1797
ContractServitudeDecreet-ArbitralInterlocutorPossessionSuspensionJames Robertson petitioned the Court of Session to challenge a 1761 arbitral decree affirming the Duke of Atholl’s ownership of seven shealings, arguing that the underlying 1716 contract was void under statute and contrary to public interest. The Duke defended the contractual and arbitral rulings, maintaining his title to the forest lands while acknowledging that the decrees reserved limited pasturage rights to Lude under specified conditions.AI-generated
Documents in this case (2)
- James Robertson v. Duke of Atholl — AnswersDuke of Atholl defends contractual and arbitral rulings granting him forest lands ownership while reserving Lude’s limited pasturage rights under specified conditions.
- Robertson v. Inner-House Interlocutor — Petition, 17 May 1797Petitioner James Robertson challenges a 1761 arbitral decree affirming Duke of Athol’s ownership of seven shealings, arguing the 1716 contract was void under statute and contrary to public interest.
People & places in this case
People involved
- Henry Erskine — Advocate for Party
- Sir Patrick Murray, of Ochtertyre — Lord Ordinary
- Sir Alexander Muir Mackenzie, of Delvin — Lord Ordinary
- William Nairne, Lord Dunsinnan — Lord Ordinary
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Lord Ordinary
Places
- Edinburgh (principal)
- Scotland
- Blair Atholl
