AI-transcribed

An estate for a person's own life.

Definition source
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: Liferent

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Cunnynghame v. William Muir of Caldwall 1760 Possession, Disposition, Retour, Charter, Liferent, Feu duties Alexander Cunnynghame pursued a claim to the Five Pound Land of Craigbeat and Kersemeadow against William Muir of Caldwall, who objected on the basis of tax-roll and vassal land distinctions and argued that Cunnynghame’s title was nominal and fictitious and that he lacked possession. Muir replied to Cunnynghame’s answers, insisting that the pursuer held neither valid title nor actual possession of the lands. Cunnynghame defended his liferent-right to the properties, rebutting the objections by citing historical retours and demonstrating vassal possession.
Alexander Farquharson v. The Governor and Company of Undertakers for raising Thames water in York-buildings 1775 Landlord and tenant, Liferent, Rent, Lease, Tack, Adjudication The York Building Company, defender, leased the mansion and property of Fingask to John Drummond of Megginch for a term of 99 years. Pursuer Alexander Farquharson subsequently acquired the right to the lease. The mansion had fallen into a state of disrepair, and Farquharson sued the Company, alleging that the Company was required to pay for repairs. The Company argued that the lease was written specifically to absolve it of this responsibility.
Alexander Gordon of Culvenan, and Jean Macculloch, Elder Daughter of John Macculloch, Elder of Barholm v. James Dewar of Vogrie, John Macculloch Elder, and John Macculloch Younger, of Barholm 1771 Debt, Adjudication, Tailzie, Entail, Succession, Liferent John Macculloch's estate, which encompassed a considerable land-estate in the stewarty of Kirkcudbright and shire of Wigtown, was subject to a settlement containing strict prohibitive, irritant, and resolutive clauses. This case is a dispute over inheritance claims following Macculloch's death.
Alexander Irvine v. George Earl and others 1769 Debt, Succession, Adjudication, Entail, Bankruptcy, Liferent Alexander Irvine of Drum, represented by his curators, pursued George Earl of Aberdeen, Mrs. Margaret Duff of Culter, and Alexander Udney of Udny, her husband, for an order to produce writs and deeds. The defenders filed answers to the petition in which they responded to the pursuer's demand for production.
Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire 1791 Freeholder, Adjudication, Liferent, Trust, Prescription, Election contest Alexander Milne, as pursuer, petitioned the Court in June 1791 and again by reclaiming petition in December 1791 to alter a recent interlocutor in his action against the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire. Captain John Gordon subsequently presented his own petition requesting the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the same cause.
Alexander Watson v. John Pyot 1800 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Entail, Contract This case concerned a father’s power to dispose of an estate that was the subject of a marriage contract, to the detriment of his son by that marriage. The son, Alexander Watson Jr., was the pursuer. A marriage contract between his parents, Alexander Watson Sr. and Jane Fulertoun, required Alexander Sr. to resign the estate of Turin to himself and the heirs-male of the marriage (and failing that, to certain substitutes). While still living, Alexander Sr. gave Alexander Jr. a portion of the lands included in the contract, along with certain lands that he acquired after making the contract. Subsequently, Alexander Sr. executed a series of deeds curtailing his son’s right to the estate, including a disposition of the remaining lands in favor of John Pyot, a distant relative. Alexander Jr. sought to have these deeds set aside on the ground that they violated the marriage contract. However, John Pyot claimed that Alexander Jr. had relinquished his claim by accepting the previous conveyance from his father.
Allardice, et all v. Allardice 1795 Succession, Liferent, Disposition, Infeftment, Heritor, Entail
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.
Archibald Douglas of Douglas v. Douglas, Duke of Hamilton 1778 Deed, Aliment, Succession, Liferent, Sequestration, Contract This case constitutes an appeal to the House of Lords and Court of Session regarding an infamous earlier case, dubbed "The Douglas Cause." That case, which was settled by the House of Lords in 1769, revolved around the contested inheritance of the vast wealth of the Duke of Douglas, who died in 1761. The heir-male to the Duke of Douglas, the Duke of Hamilton, contested the property claims of Archibald Douglas, the son of the Duke of Douglas' sister, from many angles. In this last-ditch appeal, brought before the Court of Session and House of Lords, the Duke of Hamilton asserted that a 1744 deed of revocation put forth by the late Duke of Douglas was in fact a settlement of succession that disinherited his sister, Lady Jane Douglas, from all properties that had been passed to the family through investiture. On December 19, 1778 the Court of Session found that the Duke of Hamilton had no claim under the deed of October 16th, 1744, declaring it a deed of revocation and not of settlement. On March 27, 1779 the House of Lords dismissed an appeal of the Duke of Hamilton. The memorials submitted to the Court of Session in October of 1778 contain a history of the Angus and Douglas families and their investitures, and an overview of similar cases to "The Douglas Cause."
