obtained Decreet against him he Suspends and raises Reduction on this Reason that his Bond was vitiat in substantialibus by ocular inspection 2. That it was Conditional so soon as he was in readinesse 3ly That the Charger threatned she would drown her self for preventing whereof he had granted this Bond. 4ly That after the granting thereof she had carried her self unchastly and born another Bairn albeit it cannot be alleadged that ever he co-habited or conversed with her at all after this Bond which as it would dissolve the Marriage though it were Solemnized multo magis should it hinder the Solemnization The Charger answered to the first oppons the Bond wherein albeit there be three or four words delet in that place thereof oblidging him to Solemnize yet the acknowledgment of the Childs being gotten under promise of Marriage is clear and sufficient by it self To the 2. There is nothing alleadged that the Suspender is not in readiness To the 3. non relevat there being neither vis nor metus To the 4th non relevat because there being a second Child born after this Bond which constituts the essentials of a Marriage the Child is presumed to be the Suspenders nam Pater est quem matrimonia monstrant and it cannot be alleadged or proven that the Child belongs to any other or that the Charger used any evil carriage with any other The Lords having considered the Case found that the presumption was not sufficient unless it had been a formal Marriage and therefore Ordained the Charger to instruct the second Child was the Suspenders and if there had been any familiarity betwixt them since the Bond. Kirktouns contra Laird of Hunthill Ianuary ult 1665. TWo Sisters called Kirktouns having obtained Decreet against the Laird of Hunthill for their Mothers Executrie who left Hunthill her Brother and two other Tutors to her Children in so far as concerned the means left them by their Mother Hunthill Suspends and raises Reduction on this Reason First That the only ground of the Decreet being a Confirmed Testament bearing That Hunthill compeared and made Faith and accepted the Office of Tutory this cannot be sufficient of it self to instruct he was Tutor Seing Acts of inferiour Courts prove not in any thing but in points of form of Process which are ordinary â—but in alijs prove not without a Warrand and therefore unless the Warrand of this acceptance were produced it cannot prove more then an Act of Tutorie or Curatrie or Cautionrie will prove without its warrand and therefore now they crave Certification against the same 2ly Neither their Subscription to the Act nor the Principal Testament it self can be found though the Registers of that Commissariot be searched and others about that time found neither can it be astructed with the least Act of medling any way 3ly A mother cannot name Tutors but the Father only it being Patriae potestatis It was answered that albeit in Recenti the warrands of such Acts ought to be produced or they are not effectual with out the same yet it being thertie seven years since this Confirmation after so may troubles the Chargers are not oblidged to produce the Warrands being such inconsiderable Litle Papers as they are but they must be presumed that they were so done as is expressed in the publick Record seing this Process has lasted these twvelve years and before nor since till within a year no mention thereof It was answered that there was no prescription run during which if at first the Chargers were oblidged to produce they are still so unless they could fortifie and astruct the truth aliunde and their silence saith nothing because it was the Chargers fault that pursued not till within these twelve years whereas if they had pursued timeously the Suspender would then have pursued a Reduction It was answered they were Minors in the Suspenders own house the former time who would not have keeped and intertained them at all if he had not known of the Tutory and that they had means The Lords found that this naked Testament was not sufficient to astruct the acceptance without further adminicles Elphinstoun of Selmes contra The Lord Rollo and the Laird of Niddrie 1 February 1665. THe Lord Rollo being addebted in a Sum to umquhil Mr. David Anderson of Hill Margaret Anderson his Daughter gave a Procuratorie to intromet with all Papers and to uplift all Sums belonging to her in Scotland to Iohn Anderson whereupon Iohn Anderson discharges the Lord Rollo and takes a new Bond from him and assignesit to Niddrie Thereafter Selmes getting Assignation from the said Margaret Rollo Suspends on double Poynding Selmes alleadged that he as Assigney had Right to the Sum. It was answered that Rollo was discharged by the Procurator before the Assignation It was answered primo that the Procuratory was null because it wanted the Designation of the Writer and Witnesses 2ly It was offered to be improven as false and fenzied It was answered to the first that the Procuratory was made in Ireland secundum consuetudinem loci where designation of Witnesses is not required but a writ being Sealed Subscribed and delivered before Witnesses albeit they be not designed the writ is effectual To the second the Lord Rollo having made payment bona fide to a Procurator albeit the Porcuratory should be improven the Debitor not being accessory but paying bona fide could not repeit otherwayes all commerce would be marred and no body will be secure to pay to any Assigney or Procurator but as payment made bona fide to them that have no Right is relevant only because it is done bona fide and necessarly so must it be good though they have forged the Procuratory It was answered that payment was not yet made but only a new Bond granted and that it could not be bona fide seing the Procuratory wanting the ordinar Solemnity of Witnesses designed might have given just ground of doubt and the Debitor was not to have payed without Sentence The Lords repelled the first alleadgeance and sustained the Writ according to the custom of Ireland being Nottour to themselves As to the other point the Lords did not decide in it till it appeared whether Niddrie would prevâ—â—â— upon the new Bond and make it equivalent to payment but they thought that payment made bona fide would be sufficient albeit the Writ were improven where there was no ground to doubt Sir John Fletcher Supplicant February 3. 1665. SIr Iohn Fletcher having bought the Lands of Crainstoun and finding that there was an Appryzing to be deduced thereof for his Authors Debt which might cost him trouble he craved Assessors to be appointed by the Lords who considering the matter amongst themselves It carried by the plurality of one or two to name two Advocats Assessors but many were on the contrary conceiving the example of it would be of great inconveniency seing Appryzings were not with continuation of dayes and if Parties compeared and alleadged they
Lands for far less then the true price The Lords found the Act not to extend to Appryzers unless the sums were a competent price for the Land Appryzed and therefore found the Letters orderly proceeded Isobel and Margaret Simes contra Marrion Brown Ianuary 5. 1669. BY Contract of Marriage betwixt umquhil Thomas Sim and Marion Brown Iohn Flowan Marions Master is obliged to pay 300. Merks of Tocher and Thomas Sim is obliged to imploy the said 300. Merks and 200. Merks further for the said Marion her Liferent use the said Thomas having two Daughters Isobel and Margaret Sims he lends a sum of 400. Merks to Thomas Brown and takes the Bond on these Terms to be payed to him and the said Marion Brown the longest liver of them two in Liferent and after their Decease to Margaret and Isobel Sims The said Isobel and Margaret having pursued the said Marion before the Commissars for Delivery of this Bond as belonging to them after their Fathers Death The Commissars Assoilzied the said Marion from Delivery of the Bond and found it did belong to the said Marion her self not only as to the Annualrent but as to the Stock because her Husband having no other Means but this Bond and not having fulfilled her Contract she had Confirmed her self Executrix Creditrix in this sum and behoved to Exclude her Husbands two Daughters of a former Marriage who were provided and Forisfamiliat before Of this absolvitor the Daughters raised Reduction on this Reason that this Sum could not be Confirmed not being in bonis defuncti the Father being but Liferenter and the Daughters Feears and though they were but as heirs substitute they exclude Executors and need no Confirmation 2dly The Husband being but obliged to Employ this Tocher and 200. merks more the Pursuer must instruct that the Tocher was payed 3dly The Wife intrometted with as much of her Husbands Goods as would satisfie her Provision It was answered that the Wife not being obliged for her Tocher but another Party who was solvendo and neither being obliged nor in capacity to pursue therefore could not now after so long a time be put to prove that the Tocher was payed and for her Intromission she had Confirmed and made Faith and the Pursuers might take a dative ad omissa if they pleased but could not hoc ordine Reduce or stop her Decreet upon compearance The Lords found that albeit in Form the Bond should have been Reduced as being done in fraudem of the Wife as being a Creditor and thereafter Confirmed yet now the matter being before the Lords and the Parties poor they found the Husbands Substitution of two provided Daughters by a former Marriage null as to the Wifes provision by the Act of Parliament 1621. without necessity of Reduction the matter being but a personal Right and found the Wife not obliged to instruct the Tocher payed and therefore assoilzied from the Reduction but prejudice to the Pursuers to Confirm a dative ad omissa William Zeoman contra Mr. Patrick Oliphant and Dam Giels Moncrief Eodem die IN a Compt and Reckoning betwixt these Parties anent the satisfaction of an Appryzing the Auditor in respect that Mr. Patrick Oliphant and Dam Giels Moncrief were Contumacious and compeared not did Decern conform to William Zeomans Summonds finding the Sum satisfied and ordained them to Remove whereupon William Zeoman obtained Possession and having been several years in Possession Mr. Patrick Oliphant obtained himself and the said Dam Giels to be Reponed against the said Decreet for his Contumacy and a Writer to the Signet past Letters of Possession in his favours against William Zeoman but without a Warrant from the Lords which were found null and this Writer Deposed but Mr. Patrick having attained Possession by these Letters William Zeoman insists against him as an Intruder to quite the Possession It was alleadged for Mr. Patrick that William having obtained Possession unwarrantably by Decreet upon his pretended Contumacy and he being now restored there against he is in statu quo prius before that Decreet at which time he was in lawful peaceable Possession which only should stand and neither of the unwarrantable Possessions be regarded It was answered that William Zeomans Possession was by vertue of a Decreet then standing autore pretore and so was not vitious but Mr Patricks was without Warrant of the Lords and so was most vitious It was answered that Mr. Patrick was instantly content to Debate his Right frustra petitur quod mox est restituendum It was answered that spoliatus ante omnia est restitâ—endus and is not obliged to Dispute any Right till first he be Restored Which the Lords Sustained and ordained William Zeoman instantly to be Restored to the Possession My Lord Balmerino Supplicant Ianuary 7. 1669. MY Lord gave in a Bill to the Lords Representing that his Uncle was Dead and that he is nearest Heir-male to him in whose favours his Estate is provided and therefore desired that Commission might be granted to certain Persons in the Countrey to Inventar Seal and Secure his Charter Chist and to make patent Doors in his Houses Coffers and Cabins for that effect and to take my Lady his Relicts Oath where the Evidents were to the effect foresaid Compearance being made for my Lady desiring a sight of the Bill till the next day and alleadging that it was notour to the Lords that my Lady had a Disposition to the whole Estate whereupon Resignation had past in Exchequer and that the Evidents ought to be left open to the effect my Lady may instruct her Charter conform to the Disposition The Lords refused to give up the Bill it being their ordinar Course to grant such Commissions without calling or hearing Parties and that a short delay might prevent the effect of the Commission and therefore granted Commission to certain Noblemen and Gentlemen or any one of them to Inventar Seal and Secure the Evidents and to open Doors Coffers and Cabinets for that effect but refused to give Warrant to take my Ladies Oath Captain Newman contra Tennents of Whitehil and Mr. Iohn Prestoun Ianuary 8. 1669. CAptain Newman having Appryzed the Lands of Whitehil from Prestoun of Craigmiller his Debitor and being thereupon Infeft pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for Mr. Iohn Prestoun who produces a Disposition from Craigmiller his Brother of the Baronies of Craigmiller Prestoun and Whitehil Which Disposition relates this Debt of Captain Newmans and many other Debts and for satisfaction thereof Dispones these Lands to Mr. Iohn Reserving the Disponers and his Ladies Liferent containing a Reversion upon ten merks and containing a provision that it should be leisom to Craigmiller during his Life and after his Decease to Mr. Iohn to pay any of the Creditors contained in the Disposition they pleased without contributing the price proportionally to the rest of the Creditors and also produces a Renunciation by Craigmiller whereby he Renunces the
