AI-transcribed

Landowner.

Definition source
AI-generated
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Heritor

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Allardice, et all v. Allardice 1795 Succession, Liferent, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor, Entail
Baillie v. Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow 1796 Heritor, Prescription, Act of Parliament, Expenses, Possession, Interlocutor John Baillie reclaimed against an interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk in an action against the Magistrates and Town Council of Glasgow concerning the liability for costs of repairing foot-pavements. The defenders submitted information arguing that adjacent proprietors, and not the public, must bear the cost of such repairs.
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.
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.
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.
Chisholm v. Lord Gardenston's Interlocutor 1791 Aliment, Heritor, Contract, Tack, Adjudication, Sequestration William Chisholm petitioned the Court to alter Lord Gardenston's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cunninghams v. Alexander Cunningham 1778 Parishioner, Heritor, Property rights, Natural Rights This case concerns burial rights to the Currie Kirkyard. Alexander (John) Cunninghame, victual-dealer at Fountainbridge, was not a parishioner of the Currie Kirk. He was, however, a descendant of John Cunninghame of Balerno (d. 1640), who was buried in the Balerno family plot, which ran along the south wall of the parish church. By the end of 1777, Cunninghame had buried his wife and three children in this burial plot, near the wall of the church. When he had a tombstone made for their graves, William and Laurence Cunninghames, portioners of Ballerno, petitioned the Sheriff of Midlothian to forbid Alexander Cunninghame from placing this stone and from making any further burials. They claimed exclusive possession of this area of the kirkyard due to their status as joint-heritors in Currie parish. The sheriff found that the defender should not "be deprived of the pious satisfaction of placing a stone over the grave of his departed wife.” The pursuers then presented a bill of advocation to the Court. Lord Covington determined that as the defender was neither a heritor nor a parishioner of Currie, he had no right to make use of the kirkyard. When the defender petitioned the Court for review, it upheld Covington's decision. The arguments of the pursuers and defender centered on whether a kirkyard was common or private property.
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.
Dickson v. Irving 1796 Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor, Debt, Presbytery, Contract David Dickson, minister of the Gospel at St Mungo, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutors in a suspension process against William Bell Irving of Whitehill, a heritor of the parish, wherein Dickson acted as Charger and Irving as Suspenders. Irving answered the petition.
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.
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. 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
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.
Farquhar et al, Heritors in Brechin v. Garie 1798 Church of Scotland, Succession, Presbytery, Agent, Heritor, Ministers Farquhar and the other heritors in Brechin, as pursuers, challenged defender Mr James Garie’s ordination and parish eligibility, citing his lack of Scottish theological training and his dissenting ordination by non-Presbyterian bodies. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Francis Pinkerton Drummond v. William Abernethy Drummond, &c 1792 Succession, Liferent, Prescription, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor Francis Pinkerton Drummond, as pursuer, sought against William Abernethy Drummond and others the correction of a charter or infeftment to reflect the true succession under a 1722 marriage contract rather than heirs-male in general. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gentle v. Heritors of Crieff 1792 Debt, Heritor, Aliment, Contract, Arrestment, Interlocutor James Gentle, writer in Edinburgh, pursued the Heritors of Crieff for exoneration from a bond of caution and relief from expenses arising from a church contract, contending that unpaid shares and material cost increases since 1778 rendered the Heritors liable for the losses. The Heritors answered that the loss was Gentle's own, and the cause proceeded through replies and duplies disputing the contractual responsibility. William Lumsdain separately petitioned for remit of answer expenses and delivery of his bond of caution, and after the Heritors petitioned to alter an Inner-house interlocutor, Gentle responded reaffirming his claim for exoneration based on the church cost claims.
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. 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. Pate 1798 Teinds, Heritor, Prescription, Teind, Tack, Stipend Catharine Pate, John Dickson, and Robert Dickson petitioned against Lord Swinton's interlocutor, arguing that bygone teinds were cut off by quinquennial prescription. Lady Christian Graham, Executrix, answered through her Commissioner and Factor, responding to this prescription argument.
Grants v. Nicol 1796 Arrestment, Creditor, Contract, Debt, Bankruptcy, Heritor William Grant, Daniel Grant, and Alexander Grant petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of Lord Swinton concerning their claim to payment preference for work completed after Cruickshanks' default under a contract for church construction. David Monypenny, appearing for the respondent Nicol, submitted a memorial arguing that Nicol was entitled to preference over the petitioners in recovering payment for timber supplied under the contract.
Halliday v. Craig's Interlocutor 1793 Tack, Interlocutor, Lease, Aliment, Succession, Heritor William Robertson petitioned the Court on behalf of Halliday to alter Lord Craig’s recent interlocutor against Messrs Riddell and Mr Davidson. The respondents opposed the removal petition, arguing that the lease allowed Ravenscroft to retake possession at Whitsunday after majority with nine months’ notice.
