AI-transcribed

A freehold held of a superior lord. In Scotland the feudal system is still in full force with respect to land, and subinfeudation is permitted to any extent. FEU RIGHT, is the estate of the vassal. FEU CONTRACT, or CHARTER, or DISPOSITION, the deed by which the superior grants the vassal's estate. FEU DUTY, rent service. FEUAR, vassal. (See Title to Land.)

Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Feu

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Anderson v. Saunders 1829 Sasine, Interdict, Aliment, Feu, Interlocutor, Possession James Anderson and others raised an action of suspension and interdict against Robert Saunders concerning Saunders’ obstruction of a common stair leading to Anderson’s cellars and back-green, which Saunders used to access a sunk storey via a locked spar-door. Saunders answered the reasons of suspension and interdict, resisting the claims of nuisance and exclusive use. Following an interlocutor by Lord Medwyn, Ordinary, Anderson reclaimed against the decision, and Saunders subsequently appealed the interdict and suspension order barring his access. Both parties then submitted Cases arguing their competing rights to the stair, with Anderson contending that Saunders had no right to shut up the common passage and Saunders seeking alteration of the interlocutor granting the interdict against him.
Bayne v. Wallace 1796 Teinds, Disposition, Feu, Feu duties, Tack, Sequestration Alexander Bayne of Rires presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter an interlocutor previously pronounced by Lord Craig. John Wallace of Sprettyhall and Rires Mill answered the petition as defender.
Brisbane v. Sempill 1794 Feu, Succession, Feu duties, Infeftment, Assignment, Disposition Brisbane, as pursuer, argued that Lord Sempill, as defender and singular successor, was bound to pay a year's rent for entry rather than the two shillings Scots claimed by the defender. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cowan v. M'Intosh and Others 1795 Adjudication, Interest, Disposition, Feu duties, Rent, Feu Robert Cowan petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor that had dismissed his process against Mary and Katharine Gordon, the exposers of lands in Blythwoodholme. M'Intosh and others, as respondents, opposed the suspension by arguing that Cowan had breached the articles of roup by failing to grant bond for the purchase price and drawing rents without security.
Dundas v. Baikie and others 1792 Feu duties, Teinds, Stipend, Tack, Heritor, Feu Sir Thomas Dundas petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor that had ordered the allocation of teind-duties before those to which heritors held heritable rights. Robert Baikie of Tankerness and other heritors of the United Parishes of St Andrews and Deerness answered the petition.
Forbes v. Home 1772 Construction, Property, Feu, Feu duties, Succession, Condition Sir William Forbes, along with many others, were proprietors of feus (a type of land tenure) in the extended royalty of the city of Edinburgh. The properties at issue were located on Princes Street, George Street, Queen Street, and near St. Andrew's Square. Forbes and his fellow pursuers claimed that the town council had imposed some sort of restrictive covenant, prohibiting construction south of Princes Street, which would have given them an unobstructed view from their properties. John Homes and his fellow defenders secured permission, apparently from the town council, to construct houses, warehouses, and other buildings south of Princes Street. Forbes and the other pursuers sought to stop the construction while the defenders argued that they had permission to build.
James Farquharson v. Alexander Keay 1799 Creditor, Debt, Infeftment, Adjudication, Feu, Succession James Farquharson pursued Alexander Keay regarding the lands of Wester Kinloch, asserting a pre-emption right under the feudal charter against the vassal’s sale to third parties. Farquharson sought to strike out or clog Keay’s claim as an onerous creditor proceeding in diligence against the estate of Thomas Mitchell, challenging the validity of the sale and prior decrees as res judicata. Keay defended his position as a bona fide onerous creditor entitled to proceed against the estate notwithstanding Farquharson’s pre-emption claim, while Farquharson petitioned the Court to remit its prior interlocutor on the binding effect of the charter’s irritant clause.
John Aitchison v. Thomas Hopkirk and Others 1774 Rent, Feu, Non-Entry, Feu duties, Creditor, Teind This case was about the feudal requirement for possessors of land to enter with the superior as a prerequisite to obtaining title. The dispute arose after John Aitcheson of Rochsolloch purchased the estate of Airdrie. A former proprietor of that estate had feued out many small parcels, which became the site of a village. Many of the feus passed to singular successors, meaning that the property rights were transferred by separate title (e.g., through a sale or gift) rather than descending to an heir as part of the ancestor’s whole estate. These singular successors disagreed with Aitcheson about the fee he was entitled to demand for entry and whether that fee was due for houses as well as land.
John Murray v. James Scott 1794 Feu duties, Teinds, Interlocutor, Feu, Sasine, Assignation John Murray petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor in his action against James Scott. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Laidlaw v. Elliot 1797 Aliment, Sequestration, Feu, Tack, Glebe, Manse To provide the minister of Peebles with a grass glebe, the presbytery appropriated a small field that was held in feu by the pursuer, William Laidlaw. The field was part of a tract commonly understood to have been the vicar’s glebe before church lands fell to the sovereign at the Reformation. While not contesting the appropriation of his land, Mr. Laidlaw claimed that certain statutes entitled him to relief from the heritors of all other church lands within the parish. However, Ann Elliot argued that only heritors of the vicar’s glebe were required to contribute. The court found that Act 1594, c. 202, provided a general right of relief from heritors of church lands in the parish.