he thought there was no Clause in any of these Writs in the Pursuer or his Predecessors Favours The Lords having considered the Oath Ordained the Defender to produce the Disposition denunding the Pursâ—ers Predecessors and thought that being produced simply without condition of Reversion it liberat him from producing the Pursuers Predecessors Progresse though made in their Favours but because the Pursuer alleadged that in their Predecessors Progress there was a Clause de non alienando which would work in his Favour and that the Oath was not positive but that he thought They Ordained the Defender to be examined if he had any Tailzie Daughters of Balmirrino contra Eodem die THe Daughters of Balmirrino having pursued the Heirs Male for their Portions contained in their Mothers Contract of Marriage and for a competent Aliment untill the same were payed The Defender renunced to be Heir and was absent The Lords advised the Contract by which they found the Portion payable at the Daughters age of fyfteen and Aliment till that time but no mention of Annualrent or Aliment thereafter yet they found that the Aliment behoved to be continued till their Marriage or the payment of their Tochar They being Minors and leised by not pursuing therefore at the Age of fyfteen but that they could not have Annualrent seing the Contract bare none Dame Elizabeth Fleming contra Fleming and Baird her Husband November 16. 1664. IN an Accompt and Reckoning betwixt Dame Elizabeth Fleming and her Daughter and Robert Baird her Spouse The Lords having considered the Contract of Marriage in which Robert Baird accepted 12000 merk in full satisfaction of all his Wife could claim by her Fathers decease or otherwayes and there being some other Bands in her Name her Mother craved that she might be decerned by the Lords to denude her Self and Assigne to her Mother seing she was satisfyed and she on the other part craved that her mother and Sir Iohn Gibson might be oblidged to warrand her that her 12000 merk should be free of any Debt of her Fathers It was answered for the Mother that there was no such Provision contained in the Contract and the Lords in justice could not cause her to go beyond the terms of the Contract there was no Reason for such a warrandice seing Debts might arise to exhauste the hail Inventary It was answered for the Daughter that there was no oblidgment in the Contract for her to assigne her Mother but if the Lords did supply that as consequent upon the tennor of the Contract they ought also to supply the other It was answered for the Mother that there was no reason for her to undertake the hazard unless it would appear that there was so considerable Adiminition of her Daughters Portion in her favours as might import her taking of that hazard for that abatement and albeit such a warrandice were granted yetâ— it should only be to warrand the Daughter from the Fathers Debt in so far as might be extended to the superplus of the Daughters full portion above the 12000 merk The Lords found that if there was an abatement in favours of the mother it behoved to import tâ—at she undertook the hazard of the fathers Debt not only as to the superplus but simply but seing it was known to the Lords They gave the mother her choise either to compt to the Daughter for the whole Portion if she thought there was no benefit without any such Warrandice or if she took herself to the Contract and so acknowledged there was a benefit They found her lyable to warrand her Daughter simpliciter Lochs and the Earl of Kincairdin contra Hamiltoun November 18. 1664. HAmiltoun and her Authors having obtained Decreet against Lochs as Heirs to their Father for a Sum of money and Annuals thereof after Compt and Reckoning and being thrice Suspended there are still Decreets in foro Lochs and the Earl of Kincardine now Suspends again and alleadged that in the Compt and Reckoning there were several Recepts of Annualrent which were not at that time in Lochs hands but in the Earl of Kincardines whose Father was Co principal bound conjunctly and severally with Lochs Father The Charger opponed her Decreets in foro and alleadged that Kincairdin had no interest for neither could the Letters be found Orderly Proceeded nor yet Suspended against him and whereas it was alleadged that the Clause of mutual Relief would force him to Relieve the Lochs prorata he had a good Defense that they had not intimat to him the Plea and thereby had Prejudged themselves of the Defense upon the Ticket in his hands The Suspenders answered they were Minors and that Kincardin having a clear Interest might choise whether to Defend them or Defend himself against them The Lords reponed them to the Tickets now gotten out of my Lord Kincairdins hands but declared there should be expense granted against them for all the Decreets to which the Chargers were put Thomas Guthrie contra Sornbeg Eodem die GVthrie pursues Sornbeg alleadging that their being a first Wodset of the Lands of Thriplandhill and certain Tenements in Edinburgh to Alexander Veatch or his Authors and a second Wodset of the Lands of Thriplandhill granted to the Pursuers Father and by a posterior Contract The Pursuers Fathers Wodset was Confirmed and a certain Sum added thereto and for both some Tenements in Edinburgh were disponed with this provision that Guthrie should possess thereby and should be comptable for what was more then his Annualrent and Sornbeg having redeemed the first Wodset and taking a Renunciation thereof and having Right to the Reversion of the whole entered to the Possession of the Tenements in the Town whereupon Guthrie craves that Sornbeg may compt and reckon for the Mails and Duties uplifted by him and possess him in time coming to the hail Mails and Duties aye and while he be payed of his Principal Sum and Annualrents or satisfied by Intromission The Defender alleadged First That he having the Right of Reverson though posterior yet having first Redeemed and made use thereof his Right of Reversion by his Disposition being in effect an Assignation to the Reversion and Guthries second Wodset being a prior Assignation to the Reversion The second Assignation with the first Diligence or Intimation must prefer the Defender This the Lords repelled and found no necessity of an Intimation or Diligence to consumat Guthries Right to the Reversion of the first Wodset seing Guthrie was Infeft by his second Infeftment which was equivalent to the Registrating of a Formall Assignation to the Reversion 2dly The Defender alleadged that being Singular Successor and having Redeemed the first Wodset which is now extinct he possesses by an irredeemable Right and so must have the benefit of a Possessory Judgement The Lords repelled this Defense seing seven years Possession was not alleadged 3dly The Defender alleadged absolvitor from the bygone Mails and Duties before intenting of this Cause because albeit he had not
same Ground the rest of the Witnesses proved that the Pursuers were in possession at or about the time Lybelled and that they went to Edinburgh and Locked their Doors and took away the Keys and some of them Deponed that the night before the Defenders Entry they saw the Doors Locked and that the next day after they saw Hugh Colvil and several others in the House and several Goods that were in the House cast out of the Door and that Hugh continued in Possession and took in the Goods again Which the Lords found sufficient to prove the Ejection and Spuilzie seing the Defender did not instruct that he entered by Authority of Law The Defender alleadged at Advising the Cause that the Pursuer had a Husband who within this Moneth was seen at Air and offered to prove by his Oath that he had Ceded the Possession being Warned and gave Warrand to the Defender to Enter and therefore he being Dominus bonorum his Wife and Bairns had no Interest to pursue and though they had his Oath was sufficient to instruct the Lawfulness of the Defenders Possession and that the Wifes Oath in litem could not be taken to Esteem her Husbands Goods It was answered that it was notourly known that the Husband had been two years out of the Countrey and having gone to Sea was commonly repute dead and therefore the Wife being in Natural Possession might lawfully pursue this Action neither was it relevant that the Husband promised to quite the Possession which being but an obligation could not warrand the Defender brevi manu to cast them out unless he had been present or consented to the Entry or had given a Renunciation of his Possession with a Warrand to Enter brevi manu The Lords in respect both Parties acknowledged that the Husband had been a great while absent found the Action competent to the Wife and found that the Husbands Ceding the Possession as was alleadged was not relevant and ordained the Wifes Oath as to the quantity and value of the Goods Spuilzied to be taken and granted diligence to the Defender to Cite the Husband if they could find him to the same Dyet to give his Oath reserving to the Lords what the Wifes Oath could work as to the estimation of the Goods without the Husbands Oath White-head of Park contra Iohn Stratoun Eodem die WHite-head of Park pursues Iohn Stratoun for restitution of an Horse which he delivered to his servant to be put in the Park of Holy-roadhouse to the Grass and which now cannot be found The Defender alleadged that he was lyable for no Loss or Hazard because at that time and long before there was a placad fixed upon the Port of the Park that he would be answerable for no Hazard or Loss of any Horse put in there by Stealling or otherwise which was commonly known at and long before that time It was answered that this Action being founded upon the common ground of Law nautae caupones stabularij ut quae receperint restituunt the same cannot be taken away but by paction and the putting up of a placad is no wayes sufficient nor was it ever shown to the pursuer The Defender answered that the Pursuer having only delivered his Horse to his Servant to be put in the Park without any express communing or conditions it behoved to be understood on such Terms as was usual with others which were the Terms exprest in the placad Which the Lords found relevant unlesse there had been a special agreement in which case they found the Defender or his Servant should have showen what was in the placad Executors of Isobel Trotter contra Trotter November 20. 1667. GEorge Trotter and Iames Lundy his Cautioner having granted a Bond of 636. pounds to Iohn Trotter and the same being Assigned to Isobel Trotter and Confirmed by her Executors they pursue Lundy who alleadged Absovitor because he offered him to prove that the Bond was granted blank in the Creditors Name to Iames Trotter Father to the said Isobel who filled up the Name of Iohn Trotter his Brother therein and took an Assignation thereto in Favours of Isobel who was then in his Family having no Means of her own and therefore it is in the same case as if it were a Bond of provision granted by the Father to the Daughter or taken in her Name which may alwayes be discharged by the Father or altered by the Father at his pleasure and true it is that the Father Submitted the same and was Decerned to Discharge the same which is equivalent to a Discharge It was replyed albeit Bonds of provision to Children be alterable by their Fathers before any thing follow yet if they be delivered to the Children or which is more if they be Registrate they become the Childrens proper Right and cannot be recalled Ita est this Bond though it had been blank ab origine it was filled up in Iohn Trotters Name and filled up before the Submission yea Isobel was dead and the Sum confirmed in her Testament so that her Father could not Discharge it proprio nomine or as his Administrator It occurred further to the Lords that albeit the Bond was Registrat the Assignation granted to the Daughter was not Registrat so that if that Assignation remained still in the Fathers power the case would be alike as if it were a Bond of provision taken originally in the Daughters Name yet this not being pleaded by the Parties And that the Asignation was Intimat that it was not constant that the Assignation remained in the Fathers hands The Lords repelled the Defense in respect of the reply Colonel Seatoun contra the Laird of Balwhilly November 22. 1667. THe Laird of Balwhilly having seased upon a Ship belonging to the Dutch during the War Colonel Seatoun Governour of the Fort at Brassie sound medled with the Ship and Loadning brevi manu for the use of the Garison Balwhilly pursues a Spuilzie before the Admiral Colonel Seatoun gives in a Bill of Advocation on this Reason that Balwhilly having no Commission albeit he did sease upon the Ship yet it belongs to the King and the Colonel had a Warrand from the Lord Commissioner to Intromet therewith for the Garisons use and therefore in the Cause concerning the King His Majesties Advocat and Officers were not obliged to answer before the Admiral nor could they attend there and therefore the Advocation ought to be past It was answered that the Reason was in causa and not relevant for the Advocat ought to have a Depute before the Admiral which is a Supream Court and Process maritime in the first instance ought not to be Sustained before the Lords and that whatever they pretended in the poynt of right Spoliatus est ante omnia restituendus The Lords having heard the Parties upon the Bill in presentia ordained the same to be past It was then desired that as before the Admiral the Colonel behoved to find caution not only judicio
Father being Infeft in an Annualrent effeirand to the principal sum due to him by the Lord Balcombie they did thereafter obtain Decreet for the principal sum and thereupon Appryzed the Property wherein they stand Infeft holden of the King in which Appryzing there is a Reservation exprest but prejudice of the Infeftment of Annualrent and now being desirous to be Infeft in the Annualrent as Heirs to their Father and that themselves were Superiours by the Infeftment on the Appryzing and conceived it not proper for them to Infeft themselves did therefore desire the Lords to grant VVarrand to direct Precepts forth of the Chancellary for the King to Infeft them The Lords having considered the case and argued the matter amongst themselves whether it were more secure and legal that they should be Infeft by the King upon their Supplication or that they as having Right to the Property by their Infeftment on the Appryzing should grant Precepts for Infefting themselves in the Annualrent as Heirs to the Annualrenter or whether their Infeftment in the Superiority would consolidat the Annualrent without Infeftment The difficulty against the Kings Infefting of them was that the King Infefts none but these that holds immediatly of Him or upon the disobedience of the immediat Superiour supplendo vices To which it was answered that the King may supply the place of the immediat Superiour either when he will not or cannot Infeft his Vassal and the Petitioners conceive that in this case they cannot and both being extraordinary Remeeds the Lords may do the same and have done it in former Cases The difficulty as to Infefting themselves was that the Right of Property and jus nobilius did extinguish the Right of Annualrent and yet the Right of Property may be Reduced and then they would be necessitat to Defend themselves by the Annualrent and therefore it is not an absolute Extinction but in tali casu and therefore they have reserved the same in the Appryzing The difficulty as to the third way was that if the Right of Superiority should be Reduced they should be without Infeftment at all The Lords found that they might either Infeft themselves by their own Precept or might get Precepts from the King as was desired periculo petentium or they might make use of both together Mr. Alexander Seaton contra George Seaton of Menzies December 2. 1668. MR. Alexander Seaton Heir and Executor to Iames Seaton his Brother pursues George Seaton as Heir to his Father Iames Seaton for making his Fathers Tutor Accompts as being Tutor to the Pursuers Brother and for instructing that he was Tutor produced several Writs Subscribed by him as Tutor Testamentar The Defender alleadged First That the condescendence was not relevant to Instruct the Defenders Father Tutor unless the Testament whereby he was nominat were produced otherwayes his acknowledgement can only make him but Pro-tutor and so not lyable for all omissions and no sooner lyable then after the date of these Writs 2dly Albeit the Defenders Father had been Tutor yet by the Writs produced it is evident that he was but one of more Tutors and therefore no Process against him till they be all called The Pursuer answered that the acknowledgement to have been Tutor was sufficient against him who Subscribed the same and that there was no necessity to call all the rest seing the whole Tutors were lyable in solidum and as ordinarly parties bound conjunctly and severally may be conveened conjunctly or severally so may Tutors who as others may except upon the performance of other Tutors as well as their own neither is the case of Tutors alike with Cautioners who are not lyable in solidum for Tutors as they are lyable conjunctly and severally for the whole Office so are they conveenable conjunctly and severally for the same The Lords Repelled the first alleadgance and found the Writs produced instructed the Defenders Father Tutor and not only Pro-tutor for if the Testament had been produced shewing other Tutors so that the Acknowledger could not have been tutor testamentar it would have made him but Pro-Tutor but that not being it instructed him Tutor As to the other point in respect the Tutor was dead and his Heir only but conveened who could not know the Administration the Lords would not sustain Process till they were also called Agnes Goodlat contra George Nairn December 8. 1668. AGnes Goodlat as representing the umquhil Wife of George Nairn pursues for the third of the Moveables belonging to him the time of his Wifes Decease It was alleadged for the Husband that before Division the Heirship moveable behoved to be drawn It was answered that there could be no Heirship of a man that was living It was answered that albeit there was no actual Heirship yet the best of every kind was Heirship Moveable wherein the Wife had no Interest Which the Lords sustained and Ordained the Heirship to be first drawn Earl of Argile contra George Stirling December 9. 1668. THe Earl of Argile having pursued George Stirling to Remove he alleadged Absolvitor because he stood Infeft on an Appryzing It was Replyed that the Appryzing and Infeftment could not defend him because the Person from whom he Appryzed being a Vassal of the Earl of Argiles and his Right not being Confirmed by the King the same could not exclude the Pursuer the Kings Donator and the Appryzer could be in no better case then his Author The Defender Duplyed that he was in better case because he being Infeft by the King before the Pursuers Gift when the King had both Superiority and Property it is equivalent to him as if the King had Confirmed his Authors Right It was answered that Infeftments upon Appryzings that pass in Course and are not noticed in Exchequer cannot prejudge the King and take away the benefit of the Gift which must pass by a several Signature Which the Lords found Relevant and Repelled the Defense and Duply and Decerned Scot contra Aitoun December 11. 1668. MR. Iames Aitoun having Disponed the Lands of Grainge with the burden of 12000. Merks to be payed to his Daughters Iohn Scot having Married one of the Daughters in their Contract of Marriage the Daughter Anna Aitoun Assigns her part of the 12000. Merks to her future Spouse and in the same Contract he acknowledgeth the Receipt of the Money from Mr. Robert Aitoun the Debitor and therefore with consent of the said Anna Discharges the said Mr. Robert by a Contract of the same Date betwixt Iohn Scot and Mr. Robert relating the Contract of Marriage but acknowledges there was no Sums payed for the Discharge contained in the said Contract but that the Security contained in this Contract was granted therefore and therefore he gives a new Heretable Security to Iohn Scot the Marriage Dissolves within year and day by the Death of the said Anna without Children she in her Testament names the said Iohn Scot her Husband her Executor and universal Legator George Scot as
proven they were not obliged to take Terms to produce or otherwise upon this pretence of Part and Pertinent before the samine were instructed any party might necessitate all his Neighbours to make patent to him their Charter Chists The Pursuer answered that the Defenders ought to take a Term to produce and that before Certification at that Term he would prove Part and Pertinent and alleadged the Practique in the Case of the Town of Sterling observed by Dury the 24. of Iune 1625. The Lords Sustained the Defense and would not put the Defenders to take Terms till the Lands in question were first proven to be Part and Pertinent and allowed the Pursuer to insist primo loco in this Declarator for that effect and as to the Practique alleadged they found in that Case the Defenders alleadged upon no Right whereas the Defenders propone here upon an expresse Infeftment Laird Kilburny contra the Heirs of Tailzie of Kilburny and Schaw of Greinock Eodem die UMquhile Sir Iohn Crawford of Kilburny having only two Daughters the eldest Married to Blackhal Dispones his Estate to Margaret the younger and to the Heirs-male of her Body which failing to the eldest Heir Female without division throughout all the Succession and failling the Issue of this Daughter his eldest Daughter and her Issue and failling of these Iordanhil and Kilburny their Issue all which failling his own Heirs and Assigneys whatsomever In which Disposition there is a Clause that the said Margaret and the Heirs of Tailzie should not alter the Tailzie nor Dispone or burden the Lands ' or contract Debts whereby they might be Apprized and carried from the Heirs of Tailzie otherwise the Contraveeners should lose their Right ipso facto and there should be place to the next Heir of Tailzie but there is a Clause subjoined that the said Margaret and the Heirs of Tailzie might Sell Dispone and Wodset the Lands of Easter Greinock and Carsburn and might burden the same with Sums of Money for paying and satisfying of the Defuncts Debts The said Margaret Crawford having Married the Earl of Crawfords Son Patrick they did Sell the Lands of Easter Crawford and Carsburn to Sir Iohn Schaw of Greinock at a Rate far above the ordinar Price having expected a Bargain with the Town of Glasgow for a Harbour there but the Town having made another Bargain with New-wark Greinock pursued Kilburny either to annul the Minut or fulfil the same and to secure him in relation to the Clause de non alienando and to that effect Kilburny raises a Declarator against the Heirs of Tailzie to hear and see it found and Declared that by the Right granted to the Lady by her Father she might lawfully Sell the Lands of Easter Greinock and Carsburn The Heirs of Tailzie compeared not but Greinock compeared and was admitted for his Interest which was that the Processe being for his security he might propone all the Defenses which he thought competent to the Heirs of Tailzie and alleadged that the Libel was no ways Relevant bearing a power to Sell simply but that it ought to have been conform to the Clause in the Disposition viz. to Sell Wodset or Burden for payment of the Defuncts Debts which did necessarly import that no further could be Sold then what was sufficient to pay the Debt and therefore no Processe till the Libel were so ordered and the Debts produced The Pursuer answered that he opponed the Clause having two Members one bearing with full power to Dispone the Lands of Easter Grienock and Carsburn and the other bearing to affect the same with Sums for paying of the Defuncts Debts which payment of the Defuncts Debts was but the end motive and consideration for which the power was granted but was no restriction quality or limitation of the power 2dly It did only relate to the second Member of the Clause and not to the first Member which bore with full power to Sell and Wodset c. which full power is directly opposit to a limited power 3dly Albeit the Pursuer were obliged to instruct the Debt and apply the price for satisfying thereof yet the Clause doth not limit him to Sell only so much as will be equivalent to the Debt but he satisfying the Debt more or lesse hath acted conform to the Clause which uses to be so exprest in Clauses of this nature as that the Heirs of Tailzie may Dispone so much as will be sufficient for payment of the Debt which not being exprest these restrictive Clauses being against common Law are strictissimi juris and not to be extended beyond what the words expresly bears 4thly Albeit the Pursuer were obliged to instruct that there were Debt which might be a price yet he were not obliged to instruct that they would be equivalent to this price but to such a price as were not a third part within the ordinar Rate in which latitude every Seller hath power and the alienation cannot be quarrelled and albeit that price would be more then the Debt yet these Lands being two intire Tenements which none would Buy by Parcels the Pursuer could only be comptable to the Heirs of Tailzie for the superplus The Defender answered that he opponed the Clause being one and copulative and that these Lands being put per expressum in the Clause de non alienando It could not be thought that the immediat following Clause would give the Lady as much power as to these Lands as if they had not been in the former Clause but the intent to satisfie the Defuncts Debt being the last words in the Clause is relative to the whole Clause and natively resolves into an Restriction or Quality not bearing that they night be the more able to pay the Debts but for payment and satisfaction of the Debts The Lords considering that Heirs of Tailzie were absent and that as to them the Interlocutor would be in absence found it most just and safe for both Parties to declare conform to the Clause that the Alienation was valide for satisfying the Defuncts Debts and found not that the Debts behoved to be equivalent to this price The Creditors of John Pollock contra James Pollock his Son January 21. 1669. THe Creditors of John Pollock having Adjudged his Tenement for their Debt and James Pollock having gotten a Bond of 5000. Merks from his Father payable after his Fathers death which was granted after he was Married he did also Apprize thereupon within year and day of the Adjudication The Adjudgers raise a Reduction of this Bond and the Apprizing following thereupon upon these Reasons First Because the Bond was granted for Love and Favour and albeit it bear borrowed Money yet the said Iames has acknowledged by his Oath that it was for Love and Favour and so being granted betwixt most conjunct Persons after the contracting of their Debts it is null by the Act of Parliament 1621. The Defender alleadged that the Reason was not Relevant as to such Debts
legitimo modo by Dissolution The Pursuer answered First That albeit the King or his Officers might quarrel his Right as not proceeding upon Dissolution or any other having their Right upon Dissolution yet the Defender cannot especially seing he hath Homologat the Pursuers Right his Predecessors to whom he is Heir having taken Infeftment thereupon likeas the Pursuer has satisfyed the Kings Interest by giving Bond to the Kings Advocat to hold the Lands Waird of the King in the same way as the Defender would therefore the Advocat hath declared he will not concern himself 2dly the Pursuer having obtained a new Right of the King since the Act of Parliament 1661. the same must be valide to him as to these Vassals who have or shall consent because the exception of the Act expresly bears that such a consent is equivalent as if the Vassal had Resigned in the Kings Hands in favour and for new Infeftment to the interposed Superior and had then taken a subaltern Right of him against which there can be no pretence so that by a Right in the exception it cannot be meaned a perfect Right proceeding upon Dissolution because that would be valide without the Vassals consent but that the Vassals consent being equivalent to a Resignation makes the Right valide without Dissolution Which the Lords found Relevant the Duke proving a sufficient consent but it was not Decided whether Major Ballantines taking Infeftment would import a sufficient consent conform to the exception of the Act so that he might not thereafter return to the King Iack contra Iack Iuly 15. 1669. PAtrick Iack having only three Daughters Margaret his eldest Daughter Married Iohn Dowglas and there is a Contract betwixt Iohn Dowglas and the Tutors of the other two Daughters dividing there Fathers Inheritance in three parts and mutally Disponing the same with Procuratory and Precept and there being a Salmond Fishing holding Waird of the King which fell to Margarets share Iohn Dowglas takes Infeftment upon the Tutors Precept Disponing for the other two that Fishing after his Death the said Margaret takes a Gift of Recognition of the said Salmond Fishing as falling by the Infeftment taken by Iohn Dowglas without consent of the Superior and thereupon pursues Declarator Katharin Iack and Robertson her Spouse and the other Sister pursue a Reduction of the Contract of Division as done by their Tutors in their Minority to their Lesion and in answer to the Recognition alleadged First That this Recognition occurred in the time of the English when Recognitions were excluded and such Infeftments by the Law then in use were allowed 2dly The Infeftment here granted proceeded only upon the Disposition of their Tutors whose acts except in what is proper to the Administration of their Office is void It was answered as to the first that they opponed the Decision in the case of Sir George Kinaired against the Vassals of the Master of Gray by which it was found that Infeftments taken of Waird-lands without the Superiors consent even during the Usurpation inferred Recognition and to the second that the Division among the Daughters was an act of Administration that the Daughters might have been compelled to do It was answered that there is no such Decision produced and that in the case of the Vassals of Gray they did continue in Possession several years after the Kings Restitution and did not take Confirmations but here the said Margaret one of the Sisters who should have taken Confirmation before she had continued Possession cannot have benefit by her own fault and make use of a Gift of Recognition in her own Person proceeding upon her own and her Husbands fault neither can the Division be a lawful act of Administration of the Tutors in so far as they granted them Precepts of Seising to be holden of their Pupil which no Law could have compelled them to do but only Procuratories of Resignation likeas it was Iohn Dowglas fault not to make use of the Procuratory but of the Prccept The Lords found no Recognition incurred but because the Parties might have been troubled if any other had taken the Gift they ordained the other two Sisters to pay their part of the expences of the Gift Mr. Archibald Dennistoun contra Semple of Fulwood Iuly 16 1669. THe Lairds of Fulwood elder and younger and Dennistoun being appointed Overseers by Culgrain to his Daughters the eldest Daughter being Married to Mr. Archibald Dennistouns Son there is a Contract betwixt Mr. Archibald and the three Overseers taking burden for the Daughters by which the Estate of Culgrain and Mr. Archibalds Estate are both settled in the Person of his Son and the Overseers are obliged to cause the Minors and their Curators become obliged to relieve Mr. Archibald of 17000. Merks Mr. Archibald Charges Fulwood upon the Contract who Suspends alleadging that the Clause can only import that he is lyable for his own part but not in solidum seing the Clause bears not the Overseers to be bound conjunctly and severally It was answered that the obligement is not for payment of a Sum which is divisible but for doing a Fact which is indivisible viz. the Minors being become bound to relieve which is all one as if the Overseers had been obliged to cause the Minors Subscribe a Bond of releif which could not divide but would have obliged every one of them in solidum It was answered that the result of the obligation being releif of Sums which are divisible the obligation at least the Damnadge and Interest succeeding in place thereof ought to be devisible for the obligation being factum alienum imprestable to the Overseer and the third Overseers that refuses to concur being the Chargers own Brother there is no reason that the Overseers who had no Office or obligement but were only Overseers which is not nomen juris should be lyable for the Chargers own Brother his third part thereof The Lords found them only lyable pro rata Barclay contra Barclay Iuly 20. 1669. THe Laird of Towy having only one Daughter Elizabeth Barclay and his Lands being provided to Heirs Male Dispones his Estate to his Daughter In which Disposition there being not only a Procuratory of Resignation but a Prcept of Seising the said Elizabeth was Infeft upon the Precept and being an Infant her Friends thinking it might infer Recognition took a Gift of the Recognition and now pursues Declarator thereon against the Tutor of Towy Heir Male and Captain Barclay as pretending Right by Disposition to the Estate It was alleadged for the Defenders Absolvitor because the Disposition granted by umquhile Towy to the Pursuer his Daughter was granted on Death-bed at the least it was retained by the Defunct and never delivered till he was on Death-bed and thereby it is null and cannot infer Recognition because the Law upon just consideration that Parties are presumed to be weak in their Minds and easily wrought upon after contracting of the Disease of which they Died has
accordingly It was alleadged he could not have allowance of the sums payed to the Brother and Sister because these could not exclude lawful Creditors It was answered for Mr. William he had payed bona fide a part and had given Bond for the rest and could not now be called in question It was answered he was in mala fide because the payment was made after intenting of the Reduction against his Right at the pursuers Authors Instance Mr. William answered non Relevat unless there had been a Reason Libelled in that Reduction against these Bonds The Pursuer answered it was sufficient that Reduction was used against the whole Right to which any Reason might be added The Lords found this alleadgence not Relevent to put Mr. William in mala fide unless there had been a special Reason of Reduction filled up and shown to Mr. William against these Bonds particularly Margaret Anderson and Iohn Elphingstoun contra Mary Wachop Iuly 22. 1662. MArgaret Anderson and Iohn Elphingstoun as heir to Anderson who were the two Daughters of umquhil Mr. David Anderson of Hills pursues Mary Wachop his Relict and Executrix to fulfil an Article of his Contract of Marriage bearing That if there were no Heirs-male of the Marriage he band and oblieged him and his Heirs-male and Successors whatsomever to pay to the Daughters of the Marriage 3000. merks and craved that the Executrix as representing their Father might pay the same The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because it is clear by the Clausses of the Contract that the Father did not bind himself simply or himself and his Heirs but that he bound only himself and his Heirs-male which is the more clear that the Narrative of that Clause bears because his Estate is provided to his Heirs-male The Pursuer answered he opponed the Clause by which he did not only obliege his Heirs-male but himself and his Heirs-male and so in oblieging himself he hath oblieged all that Represent him and he might have been pursued in his own lifetime if his Daughters had come to the age appointed by the provision 2ly He has not only oblieged himself and his Heirs-male but his Successors whatsomever and therefore his Executors The Lords found that by the Tenor of the Clause and Narrative thereof the Defuncts meaning was chiefly to obliege his Heir-male and albeit Successors whatsomever was added yet by the Narrative and the order of the Words they found the Heir-male was first burdened and behoved first to be discussed Therefore ordained the Defender to condescend what the Heir-male had to succeed to and if he was not Entered Heir-male and had nothing to succeed to as Heir-male they thought the Defender would be lyable William Montgomery contra Theoder Montgomery Eodem die WIlliam Montgomery as Donator to the Escheat of Theoder Montgomeryâ— pursues a general and special Declarator in on Libel and insists first in the general The Defender alleadges Absolvitor because the Horning is null the Denunciation being at the Cross of Edinburgh where the Defender had not his Domicile The Pursuer opponed the Horning standing bearing the Defender to dwell in Edinburgh and the Horning could not be taken away by Exception alibi not instantly veryfied The Lords Repelled the Defense but prejudice of Reduction thereupon Secondly Absolvitor from the Rents and Duties of the Lands of Whyteslaid in time coming because these fell not under single Escheat It was Replyed the Defense ought to be Repelled because the jus mariti falls under single Escheat of the Husband and carrys with it per consequence the Liferent of the Wife The Lords was clear that the Replâ— was Relevant but the Defense not being competent in the general Declarator which was first insisted in they give no Interlocutor on the Reply Lord Frazer contra Phillorth Iuly 23. 1662. IN the Declarator of Property of the Barony of Cairnbulg at the Instance of the Lord Frazer against the Laird of Phillorth It was alleadged for the Defender Absolvitor because the Pursuers Father and Grand fathers Infeftment is upon the Resignation of Frazer of Doors Ita est Frazer of Doors had no real Right in his Person never having been Seased at least there is Certification granted against Doors Seasin in the Improbation at the Iâ—stance of the Defender against the Pursuer and his Father so that Doors having no reall Right his Disposition Instrument of Resignation and Câ—arter granted by the King flowing upon the Resignation of the Laird of Phillorth and the Lord Lovit who had Right to Pttsligo's Appryzing of the hail Estate of Phillorth can give no Right to declare the Property especially against the Defenders who hath a real Right by Infeftment flowing from Phillorth his Goodsyre by Resignation and flowing from the Lord Lovit which albeit posterior yet having the first Infeftment is the first and only Right The Pursuer answered the Defense ought to be Repelled because any Right the Defender hath is from his own Grand-Father to whom he was alioqui successurus and thereby the Defender is Successor titulo lucrativo to his Grand-father the common Author after the Disposition granted to Doors and as umquhil Phillorth Doors Author personali objectione would be excluded from opposing Doors Right of Property which Right he had Disponed to Doorsâ— and was oblieged to warrand no more can the Defender who by this same Right he Defends being successor Lucrative to his Grand-Father be heard to exclude the Pursuer who is Successor to Doors 2ly Albeit there be no Seasine yet umquhil Phillorth and Lovit were fully denuded in favours of Doors by the Resignation made in the Kings hands and Charter conform after which any Right granted by them to this Defender is a non haâ—ente potestatem 3ly Any Right the Defender hath flowing from the Lord Lovit cannot defend him because it was but an Appryzing against Phillorth the common Author and it is offered to be proven that the Appryzing was satisfied within the Legal in so far as the Lands of Innernorth were Disponed by Phillorth and Lovit joyntly to Frazer of Doors for 20000. merks and the Lands of Innerallothy were Disponed by them to Lovits own Sons irredeemable the price of which Lands being 54000. merks was the sum appointed for satisfaction of the Appryzing betwixt the saids Parties and so as to the Lands of Cairnbulg and remnant Lands appryzed the appryzing is extinct The Defender answered to the first that he is not Successor titulo lucrativo to his Goodsyre because the time of the Disposition by his Goodsyre to him and also the time of his Goodsyres death his Father was alive and served Heir to his Goodsyre 2ly There was no Right in his Goodsyre when he Disponed but all the Right was in the Lord Lovit by Pitsâ—igoes Appryzing neither was Lovit denuded by the Resignation or Charter without Seasine so but that the second Resignation with the first Infeftment is preferable 3ly Satisfaction of the Appryzing as it is alleadged is not Relevant unless