Henry Peirse and Others v. Mrs Elizabeth Ross 1791 Adjudication, Conveyance, Infeftment, Security, Heritor, Reduction Mrs Elizabeth Ross defended her adjudication of multiple Ayrshire lands against objections by Henry Peirse and others, asserting her right as heir and the validity of her Crown charter in response to their claims of prior or superior rights. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Heritors and Patrons of Lochell and Cushny v. Gordon and Reverend of Alford 1794 Teinds, Heritor, Stipend, Presbytery, Succession, Manse The heritors and patrons of Lochell and Cushny pursued an action against Gordon and the Reverend of Alford seeking to annex the parish of Lochell to Cushny, arguing that the union was necessary to relieve their financial burden and provide adequate stipend and accommodation for the minister. The proprietor of the lands of Linturk maintained that the proposed annexation should not impose immediate expense upon him without future equivalent. The dispute presented the question of whether the annexation could proceed without subjecting individual proprietors to such immediate burdens.
Heritors of Ardnamurchan v. Campbell 1796 Teinds, Stipend, Heritor, Augmentation, Interlocutor, Tack The Heritors of Ardnamurchan, represented by Sir James Riddell, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the stipend of the Reverend Alexander Campbell, alleging that the allowance was excessive and improperly distributed. Campbell answered, defending the stipend against these claims.
Heritors of Bourtie v. Minister of Bourtie 1798 Teinds, Stipend, Aliment, Augmentation, Heritor, Interlocutor The heritors of Bourtie petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor augmenting the stipend of their minister, the Rev. William Smith, contending that the sum awarded was excessive. Smith answered, defending the augmentation, and subsequently lodged duplies also requesting alteration of the interlocutor.
Heritors of Kirkcudbright v. Birtwhistle 1790 Teinds, Adjudication, Disposition, Prescription, Heritor, Tack The Heritors of Kirkcudbright sought to establish a scheme of locality for the lands of Balmae against William Birtwhistle, who claimed the teinds of those lands and objected to the proposed arrangement. They petitioned the Court to repel Birtwhistle's objection after Lord Monboddo pronounced an interlocutor adverse to their scheme, and Birtwhistle answered while maintaining his claim to the teinds. Birtwhistle later petitioned to alter the Court's subsequent interlocutor, and the Heritors, represented by the Earl of Selkirk, answered to resist his teind claim and defend the locality scheme.
Heritors of Lessudden v. Inner-House Interlocuter 1793 Teinds, Stipend, Augmentation, Tack, Communion Elements, Heritor The Duke of Buccleugh and other heritors of Leffudden petitioned the Court to reserve power to restrict the stipend in the event that the parish of Maxton was annexed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Hunter v. Roxburgh 1794 Tack, Teinds, Lease, Aliment, Heritor, Interlocutor The pursuer Hunter petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, seeking a finding that he was entitled to the ipsa corpora of the vicarage-teinds specified in his libel, or alternatively requesting letters of incident diligence for further evidence. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Inhabitants of the Parish of Crailing v. Hunter 1791 Prescription, Heritor, Adjudication, Inhibition, Aliment, Thirlage The inhabitants of the Parish of Crailing petitioned as pursuers in May 1791 to overturn a recent interlocutor against the defender Mr. Hunter, citing ancestral burial rights and a 1763 Sheriff judgment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
John Scott and Others v. The College of Glasgow 1792 Teinds, Valuation, Heritor, Teind, Tack, Thirlage John Scott of Heatherieknow and others pursued the Principal and Professors of the College of Glasgow regarding the payment of valued teinds in victual. The College petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor on 28 May 1792, submitting a reclaiming petition, and Scott and others answered on 11 October 1792, responding to the demand for payment.
John Smith v. Marion Wilson, and Others 1791 Succession, Aliment, Heirship Moveables, Heritor, Sasine, Recompence John Smith petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Justice Clerk regarding a garden at Muirend. Marion Wilson, wife of Robert Mann, and others answered, asserting that the garden was not a præcipuum and thus not entitled to exclusive claim by the eldest sister. The litigation turned on whether the property constituted a præcipuum subject to the eldest sister's exclusive right.
John Ure, and other Heritors within the Royalty of the Burgh of Forfar v. Patrick Carnegy, and Others, Heritors of the Landward District of the Parish of Forfar 1792 Decreet-Arbitral, Heritor, Burgh, Teinds, Contract, Debt John Ure and the other heritors within the royalty of the burgh of Forfar pursued Patrick Carnegy and the other heritors of the landward district of the parish regarding the method of dividing the church. The pursuers argued that the church ought to be divided in proportion to population, while the defenders maintained that it should be divided according to valued rent as settled by Lord Coalston's decree. Both parties presented informations to the Court setting forth these competing claims.
Lamont v. The Heritors of Urr 1796 Teinds, Augmentation, Stipend, Ranking and Sale, Heritor, Interlocutor The Reverend Dr. David Lamont pursued the heritors of the parish of Urr to remit an interlocutor approving their scheme of locality, asserting that he held a proper heritable right to the teinds. The heritors petitioned the court, arguing that Lamont’s right had been acquired pendente lite and was therefore protected by the principle of nihil innovandum. Lamont answered their petition, contesting this argument.
