Skip to Search Facets Skip to Results
Full Search Search Help

Results: 41

  • Diggens v Gordon et al

    20 May 1867 LR 1 ScDiv 136, HL

    HUSBAND AND WIFE — Conquest — Ante-nuptial Trust.
    COSTS — Appeals not encouraged.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR:— My Lords. Under the marriage contract of Mrs. Diggens's father and mother, dated the 27th of March, 1828, the father (Ralph Compton Nisbet), after binding himself and his heirs and executors to pay to his wife, in case she survived him, an annuity of £150, for securing such annuity bound and obliged himself to settle and vest a heritable bond for £3000 in trustees, the interest to be paid to himself during his life, and after lis death to be applied in payment of the widow's annuity; “and the principal sum, after the death of both the

  • Lindsey v Oswald

    22 Mar 1867 LR 1 ScDiv 99, HL

    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Entail — Alienation distinguished from Alteration of the Order of Succession.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR:— My Lords, the object of the action is to have it declared that the Pursuers, as trustees under a trust disposition and settlement, executed by Richard Alexander Oswald, on the 19th of October, 1838, had full right to the whole lands, means, and estates, heritable and moveable, real and personal, which belonged to the said Richard Alexander Oswald. The Defenders, in answer, allege that Oswald had no power to make the trust disposition and settlement, being prohibited by a deed of tailzie, dated the 22nd of January, 1790, under which he was heir of entail in possession.

  • Campbell v The Earl Of Dalhousie

    30 Mar 1868 LR 1 ScDiv 259, HL

    LAND — Improvements by heir of entail under the montgomery and rutherford statutes.
    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Finality of the decree under the montgomery statute.
    PRACTICE — Requirements of the decree.
    ELECTION — Election under the statutes.
    PEERAGE — Signature to the account under the montgomery statute.
    COSTS — Costs.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR:— My Lords, these two appeals raise some questions which are of importance to the parties, but which do not, as it appears to me, present any difficulty as to the conclusion at which your Lordships should arrive. The questions may be conveniently divided into four:— three arising out of the first appeal, and one out of the second. With regard to the first of these four questions, your Lordships have to consider what is the meaning and the effect of the Montgomery Act, the 10 Geo. 3, c. 51. Under that statute the heir of entail who

  • Leith Harbour and Docks Comrs v Inspector of the Poor

    12 Mar 1866 LR 1 ScDiv 17, HL

    POOR — Poor-rate — Immunity of the Crown

  • Campbell v The Earl Of Dalhousie

    15 Jul 1869 LR 1 ScDiv 462, HL

    EVIDENCE — Perpetuation of testimony — Witnesses out of the Jurisdiction.
    PRACTICE — Subpoena duces tecum.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR:— The parties against whom this order is asked are not engaged in the litigation. They are simply witnesses subpoenaed is a suit as to possible rights which may arise to the Appellant on the death of his elder brother without issue. A bill having been filed to perpetuate testimony, all that is now essential to observe is, that a subpoena duces tecum was issued. It behoves us, however, to be very careful in watching over the course of procedure under the powers given by the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 69, and the extensive jurisdiction which is

  • White v Duke Of Buccleuch

    13 Jul 1866 LR 1 ScDiv 70, HL

    PRACTICE — Jurisdiction — Issues

  • Lord Advocate v Stevenson

    25 Feb 1869 LR 1 ScDiv 411, HL

    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Succession duty — Heir Apparent

  • Western Bank of Scotland v Addie

    20 May 1867 LR 1 ScDiv 145, HL

    Subsequent citations: 7.
    COMPANY — Joint stock company — Sharetaking Contract

  • Lord Advocate Of Scotland v Hunt

    11 Feb 1867 LR 1 ScDiv 85, HL

    PRESCRIPTION — Prescriptive possession under the act of 1617, c. 12 — Parts and Pertinents

  • Greig v The University of Edinburgh

    08 Jun 1868 LR 1 ScDiv 348, HL

    RATING — Rateability for relief of the poor where the property, though public, is unconnected with the crown.
    RATING — Rateable value of the property.
    RATING — How to be calculated.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR:— My Lords, in this case au action of declarator was raised by the University of Edinburgh against the Parochial Board of the parish of Edinburgh, through their public officer, to have it declared that the University are not liable as owners or occupiers of the University buildings to any assessment for the poor-rate. The record was closed, but no proof was led; and upon the averments on the record and consideration of the pleas in law, the Lord Ordinary assoilzied the Defender from the conclusions of the summons. The Second Division of the Courts of Session recalled

We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies