Lease.

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: Tack

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Alexander Bennet v. David Maxwell	1787	Tack, Arrestment, Debt, Lease, Rent, Sasine	Alexander Bennet, as pursuer, challenged a tenant’s missive as invalid for lacking formality or stamp, and David Maxwell, as defender, responded asserting the missive’s validity under pacta esse servanda. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Alexander Bruce v. The Representatives of John Stein	1792	Succession, Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Tack, Cautioner	Alexander Bruce pursued the representatives of John Stein for a debt arising from a 1770 bond involving Robert Stein, with trustees and spouses' portions also forming part of the dispute. The defenders resisted the action, leading Bruce and his trustee Alexander Abercromby to argue that the defenders, as representatives of the deceased John Stein, remained liable for the bond obligation.
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.
Archibald Cooper v. Sir William Maxwell	1775	Tack	In this case, the parties disputed the boundaries of tack that included a lime-work. Archibald Cooper alleged that Sir William Maxwell of Calderwood had encroached on his tack, and therefore sought to have Maxwell's work enjoined.
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.
Belsches v. Paterson and Anderson	1786	Tack, Thirlage, Interlocutor, Decreet-Arbitral, Charter, Reduction	Robert Belsches pursued the action against Mrs Mary Paterson and Alexander Farquharson regarding the extent of thirlage over the lands of Greenyards. Belsches argued that the thirlage did not extend to wheat or barley, while Paterson and Farquharson maintained that the lands of Easter Greenyards were thirled to the mill of Skeoch for omnia grana crescentia.
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.
Cameron v. Lord Craig's Interlocutor	1797	Succession, Tack, Multiple-Poinding, Lease, Warrandice, Interlocutor	Ewen Cameron sought reimbursement of court and House of Lords expenses incurred in defending against lease claims brought by Helen and Janet Cameron, the daughters of his deceased father John Cameron, regarding the disincumbering of lands. He petitioned against Lord Craig’s interlocutor refusing to allow retention of these costs, proceeding against the trustees and the daughters, whereupon Helen’s counsel argued the claim was procedurally barred and legally unsound. Cameron subsequently lodged a reclaiming petition against the Inner-House interlocutor.
Campbell v. Arbuthnott	1793	Lease, Rent, Tack, Succession, Homologation, Possession	James Campbell, tenant in Broombank, as pursuer argued that a missive from the Viscount of Arbuthnott dated 1755 did not constitute a valid lease agreement. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Chalmers v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor	1798	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Trustees, Expenses, Tack	Thomas Chalmers petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor issued by Lord Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
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.
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.
Copland v. Ireland	1786	Proof, Interlocutor, Tack, Diligence, Rent, Sequestration	William Ireland petitioned the Court for leave to adduce additional proof and to renew diligence against William Birtwhistle, alleging that William Copland of Gregory had failed to report proof regarding Birtwhistle. Copland answered, responding to the claim that he had neglected to report the proof concerning Birtwhistle.
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.
Donald Campbell v. John Johnston	1793	Tack, Lease, Interlocutor, Possession, Inhibition, Rent	In an action of removing from Middle Craigs, Captain Donald Campbell petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo. John Johnston answered the petition, resisting Campbell's request to overturn the earlier decision.
Duff v. Freeholders of Elgin and Forres	1792	Interlocutor, Freeholder, Res judicata, Tack, Lease, Rent	The Honourable Alexander Duff petitioned the Court to alter its prior interlocutor and restore him to the roll of freeholders for Elgin and Forres. Archibald Duff, Sheriff-clerk of Elgin, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter the same interlocutor. The petitions raised the question of whether the Court should reverse its order removing Alexander Duff from the freeholders' roll.
Duggan v. Wight	1795	Debt, Aliment, Lease, Trust, Tack, Trustee	Francis Duggan pursued Alexander Wight regarding the lands of Kevockmill, contesting Lord Elkgrove's title and claiming that Wight held the property in trust for him, asserting a beneficial interest despite his absence from the conveyance. Wight denied serving as trustee and relied upon rent receipts to reject Duggan's claim, citing contradictions and lack of funds. After the court pronounced an interlocutor against him, Duggan reclaimed; subsequently, Wight petitioned with correspondence disputing ownership, and Duggan answered maintaining his trust claim.
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 Cassillis v. James Finlay, Common Agent for carrying on the Locality of the Stipend of the Parish of Dalrymple	1795	Teinds, Rent, Tack, Stipend, Interlocutor, Valuation
Earl of Northesk & Factor v. Rolland, et al	1797	Lease, Tack, Assignment, Sublease, Rent, Possession
Eliott v. Curries	1796	Debt, Succession, Tack, Lease, Aliment, Rent
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.
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 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.
