1794–1796
TackTeindsLeaseAlimentHeritorInterlocutorThe 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.AI-generated
Documents in this case (4)
- John Hunter v. Duke of Roxburgh — Information, 9 Oct 1794October 9, 1794 Information of the pursuer, arguing that the minister of Oxnam has the right to levy the vicarage-tithes of specified lands from the Duke of Roxburgh and his successors.
- Duke of Roxburgh v. John Hunter — Information, 9 Oct 1794October 9, 1794 Information of the defender, arguing that the pursuer has no right to levy vicarage-tithes beyond the tack-duty paid to his predecessors
- Hunter v. Roxburgh — Petition, 2 Dec 1795December 2, 1795 Petition of the petitioner asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, to find him entitled to the ipſa corpora of the vicarage-teinds as specified in his libel, or at least to grant letters of i…
- Roxburgh — Petition, 4 Dec 1795December 4, 1795 Petition of Ro. Craigie asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, which required payment of L. 1000 Scots graſſum at each ministerial admission
People & places in this case
People involved
- John Ainslie — Party
- Charles Elphinstone, Lord Elphinstone — Party
- William Oliver Rutherford, of Dinliebyre — Party
- William Henry Kerr, Marquis of Lothian — Party
- John Dickson, of Kilbucho — Advocate for Party
- Robert Craigie — Advocate for Party
- Sir James Mackenzie, of Royston, Lord Royston — Lord Ordinary