this Case is as favourable because the Reversion was only to the Father in his own life and therefore the Son endeavoured to hinder him to Redeem by taking Right to this Appryzing It was answered that the Case was not alike in a Conventional Reversion as in a legal And that the Appryzing led against the Father in his life would perpetuat the Reversion and that this Case was unfavourable where the Father intended to frustrate his Heir in favours of the Wife of the second Marriage to whom he had assigned the Reversion The Lords having upon the first report considered the favourableness of the Sons Case sustained the Defense but afterward upon Bill ordained them to be heard again in presentia and having heard them The Lords were of different opinions so that that came not to a Vot But the Lords before answer ordained the Wife to insist upon her Right who alleadged that she might Redeem ad hunc effectum to enjoy the benefit of her Liferent Right after her Husbands Death It was answered First That she wanted the concourse of her Husband 2ly That her Assignation was not intimat It was answered First Her Assignation was Registrat in the Register of Reversions conform to the Act of Parliament Which Registration being publicandi causa needed no intimation 2ly That she had a Disposition in Liferent by her Contract of the Lands which carried omnejus in the Disponer as to the Liferent Right during her Life and so carried the Reversion though not exprest and her Seasine being registrat it was equivalent to the Registration of the Assignation The Lords sustained the Wifes Interest and declared in her favours for her Liferent use and found the Disposition with the Seasine Registrat and the Assignation also Registrat sufficient Cheisly contra Cuthbert Eodem die CHeisly Charges Cuthbert for his Prentis-fee Who suspends and alleadges that he was set Prentise to him as Apothecary and that he deserted that Employment and became a Drogeist and thereupon the Suspender left him It was answered that the breeding of him as a Drogeist was sufficient and that he now practised as Apothecary and Cherurgeon The Lords found this answer not Relevant the Suspender being set to him as Apothecary to make Drogs and not as a Drogeisi that buyes Drogs as to the time after he changed But the Charger having further offered to prove that he constantly in his Chamber makes as well as sell Drogs the Lords found it Relevant Richard Cunninghame contra Duke of Hamiltoun Eodem die RIchard Cuninghame pursues the Duke and Dutches of Hamiltoun for payment of a Bond granted by the late Duke which being produced appeared to have been blank in the Sum Date and Creditors Name The Defenders alleadged the Bond was null as wanting the Designation of the Writer It was answered that they did now Design him which has been alwayes allowed by the Lords It was answered that though the Lords have done so ex officio Yet in a case of this nature where the Debt is so old never mentioned before and the Bond in the substantials blank in which case the Lords ought to keep by the express words in the Act of Parliament that such Writs are null and not to be supplyed by an equivalent The Lords Repelled the Defense and admitted the Designation Hellen Hill contra Maxwels Eodem die IN an accompt and reckoning between Hellen Hill Relict of Iohn Maxwel in Glasgow who was one of the Tutors named by Iohn to his Bairns and Mr. Robert and George Maxwels his brethren who succeeded the Daughters being dead Iohn by his Testament leaves his two Daughters and failing of either of them by Decease to the other his universal Legatars one of the Daughters dyed Pupil and the other shortly after her age of 12. years nominat the said Hellen her Mother universal Legatrix whereby Hellen craved the universal Legacy of both the Daughters It was alleadged that the last Daughter not having Confirmed her self Executrix to the first the first share was never established in her Person and so could not be Transmitted by her Testament but belonged to the nearest of Kin of the first Daughter viz. The saids Maxwells It was answered That this being a Substitution of each of the two Daughters to other nominatim by the death of the one it accrest into the other ipso facto without Confirmation as in the case of Bonds of Provision payable to the Father and by Decease of him to such a Bairn named albeit the Father be Fiar and the Bairn but Heir substitute it needs not Confirmation but the Bairn may summarly charge or pursue The Lords found no need of Confirmation but that it did accresce to the second Daughter upon the death of the first and so was carried by the seconds Testament In this account Mr. Robert as Heir pursuing for the Heretable Bonds The Tutrix answered that she ought to have allowance of what was wared out upon repairing of the Tenement in Glasgow It was answered that she as Tutrix ex officio was oblieged to exhaust the Moveables first one Person being both Heir and Executor and not to exhaust the Heretable Bonds that bore Annualrent and to let the other lie unprofitable and now to apply it to her own use by her Legacy It was answered That it was employed upon the Heritage and so was profitable to the Heir only being employed upon the House and that by a Warrand the Heir being then under Tutors to repair it out of the first and readiest of the Defuncts Estate The Lords found that Article Relevant to be deduced out of the Heretable Estate Elizabeth Anderson contra Andrew Cunninghame December 7. 1665. ANdrew Cunninghames Wife having left a Legacy to Elizabeth Anderson It was alleadged by the Husband that his Wifes share of the moveables was exhausted It was answered That he having confirmed his Wifes Testament and given up the Debts due by him therein and made Faith thereon he cannot now be admitted to adduce any other Debts especially being so recent before the Testament within three or four years It was answered that he had only made Faith upon the Inventar of the Goods belonging to him but not of the Debts due by him which were only given up to abaite the Quot and albeit it may be presumed that he knew and remembred his own Debt yet presumptio cediâ— veritati seing the Creditors now produce their Bond instructing the Debt and crave preference Which the Lords found Relevant vid. Iune 9. 1666. Katharin Smith and William Duncan contra Isobel Robertson Eodem die KAtharin Smith and William Duncan having apprized from Isobel Robertson and Iohn Wilson all Right they had to a Tenement under which fell the Liferent-right of Isobel Robertson his Wife jure mariti Pursues the said Isobel for payment of the Mails and Duties that she had uplifted and of a part of the Tenement that she dwelt in her self She alleadged first that her Husbands
any burden and Liferenters who having a speciall Competent Provision this general Clause being but adjected as uncertain is not so favourable or so to be extended seing the Husband did not Infeft the Wife in his own time in the Conquest And therefore found her to be lyable to the Annualrent of this Sum which they found instructed by the Hubands Declaration where the Ladies Father is a subscribing Witness Sir Rorie Mcclaud contra Walter Young and John Govane Eodem die WAlter Young Iohn Govan and Hendrie Hope by a Letter written to any that they should Buy Kows from in the Highlands desired that they might use the Bearer of the Letter kindly and for whatever quantity of Kows they bought they should answer such Bills as he should draw upon them therefore Hendrie Hope being broken Iames Gray as Assigney pursues the other two for the whole who alleadged they were only lyable for their own Parts It was answered that they were oblidged to answer such Bills as the Person intrusted by them should draw and they produce a Bill drawn by him upon them or either of them It was answered that such Bills can only relate to the Quantity and not to the Quality and manner of oblidging seing if they had so intended they would have oblidged them and either of them or it would have born what he should draw upon them or either of them should be answered The Lords found every one of them lyable in solidum for they thought that the Clause being dubious was to be interpret against the Writers and the Sellers of the Kows were bona fide to rest upon the interpretation of the Persons intrusted Sir John Leslie contra Sinclar and Dun. Ianuary 22. 1665. SIr Iohn Leslie as Assigney constitute by Sir William Dick to a Bond oblidging Francis Sinclar as Principal and young Dun as Cautioner to deliver 30 Chalders of Bear at 10 merk the Boll Dun alleadges absolvitor because he was Minor in Familia Paterna and so his Father was his Curator of Law and therefore his subscribing as Cautioner was null being without his Fathers consent It was answered the alleadgeance was not competent by exception against a clear liquid Bond. Secondly That the Defense is only competent in the Case of Curators chosen The Lords found the Defense Competent by way of Exception but before answer to the Relevancie ordained the Parties to condescend upon Duns age the time of his Subscription and whether he did then administrat or go about any other affairs Dame Rachel Burnet contra Lepers December 23. 1665. BY Contract of Marriage betwixt Mr. Iohn Leper and his Father and and Dame Rachel Burnet on the other part both Father and Son were oblidged to employ 20000 lib. upon security for the Liferent use of the said Dame Rachel who with concurse of Prestoun her present Husband pursues the Sisters of the said Mr. Iohn Leper as Heirs and otherwayes representing him and their Husbands for their entrests and likewise Doctor Balfours Wife only Daughter of an of the Sisters as Heir to her Father and Mother against whom there was Decreet of Registration obtained during their Lifetimes together and on this ground That the Defuncts Husband did by Contract of Marriage Disposition or otherwayes obtain Right to the Portion of his Wife one of the Sisters and Heirs and therefore is lyable in payment in quantum lucratus est It was alleadged for Doctor Balfour and his Wife that she was willing to renounce to be Heir to her Mother but as for the other passive Title as representing her Father who was locupleâ—ior factus it is no wayes relevant for Marriage is a cause onerous and Tochars are granted ad sustinenda onera matrimonij and therefore are never counted fraudulent deeds or without an onerous cause nor do they fall within the Act of Parliament 1621. against fraudful alienations neither was the Defenders Father lyable though there was a Decreet of Registration against him because before any Execution the Marriage was dissolved It was answered for the Pursuer that that member of the Lybel stands relevant because the Defenders Mother being Heir to her Brother the Contracter could not transmit her Estate to her Husband without the burden of her Brothers Debt and it is a most unquestionable Ground in Law and Equity quod nemo debet cum alieno damno locupletari and therefore Creditors are still preferred to Portions of Children though given for their Tochar The Lords found that Member not Relevant that Decreet was obtained against the Husband and Wife stante matrimonio seing it received not Execution and as to the other Member they thought that if there were but a moderat and ordinar Tochar proportionable to the burdens of the Marriage it would not infer Repitition or if the Tochar was great or an universal Disposition of all the Heirs Right they thought the Husband would be lyable in so far as it was above a proportionable Tochar and therefore before Answer Ordained the Contract of Marriage to be produced and the Pursuer to condescend if there was any other benefit accresced to the Husband by his Wife then by vertue of the Contract It was further alleadged for the Lady Pitmedden one of the Sisters on Life that she could only be lyable for her own sixth part as one of the six Heirs Portioners It was answered by our Law that all Heirs were lyable in solidum There was several Decisions alleadged on either hand on the 7. of February 1632. Hoom contra Hoom Where the Lords found the Heirs Portioners lyable but for their own share Another February 15. and March 21. 1634. Watson contra Or Whereby one of the Daughters having a Disposition of the whole Estate was found lyable for the whole Debt And another Ianuary 24. 1642. Where one of the Heirs Portioners having Disponed her share to the other and thereby being insolvent that other was found lyable in solidum The Lords having considered the Case found the Heir Portioner lyable iprmo loco only for her own share untill the rest of the Heirs Portioners were discust but determined not whether these who were solvendo should be lyable in solidum albeit the Debt exceeded their Portion or only intirely for their own share and for as much more as the value of their Succession could amount to Laird of Cesnock contra Lord Bargany Eodem die THE Laird of Cesnock and the Lord Bargany and Balcarras being bound conjunctly and severally in a Bond Cesnock being distressed for the whole takes Assignation and pursues Bargany for two thirds who alleadged payment and because it was a publick Debt he produced an incident in termino which the Lords sustained not because it buire no warrand to cite Cesnock the Principall Partie and the Executions were within 48 hours by one Person in Kyll Renfreu Fyfe and Edinburgh and so suspect but they superceeded Extract of the Decreet to the first of November contra Wilson and Lodwick Callender
