1790–1791
DispositionFreeholderCharterSeisinSasineAssignationJames Bruce of Kinnaird petitioned the Court to expunge Sir William Augustus Cunynghame from the freeholders' roll of Stirling, alleging that Cunynghame’s qualification was nominal, fictitious, or held in confidence rather than by real right. Cunynghame answered that his freeholder qualification was genuine and supported by valid titles, a defense joined by David Cunynghame, younger of Livingstone, who asserted that the land titles were fully documented. Bruce replied and Cunynghame duplied, continuing the dispute over whether the enrollment rested on a real or merely nominal qualification.
Documents in this case (13)
- Bruce v. Cunynghame — Petitionand Complaint, 29 Jan 1790January 29, 1790 Petition of Charles Grey asking the Court to order the keepers of the Register of Seisines to insert omitted words in the record of his instrument of seisine
- Sir William Augustus Cunynghame and Robert Hunter v. Hon. Charles Hope — Petitionand Complaint, 13 Nov 1790Nov 13, 1790: Murdoch, Warroch & Co. petition to alter June 1786 interlocutor against Glasgow magistrates over unlawful duty claims.
- Bruce v. Cunynghame — Petitionand Complaint, 13 Nov 1790Petition on Nov 13, 1790 challenging Captain John Hope’s freeholder enrolment in Linlithgow, citing defective land conveyance and nominal claim.
- Bruce v. Cunynghame — Petitionand Complaint, 13 Nov 1790 [3]November 13, 1790 Petition of Sir W. A. Cunynghame and others asking the Court to overturn the enrollment of Lieutenant-Colonel Francis Dundas at a freeholders' meeting in Linlithgow
- Bruce v. Cunynghame — Petitionand Complaint, 13 Nov 1790 [2]November 13, 1790 Petition and Complaint of Sir William Augustus Cunynghame, against Captain Charles Hope, R. N., asking the Court to overturn the freehold enrolment granted at the Michaelmas meeting of Linlithgow freeh…
- Bruce v. Cunynghame — Petitionand Complaint, 4 Feb 1791February 4, 1791 Petition of James Bruce of Kinnaird asking the Court to have Sir William Augustus Cuninghame's name expunged from the freeholders' roll of Stirling
- James Bruce of Kinnaird v. Sir William Augustus Cunynghame — Answers, 22 Feb 1791February 22, 1791 Answers by Sir William Augustus Cunynghame to the petition and complaint of James Bruce of Kinnaird, asserting that his freeholder qualification is real and not nominal, fictitious, or confidential.
- James Bruce v. David Cunynghame — Answers, 22 Feb 1791February 22, 1791 Answers by David Cunynghame, Esq; younger of Livingstone, to the petition and complaint of James Bruce of Kinnaird, Esq; responding that his titles to the lands are valid and fully documented.
- James Bruce v. David Cunningham — Replies, 3 Mar 1791March 3, 1791 Replies by James Bruce, Esq. to the argument of David Cunningham, Esq., referring to prior replies in the case against Sir William Cunningham
- James Bruce v. Sir William Augustus Cuningham — Duplies, 14 Apr 1791April 14, 1791 Duplies for Sir William Augustus Cuningham of Livingston, Baronet, to the replies of James Bruce of Kinnaird, Esquire, denying the charge of nominal and fictitious qualification.
People & places in this case
People involved
- James Bruce — Party
- Mr. James Gray — Party
- Robert Hunter, Esq. of Thurston — Party
- William Erskine, Lord Kinneder — Party
- James Newbigging — Party
- John Fleming, Sixth Earl of Wigton — Party
- Dr. Alexander Monro — Party
- John Barr — Party
- John Izat — Party
- John Renton, of Chesterbank — Advocate for Party
- John Ferrier — Advocate for Party
- Charles Hay, of Newton, Lord Newton — Advocate for Party
- James Burnett, Lord Monboddo — Lord Ordinary
