Denunced for then by the Horning his Escheat would fall but there is no Law nor Statute making the Penalty of Adultery to be the Adulterers Escheat for Queen Maries Statute anent Adultery is only making nottour Adultery Capital but nothing as to other Adulteries The Pursuer answered that Custome had made the Penalty of Adultery to be the single Escheat and for Probation of the Adultery in this case the Defender had publickly confessed it and had stood in Sack-cloth for it a year and had taken Remission from the King The Defender answered that Confession in the Kirk was necessary to purge Scandel when such Probation was Adduced as Church-men allowed to infer Confession which is but extra judicialis confessio and cannot prove ad â—viles aut criminales effectus neither can the taking of the Kings Remission instruct these Crimes seeing Remissions are frequently taken to prevent accusations or trouble The Lords found the Libel not Relevant and that no Declarator could passe unless the Defender had compeared judicially in a Criminal Court and there Confessed or had been Condemned by Probation but that the Confession in the Church or taking Remission was no sufficient Probation Andrew Barclay contra Laird of Craigivar Ianuary 10. 1662. ANdrew Barclay Pursues the Lairds of Craigivar as representing his Father upon all the passive Titles to pay a Bond due by his Father and insists against him as behaving himself as Heir by intromission with the Mails and Duties of the Lands of Craigivar and Fâ—ntrie The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because if any Intromission he had not granting the same it was by vertue of a singular Title viz. an Appryzing led against himself upon a Bond due by his Father The Pursuer answered non relevat unless the legal had been expired for if the appearand Heir Inâ—romet within the Legall during which the right of Reversion is unextinct immiscuit se haereditati and it is gestio pro haerede The Lords found the Defense Relevant albeit the Appryzing was not expired unless the Pursuer alleadge that the Defenders Intromission was more then satisfied the whole Appryzing Laird of Rentoun contra Mr. Mark Ker. Eodem die THe Laird of Rentoun having obtained Decreet against Mr. Mark Ker for the Teinds of Ferniside he Suspends on this Reason that he ought to have retention of the Annuity of the Teind which he had payed and whereto he had Right The Charger answered that there was no Annuity due out of their Teinds because he was Infeft cum decimis inclusis which are not lyable for Annuity The Suspender Answered that there was no exception in the Act of Parliament 1623. of Teinds included The Lords Recommended the matter to be settled this being a leading Case in relation to the Annuity of Teinds included but they thought that Annuity was not due of Teiâ—ds included because such Lands never having had the Teinds drawn there is nothing to Constitute Teind due for them either by Law Paction or Possession and so where no Teind is there can be no Annuity And also because the Ground granting Annuity to the King was because the King having an Interest in the Teinds after the Reformation and the Titulars pretending also Right did surrender the same in the Kings favours and submitted to Him who Confirmed the Titulars questionable Rights and gave the Heretors the benefite of drawing their own Teinds upon a Valuation and therefore the Annuity was appointed to be payed out of the Teinds to the King but the surrender did not bear Teinds included Lord Carnagie contra Ianuary 11. 1662. LAdy Anna Hamiltoun eldest Daughter to the Deceast William Dâ—ke of Hamiltoun having obtained Charter of the Lands of innerw â—ik from the King as becoming in his hand by Recognition in so far as the Lands being holden Ward the late Earl of Dirletoun Disponed the same to Iames Cicil second Son to his second Daughter whereupon the said Lady Anna and Lord Carnagie her Husband for his Interest Pursues Declarator of Recognition against the said Iames Ciâ—il and against Iames Maxwels Heirs of Line and Heir-Male to hear and see them Secluded for ever and that the Lands were fallen in to the Kings hands and belonged to the Pursuer as his Donatar by Recognition through the Ward-vassals alienation thereof without the consent of the King as Superiour The Defender alleadged no Processes because all Parties having Interest are not called viz. Sir Robert Fleâ—cher who stands publickly Infeft in the Lands Libelled The Lords Repelled the Alleadgence as super juretertii in respect it was not proponed by Sir Robert aâ—d that his Right could not be prejudged by any Sentence whereto he was not called Secondly The Defenders alleadged no Process because the Heirs of Line are not lawfully Called in so far as three of them are Resident in the Abbey and are Minors and their Tutors and Curators are only called at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh whereas they Reside within the Regality of Brughtoun and their Curators should have been Cited at the Cross of the Canongate as head Burgh of that Regality The Pursuâ—rs answered that the Defenders Reside in the Kings Palace which is exempt from all Regalities and must be a part of the Royalty being the Kings own House by his Royal Regative The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and found the Kings House to be Royalty and so in the Shire and not in the Regality Iohn Nicolson contra Feuars of Tillicutry Ianuary 14. 