bare no Annualrent The Lords found that the Tutor behoved to have a competent time to uplift and Re-imploy these Sums for which they allowed him a year and that he was lyable for Annualrent after that year 2ly How soon a Tutor was obliged to do Diligence to uplift his Pupils Means so that if the Debitor became Irresponsable the Tutor was lyable The Lords found that if the Pupils Sums were in the hands of Debitors unquestionably Solvendo the Tutor was not obliged to lift the same unlesse the condition of some of the Debitors or Cautioners became worse at which time he was obliged to do all Diligence for uplifting the sums unlesse the Debitors became to be known to be altogether broken upon a sudden which he could not foresee 3ly VVhat Diligence a Tutor was obliged to do whether Horning was sufficient or if Captionâ— Poynding and Appryzing were necessary The Lords found that in different Cases different Executions were requisite viz. If the Debitor were known to have Lands appryzable or Goods poyndable or Sums arrestable that the Tutor was obliged to do Diligence accordingly and if not to use personal Execution 4ly Whether the Tutor should have allowance of such Sums as he payed without Sentence The Lords found such sums allowable unless a competent Defense could now be proponed which was known and probable to the Tutor at the time of payment Iohn Watson contra Iames Law Iuly 12. 1667. JAmes Law having Disponed certain Lands to Iohn Watson with absolute warrandice and after the Disposition there being a Designation of a part of the Land for Horse and Kines Grasse to the Minister conform to the Act of Parliament 1661. Watson pursues for Warrandice upon that distresse The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the distresse is by a subsequent Law falling after the Disposition It was answered first That absolute Warrandice does even take place in the case of a subsequent Law at least in so far as the Pursuer suffers detriment because if the Lands had continued the Defenders had been so burdened and therefore is lyable in quantum lucratus est 2ldy This is no supervenient Law because the Act of Parliament 1661 Is a Reviving of the Parliament 1649. which being Rescinded in the said Parliament 1661. By a posterior Act thereof concerning Manses and Gleibs is declared to be valid as if it had been made in the year 1649. It was answered to the first that nothing can infer Eviction or Recourse but that which had a Cause anterior to the Warrandice unlesse it had been otherwise exprest Nor is it any ground that if the Disponer remained Heretor he had been lyable otherwise all other supervenient Burdens would Return not only upon the Immediat but upon all the Disponers but all such accidental Superveniencies are upon the Purchasers hazard as well as the Advantages are to his benefit To the second the time of this Disposition the Parliament 1649 was Rescinded and the new Act was not Enacted Neither by the new Act is it declared to be effectual from the year 1649. As to the Horse and Kines Grasse but only as to the Manse It was answered that was but a mistake of the Draught of the Act of Parliament there being no Reason wherefore it should be drawn back as to Manses more then to the rest but it was the meaning of the Act of Parliament to Revive the former Act in all points It was answered that the meaning of Acts of Parliament may not be extended contrair to the words neither can any thing be supplyed that is omitted in a Statutory Act. The Lords found no Recourse upon the Distress arysing from the Act of Parliament 1661. and that the drawing back thereof being expresly as to Manses which is adjected as a limitation could not be extended to the Ministers Grass which is statute in a different way in this then in the Act of Parliament 1649. From this the Heretors are only to pay twenty pounds of Money and in the former Lands were only to be designed therefore found the Distress that being by a supervenient Law that the Warrandice did not reach thereto Margaret Scot contra Sir Laurence Scot. Iuly 14. 1667. SIr William Scot of Clerkingtoun having granted Assignation to his Daughter Margaret Scot of a Sum due by Wauchtoun Pursues Sir Laurence his Son as Haver to deliver the same It was alleadged for the Defender that there was a Clause in the Assignation reserving a power to Sir William to alter and Dispone during his Life and that he did Assign this Bond to Iohn Scot. It was answered that he took a Back-bond from Iohn Scot bearing that the Assignation was granted in Trust to this effect only that Iohn Scot should do diligence thereupon It was answered that the Back-bond bears Iohn Scot to be obliged to denude in favours of Sir William Scot his Heirs and Assigneys whereby the Assignation is altered The Pursuer answered that there appears nothing of the alteration of the Defuncts mind more then if he had appryzed in his own name whereby the Bond would have been adjudged to him his Heirs and Assigneys which is no more then if an Assigney should use the name of the Cedent which would no ways infer that by adjudging Land to the Cedent and his Heirs they pass from the Assignation The Lords found no alteration in the Pursuers Assignation by the Right made to John Scot in his Back-bond which also bare the Right to John Scot was made to do Diligence and for no other end Mr. John Eleis contra Elizabeth Keith Mary Steuart and Keith Iuly 16. 1667. THis Cause at the Instance of Mr. Iohn Eleis against Keiths being Dispute the twenty seventh of February last The Lords found Inhibitions to reach Lands Acquired after the Inhibition but superceeded to give answer to that Point whether the Inhibitions were to be extended to take away Renunciations of Wodset Lands which being now Debated It was alleadged that an Inhibition could not hinder the Granter of a Wodset to pay his Debt and accept of a Renunciation from the Person Inhibit because a Renunciation is but a Discharge and Inhibitions were never found to take away Discharges of Heretable Bonds nor to hinder any Party to pay their Debt but on the contrair It was an universal Custom over all the Kingdom that Debtors should pay their Debts and did accept Discharges and Renunciations without looking into the Registers which hath been most frequent not only in Wodsets but mainly in Infeftments of Annualrent upon Heretable Bonds which no man ever doubted to pay till he searched the Registers of Inhibitions et communis consuetudo pro lege habetur It was answered first That the Inhibition bears expresly a Prohibition to grant Renunciations but no Prohibition to grant Discharges and as to the Custom it cannot be showen that persons did pay Wodsets and take Renunciations from these that were Inhibit much lesse that the Lords by their Decisions did approve
the end of which Disposition there is a Clause bearing that because the Young's were kindly Tennents in the Lands of Greenlaw therefore they Dispone their Right thereof and kindlynesse thereto to Grubbet More having acquired the Rights of the Lands of Morbatle from Sir Iohn Ker and the Earl of Louthian having Apprized Sir Iohn's Right of the Barony of Lintoun in Anno 1636. gives a particular Right of Greenlaw alone which is now also in the Person of More whereupon arises a Competition of Right between Grubbet and More Grubbet alleadged that he has Right to Greenlaw as a Part and Pertinent of Otterburn which he and the Young's his Authors have Possest far beyond 40. years as Part and Pertinent of Otterburn and offers to prove that there is standing Marches between Morbatle and Otterburn within which Marches Greenlaw lyes on Otterburn side and that his Infeftment produced granted by Young to Young bears expresly Greenlaw It was alleadged for More First that Grubbet cannot pretend Greenlaw to be Part and Pertinent of Otterburn because by his own Infeftments produced granted by the Young's and accepted by him Greenlaw is not exprest as Part and Pertinent of Otterburn albeit Raschbog tho lesse considerable then it be exprest and on the contrair it is declared that the Young's were kindly Tennents of Greenlaw and Disponed their kindness thereof aud offers to prove that the Young's were in constant custom of Service to Sir Iohn Ker in Armes and otherways whenever they were required and that most of the Lands on the border were Set only for Service which Service could not be attribute to Otterburn because it was holden blench of Sir Iohn and if need be 's offered to prove by Witnesses that when the said Young's came not to the said Service they were poinded therefore 2dly More offered to prove that Greenlaw is a distinct Tenement both from Otterburn and Morbatle and hath past as a distinct Tenement since the year 1636. and hath a known March between it and Otterburn viz. a Know. 3dly For Grubbets pretence of bruiking Greenlaw as Part and Pertinent of Otterburn for 40. years so that he might claim it by Prescription the alleadgeance ought to be Repelled first because Prescription cannot proceed without an Infeftmen and it cannot be ascribed to the Young's Infeftment wherein they acknowledge that they were kindly Tennents of Greenlaw after which no course of time can ever prescribe a Right to Greenlaw as part and Pertinent of Otterburn by that Charter and therefore any Possession that is thereof is without Infeftment 2dly There is not fourty years Possession abating Mores Minority 3dly There are interruptions and therefore if Greenlaw be either a distinct Tenement or part of Morbatle it belongs to More It was answered for Grubbet that he and his Authors Possessing Greenlaw these 40 years past as part of Otterburn gives him sufficient Right thereunto notwithstanding of any acknowledgement in the Charter or without the Charter before that time for Prescription may change Part and Pertinents so that which was once not acknowledged to be a part by Possession 40 years thereafter may become a part and that acknowledgement never being made use of Prescribes and the Charter in which it is is a sufficient Title both for what was parts the time of the Charter and what becomes thereafter parts by Prescription 2dly The acknowledgement of a Party having Right is of no effect when by demonstration of the Right it self the contrair appears as here therebeing an anterior Right of Property of the Young's produced before that acknowledgement 3dly The ackowledgement is not that they were only kindly Tennents otherwise it is very well consistent with the Property that they being first kindly Tennents and that kindliness being thought more favourable to maintain Possession in these places then any Heretable Right they might very well Dispone Otterburn whereof Greenlaw is a part and might also Dispone their kindness of Greenlaw they had before the Right of Property neither doth it infer because Raschbog is exprest as Pertinent of Otterburn which hath been upon account that Raschbog was then unclear that therefore Greenlaw is no Part thereof or else it could have no more parts but Raschhog there being no more exprest and as for the alleadged Services done by the Young's to Sir Iohn Ker they cannot infer that the Young's were then Tennents of Greenlaw because such Services being only general and no particular Services accustomed by Tennents they might have been performed to Sir Iohn as Superior or as out of kindness to a great Man in the Countrey and it s offered to be proven if need be 's that hundreds granted such Services who were not Tennents so that unless there were a Tack Inrolments of Court or Executions of Poinding produced to instruct Services as a Tack-duty on Greenlaw it is Irrelevant The Lords by a former Interlocutor had found that by the acknowlegement in Young's Charter or any thing therein was not sufficient to exclude Greenlaw from being Part and Pertinent of Otterburn but they found that is More would alleadge a Tack or Inrolment of Court to the Young's of Services for Greenlaw it were sufficient or otherwise if he would alleadge constant Service of the Young's by Riding c. with Sir Iohn and there being Poinded by him when they were absent they found the same with the acknowledgement in Grubbets Right to exclude Grubbet from Greenlaw and if these were not alleadged they ordained Witnesses to be Examined upon the ground hinc inde before answer upon these points whether Greenlaw was known to be a distinct Tennement both from Otterburn and Marbotle or whether it was known to be Part and Pertinent of either and what were the Marches and Meithes thereof and what Services were done by the Young's to Sir Iohn Ker and if such Services were done by others not being moveable Tennents Barclay contra Barclay Iuly 6. 1669. BArclay of Towy having but one Daughter and his Estate Tailzied to Heirs-male his nearest Heir-male being the old Tutor of Towy above 80. years of Age and having also but one Daughter and neither Father nor Daughter being Persons of much discretion Captain Barclay his next Heir-male having also but Daughters he Dispones his Estate in favours of his own Daughter and it being rumored that Captain Barclay pretended a Bond of an hundreth and three thousand Pounds granted by Towy to him that thereby he might prefer him to the Tutor and that the Tutor as Heir-male had also granted several Dispositions to Captain Barclay of that Estate Towies Daughter being an Infant her friends did also procure a Disposition from the Tutor to her and she pursues a Reduction and Improbation against Captain Barclay of the foresaid Bond and Dispositions made to him he Compears and produces a late Disposition made by the Tutor and alleadges that he had the Bond foresaid and two Dispositions from the Tutor anterior to this produced but that a Person to
