1796–1797
TeindsAugmentationStipendRanking and SaleHeritorInterlocutorThe Reverend Dr. David Lamont pursued the heritors of the parish of Urr to remit an interlocutor approving their scheme of locality, asserting that he held a proper heritable right to the teinds. The heritors petitioned the court, arguing that Lamont’s right had been acquired pendente lite and was therefore protected by the principle of nihil innovandum. Lamont answered their petition, contesting this argument.AI-generated
Documents in this case (4)
- Petition Lamont, 7 Mar 1796March 7, 1796 Petition of the Reverend Dr. David Lamont of Ironcrogo, asking the Court to remit the interlocutor approving the scheme of locality, as he has produced a proper heritable right to his teinds.
- Heretors — Petition, 16 Nov 1796November 16, 1796 Petition of the Heretors of Urr, asking the Court to alter the interlocutor which found Dr Lamont entitled to heretable right to his teinds
- Lamont — Answers, 31 Jan 1797January 31, 1797 Answers by Rev. Dr. Lamont to the petition of the heritors of the Parish of Urr, responding to their argument that the respondent's heritable right to teinds obtained pendente lite nihil innovandum
People & places in this case
People involved
- Dr. David Lamont — Party
- Nathaniel Smith — Party
- Robert Nasmyth, of Whitehill and Glenlee — Party
- Alexander Allan — Party
- David Limond — Party
- David Cathcart, Lord Alloway — Advocate for Party
- Sir David Rae, Lord Eskgrove, 1st Baronet — Advocate for Party
- Robert MacQueen, Lord Braxfield — Lord Ordinary
