Legal Subject: Forfeiture

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander, Duke of Gordon, v. The Commissioners for Managing the Forfeited Estates annexed to the Crown 1771 Landlord and tenant, Clan Act, Rent, Trustee, Forfeiture, Adjudication The Clan Act, as subsequently amended, enabled agents of the Crown to hold lands previously owned by participants in the 1715 rebellion. These agents, called "commissioners," could appoint new tenants to the lands. Superiors of the lands were forced to either sell their land to the Crown or accept new tenants selected by the commissioners. Petitioner, Alexander Duke of Gordon, was one such superior who had yet to sell his land in Clunie, Callart, and part of Lochiel. Alexander maintained that the commissioners of the Crown must pay an entry fine (approximately one year's rent) to hold his land. The commissioners of the Crown argued that they are not obligated to pay an entry fine. The Lords concluded that a superior was not entitled, upon an entry, to demand from the Crown's donatary, or trustee for the Crown's behalf, the composition of a year's rent.
Brown v. Dundas 1793 Adjudication, Statute, Fraud, Forfeiture, Penalty, Forgery Dundas, as defender, argued in an information that the statute under which Brown prosecuted them did not authorize the seizure of unstamped starch without prior notice or opportunity to comply. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Creditors of David Currie v. William Hannay 1791 Debt, Penalty, Damages, Creditor, Contract, Forfeiture The creditors of David Currie pursued William Hannay regarding whether articles of roup imposed a binding obligation. Hannay petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and John Currie, as eldest son and apparent heir of David Currie, and Hugh Corrie, Writer to the Signet, answered, maintaining that the articles created no binding obligation.
Gillies v. Carmalt 1783 Wager, Adjudication, Contract, Interlocutor, Forfeiture This case was about the interpretation of a wager. John Gillies, pursuer, entered into a wager with John Carmalt, defender, in which Carmalt bet that he could ride his mare from Glasgow to Dalkeith and back in one day. Gillies brought an action for payment, in which the Lord Ordinary found that Carmalt had thirty days remaining to perform the wager, and that he could lead his horse downhill. Gillies petitioned for reconsideration.
Jones v. Smith 1771 Inspection of goods, Adjudication, Jurisdiction, Forfeiture, Penalty, Appeal Pursuer David Jones, merchant in Glasgow, imported quantities of lint-seed from Philadelphia. The goods arrived in Greenock bound for Glasgow. Two dealers in Glasgow, whose business would be affected by the influx of lint-seed, lodged a complaint with the Trustees for the Improvement of Fisheries and Manufactures about the lint-seed's quality. The dealers maintained that the lint-seed was bad, and therefore should not be imported. Defender Hugh Smith was a surveyor for the Trustees. After receiving a report that some of the seed was bad, Smith ordered the condemnation of the seed. Jones challenged the grounds and process by which Smith sought to condemn his cargo.
Marquis of Lothian v. His Majesty's Advocate 1767 Crown, Superior and Vassal, Forfeiture, Clan Act, Diligence, Debt Pursuer William Henry Kerr, Marquis of Lothian, was the superior of lands in Linton Parish, including the estate of Henry Kerr of Graden. Kerr of Graden was convicted of treason for his role in the Jacobite rising, resulting in the forfeiture of his estate. The Marquis of Lothian claimed the estate pursuant to the Clan Act, which provided that certain forfeited lands would revert to the superior. His Majesty’s Advocate, James Montgomery, sought a delay to allow time for a potential settlement, while also raising procedural objections to the Marquis’s claim.
Somerville v. Wilson 1766 Linen industry, Arrestment, Sequestration, Trustees, Forfeiture, Penalty In April 1765, the charger, Thomas Wilson, as Inspector of Yarn appointed by the Trustees for Improving Manufactures in Scotland, inspected a quantity of yarn owned by the suspender, Patrick Somerville, in an Edinburgh market waiting to be transported to Glasgow. Wilson determined that 32 of Somerville's 150 spindles were faulty in their manufacture, and he seized these spindles. Wilson brought action against Somerville before the Sheriff of Edinburgh, who condemned the 32 spindles and charged Somerville with a penalty, payable to Wilson. Somerville appealed the Sheriff's decision to the Court of Session, which overturned the fine but upheld the forfeiture of the yarn. In an effort to get his yarn back, Somerville argued that the seizure was unwarranted and illegally done. He claimed that the statues relative to the linen industry and improving manufacturing in Scotland were an encroachment on the liberty of individuals. Wilson's petition argued for the importance of inspections in order to counteract people like Somerville, working as hawkers, who dealt both in the spinning of yarn from flax and the purchasing of yarn to sell to manufactures. Wilson argued that these hawkers have been particularly active in Edinburgh selling yarn to Glasgow and Paisley and that their trade had provided regular cover to fraud in the making of yarn.
Steuart v. Ramsden 1793 Sequestration, Penalty, Arrestment, Jurisdiction, Forfeiture, Debt Steuart pursued Ramsden to remit the seizure of effects from the sequestrated premises of James Hill, contending that Ramsden's poinding of the goods was illegal. Hill separately sought remission of penalties and forfeiture awarded by the Edinburgh Justices of Peace for alleged accounting breaches, which Ramsden defended as clear statutory violations warranting the assessed amounts. Ferguson petitioned to challenge both the legality of Ramsden's poinding and the jurisdiction of the Justices to impose penalties beyond the statutory limit, while Ramsden additionally sought review of an interlocutor regarding preference over the poinded effects in Hill's bankruptcy.
Watson v. Lombe 1768 Debt, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Jurisdiction, Contract, Forfeiture James Watson, merchant in Cullen, and William Anderson and Company, merchants there, as pursuers, raised an information against the defender Lombe alleging that the defender’s relanding of tobacco and application of the proceeds to his own use constituted wrongful detention and malice. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 110)