1785-1800 doc0058
- 180-1785-1800 doc0062
- 180-1785-1800 doc0089
- 180-1785-1800 doc0090
- 2.—REVISED CONDESCENDENCE for Pursuers, and REVISED DEFENCES for Defender.
- 690-1811-19-691-1821-28 doc0013
- 690-1811-19-691-1821-28 doc0017
- 690-1811-19-691-1821-28 doc0029
- 690-1811-19-691-1821-28 doc0037
- Adam Christie, &c. v. The Royal Bank of Scotland — Complainers' Case, 27 Nov 1837 [2]
- Addit. Pet.—George Heriot
- Additional Appendix for the Pursuer. CONTRACT of MARRIAGE between the Defender Mrs Bell Maclachlan and her husband.
- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR Doctor WILLIAM LEECHMAN principal of the college of Glasgow; Doctor James Moor professor of Greek; Mr James Clow professor of Logic; Mr George Muirhead p
- Alexander Achyndachy v. George Gordon — Memorial, 12 Jul 1784
- Alexander and Robert Murray v. John Murray — Reclaiming Note
- Alexander Auchyndachy v. George Gordon — Answers, 25 Jul 1787 [2]
- Alexander Bayne v. John Wallace — Answers, 17 Feb 1797
- Alexander Blair of Dunrod, James Murray of Broughton, Alexander Copland of Coliston, John Newall of Barskeoch, William Rorison of Ardoch, Patrick Brown of Barharrow and John Syme Writ... v. William Maxwell of Dalfwinton — Answers, 23 Apr 1774
- Alexander Brymner v. Robert Crawford Riddell — Memorial, 22 May 1809
- Alexander Chalmers v. Archibald Duff — Answers, 22 Feb 1769
- Alexander Chalmers v. John Duff — Answers, 17 Jul 1787
- Alexander Craig v. Robert Forrester — Information, 29 May 1806 [2]
- Alexander Duke of Gordon, the Trustees of the deceased Archibald Duff of Drummuir, and Alexander Milne of Chappleton v. The Rev. Mr George Abell — Answers, 26 Feb 1793
- Alexander Duncan v. William Skirling and George Johnston — Answers, 23 Jun 1767
- Alexander Earl of Galloway & others v. James Earl of Morton — State of the Process, 12 Nov 1757
- Alexander Earl of Galloway & others v. James Earl of Morton — State of the Process, 12 Nov 1757 [2]
- Alexander Earl of Galloway v. David Thomson of Inglifton — Memorial, 15 Feb 1762 [2]
- Alexander Earl of Galloway v. James Earl of Morton — Answers, 18 Jul 1759
- Alexander Farquharson v. The Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising Thames water in York-buildings, London — Answers, 23 Nov 1775
- Alexander Gordon v. James, Earl of Fife — Respondents' Case
- Alexander Izat v. Marshall & Hutchison — Answers, 1 Feb 1809
- Alexander Kay and John Morton v. Alexander Balfour, Thomas Bell, James Smith, John Symers, Andrew Brown, William Lindsay, Patrick Whitson, George Thoms, and Alexander Reid — Answers, 8 Dec 1827
- Alexander Keay v. James Farquharson — Duplies, 12 Dec 1799 [2]
- Alexander Kinloch and Others v. James Rocheid — petition, 17 Jan 1800
- Alexander Kinloch v. James Rocheid — information, 22 Feb 1799
- Alexander Kinloch v. James Rocheid — information, 31 Jan 1799
- Alexander Laurence v. George Gordon and Alexander Stewart — Mutual, 26 Apr 1832
- Alexander Leslie v. John Gordon — Answers, 21 Jun 1799
- Alexander Littlejohn v. Robert Moir — Memorial, 26 Jun 1790
- Alexander Mackenzie v. Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising the Thames Water in York-buildings — Answers, 15 Nov 1792