Iohn Eleis contra Inglishtoun Eodem die CRichtoun of Crawfordstoun having only one Daughter Disponed his Estate to Iohn Brown of Inglishstoun in contemplation of the Marriage betwixt him and Crawfordstouns Daughter and to the Heirs-male of the Marriage which failzying to certain other Heirs Substitute bearing a power to Burden the Estate with 5000. Merks to whom he pleased and containing a Clause that the Disposition should be valide though not Delivered in his Lifetime and after Inglistouns Marriage Crafordstoun grants a Bond relating to his former promise of 20000. Pounds to Inglistoun and the Heirs of the Marriage which failzying After which words there follows a blank of a Line and a half and the Sum is payable at the first Term after Crawfordstouns Death the intent of which Bonds seems to have been that thereupon Apprizing might proceed to Denude the Heirs of Line and to compel the Superior 〈◊〉 Receive Inglistoun Thereafter Crawfordstoun made a second Tailzy wherein Inglistouns Son with his Daughter being then Born is Feear and several Members of the Tailzy altered and after that he made a third wherein his Daughter Inglistouns Wife is Feear and the Substitutions much like the former After his Death these Papers being Exhibit at the Instance of two of his Daughters Heirs of Line Married to Mr. Iohn Eleis and Alexander Tran upon a Process ad deliberandum and being craved up again from the Clerks by the Tutor of Inglistouns Son It was alleadged for the Heirs of Line that the saids Writs could not be Delivered up because they not having been Delivered by the Defunct in his leige poâ—stie could not prejudge his Heirs of Line and albeit his first Disposition contained a dispensation for not Delivery which ordinarly is accounted sufficient yet where it appears the Defunct altered his purpose both by the posterior Dispositions of a different Tenor and several Missive Letters showing a resolution after all to alter the same the said Clause cannot be effectual and there is no pretence for Delivering the Bond and the two other Dispositions seing they want that Clause It was answerd that the Dispensation with Delivery is in all cases equiparat with the Delivery it self and that the remanent Writs ought also to be Delivered though they bear not that Clause because the Heirs of Line being absolutely excluded by the first Disposition they have no interest to quarrel the other Dispositions and albeit it the posterior Dispositions were to different effects the want of Dispensation therein might make them ineffectual yet where they are but qualifications of the first Tailzy they are accessory thereto and must be Delivered therewith seing the Defunct so long as he keeped the Writ in his own Hand might still alter the same at his pleasure It was answered that the posterior Dispositions wanted the Clause reserving power to the Defunct to leave to whom he pleased the 5000. Merks and it is like he hath left it to his other Daughters and the Bond may be made use of to overturn his whole intent and alter the Tailzy The Lords found that seing the first Disposition contained a Dispensation with Delivery and the rest being accessory thereto and only altering in somethings the Tailzy but still to the first Heir of Tailzy being the Son of Inglistouns Marriage they ordained them all to be Delivered up and the Bond also but with this Declaration that the Provision anent the 5000. Merks in the first Disposition should be holden as repeared in the rest that the Heirs of Line might be in no worse Case then by the first and that the Bond should only be made use of according to the Substitutions and Clauses of the Tailzies Crawford contra Anderson Iuly 24. 1669. IOhn Fleeming having made a Disposition of his Lands to William Anderson Provost of Glasgow sometime thereafter William grants Back-bond Declaring the Disposition was upon Trust to the behove of Fleemings Creditors Young being one of the Creditors uses Inhibition and Apprizing against Fleeming and is thereupon publickly Infeft after which William Anderson makes payment to the other of the Creditors the said Alexander Young and Crawford his Spouse Insists for Mails and Duties of the Apprised Lands Anderson excepts upon his prior Infeftment from Fleeming the common Author upon the said Disposition Crawford replys upon the Back-bond that the said Infeftment is on Trust to the behove of Fleeming Anderson duplys that it is a qualified Trust to the behove of Anderson himself in so far as any Debt was Due to him and next to the behove of Fleemings Creditors and condescends and instructs that he has made payment to several of these Creditors so that payment made by him bona fide must give him Right to the Trust pro tanto and any Inhibition or Infeftment at Youngs Instance was only against Fleeming and not against Anderson against whom there was never any Action It was answered that the Trust being for payment of Fleemings Creditors cannot be interpret at the option of Anderson which would be a most fraudulent conveyance to exclude the more timeous Diligence of Fleemings other Creditors but it must be understood to pay the Creditors legitimo modo and not to make voluntar payment to these who had done no Diligence and prefer them to these who had done Diligence and albeit the Inhibition and publick Infeftment upon the Apprizing be only against Fleeming yet Anderson who was Intrusted for Fleeming might and ought to have known the same by searching of the Registers appointed for publication of Rights and if he had neglected the same Sibi imputet for he being Trusty for Fleeming could no more prefer Fleemings Creditors then Fleeming himself could do The Lords Repelled the Defense and Duply and found that voluntary payment made by Anderson to Fleemings Creditors after the Inhibition or publick Infeftment of other Creditors did not give him any Right by his Infeftment in Trust to exclude the more timeous Diligence of the other Creditors Street contra Masson and Lord Tarphichen Iuly 27. 1669. IAmes Masson being Debitor to the Lord Tarphichen does Infeft his Son an Infant in his Lands publickly holden of the Superior and being a Merchant there was a correspondence betwixt him and Mr. Street and other London Merchants whereupon he gave them Bond mentioning to be for former Accompts and Provisions betwixt them and thereupon followed an Infeftment of Annualrent The Lord Tarphichen obtains Decreet of Reduction of the Infeftment granted to the Son as being posterior to his Debt and granted by a Father in defraud thereof The London Merchants raise also a Declarator that the Infeftment granted by Masson to his Son then an Infant ought to be affected with their Debt in the same condition as it were yet standing in the Fathers Person or otherwise ought to be declared void as a fraudulent Deed by the Father in favours of his Son the Father being then in tract of Correspondence and Traffick with these Merchants
Disposition bears and under Reversion of a Rosenoble to Sir Robert in his own Life Mr. John Drummond Sir Roberts appearand Heir grants a Bond to Lowrie of Blackwood whereupon he Adjudges the Land from the appearand Heir and pursues a Reduction of the Disposition as done on Death-bed In which Pursuit Witnesses were appointed to be Examined hinc inde concerning Sir Roberts condition when he made the Disposition and thereafter till his Death the sum of the Probation was that before the Disposition Sir Robert had contracted an Apoplexie whereby he remained senseless for a time but by Cure there remained a Palsie in his Tongue and a Vertigo in his Head which continued till his Death and about a year after that the sickness affected his Brain so that he lost the remembrance of Names of things and most of the Witnesses Depones that he was not found thereafter in his Judgement but that he keeped on his Cloathes and was not affixed to his Bed and went frequently and walked in his Garden and to the Court-hill half a pair of Butts off and one of the Witnesses Deponed that he came to his House alone a quarter of a mile off but that he went never to the Kirk nor Mercat nor any publick place Whereupon it was alleadged for the Defender that the Defunct continued in health at and after the Disposition and that his going so frequently abroad was equivalent to his going to Kirk and Mercat which was sufficient to eleid the Reason of Death-bed and that the Palsie being but in his Tongue albeit he misnamed things it did not import his being on Death-bed especially seing he Disponed for payment of his Debt equivalent to the worth of the Land his Disposition being to a Friend of his Name who Relieved him of his Debt his Heir not being his Son nor Descendent and uncapable to Relieve him of his Debt It was answered that the contracting of his sickness being sufficiently proven to be before this Disposition and the continuance thereof to affect his Brain in that case nothing could purge the same but his going to Kirk and Mercat which were the acts required in Law and could not be supplied by his going privatly abroad and not to any popular publick meeting and as to his Debts they could not validat the Disposition by exception though the Defender might by way of action affect therewith the Estate or Burden the Heir on whose Bond it was adjudged especially seing the Disposition buir for Love and Favour and Redeemable for a Rose-noble The Lords found the Reason of Death-bed sufficiently proven and that his private going abroad though unsupported was not equivalent to going abroad to Kirk and Mercat or publick meeting where the Disease continued to affect the Brain But they found the paying of Debts equivalent to the worth of the Land Relevant by way of exception in regard the Disposition buir to be for payment of his Debt Mr. Iohn Wat contra Campbel of Kilpont Feb. 8. 1671. SIr Archibald Campbel being Debitor to Adam Wat in a Sum of Money he did thereafter Contract his Son Mr. Archibald in Marriage with Thomas Moodies Daughter and by the Contract Thomas Moodie acknowledges the Receipt of fourty thousand Pound from Sir Archibald and is obliged for twenty thousand Merks of Tocher all to be imployed for Mr. Archibald in Fee but Thomas Moodies Daughter Dying and leaving no Children behind her Thomas Moodie did restore the Sums and there is a Discharge granted by Sir Archibald and his Spouse and Mr. Archibald bearing them to have Received the Sums and to have Discharged the same Whereupon Mr. Iohn Wat as Heir to Adam pursues Mr. Archibald to pay him the Sum due to his Father upon this ground that he having Received fourty thousand Pounds of his Fathers Means after Contracting of the Debt ought to make so much of it forthcoming as will pay the Pursuer which Action was founded upon the Act of Parliament 1621. whereby all Deeds done by Debitors in prejudice of their Creditors without a Cause Onerous are declared null and all Parties that by vertue thereof Intromets are declared lyable to restore to the Creditors It was answered for the Defender First That the Libel was not Relevant there being no part of the Act of Parliament 1621. that Incapacitats Debitors to Gift or Dispone Sums of Money or Moveables especially if the Disponer at that time be not insolvent but have a sufficient Estate for satisfying his Debt and it is offered to be proven that Sir Archibald had at the time of this Contract a sufficient Estate for all his Debt in the hands of the Earl of Argile and Glenorchie and albeit by the superveening Forefaulture Argiles Debt be insufficient it was a good Debt the time of the Contract so that there can be no ground to make a Child lyable to Restore a Portion given by a Father who was solvent 2dly Albeit the Defender could be lyable if it were clear that he had the Sum foresaid by his Father yet remaining to the fore yet if it had been lost or spent before the Intenting of this Cause he or any subsequent Estate acquired aliunde is not lyable ita est anything he has is a Wodset of fourty thousand Merks on Kilpont and the two Tochers he had viz. twenty thousand Merks from Thomas Moodie and ten thousand Merks of Legacy and twelve thousand Merk of Tocher with Sir William Gray's Daughter was sufficient to acquire the Right of Kilpont without any thing from his Father 3dly The Discharge produced cannot instruct that Mr. Archibald Received the Money because it bears indefinitly that payment was made to Sir Archibald and his Spouse and to Mr. Archibald and all of them do Discharge The Pursuer answered that the Libel was very Relevant for whatsoever might be alleadged of Bairns Portions by a solvent Father yet this being so considerable a Fortune provided to the only Son and appearand Heir if it did not make him lyable to satisfie the Fathers Debt pro tanto it were a patent way to defraud all Creditors and elude the Act of Parliament for the Father might Sell his Estate and provide the Moneys in this manner and as to the Discharge albeit it be indefinite yet it must be presumed that Mr. Archibald Received the Sums because they belong to him in Fee by the Contract of Marriage The Lords found the Libel Relevant and that the Discharge produced did presume that Mr. Archibald the Feear did Receive the Money but seing the Probation was not expresse but presumptive they allowed Mr. Archibald to condescend upon what Evidences he could give that the Money or Surety thereof was Delivered to his Father Iohn Will contra The Town of Kirkaldy Feb. 11. 1671. JOhn Will pursues the Magistrats of Kirkaldy for paying the Debt of a Person Incarcerat in their Tolbooth who was letten escape by them It was alleadged for the Town that the Person Incarcerat had escaped vi
