Legal Subject: Freeholder

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Abercromby v. Speirs and others 1802 Peerage of Scotland, Freeholder George Abercromby brought a case to be found and maintain as the freeholder (an estate in land, inherited or held for life) of Scotland, on his being the oldest son of a Peeress created by the Sovereign of United Kingdom. Defendants, some freeholders of the County of Stirling questioned that Pursuer did not have such a privilege, because he did not have connection at all with with the old Scots Peerage.
Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire 1791 Freeholder, Adjudication, Liferent, Trust, Prescription, Election contest Alexander Milne, as pursuer, petitioned the Court in June 1791 and again by reclaiming petition in December 1791 to alter a recent interlocutor in his action against the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire. Captain John Gordon subsequently presented his own petition requesting the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the same cause.
Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire 1790 Freeholder, Election contest, Freehold Qualification, Penalty, Interlocutor, Disposition Alexander Milne pursued the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire, represented by George Skene of Skene, to reverse his expungement from the county freeholder roll following the Michaelmas meeting of 1790. The defenders answered that Milne’s freehold qualification was nominal and fictitious, contending that the statutory four-month limitation did not bar objections to fraudulent claims, while Milne asserted his independent acceptance of the wadset and denial of political obligation. The litigation proceeded through reclaiming petitions against adverse interlocutors, condescendences regarding the qualification’s validity, and Milne’s objections to the defenders’ account of expenses. The cause culminated in disputes over the award of statutory penalties and the allocation of costs between the parties.
Bruce v. Cunynghame 1790 Disposition, Freeholder, Charter, Seisin, Sasine, Assignation James 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.
Bushby 1796 Entail, Retour, Freeholder, Possession, Sasine, Teinds John Bushby petitioned to have James Gordon’s name removed from the freeholder roll for Kirkcudbright Stewartry, challenging the validity of Gordon’s land title on grounds of discrepancies and partial entailment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Carnegie v. Turnbull 1796 Freeholder, Election contest, Aliment, Sequestration, Disposition, Freehold Qualification Carnegie complained of his removal from the roll of freeholders, arguing that he had departed the meeting before being called to take the trust oath and that no formal intimation had been given. Turnbull answered that Carnegie had been struck off for evading the oath after warning, and further asserted that Carnegie had divested himself of all land in the county prior to appearing at Forfar to assert a vote, thereby denying his qualification.
Carnegy v. Gardyne 1796 Sasine, Charter, Register, Freeholder, Infeftment, Disposition James Lindsay Carnegy petitioned to overturn the enrolment of Charles Gardyne as a freeholder at the Michaelmas head-court for Forfar, contending that the sasine of 1789 underlying Gardyne's claim proceeded upon an exhausted precept and that the claim failed to specify the register in which the sasine was recorded as required by statute. Gardyne answered that his claim satisfied the statute of the 16th of the late King and that the omission of the register specification was immaterial. Carnegy replied insisting upon the necessity of specifying the register, while Gardyne reiterated that his claim met all statutory requirements without such specification and had been properly accepted.
Charles Lyell v. William Douglas 1791 Valuation, Freeholder, Tack, Aliment, Succession, Commissioners of Supply Charles Lyell pursued an action against William Douglas and other freeholders of the County of Forfar to establish his right to remain on the roll of freeholders, maintaining that his estate was valued at £418 14s 7d Scots. Douglas answered, contending that Lyell’s restricted qualification fell short of the legal valuation once the lands of Easter Glenquharity were struck off. Lyell replied that the objection was legally unfounded, and Douglas duplied that the precedents from Linlithgowshire cited by the pursuer were inapplicable and the evidence insufficient.
Cunynghame v. Watson 1788 Jurisdiction, Freeholder, Retour, Charter, Sasine, Tax Sir William Augustus Cunynghame petitioned the Court to overturn the freeholders' interlocutor admitting Charles Watson as a freeholder, challenging whether the heritable bailie office and lands qualified Watson for that status. David Williamson answered for the defender, responding to Cunynghame's objections regarding the extent of the office and lands.