- Alexander Mackenzie v. York-Buildings Company — Answers, 15 Nov 1792
- Alexander Robertson and others v. John Fordyce — Replies, 25 Nov 1788
- Alexander Smart v. William Toshach — Answers, 11 Jul 1771
- Alexander Spence v. Magistrates and Town-Council of Lauder — Petition, 28 Jan 1820
- Alexander Watson v. Ann and Isobel Watsons — State of the Process, 3 Jan 1834
- Alexander Wemyss and William Wemyss of Craighall v. Isabel Gordon — Information, 20 Nov 1764
- Alexander Wighton, Andrew Coats, and John M'Fie, Bailies of the Village and Barony of Gorbals; George Strang, Preses, George Young, late Preses, and Robert Shaw, James M'Lachlan, James... v. The Rev. Dr James M'Lean — Information, 27 Nov 1823
- Alexander Young and others v. Andrew Johnston and others — Memorial, 21 Jul 1767
- Alexander Young v. John Menzies of Pitfoddles; George Turner — Information, 12 Jun 1765
- Alexander, Earl of Galloway, and others v. James, Earl of Morton — Answers, 4 Dec 1758
- Alison Horn v. John Reid and Thomas Mitchel — Information, 13 Nov 1787
- Anderson — Petition, 19 Jun 1793
- Andrew Balfour v. Kenneth Mackenzie of Cromarty — Memorial, 3 Mar 1795
- Andrew Ogilvy v. William Dawson — memorial, 17 Jan 1800
- Andrew Stuart v. Lord Frederick Campbell — Information, 3 Jul 1792
- Ann & Isobel Watsons v. Alexander Watson — State of the Process, 28 Feb 1834
- ANSWERS FOR JAMES Earl of Morton, TO THE PETITION of Alexander Earl of Galloway, and fifteen other Persons, Proprietors in Orkney.
- ANSWERS FOR The Magistrates and Town-council of the borough of Taine, and for David Ross of Inverchasly, William Ross of Aldie, and Captain Alexander Ross of Culrossie, landward he
- ANSWERS to the Condescendence and Claim for Mrs. Jean Currie or Ponton. ANSWERS to the Condescendence and Claim for George Ponton. ANSWERS to the Re-revised Condescendence for Mrs.
- Answers — Ans.—The Postmaster-General, to Pet.—William Kerr Jas. Robertson, W. S. Solicitor for the Post Office, Respondent's
- App. to Answers for Master and Assistants of the Company of Merchants
- APP. to PET. for W. C. LEARMONTH, Esq. &c. AGAINST Inner-House Interlocutor. ALEX. PEARSON, W.S. Petitioners' Agent. ALEX. DOUGLAS, W.S. Respondent's Agent. Sir R. DUNDAS, Clerk. A
- APPENDIX
- APPENDIX PRINTED BY THE OBJECTORS, I.—OBJECTIONS for the Heritors and Common Agent, in the Locality of Kinnoull, TO THE RECTIFIED LOCALITY, prepared by the Teind Clerk, and craved
- APPENDIX referred to in the Petition for ALEXANDER GARDINER, &c. MINUTES of the Incorporation of Goldsmiths, for exempting the Members of the Incorporation from paying a Halfpenny
- APPENDIX referred to in the Petition for ALEXANDER GARDINER, &c. No. I. MINUTES of the Incorporation of Goldsmiths, for exempting the Members of the Incorporation from paying a Hal
- APPENDIX to the Petition and Complaint of William Brown. OBJECTION, John Hamilton to William Brown, made at the Head-Court.
- APPENDIX TO THE PETITION for Mr. WILLIAM ROSE. No. I. COMMISSION and FACTORY for the Duff-House Estate, the EARL of FIFE to Mr. WILLIAM ROSE, dated 8th December 1764.
- APPENDIX, DISPOSITION and SETTLEMENT, James BonTHRON, 12th May 1789.
- APPENDIX.
- APPENDIX. ABBREV. OF ADJUDICATION in favour of MR ALEXANDER SETON. No. I.