in the Letters that ought not to have been granted because Appryzings should only be in the head Burgh of the Shire or in communi patriâ at Edinburgh but especially seing the Warrand was obtained from the Lords of course among the common Bills without being Read or considered and so is periculo petentis and cannot prejudge the more formal Diligence of other Comprizers especially seing Lundy Appryzed of new for the same sums which will come in pari passu with the rest being within year and day It was answered that it is inherent in all Jurisdictions to continue Processes to new Dyets having keeped the first Dyet and that the Messenger by the Letters is Constitute Sheriff and there is no question but Sheriffs might and did prorogate Dyets in Appryzings and the Letters bears Warrand to fix Courts one or more and for the continuation it was but to the next day in regard of a great Speat the Appryzing being upon the hill in the open field the time of Rain and it being mâ—dica mora to the next day which will give no Warrand to an Arbitrary continuation by Messengers to what Interval they please And as for the place The Lords by Dispensation may appoint what place they see convenient and albeit the Dispensation had been of course and that therein the Clerks had failed yet the Parties obtainers of such Dispensations are secure thereby and ought not to be prejudged The Lords Sustained the Appryzing and found the Requisition now produced sufficient and found that the continuing of the Dyet for so short a time to be no ground of nullity unless the Competitors could alleadge a special cause that they did or might alleadged whereby they were prejudged by leading the Appryzing the second day rather than the first The Lords did also Sustain the Dispensation of the place and having perused the Practique produced at the Instance of the Lady Lucia Hamiltoun anent an Appryzing led at Glasgow by Dispensation They found that the Lords did not annul the Appryzing on that Ground But the Lords ordained that no Bill bearing Dispensation should pass of Course in time coming but upon special Reasons to be conâ—idered by the Lords or the Ordinary upon the Bills and that Messengers should not continue the Dyets in Appryzings but upon necessar Causes and ordained an Act to be insert in the Books of Sederunt for that effect Adam Gairns contra Isobel Sandilands Eodem die ADam Gairns pursues Isobel Sandilands as Representing her Father to pay a Debt of his and specially as behaving as Heir by uplifting the Mails and Duties of a Tenement wherein the Father Died Infeft as of Fee in so far as by Contract of Marriage betwixt Thomas Sandilands her Father and Iohn Burn and Isobel Burn his Daughter The said Iohn Burn provided the said Tenement in thir Terms viz. after the Obligements upon the Husbands part it follows thus For the which Cause the said Iohn Burn binds and obliges him to Inseft Thomas Sandilands and the said Isobel Burn the longest liver of them two in Conjunctfee or Liferent and the Heirs between them Which failzying the said Isobel her Heirs and Assigneys whatsomever By which Provision her Father being Feear and Infeft the Defender is lyable The Defender alleadged absolvitor because by this Provision of the Conjunctfee of this Tenement Isobel Burn the Defenders Mother was Feear and her Father was but Liferenter in respect the Termination of the Succession is to the Mothers Heirs yea and to her Assigneys which necessarly imports that she had power to Dispone And it is a general Rule in Succession of Conjunct-Feears that that Person is Feear upon whose Heirs the last Termination of the Tailzie or Provision ended especially in this Case where the Right of the Tenement flowes from the Womans Father So that if there were any doubtfulness it must be presumed that the Fathers meaning was to give the Fee to his Daughter having no other Children Neither is this Land Disponed nomine dotis And the Defender stands Infeft by Precept of Favour as Heir to her Mother and thereby bruiks bona fide and her Infeftment must Defend her till it be Reduced The Pursuer answered that by the provision the Husband was Feear and the Wife was only Liferenter because though the last Termination doth ordinarly rule the Fee yet this is as favourable a Rule that in Conjunct Provisions potior est conditio masculi and though the Termination be upon the Wifes Heirs whatsomever yet they are but Heirs of Provision to the Husband and he might have Disponed and his Creditors may affect the Land which holds in all Cases except the Lands had been Disponed by the Wife her self without a Cause onerous But here the Husband is first named and it is but a small parcel of Land beside which there is no other Tocher So that though it be not Disponed nomine dotis Yet being Disponed for the which Causes it is equivalent and in the same Contract the Husband is obliged to provide all Lands that he shall Acquire or succeed to to himself and his Wife the longest liver of them two in Conjunct-fee or Liferent and to the Heirs between them Which failzying the one half to the Husbands Heirs and the other half to the Wifes Heirs and their Assigneys and it cannot be imagined that the meaning of these Clauses was that the Fee of the Mans Conquest and Succession should not be all Constitute in himself but that the Wife should be Feear of the half And in like manner the Fathers meaning is clear because the Clause bears not only in Contemplation of the Marriage but for sums of Money received by the Father which albeit left blank in the Contract yet it cannot be thought that in such a Narrative he intended to make his Daughter Feear And as for the adjection of her Assigneys it is only ex stilo for Assigneys is ever added after the last Termination of Heirs and does always relate to all the Feears and would extend to the Heirs of the Marriage their Assigneys as well as to the Wifes Heirs failing them Likeas Assigneys isin the same way adjected to the Clause of Conquest wherein there is no ground to imagine that the Wife is Feear and both bears the Husband and Wife to be Infeft in Conjunct-fee or Liferent The Lords found that by this Provision and Infeftment thereon the Husband was Feear and the Wife only Liferenter and found no necessity to Reduce the Defenders Infeftment as Heir to her Mother not proceeding upon a Retour but a Precept of Favour But they found that the dubiousness of the case was sufficient to free her from the passive Title of Behaviour but only for making forthcoming her intromission quoad valorem But it was not Debated nor Considered whether as bonae fidei Possessor by a colourable Title being Infeft as Heir to her Mother she would be free of the bygones before
incapacitat them then to Dispone their Heretage or to take it any way from their nearest Heirs 2dlie Albeit the Disposition had been Subscribed and Delivered in leige poustie yet the Seising not being taken till the Defunct was on Death-bed Recognition cannot be incurred because it is not the Disposition but the Seising that alienats the Fee and infers Recognition The Pursuer answered First That Death bed is only introduced in favours of Heirs against other Persons getting Right but hath no effect against the Superi or who is not to consider whether the Vassal was sick or whole but whether he hath indeavoured to withdraw himself and his Heirs in the investiture from their Superior 2dlie Death-bed is never competent by way of exception but by way of Reduction 3dlie The Disposition being in favours of the Disponers only Daughter reserving his Liferent albeit it wants a Clause dispensing with the Delivery it being Subscribed in leige poustie it is as valide as if it had been then Delivered and if need be 's offers to prove that it was Delivered in leige poustie to the Lord Frazer for the Pursuers use so that albeit Seising had been taken when the Disponer was on Death bed Recognition must be incurred because the Vassal should not have granted a Precept of Seising and Delivered the same without Reservation and the having of the Precept of Seising being always accounted a sufficient Warrand for taking of Seising and that the Warrand was given at the Delivery of the Precept albeit the Seising was taken when the Disponer was on Death-bed yet the Warrand was granted when he was in leige poustie by the Precept which bears in it self to be an irrevockable Power and Warrand to take Seising so that the Vassal had in his leige poustie done quantum in se fuit to alienat this Waird Fee The Lords found that if the Disposition containing the Precept was Delivered to the Vassal without Reservation in the Disponers leige poustie it would infer Recognition though the Seising were taken after his Sickness and found that if the Disposition and Seising were on Death-bed it would exclude Recognition by way of exception Recognition not being a Possessory but a Petitory or Declaratory Judgement but seing it was alleadged that the Disposition was Delivered to the Lord Frazer the Lords before answer ordained the Lord Frazer to Depone from whom and when he Received the said Disposition and whether he had any Direction to take Seising thereupon or any Direction to the contrair and also that the Bailly Atturney Notar and Witnesses in the Seising should Depone by what Warrand they did proceed therein Earl of Crawfoord contra Rig Iulie 21. 1669. THe Earl of Crawfoord pursues Rig for payment of the half of the Expence of the Building a Park Dike belonging to the Earl in so far as it is Built or to be Built upon the March betwixt him and Rig and that upon the Act of Parliament 1661. anent the Parking and Inclosing of Ground whereby for the Encouragement of them that Inclose it it is provided that whatever part of the Park or inclosure falls upon the March that part shall be Built upon the equal Charges of both the Heretors The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the March betwixt the Earl of Crawfoord and him is not a dry March but a Burn and the Act cannot be understood but of dry Marches otherwise though there were a Water intersected the Heretor Building a Park Dike upon his own side of the Water might require his Neighbour on the other side of the Water to pay the half of his Charges 2dlie Some parts of the Marches betwixt the Pursuer and Defender are Mossy and Bogy Ground upon which no Dike can stand The Pursuer answered that he opponed the Act of Parliament and that any Meith betwixt his Land and the Defenders is an inconsiderable Stripe of Water which oftimes is dry and cannot hinder a Stone Dike to be Built in the very Channel of it and for the other if the Pursuer Build not the Dike the Defender will not be lyable The Lords found the Reply Relevant and ordained the Stripe of Water either to be wholly without the Dike or if the Defender pleased that it run a space within the Dike and a space without the Dike that either Party might have the benefit of Watering thereat Town of Perth contra the Weavers of the Bridg-end of Perth Eodem die THe Town of Perth pursues the Weavers at the Bridg-end of Perth either to desist from Weaving in their Suburbs or otherwise to pay a Duty accustomed to be payed by the Weavers there to the Town for that Liberty conform to the several Tickets produced and that conform to the 159. Act Parliament 1592. Entituled the Exercise of Crafts within Suburbs adjacent to Burghs forbidden It was alleadged for the Defenders and Sir George Hay thier Master Absolvitor because the said Act of Parliament has been in continual desuetude and was never in use 2dly Though it were yet effectual yet it can only be understood of such Suburbs as have no Priviledge but where the Suburbs are contained in any Burgh of Regality or Barony or within any Barony though having no Burgh the Priviledges of these Erections warrants the exercise of all Crafts-men so that these Websters Living within the Barony of Pitcullen cannot be upon that pretence hindered from Exercising their Trade The Pursuer answered that he opponed the Act of Parliament being general and that it was a standing Law unrepelled and that the obligations of the Weavers Living there to pay a Duty for their Liberty of Weaving did preserve the Act in vigour at least as to this Burgh The Defenders answered that these Weavers being in no Incorporation the Tickets granted by any of them could prejudge none but themselves and being without the consent of the Heretor cannot infer a Servitude upon his Barony without his consent more then his Tennents could infer a Thirlage without his consent The Lords found that the said Act of Parliament did not reach to the Inhabitants of any Barony and that the Tickets of the Weavers could not infer a Servitude upon the Barony and therefore Decerned only against the granters of the Tickets personally for the Duties contained therein Iames Gray contra Margaret Ker Iuly 23. 1669. IAmes Gray having Apprized certain Lands and having Charged the Superior pursues for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for Margaret Ker who produces her Infeftment granted by her Husband the common Author prior to the Apprizing and craves to be preferred The Pursuer answered that her Infeftment being granted by her Husband to be holden of the Superior not Confirmed is null To the which it was answered that an Infeftment of a Liferent granted to a Wife in implement of her Contract of Marriage is valide though not Confirmed The Lords Repelled the alleadgeance and found the Relicts Infeftment null and not sufficient to defend her Possession Mr.