Davidson v. Elphinstone 1802 Mandate, Freeholder, Property rights, Title (detour), Landlord, Retour Robert Hill, as the agent of the Honourable Charles Elphinstone, Captain of the Royal Navy, claimed property rights of Eastern Glenboig, otherwise known as Endboig, with the mill, mill-lands, and other land (County of Stirling). The Title-deeds (Detour) and other records related to the case were submitted in order to support the enrollment of C. Elphinstone. Harry Davidson objected, first that the titles were not legal evidence of the old extend, and second, that Hill was not entitled to act in name and on behalf of H. Charles Elphinstone, because he was out of the Kingdom and there was no special mandate granted to Hill for such purposes. Taking into consideration the objections, the Lords sustained that H. Charles Elphinstone could not be enrolled as a freeholder (landlord) of the Glenboig.
Davidson v. Hill 1802 Retour, Charter, Statute, Election contest, Freeholder, Sasine At a meeting of the freeholders of Stirlingshire, Robert Hill claimed to be enrolled upon the lands of Western Glenboig. He produced two extracts of retours which he claimed proved his title. Harry Davidson, one of the freeholders, objected to Hill's enrollment, arguing that Hill’s retours were insufficient. The Court found that the 16th Act of George II required an old extent of lands to be established by a retour, but that this could be done by one or more retours, and that, accordingly, a freeholder who produced two separate retours of two parcels of land had a right to be enrolled (Morison's Decisions of the Court of Session).
Douglas v. Carnegie 1782 Rent, Freeholder, Proof, Sasine, Infeftment, Oath George Carnegie of Pittarrow submitted answers to the petition and complaint of William Douglas of Bridgetown and Robert Graham of Fintray, Esquires, responding to their objections to his freeholder inrolment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Duff v. Freeholders of Elgin and Forres 1792 Interlocutor, Freeholder, Res judicata, Tack, Lease, Rent The Honourable Alexander Duff petitioned the Court to alter its prior interlocutor and restore him to the roll of freeholders for Elgin and Forres. Archibald Duff, Sheriff-clerk of Elgin, subsequently petitioned the Court to alter the same interlocutor. The petitions raised the question of whether the Court should reverse its order removing Alexander Duff from the freeholders' roll.
Duff v. Fyfe 1796 Freeholder, Aliment, Succession, Election contest, Oath, Libel Patrick Duff of Carnousie, with concourse of His Majesty's Advocate, charged Lieutenant James Fyfe with perjury, alleging that Fyfe had falsely sworn to possessing a nominal and fictitious freehold qualification for parliamentary voting. Fyfe defended by arguing that the estate in question—a liferent superiority—constituted a true and real estate in law, and therefore was not nominal or fictitious for the purposes of qualifying to vote.
Dunbar v. Sinclair 1789 Freeholder, Aliment, Succession, Election contest, Deed, Teinds Sir William Dunbar, Baronet, and other freeholders of Caithness, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to find that the freeholders had wrongly repelled an objection against defender Sir James Sinclair, now Earl of Caithness, and to grant warrant for expunging him from the roll. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Edmonstone v. Morehead 1790 Freeholder, Disposition, Teinds, Charter, Sasine, Assignation George Edmonstone, a minister, petitioned the Court to overturn the Stirlingshire freeholders' refusal to admit him to the electoral roll, while William Morehead of Herbertshire defended the decision by challenging Edmonstone's qualification. Edmonstone submitted replies and duplies addressing objections to his qualification, and his agent William Craig filed answers to Morehead's condescendence. The pleadings repeatedly referenced parallel litigation involving Edmonstone's brother Charles Edmonstone and another freeholder, Mr. Cheape.
Fraser v. Fraser 1802 Retour, Freeholder, Estate Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser of Lower Grosvenor's Street, London, petitions to be enrolled as a freeholder of the lands and barony of Durris for the county of Inverness, and to serve in Parliament on behalf of Inverness. Simon Fraser protests approval of Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser's enrollment as a freeholder on the grounds that the source Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser uses to prove his title and the value of the land is inaccurate. The others overrule him and approve the enrollment. Simon Fraser subsequently files a complaint with the Lords of Council and Session to dispute the sufficiency of Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser's claim to the lands, and thus his claim to a position on the roll of freeholders. In the course of the proceedings, Simon Fraser dies, and his case is taken up on his behalf by his uncle, William Fraser, Esq. of Queen's Square, Bloomsbury, London.