- APPENDIX. CHARTER of CONFIRMATION, extracted from the Charter of Resignation and Confirmation.
- APPENDIX. CHARTER of CONFIRMATION, extracted from the Charter of Resignation and Confirmation.
- Appendix. DISCHARGE by MARGARET HAIR in favour of the Defenders.—No. 3. of the Process.
- APPENDIX. DISPOSITION and ASSIGNATION, Anne Douglas Hamilton, to George Wilson, Esq. of Aucheniden, in Liferent.
- APPENDIX. Excerpt from TRUST-DISPOSITION executed by Thomas Chalmers and Company; dated 6th March 1811.
- APPENDIX. Extract DISPOSITION in Trust, ALEXANDER GRANT of Arndilly, Esq; to COLQUHOUN GRANT, dated 14th December 1772, Registered 13th February 1773.
- Appendix. EXTRACT or ATTESTED COPY of the ENTRIES made of the Valued Rent of Croy-Leckie, Croy-Cunningham, and Wester and Middle Glenboig, in the Valuation-Books of Stirlingshire.
- APPENDIX. FEU-CONTRACT between the Marquis of Montrose and Mr David Graham, of the Lands of Braco and others.—1st February 1705.
- APPENDIX. GENERAL SUMMARY of the ACCOUNTS of the Trustees of the late ALEXANDER GRAHAM, Esquire of Ballagan. CHARGE. I. Capital. II. Proceeds of Wood cut by the Trustees. III. Inco
- APPENDIX. I. EXCERPT from the Decreet of Sale of the Lands of Overdurdie, in favour of David Murray, in so far as relates to the Value of the Lands, and Feu-duty payable therefor.
- APPENDIX. INVENTORY of Writings of the Estate of Cattleshiel and Durrington, belonging to John Trotter of Horseheath and Cattleshiel, &c. Esq. which were found in the repositories
- APPENDIX. LATTER WILL by Dr. M'Intyre, 53d Regiment, 7th July 1813; and CODICIL, dated 17th September 1815.
- APPENDIX. No. I. A CORRESPONDENCE between the Agents of John Hamilton Colt, Esquire of Gartsherrie, and the Agents of the Caledonian Railway Company.
- APPENDIX. No. I. ABSTRACT of SERVICES, performed to the Mains of Scarmclet, taken from the Proof adduced in a process relative thereto.
- APPENDIX. No. I. ABSTRACT of the TITLES by which the Family of OLIPHANT of Bachilton, held the Lands of Bachilton, Pittheavelis, Greenyards, Earlsdyke, and Unthank.
- APPENDIX. No. I. CARTA CONFIRMACONIS P. Monastio Sancte Crucis de Edynburgh de Diversis Tris et Ecclesiis. Datis et Concessis Eidem Monastio et Canonicis P. David Quondam Regem Sco
- APPENDIX. No. I. CHARTER in favor of the Chirurgeons, &c. of Glasgow.
- APPENDIX. No. I. Copy REGULATIONS by the Sheriffs of Elgin-shire.
- APPENDIX. NO. I. Copy—OBLIGATION by Lord Torphichen, to Sir William Augustus Cunynghame, Bart.
- APPENDIX. No. I. DEED OF ENTAIL, GEORGE MOIR, Esq; of Leckie, in favour of himself, and the heirs therein mentioned.
- APPENDIX. No. I. DISPOSITION William Bushby, Esq. to the Honourable FLETCHER NORTON.
- APPENDIX. No. I. DISPOSITION William Bushby, Esq. to the Honourable Fletcher Norton.
- APPENDIX. No. I. EXTRACT ACT Concerning the Stipend of the Ministers of the Canongate.
- APPENDIX. No. I. EXTRACT of the MINUTES of the FREEHOLDERS of AYRSHIRE, of date the 3d October 1775, regarding the Claim of Sir John Shaw Stewart, Esq.