Fullarton & Fullarton v. Dalrymple	1796	Succession, Deed, Possession, Prescription, Debt, Tack
Gardiner, et al v. Andrews	1788	Debt, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Rent, Fraud	Robert Gardiner, with the concurrence of Ebenezer Marshall and George Arnot, pursued Robert Andrew to have declared void a lease granted by Gardiner to Andrew, alleging that Gardiner had acted under incapacity and that the defender had procured the tack by fraud. Andrew defended the action, maintaining that the lease had been granted freely and voluntarily without undue practice or fraudulent conduct. The litigation proceeded upon competing memorials addressing the validity of the lease and the questions of Gardiner's capacity and Andrew's alleged fraud.
George and Wilsons v. Wilson	1789	Succession, Tack, Aliment, Lease, Trustee, Interest	George, David, and Mary Wilsons, children of the deceased George Wilson, answered the petition of James Wilson concerning Foulden-Newton, maintaining that the petitioner's claims were without foundation and that the case had been fully determined. 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.
Gibson v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor	1795	Tack, Interdict, Damages, Lease, Possession, Interlocutor	Walter Scott petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor that found him liable for expenses only, seeking instead an award of damages for loss caused by an interdict against road access. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Gordon of Cluny v. John Anderson	1801	Lease, Damages, Interlocutor, Tack, Sequestration, Arrestment	Lieutenant-Colonel John Gordon of Cluny raised an action of damages against John Anderson and others, seeking reparation for their failure to use the fodder of the way-going crop in accordance with lease regulations. The defenders lodged additional defences maintaining that the action was incompetent, and subsequently argued that the pursuer had no equitable claim for straw lost due to interdict and that they were entitled to be assoilzied. The litigation concerned the application of lease regulations to the fodder of the last crop following a House of Lords judgment on the interpretation of the lease.
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.
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.
Hepburn and Massow v. Duff and Davidson	1793	Prescription, Tack, Aliment, Thirlage, tenant, Sasine	Robert William Duff and his tenant John Donaldson, defenders in the action by Hepburn and Massow, petitioned against Lord Monboddo's interlocutors. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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 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.
Hugh Montgomery v. Strang, Lennox and Company	1798	Decreet-Arbitral, Tack, Arbitration, Usury, Reduction, Interlocutor	Strang, Lennox and Company, cotton-spinners in Eaglesham, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor respecting their claim for damages against Hugh Montgomery of Bogstown, suspender, arising from a prior loan and arbitration dispute. Montgomery submitted answers opposing the chargers' application.
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.
Inglis v. Gray	1785	Tack	This case was about defender Walter Gray’s tack on the estate of Langwell. Shortly after Walter agreed to the tack, his brother William purchased Langwell. William granted bonds over the estate to Hugh Inglis and John Cartier as security for certain debts. Later, Inglis and Carter initiated court proceedings involving the property, which was sequestered under the supervision of a factor. Inglis also sought to void Walter’s tack or have Walter removed from the estate. Inglis alleged that Walter’s rent was far below the value of the property as stated on a rent roll that Walter had endorsed. Inglis also claimed that the tack would expire soon and that Walter was in arrears on his rent. Walter objected that Inglis’s security right, unlike a full property right, did not entitle him to challenge the tack or remove a tenant; when Inglis attempted to add the factor as a pursuer, Walter argued that this was a procedural irregularity. Walter also argued that William had granted him a new lease and that he was not in arrears on rent.
James Waddel v. John Brown	1794	Tack, Lease, Possession, Succession, Adjudication, Disposition	James Waddel pursued John Brown concerning a lease of burgage subjects, seeking to determine whether such a lease bound a singular successor under the Act of 1449 without regard to the purchaser's knowledge. Waddel, by his agent Robert Craigie, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and either grant decree in terms of the libel or ordain Brown to answer facts and produce correspondence. Brown responded by information, arguing that a lease of burgage subjects was binding against a singular successor under the 1449 Act regardless of whether the purchaser had notice of it.
Janet Barber v. John Caddell	1789	Rent, Possession, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Proof	Janet Barber, relict of James Renny, pursued John Caddell of Cockenzie in a suspension bill alleging he had unlawfully sold her crop and seized her land without authority. Caddell petitioned the Court to remit the suspension, asserting claims of possession and rent arrears against her. Barber answered, defending her suspension and responding to Caddell’s allegations regarding possession and arrears.
John Leslie v. The Earl of Kintore, and Others	1794	Tack, Teinds, Lease, Valuation, Teind, Rent	John Leslie of Balquhain petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor sustaining objections to his proof of teind based on rental value, while the Earl of Kintore and others argued that teind value must be calculated from current tenant rents rather than an overlease granted in 1769. Leslie replied to the defenders' answers, denying their allegations regarding the lease, grassums, and profits. The defenders maintained that the 1769 lease had been granted at below-market value to compensate a creditor and therefore ought not to govern the teind valuation.