George Dempster and Others v. Charles Lyel, Jr. 1790 Freeholder, Valuation, Sasine, Tack, Infeftment, Decreet-Arbitral George Dempster and others pursued Charles Lyell, Jr., asking the Court to declare that the freeholders of Forfar had wrongly enrolled Lyell as a freeholder. Lyell answered, defending the validity of his enrollment, and the pursuers replied to his answers.
George Dempster and Others v. Charles Lyel, Sr. 1790 Freeholder, Statute, Jurisdiction, Tack, Disposition, Adjudication George Dempster and others sought to remove Charles Lyell from the freeholder roll for Forfar, contending that his valuation improperly included Easter Glenquharity lands not held in his title, thereby reducing his qualification below the requisite 400l Scots. The respondents initially denied the allegations and asserted that statutory limits restricted the court’s jurisdiction, while the complainants maintained that the court possessed authority over all wrongful freeholder enrolments and cited precedent. Lyell subsequently answered the petition and complaint, denying that he had been wrongfully retained on the roll.
Grant v. Duff 1773 Adjudication, Freeholder, Succession, Valuation, Sasine, Thirlage Alexander Grant, Esq., younger of Dalvey, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to permit his enrollment as a freeholder of Elgin on the grounds of his proven valuation of lands and fishings, with Duff as defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Ilay Ferrier v. William Morehead 1789 Disposition, Infeftment, Freeholder, Liferent, Feu duties, Valuation Ilay Ferrier, Esquire, Colonel of the late Scotch Brigade, petitioned the Court to overturn the freeholders' rejection of his claim to be enrolled as a freeholder of Stirlingshire, which William Morehead of Herbertshire opposed by alleging that Ferrier's liferent infeftment was nominal, fictitious, and subservient to Sir Archibald Edmonstone's political design. The parties exchanged replies, answers, and condescendences regarding the validity of the land descriptions, valuations, and the genuineness of the qualification, with Ferrier responding to claims of illusory price and interference in vassal arrangements. Ferrier subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor, and Morehead answered maintaining that the superiorities were illusory and the enrollment improper.
John Gordon v. Dugald Gilchrist 1790 Succession, Feu duties, Disposition, Debt, Liferent, Freeholder John Gordon pursued Dugald Gilchrist to overturn the freeholders' decision expunging his name from the roll of Sutherland freeholders. Gilchrist objected that Gordon's liferent-right of superiority had been extinguished by his father's sale of Pulrossie and an obligation to Dempster freeing the purchaser from feudal dues. Gordon replied that his freehold right remained unaffected by his father's transaction, while Gilchrist duplied that Gordon was bound by his father's deeds and obligations.
Lord William Gordon and Others v. Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod and Others 1791 Freeholder, Statute, Possession, Election contest, Title, Court of Session Lord William Gordon, Vice-Admiral of Scotland, presented a petition and complaint against Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod, Arthur Forbes of Culloden, and others regarding the removal of his name from the Inverness-shire freeholders' roll. The complainer alleged that the respondents had acted irregularly in striking off liferent-voters, while the respondents contended that the four-month limitation period did not bar the removal of nominal or fictitious voters and that their conduct was legally justified. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies addressing the procedural regularity of the expunging and the applicability of the limitation period, followed by speeches on whether objections of nominality were competent after four months. Thereafter, Lord William Gordon and Lieutenant Alexander Godsman petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and award expenses, prompting further answers from the respondents defending their freeholder status and maintaining the validity of their prior objections.
M'Whinnie v. Goldie 1801 Estate, Freeholder, Property William M'Whinnie had claimed to be enrolled in the roll of freeholders of Kirkcudbright, and had presented documents to support his ownership of the estate of Dunjarg in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright. At the meeting of the Kirkcudbright freeholders, Major-General thomas Goldie objected to M'Whinnie's enrollment, arguing that there was no evidence that the lands of Dunjarg were a five-merk land of old extent, and also that the title Mr. M'Whinnie claimed was nominal and fictitious due to the fact that the name of the estate was spelled differently in the older documents. Due to an indisposition, Mr. M'Whinnie was not at the meeting, and could not answer the accusations. Major-General Goldie believed that Mr. M'Whinnie was not in ill health, but had missed the meeting intentionally to avoid interrogation. The freeholders decided against enrolling him due to his absence, and Mr. M'Whinnie then took the case to the Lords of Council and Session, including written answers to the freeholders' questions. In his reply to the petition, Major-General Goldie requested that the Court ordain Mr. M'Whinnie to undergo oral examination and answer the interrogatory accusations in person as to the integrity of his claim upon the Dunjarg estate, because he believed that Mr. M'Whinnie had commissioned others to draft his responses for him.