Belchier v. Palmer 1776 Debt, Estate, Adjudication, Bankruptcy, Liferent, Succession In 1759, William Belchier purchased the estate of Grange in Scotland. Belchier died without children, leaving his estate to his older brother, John Belchier, in liferent and to his nephew, James-William Belchier, in fee. Several creditors of the decedent William Belchier brought actions of constitution and adjudication against his estate. Defenders Charlton Palmer and William Walker, creditors of William Belchier, sought a sale of William Belchier's estate and a ranking of the creditors. (The defenders mistakenly brought the action only against the liferenter, John Belchier, but later amended the action to include the apparent heir, James-William Belchier.) To expedite the process and reserve some of the estate for themselves, the pursuers also brought an action for the sale and ranking of the estate. This led to a dispute concerning which action—the creditors' or the apparent heirs'—should proceed.
Bell v. Edgar 1769 Liferent, Aliment, Lease, Succession, Deed, Trustee Andrew Bell, Tackman of Spylaw, and his assignees, as pursuers, argued that a bond granted by Richard Edgar was valid and not subject to reduction. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bromfield v. Paterson et al 1786 Succession, Debt, Liferent, Entail, Tailzie, Infeftment Stephen Bromfield pursued Mary Paterson, Alexander Campbell, and Henry Campbell regarding the estate of Eccles, contending that the defenders were bound by an entail and could not claim the lands without limitations. The defenders argued that the entail of 1743 and its 1755 amendment bound the succession to the barony of Eccles and lands of Stow, and further maintained that a deed of 1758 continued the prior entail, citing the precedent in Lowrie v. Spalding.
Cameron v. Cameron 1792 Lease, Succession, Tack, Aliment, Liferent, Adjudication Ro. Craigie petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutors sustaining claims to the lands of Laick and Branahawn. The respondent argued that the lease of those lands secured by her father ought to be upheld notwithstanding contested settlements and allegations of hardship.
Campbell v. Macdougal 1783 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Warrandice, Reduction, Creditor The Campbells petitioned to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor in their action against Macdougal regarding a £200 bond owed to Isobel Campbell. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Chatto v. Officers of the State, and Potts 1784 Clause, Ultimus Haeres, Substitute and Conditional Institute, Liferent, Succession, Trust While his natural son William was abroad in Jamaica, John Duncanson of Maxpoffle executed a settlement. The settlement granted Maxpoffle to certain trustees for William’s benefit, and failing William, for the benefit of John Chatto. The settlement also provided that the trustees should denude themselves of their right to the land, in favor of William, upon his return to the country. William returned to Scotland after his father’s death, and the trustees transferred Maxpoffle to him. William later died without issue, and his wife Gallacina Potts was advised that the estate fell to the crown. She therefore applied to the Barons of Exchequer for a gift of bastardy. John Chatto intervened, laying claim to the lands by virtue of John Duncanson’s settlement; Chatto was later permitted to bring a declaratory proceeding before the Court of Session. There, Potts argued that Chatto was a conditional institute rather than a substitute, meaning that he was entitled to inherit only if William predeceased John.
Countess Dowager of Glencairn v. William Cunningham Cunningham Graham 1800 Debt, Tailzie, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Deed This case determined whether an heir of entail was statutorily bound to honor a liferent provision granted by an earlier heir, John Cunningham, Earl of Glencairn, to his wife, Isabella Erskine, Countess of Glencairn. The provision was not directly effectual against the estate because Earl John died without making up a feudal title (i.e., as heir apparent). After Earl John’s death, the estate passed to Robert Graham and then to his son William Cunningham Cunningham Graham. The Countess of Glencairn brought an action against William seeking to effectuate the liferent provision pursuant to the act 1695, c. 24.
