1794–1795
FeuSuccessionFeu dutiesInfeftmentAssignmentDispositionBrisbane, as pursuer, argued that Lord Sempill, as defender and singular successor, was bound to pay a year's rent for entry rather than the two shillings Scots claimed by the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.AI-generated
Documents in this case (2)
- Thomas Brisbane v. Lord Sempill — Memorial, 8 Feb 1794February 8, 1794 Memorial of the pursuer, arguing that Lord Sempill, as singular successor, is bound to pay a year's rent for entry, not merely two shillings Scots as claimed by the defender.
- Thomas Brisbane v. Hugh Lord Sempill — Memorial, 17 May 1794May 17, 1794 Memorial of Lord Sempill, arguing that the entry of singular successors is not taxed by the title-deeds as claimed by the pursuer