Mackay v. Houston 1795 Wadset, Charter, Seisin, Freeholder, Factor Loco Tutoris, Disposition Æneas Mackay petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his inrolment as a freeholder of Sutherland, while Hugh Houston objected that Mackay had failed to specify whether he claimed as a wadsetter or absolute proprietor and that his titles were defective. Mackay replied that his claim fully complied with statutory requirements for inrolment, but Houston maintained that the titles remained insufficient and the specification of interest inadequate. The dispute turned on whether Mackay's property rights satisfied the legal prerequisites for freeholder status.
Penrose-Cumming v. Lawson 1785 Freeholder, Perjury, Oath, Libel, Aliment, Election contest This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament, alleged that his opponent, James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was John Lawson, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Lawson argued that his oath was not false, because he was, in fact, entitled to vote. Lawson further argued that whether or not he was lawfully entitled to vote, he had reasonably believed that his oath was true.
Penrose-Cumming v. Rev. Leslie 1785 Libel, Oath, Perjury, Freeholder, Election contest, Disposition This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament and a freeholder in Moray, alleged that James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was Rev. William Leslie, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Leslie’s qualification to vote rested on a wadset (similar to a mortgage) of a superiority over part of the lands of Kinneddar. During the proceeding against him, Leslie raised a number of arguments against the charges. These included that Penrose-Cumming lacked the kind of specific injury that would give him title to pursue the case, that Penrose-Cumming had failed to allege sufficiently detailed facts, and that Leslie's rights were not, in fact, fictitious.
Petition and Complaint of William Macewan 1792 Debt, Freeholder, Arrestment, Statute, Jurisdiction, Election contest William Macewan petitioned the Court to overturn the determination of the freeholders of Perth that his qualification was nominal and fictitious. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Captain Alexander Sutherland 1790 Rent, Freeholder, Lease, Proof, Possession, Election contest Robert Home-Gordon and others sought to expunge Captain Alexander Sutherland's name from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland, challenging the validity of his freehold qualification. Sutherland maintained that his qualification remained valid and argued the complaint was incompetent. The parties led proof regarding Sutherland's possession of wadset lands since Whitsunday 1789 and his receipt of rents from the tenants of Culmaily for the crops of 1789 and 1790. Home-Gordon subsequently petitioned for enlargement of proof, alleging that Sutherland's qualification was nominal and fictitious.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Captain Donald Matheson 1790 Rent, Freeholder, Lease, Possession, Election contest, Expenses Robert Home-Gordon, George M'Kay, and others pursued Captain Donald Matheson, seeking to have his name removed from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland on the ground that he lacked a valid freeholder qualification. The litigation subsequently reached a minute concerning the validity of Matheson's freehold qualification.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Hugh Rose 1790 Freehold Qualification, Sasine, Wadset, Freeholder, Bill of Exchange, Possession Robert Home-Gordon of Embo and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to expunge Hugh Rose of Aitnoch from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland, alleging that Rose's qualification was nominal and fictitious. Rose answered the petition and subsequent condescendence, defending his wadset qualification and land possession against the pursuers' allegations of insufficient freehold status. The cause proceeded through replies and further answers regarding the validity of Rose's entitlement to remain on the freeholders' roll.