Coventry v. Lord Hailes' Interlocutor 1787 Succession, Legacy, Liferent, Aliment, Testament, Debt Robert Coventry presented a petition challenging an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Hailes. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Dick v. Drysdale 1800 Tailzie, Liferent, Lease, Sasine, Tack, Interlocutor Sir Alexander held Prestonfield and Corstorphine under several strict entails dating to 1720, one of which prevented any heir from setting tacks for more than one lifetime. Sir Alexander's father, Sir William, set a tack in Drysdale that John Dick, as tutor to his nephew, sought to have voided. An Act of Parliament allowed certain types of tacks in contravention of entail clauses, but Dick maintained that the statute did not apply in this case.
Dickie v. Lord Henderland's Interlocutor 1789 Reduction, Succession, Improbation, Feu duties, Disposition, Liferent Patrick Dickie, eldest lawful son of William Dickie and pursuer, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor against Lord Henderland. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Dr William Park of Langlands, v. Robert Craig in Barkip 1771 Land dispute, Title, Adjudication, Creditor, Disposition, Liferent William Park of Langlands, pursuer, claims that the lands of Barkip belong to him. Robert Craig Sr., defender, claims that he has the right to possess half of the lands of Barkip based on a heritable bond dating back to 1726. William Craig, brother of Robert Craig Sr. had the other half but after his death, his oldest son Robert Craig Jr. inherited it. William Park of Mainshill, the pursuer's father, granted a heritable bond to John Hamilton of Auchinvole. This bond apparently stipulated that Park's ancestors would give up the lands of Barkip if the bond was not paid on time. The bond was due in Martinmas 1732. Park claims that the bond was paid in part. He argues that the defenders only have an encumbrance on the lands of Barkip in the form of a debt, and not a right in the lands themselves. Park sets forth a distinction between "termly failzies" (real property obligations) and "ordinary penalties" (personal obligations). Park alleges that the process that put Craig in possession of the lands of Barkip was improper, thus he brings an action of reduction and declarator of extinction of the adjudication to defender.
Drummonds v. Seton, et al 1794 Bankruptcy, Debt, Liferent, Creditor, Trustees, Sequestration Robert and Henry Drummonds, creditors of Hugh Seton, disputed with Archibald Seton, Hugh’s heir-male, over whether the liferent of a dividend from Hugh’s insolvent estate belonged to the creditors at large or to Archibald as heir. The Drummonds argued that Archibald could not rank for dividend until the full £8000 marriage provision was paid, or that he could be ranked for no more than the value of his father’s liferent-right as a debt in diem, while Archibald petitioned to reclaim the dividend, contending that trustees had to be satisfied from the marriage contract debt before creditors could claim the liferent. Robert Blair separately petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, and the parties further disputed whether Hugh’s liferent right was vested and unconditional or conditional upon payment of the marriage provision.
Duncan Stewart v. Lieutenant Alexander Graeme 1796 Succession, Aliment, Trustee, Interlocutor, Creditor, Liferent While working abroad in the service of the East India Company, Lieutenant Duncan Stewart remitted £1000 to Scotland. He assigned a power of attorney to William Stewart and John Taylor, allowing them to manage the money. Lieutenant Stewart directed the men to invest his money in heritable securities and give the interest to certain family members. He died in India, leaving a holographic memorandum of a will that provided for the money in Scotland to be “applied in the manner already directed.” Lieutenant Stewart’s executors initiated a court proceeding to determine who was entitled to the £1000. The court determined that the fund was heritable property that should pass to Lieutenant Stewart’s heir-at-law, his sister Elizabeth Stewart Bowman. Bowman then died, leaving the residue of her estate to her natural son Lieutenant Alexander Graeme. Lieutenant Graeme claimed that he was entitled to the £1000 based on Mrs. Bowman’s will. However, Duncan Stewart, Lieutenant Stewart’s cousin in Jamaica, claimed that he was the Lieutenant’s heir-at-law and should inherit the money because the £1000 was a heritable subject and Bowman never made up a title to it. Case documents include a reproduction of Lieutenant Stewart's detailed memorandum disposing of his personal effects.