Macdonald v. Macarthur 1791 Debt, Succession, Executor, Aliment, Next of Kin, Heritor D. Macdonald, as executor qua nearest of kin, argued that he held a clear right to recover from Captain Neil Macarthur the balance of a debt due to the estate. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
MacLaggan v. Heritors of Melrose 1780 Aliment, Heritor, Reduction, Glebe, Suspension, Interlocutor Digitization in Progress
Marjoribanks and Ramsay v. Spottiswoods 1795 Tack, Adjudication, Heritor, Lease, Possession, Removing Marjoribanks and Ramsay raised an action to remove Spottiswoods from Hallyards farm after the lease expired, alleging that the defenders refused to vacate despite implied notice and prior conduct indicating an intent to leave. The defenders maintained that no lawful intimation had been given forty days prior to Whitsunday as required by the tack. The litigation turned on whether the statutory or conventional notice period for removal had been satisfied.
Mary, &c Stewarts v. Sir John Scott and Others 1795 Teinds, Stipend, Patronage, Charter, Possession, Heritor Miss Mary, Helen, and Isabella Stewarts of Barnhills pursued Sir John Scott for a conveyance of the teinds of Ancrum upon payment of six years' purchase, contending that Scott held the teinds only as patron under the Act 1690 and thus could be compelled to convey. Scott defended on the ground that his charters conveyed an heritable right to the teinds, not merely patronage.
Maxwell v. Earl of Hopetoun 1798 Teinds, Stipend, Heritor, Patronage, Parish, Augmentation James Earl of Hopetoun petitioned the Court to alter Lord Ankerville's interlocutor, arguing that teinds from lands belonging to Sir William Maxwell of Springkell, Baronet, should be allocated for a ministerial stipend despite free teinds remaining in the parish. Maxwell answered the petition, resisting the Earl's claim that his teinds should be appropriated while unallocated teinds were still available elsewhere in the parish.
Michael M'Culloch v. William Allen 1791 Presbytery, Jurisdiction, Appeal, Heritor, Aliment, Statute The Reverend Mr M'Culloch pursued William Allan, schoolmaster of Bothwell, regarding a Synod sentence that had found Allan unqualified for his office. Allan petitioned the Court to remit the sentence, and M'Culloch responded with information arguing that sentences of Presbyteries on schoolmasters were subject to review by superior ecclesiastical courts.
Minister of Lochgoilhead v. The Ministers of Inveraray 1791 Teinds, Stipend, Parish, Heritor, Augmentation, Aliment The minister of Lochgoilhead sued the ministers of Inveraray regarding the allocation of 38½ bolls of meal annually from the teinds of Glenshira lands, which the Lochgoilhead minister claimed were reserved for his stipend by a 1650 decree notwithstanding the lands’ annexation to Inveraray. Heritors including the Duke of Argyll and Lieutenant-General John Campbell petitioned the Court to revise the December 1790 interlocutor that had allocated the stipend to Lochgoilhead, seeking to avoid double payment and retroactive augmentation from 1787, while the Inveraray ministers likewise petitioned to alter the interlocutor in their favor. The Lochgoilhead minister replied that the annexation was only quoad sacra and did not discharge the lands from liability for his stipend, and the parties disputed whether any augmentation should run from the date of summons or the interlocutor.
Ministers of Kingbarns v. Hay, et al 1793 Glebe, Heritor, Teinds, Succession, Charter, Presbytery The ministers of Kingbarns, by the Reverend James Beatson, pursued David Balfour Hay of Leys and Randerston and other heritors concerning the designation of glebe lands for the parish. The heritors initially argued that glebe must be drawn from church lands rather than temporal lands, which they claimed were exempt from such burdens, while Beatson contended that temporal lands adjacent to the kirk and manse could properly be designated. Following an adverse interlocutor, Beatson petitioned for its alteration, and subsequent pleadings saw Hay insist that glebe must be designed from Fallside lands before Newton lands under statutory order, the College of St Andrews defend Fallside's exemption based on parliamentary charters of 1587 and 1693, and both the ministers' representatives and other heritors submit answers addressing the liability of temporal lands and the validity of the Presbytery's designation.
Mitchell v. Douglas and Baillie 1 of 2 1796 Teinds, Stipend, Aliment, Valuation, Heritor, Statute Archibald Lord Douglas and Dame Elisabeth Baillie of Lamington, defenders, petitioned the Court to alter its 1793 interlocutor modifying the minister's stipend in victual. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Moray v. Heritors of Blackford 1796 Tack, Teinds, Interlocutor, Stipend, Heritor, Patronage Colonel Charles Moray petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor concerning the locality of teinds, arguing that his teinds were not inferior to bishops' teinds and ought to be allocated pari passu. The Heritors of Blackford answered, contending that the locality was erroneous and that the teinds were not bishop's teinds. Moray replied, reiterating his claim regarding the status of his teinds, and the Heritors duplied, maintaining that the teinds were not exempt from augmentation because they were not bishop's teinds.