Robert Home-Gordon v. John Gordon 1790 Infeftment, Wadset, Freeholder, Election contest, Hereditas Jacens, Aliment Robert Home-Gordon of Embo and others petitioned the Court to expunge John Gordon of Carroll from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland, objecting to his qualification for the roll. Gordon answered, asserting his eligibility by wadset-right and inheritance, and the parties subsequently exchanged replies and duplies disputing whether his wadset was merely nominal and fictitious and whether his possession had altered since enrolment.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Lieutenant-General James Grant of Ballindalloch 1790 Freeholder, Possession, Election contest, Proof, Interlocutor, Wadset Robert Home-Gordon of Embo, George M'Kay of Bighouse, and other freeholders of Sutherland pursued Lieutenant-General James Grant of Ballindalloch to expunge him from the county roll of freeholders on the ground that his qualification rested upon a nominal and fictitious possession of wadset lands in the county. The pursuers alleged that Grant had not truly possessed the lands of Navidale since Whitsunday 1789 as required, while Grant defended his enrollment by asserting continuous possession from that date and denying any change in circumstances warranting removal. The litigation proceeded through successive pleadings, proof regarding payment and stewardship of the wadset lands, and repeated petitions by both sides to alter interlocutors or enlarge the record, with Robert Grant of Elchies also becoming enmeshed in the dispute over similar allegations of nominal qualification and electoral solicitation.
Rose v. Duff 1796 Liferent, Freeholder, Sasine, Fiar, Oath, Wadset William Rose of Ballivat petitioned the Court to alter the freeholders' enrolment that recorded him as fiar of Gaval and to restore his right to vote in virtue of his original qualification as freeholder of Newton and Easter Gauldwal. Colonel Patrick Duff of Carnousie resisted the petition, asserting that Rose could not remain enrolled for those lands because he had refused to swear the qualifying oath upon them, and that the qualification was nominal and fictitious. Rose replied that Duff's answers were designed to prejudice the Court against his titles rather than meet the substance of the complaint, and subsequently sought to homologate a reversion granted by the Earl of Fife in 1790, while Duff continued to deny that Newton and Gauldwall could be included under the designation 'Gaval and others' in any trust-oath.
Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet v. David Ballingall 1791 Feu duties, Possession, Freeholder, Liferent, Election contest, Entail Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet and others pursued David Ballingall, alleging that altered circumstances had affected his possession or right since enrollment and that his qualification was nominal or fictitious. Ballingall answered the condescendence and petition, denying any alteration of circumstances and maintaining that his qualification was genuine and valid. The dispute turned on whether Ballingall's enrollment remained effective given the alleged changes and the nature of his qualification.
Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet v. David Ballingall 1790 Freeholder, Election contest, Feu duties, Possession, Entail, Liferent Sir Alexander Campbell, Baronet, and other freeholders of Stirlingshire pursued David Ballingall to expunge him from the county roll of freeholders, alleging that he lacked possession of his liferent title because he had acquiesced since 1781 in vassals' possession and payment of feu-duties to Lady Elphinston and because Lady Elphinston's conveyance had been revoked after Lord Elphinston's death. Ballingall answered that the complaint was inept as no judgment had pronounced his expulsion, and later denied that any act of his had altered his right or possession, while the complainers demanded his titles and lodged a condescendence elaborating the grounds for disqualification. Campbell subsequently petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor, maintaining his challenge to Ballingall's voting qualification.
Sir William Forbes and Others v. Andrew Gordon 1789 Liferent, Freeholder, Election, Sasine, Election contest, Teinds Sir William Forbes of Craigievar, Baronet, George Skene of Skene, Esquire, and others petitioned the Court to overturn the Freeholders' decision enrolling Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Gordon as a Freeholder, alleging that Gordon held his lands by nominal and confidential titles that disqualified him from that status. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Stewart V. Ireland 1796 Conveyance, Disposition, Mandate, Diligence, Freeholder, Election contest Charles Stewart petitioned to overturn the freeholders' refusal to enroll him on the roll of freeholders, resting his claim upon titles and a valuation certificate, and William Ireland answered that the qualification was nominal and fictitious and that no mandate had been produced. The parties exchanged replies and duplies disputing the validity of the claim and seeking commission to recover material writings, after which Ireland petitioned against an Inner-House interlocutor that had found the freeholders erred in refusing admission. Stewart subsequently moved the court to apply a recent judgment of the House of Peers and to modify the account of expenses.
Walter Buchanan v. Robert Belsches 1790 Retour, Freeholder, Succession, Valuation, Property, Feu Walter Buchanan of Balfunning petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor in his suit against Robert Belsches of Greenyards regarding the lands of Croy-Leckie. The dispute turned on whether these lands were of fifty-shilling old extent. Belsches answered the petition, contesting Buchanan's argument on that valuation.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 285)