Fotheringham and Hume v. Ogilvie and Others 1795 Succession, Debt, Aliment, Liferent, Disposition, Creditor William Fotheringham and Hume pursued claims to the Balfour estate against Ogilvie and others, petitioning the Court in 1795 and again in 1797 to alter interlocutors respecting the succession. The respondents defended these interlocutors, maintaining that under a marriage contract the estate had vested in fee-simple in the second son, who predeceased his parents, thereby excluding the pursuers' claims as heirs. The litigation turned on whether the second son's fee-simple right to the Balfour estate took precedence over the pursuers' asserted rights in the Powrie succession.
Francis Fraser v. David Middleton 1793 Tack, Infeftment, Disposition, Succession, Liferent, Lease David Middleton, defender, argued that a lease obtained under a valid personal grant from an apparent heir must be preferable to an infeftment void by reason of non habente potestatem. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Fraser v. Lord Woodhouselee 1802 Election, freeholder right, Succession, Entail, Liferent, Valuation Simon Fraser, a freeholder of Inverness-shire, filed a complaint with the Court of Session objecting to Alexander Fraser Tytler’s claimed eligibility to vote for a knight of Inverness-shire. Tytler’s claim rested on his wife’s status as a freeholder of that county. In the course of the proceedings, Simon Fraser died, and William Fraser, another of the freeholders of Inverness-shire, took up the complaint. The debate centered on the 7th clause of the 12th of Queen Anne and the meanings of the words "property" and "superiority." In the end the Court repelled the complaints of the pursuers and upheld Lord Woodhouselee's enrollment and vote.
Gilbert MacPherson v. John Arrot 1766 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Trust, Sequestration Gilbert MacPherson, Writer in Inverary, pursued John Arrot of Foffarty regarding a debt, and Arrot answered the petition, responding to the grounds of debt and the negotiability of the writings. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Grant v. Campbell 1765 Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Trust, Trustee, Assignment Grant, as executor, sued the Campbell heirs for an unpaid marriage settlement that included a mortgage and annuity, the dispute turning on an incomplete conveyance and questions of executor liability. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Haldane v. Duncan 1802 Deed, Liferent, Property rights After the death of Mr. George Haldane, his widow, Margaret Haldane, claimed that she had the life-rent right over the lands of Gleneagles, Haldane, and Aberuthven. Margaret said that her husband had left her such property rights which he had inherited from his uncle, Robert Haldane. The defendant, Viscount Duncan, objected the petition arguing that the transfer to Margaret was irregular and contrary to the conditions to settle the succession to real property.
Helen Fergus or M'Leish, and Husband v. Isobel Fergus or Izat, and Husband 1830 Debt, Succession, Aliment, Trust, Disposition, Liferent Helen Fergus or M'Leish and her husband John M'Leish pursued Isobel Fergus or Izat and her husband John Izat for exhibition of debts and payment from the estate of James Fergus. The defenders counterclaimed that prior payments they had made for M'Leish's debts exceeded the £300 legacy and half of the moveable estate due to them, leaving a balance of £60 1 3 owed by the pursuers. The pursuers maintained the validity of an 1814 settlement and denied allegations of preferential treatment, while the defenders subsequently reclaimed against an interlocutor of the court.
Hill v. Abercromby 1793 Defamation, Advocation, Counsel, Interlocutor, Liferent, Jurisdiction Robert Hill, tailor in Potterrow, pursued Charles Abercromby, writer in Edinburgh, asking the Court to remit a protestation taken out by Abercromby after the summons was called and appearance entered, and to inflict censure for malpractice. Hill presented replies to Abercromby’s answers, disputing the respondent’s conduct in filing the protestation at that procedural stage.
Horn v. Reid 1787 Deed, Teinds, Witness, Disposition, Debt, Liferent Mrs Alison Horn pursued John Reid, a cooper in Whitby, to reduce deeds executed in May 1779, alleging that they had been improperly framed and delivered without her knowledge or consent. Reid defended the validity of a deed subscribed by Horn, contending that it could not be reduced upon the sole testimony of Kilgour that he had not witnessed the subscription at the time of execution.