Lieutenant-Colonel James St Clair v. Miss Jean Alexander of Rosebank 1776 Kirk, Succession, Feu, Prescription, Possession, Disposition This case was about whether the defender could claim an exclusive property right to a seat in a church. In 1728, the proprietor of an estate called Roslin transferred part of the estate to one Yaxly Davidson; the transferred land came to be known as Rosebank. The proprietor also gave Davidson access to certain seats in the local church, which had been reserved for the estate of Roslin. (The exact nature of this access, and the number of seats affected, were matters of dispute.) In time, Jean Alexander became the proprietor of Rosebank and began using the associated seats. She sought to exclude Roslin tenants from the seats, and Colonel James St. Clair, the contemporaneous proprietor of Roslin, sued. St. Clair claimed that he held the sole right to the disputed seats. In response, Alexander argued that the proprietors of Rosebank had acquired the seats by prescription—in other words, that by possessing the seats for a long period of time, they had obtained a property right. St. Clair argued that a church seat could not be obtained by prescription, and that in any case, Alexander had not enjoyed the sort of exclusive possession that was necessary for prescription to apply.
Melville v. Heritors of Leslie 1799 Teinds, Feu, Charter, Charter of Confirmation To fund an increased stipend for the minister of Leslie parish, Lord Glenlee prepared a “scheme of locality,” which allocated the stipend among the heritors liable to pay. During proceedings on the locality, Lord Glenlee found that John Melvill had failed to show that his lands at Prinlaws were held cum decimis inclusis, which would exempt them from liability for the stipend. Melvill challenged the interlocutor, and the court held that charters from the commendator of Inchcolm, dated 1550 and 1568, and confirmed by King James in 1584, rendered the lands exempt.
Moir v. Harlaw 1801 Feu, Church, Construction In the parish of Peterhead, the church had fallen into disrepair. The landowners in Peterhead advocated for building a new church, with expenses for its construction being dispersed across the population of the parish. Renters in the town, or feuars, believed this approach to be unfair given that they would be the ones bearing the majority of the cost of construction. Instead, they claimed that the landowners had decided to build a new church in order to put the financial burden on the feuars. Since the landowners owned the old church exclusively, they would have been responsible for financing all repairs made to it, and so the feuars believed that the landowners purposely pronounced the old church unsafe rather than making repairs to it in order to avoid paying more. Marginalia notes that the case was reversed on June 24, 1802 with the holding that the expense of building a new church in a parish with both heritors and feuars should be divided between them based on their respective populations.
Mrs. Anne Cuninghame v. David Neil 1774 Encroachment, Aliment, Property, Feu, Possession, Tack Defender David Neil purchased a house, in feu, from Colonel William Cuninghame of Enterkine. In 1765, Neil extended the house by six feet in the direction of a high road. At the time, he obtained permission from the overseers of highways in Tarbolton parish, on the condition that he widen the road by six feet. In 1772, however, two tutors for Colonel Cuninghame’s heir, also named William Cuninghame, sued Neil over the addition. They claimed that the structure encroached on Cuningham’s property and sought to have it demolished. Neil responded that the area in question was public property.
Oswald v. Grant 1772 Commonty, Common lands, Feu, Heritor, Valuation, Proof This case concerns the division of the commonty located in the barony of Preston, known as the "Fell of Preston," a hilly area lying in the Parish of Kirkbean. Richard Oswald, pursuer, and Andrew Grant et al., defenders, were heritors in the same district. Grant, et al, claimed that Oswald had no right to that land because he was excluded earlier when the Merse of Preston, a seaside area located in the same barony, was divided. Grant et al. argued that the division of the Merse of Preston was based on customary use. Grant et al. were not excluded from this division, which occurred in 1731. Grant et al. claimed that the division of the Fell of Preston should be similarly divided, based on customary use. Oswald countered that he had a right of common property in the Fell of Preston.
Sir James Boswell v. Alexander Hamilton 1830 Succession, Burgh, Aliment, Teinds, Feu, Parish
Skinner v. Bell 1832 Expenses, Trustee, Sist, Advocation, Tax, Feu J. R. Skinner, pursuer, presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court to alter Lord Corehouse's interlocutor in the action against Bell. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Tod and Stoddart v. The Town of Edinburgh, and the Edinburgh Glass-house Company 1793 Feu, Charter, Property, Prescription, Tack, Interlocutor Tod and Stoddart pursued the Town of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh Glasshouse Company to block the Company’s proposed alteration of the road to the sands of Leith, arguing that the change would deprive them of access and injure public uses. The defenders maintained that the ground was validly feu’d for their use and not prejudicial to others, while the Justices of Peace of the County of Edinburgh supported the pursuers in insisting that public access to the sands could not be narrowed. Following an interlocutor of 4 July 1793, the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Glasshouse Company petitioned the Court to alter that order, and the Justices of Peace answered in opposition.
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.
Wemyss v. Heritors of Newburn 1799 Feu, Sasine, Teinds, Charter, Arrestment, Succession This case was about how to allocate an augmentation to the minister’s stipend in the parish of Newburn. Pursuer David Wemyss argued that his titles to the lands of West Lathallan exempted him from paying the stipend. However, the court held that there was no exemption.
William Toshack v. Alexander Smart 1771 Voting rights, Valuation, Feu, Election, Election contest, Teinds The office of the schoolmaster in the parish of St. Cuthbert's became vacant. In the election of an assistant schoolmaster for the parish, two questions occurred as to the right of voting. The pursuer, Mr. Toshach who participated in the election, maintained that all the heritors whatsoever, who were liable in payment of cess and parish burdens, had a right. The defender, on the other hand, maintained that the right was reserved only to such heritors as were separately valued on the cess-roll. To decide this issue the Lords looked at the terms and meaning of the Act of 1696, c. 26. for the settling of schools. The pursuer also argued that the liferenter, whilst the defender affirmed that the fiar, had the preferable right of voting. The Lord Ordinary found the liferenter "has a right to vote, and not the fiar.”

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 222)