Hunter v. Creditors of Hunter 1794 Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Disposition, Debt, Creditor The child of Andrew Hunter and Euphemia Muir pursued a declaration of his right to the fee of lands heritably settled by his mother under a post-nuptial contract, while the creditors of Hunter defended the action by contending that the contract had conveyed a fee to Andrew Hunter rather than a mere liferent and that his infeftment should therefore be upheld. Alexander Nairne, Accountant, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, whereupon the defenders argued that a post-nuptial settlement granting liferent to one spouse and fee to the children procreated between them did not render the liferent a fee to the exclusion of those children.
Hunter v. Smith 1793 Debt, Liferent, Arrestment, Succession, Creditor, Bankruptcy As pursuers, Captain Patrick Hunter and Robert Hunter, Esq. petitioned the Court to alter Lord Craig's interlocutor in their case against Smith. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Jacobina Macfarlane v. Alexander, Richard and Janet Spence 1770 Contract of marriage, Succession, Liferent, Aliment, Executor, Creditor Archibald Marcfarlane married Elizabeth Spence as a result of a contract entered into between both spouses and Elizabeth's father William Spence. Archibald Macfarlane became bound to provide for his wife and future children. Archibald Marcfarlane made a further settlement of his estate, with a disposition in favor of his wife and children, and failing of them, to the petitioner Jacobina Macfarlane, his only sister. When Archibald Macfarlane died, Elizabeth Spence, his widow, took the whole of her husband's writs into her possession. When Elizabeth Spence died, Jacobina Macfarlane, pursuer, claimed that by Spence's death the right of succession devolved upon her. However, Elizabeth's brothers and sister, Alexander, Richard and Janet Spence, seized the writs and confirmed themselves executors. Thus, the pursuer claimed her right to be the heir of her brother and alleged that defenders have no foundation to alter the effects of her brother's disposition.
James Cheap v. William Morehead [Copy 1] 1790 Liferent, Sasine, Disposition, Sale, Valuation, Election Digitization and Description in Progress.
Additional documents in this case can be found in the duplicate case record in UVALL Box 16 and in UVALL Box 22 - Vol. 03.
James Cheap v. William Morehead [Copy 3] 1790 Liferent, Disposition, Valuation, Sasine, Infeftment, Feu duties Documents available. Full description in progress. Related documents to this case are located in UVALL Box 16 and UVALL Box 22 - Vol. 02.
James Sinclair v. Robert Anderson and Others 1771 Liferent, Succession, Sequestration, Assignment, Fiar, Contract of marriage In 1705, James Fraser concluded a marriage contract with Margaret Torry, the daughter of John Torry, who held lands and tenants in Elgin. Margaret was heir to her father's property, and the marriage contract granted James the right to the rents, fees, duties, etc. of the Elgin tenants for his life should Margaret pre-decease him. Margaret and James had three children, and by the time of this lawsuit only their daughter, Margaret Fraser, remained alive. In the 1720s, James's financial affairs began to fall in disarray and he attempted to sell his wife's heritable lands, triggering a series of legal disputes resulting in the land's sequestration. After the death of James and his eldest son, John, James's creditors laid claim to the Elgin rents and fees. James Sinclair challenged the creditors in the Court of Session, arguing that his grandfather's right to his grandmother's heritable lands ceased with his death, devolved on his now dead uncle, and subsequently now fell to his mother. In other words, the heritable lands ceased to be part of James Fraser's estate when he died and reverted to his wife's estate, subsequently inherited by her children. Sinclair contended that as the heritable lands constituted part of James Fraser's estate in life only, his creditors had no claim to them after his death. The Court of Session agreed and found for James Sinclair.
Janet Boswell v. Elisabeth Boswell 1764 Debt, Liferent, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Disposition Janet Boswell of Northern Glassmont pursued Elisabeth Boswell regarding the estate of David Boswell of Norther Glaffmount, disputing whether Elisabeth's liferent right extinguished a prior annuity to Walter Boswell and whether Janet could retain £200 sterling to answer Elisabeth's annuity charged upon a 12,000 merk debt. Janet petitioned the Court to alter interlocutors regarding the annuity burden and her right of retention, while Elisabeth sought payment of annuity arrears and future instalments, asserting that David Boswell had intended to burden Janet and her husband with the obligation. The parties exchanged answers disputing the intended allocation of the annuity burden and the priority of the competing claims.
John and Ursula Smith v. James Marshall 1779 Disposition, Debt, Succession, Creditor, Liferent, Aliment Upon the sale of Drongan to Mungo Smith in 1765, the children of the late John Smith and Ursula Hamilton had right to one eleventh of the price. Their uncles and tutors, Thomas Hamilton of Overtoun and John Hamilton of Dowan, lodged this sum in Virginia with their firm John Hamilton and Company. In 1775 this money was lost when the firm's assets were locked up, and the Smith siblings brought action against John Hamilton of Dowan; Archibald Hamilton, the son of the late Thomas Hamilton of Overtoun; and the children of the late John Marshall, for recovery of this sum. John Marshall had served as cautioner to the 1763 bond for Drongan granted by the Hamiltons to their pupils. He died in 1774, having conveyed the bulk of his subjects to his younger children, William and Jean, although his eldest son, James, held the general disposition. The action came before Lord Braxfield, who repelled James Marshall's defenses but then reported the case. In December of 1779 the Court ruled that James Marshall was liable to the pursuers for the debt, but only in proportion with the other onerous debts of his father. Upon receiving a petition and answers, the Court ruled again in July of 1780, adhering to their previous interlocutor.
John Gordon v. Dugald Gilchrist 1790 Succession, Feu duties, Disposition, Debt, Liferent, Freeholder John Gordon pursued Dugald Gilchrist to overturn the freeholders' decision expunging his name from the roll of Sutherland freeholders. Gilchrist objected that Gordon's liferent-right of superiority had been extinguished by his father's sale of Pulrossie and an obligation to Dempster freeing the purchaser from feudal dues. Gordon replied that his freehold right remained unaffected by his father's transaction, while Gilchrist duplied that Gordon was bound by his father's deeds and obligations.
John Johnston v. William Morehead 1790 Liferent, Disposition, Tailzie, Charter, Entail, Succession John Johnston sought to overturn the enrollment of William Morehead junior as a freeholder in Stirling county, alleging that Morehead’s liferent qualification was nominal and fictitious. Morehead defended his title as valid and absolute, maintaining that the conveyance was not revocable and that the entail did not entitle Johnston to recall the liferent right. The parties exchanged replies and duplies, followed by a condescendence and answers debating whether the liferent was absolute, and Johnston subsequently noted a reclaiming petition regarding the non-existence of a deed of entail dated November 28, 1786.
John Melville v. TheCreditors of George Smiton 1794 Infeftment, Liferent, Succession, Ranking of Creditors, Security, Conveyance John Melville petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had held void the infeftment in favor of George Gordon's heirs, opposing the creditors of George Smiton. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
John Miller, &c. v. Mrs A. Moodie or Anderson 1829 Creditor, Disposition, Succession, Liferent, Adjudication, Interlocutor John Miller, William Roy, and William Thomson raised an action against Mrs Amelia Moodie or Anderson to compel her to complete a valid title and grant discharge of a heritable bond previously assigned to her. The defender denied that she was bound to make up titles to her children's heirs for the discharge of the bond, and subsequently submitted a reclaiming note seeking recall of the interlocutor and her assoilziement. The litigation concluded when William Harley, tutor-at-law for John Anderson, minuted that the pupil had no interest in the bond and consented to the completion of title at the defender's expense.
John Minto and John Gavin v. John Kirkpatrick 1831 Succession, Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Liferent, Tack John Minto and John Gavin pursued John Kirkpatrick for a decree compelling exhibition of title-deeds and accounts relating to Margaret Sime's inheritance and annuity rights. They reclaimed against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Medwyn.
Knox v. Marshall 1765 Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Debt, Liferent, Sasine John Knox of Cartmore petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary that had found him entitled to mails and duties. Jasper Marshal answered, contesting Knox’s arguments regarding a heritable bond and its discharge.
Lady Clementina Fleming v. The Hon. Charles Elphinstone et al 1797 Succession, Debt, Tailzie, Entail, Liferent, Aliment Lady Clementina Fleming pursued the Honourable Charles Elphinstone and the other Heirs of Entail concerning the 1741 entail of the earldom of Wigton. The defenders contended that Lady Clementina was barred from challenging the entail's validity, while she argued that the entail could not oblige her to assume the surname of Fleming or bear the arms of Wigton, as the marriage contract had waived those requirements.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 648)