1662. JOhn Nicolson as Baron of the Barony of Tillicutry and Miln thereof pursues the Feuars of Tillicutry for a certain quantity of Serjant Corns and for their abstracted Multures for which he had obtained Decreet in his Barony-court which was Suspended The Defenders alleadged that his Decreet is null as being in vacant time Secondly As being by the Baron who is not Competent to Decern in Multures or Thirlage against his Vassals Thirdly The Decreet was without Probation The Baron neither producing Title nor proving long Possession and as to the Serjant Corn nothing could Constitute that Servitude but Writ The Charger answered that Barons needs no Dispensation in Vacance and that Baron Courts use to sit in all times even of Vacance by their Constant Priviledge And that the Baron is Competent Judge to Multures or any other Duty whereof he is in Possession And as to the Serjant Corn in satisfaction of his Decreet he hath produced his Infeftment as Baron of the Barony which gives him Right of Jurisdiction and so to have Serjants whose Fees may be Constitute and liquidat by long Possession The Lords found the Reply Relevant the Charger having 40. years possession as to the Multures and the Pursuer declared he insisted not for the Kings Feu-duties in kind but for the Teind Seed and Horse Corn. The Defenders alleadged Absolvitor for as much of the Corns as would pay the Feu-duties Ministers Stipends and all publick Burdens because they behoved to sell Corns for
and so would not insecure Creditors doing diligence by Arrestment Lyon of Muirask contra Heretors of the Shire Eodem die LYon of Muirask having been Commissioner in the Parliament 1648. did by vertue of the Act of Parliament 1661. Allowing Commissioners Charges to these who served in Parliament 1648. Who adhered to the Engadgment charges the â—â—eretors of the Shyre to meet and Stent and their being a Stent made conform to the Valuation he Charges thereuponâ— some of the Heretors Suspends and alleadge that they were not charged to meet and so the Stent Roll is null 2ly That is not instructed that the Charger attended all the dayes in the Parliament 3ly That the Roll ought to be made according to the Retour and not to the Valuation conform to the Custom before the troubles The Lords found that seing the Heretors who met expressed in the Stent Roll that all the Heretors were charged that it was sufficient though the Executions against each on of them was not now produced and because the Sedâ—runts of the Parliament 1648. were not to be found They found he had right to the whole Charges during the Parliament unless for such time as they shall prove by his oath that he was absent but found that the Stent Roll ought to be according to the Retour and not to the Valuation Lady Greenhead conra Lord Loure February 10. 1665. THe Lady Craig and the Laird of Greenhead her second Husband pursues the Tenents of Craig wherein she is Infeft for Mails and Duties In which Process my Lord Loure coâ—â—pears for his Interest and alleadges that he having Appryzed the Estate of Craig and being Infeft thereupon hath raised Reduction of the Ladies Infeftment on this Reason that a Part of his Sumes being anterior to the Ladies Infeftment who was competently provided by her Contract of Marriage in 30. Chalder of Victuall and this additional Infeftment of fifty Chalder of Victual being betwixt most Conjunct Persons Husband and Wife in so far as it is posterior to the Pursuers lawful Debt ought to be Reduced upon the Act of Parliament 1621. The Pursuer answered the Reason ought to be repelled First Because the Act of Parliament being only against gratuitous Dispositions made by Bankerupts in prejudice of their lawful Creditors is not relevant seing Craig the Disponer was not a Bankerupt 2ly As he was not a Bankerupt so neither was heâ— insolvendo because the Reversion of his Estate is sufficient to pay his Debt albeit the Same were affected with this additional Joynture It was answered for the Defender that albeit the Title and Narrative of the Act be against Bankerupts yet the Statutory part thereof is against all gratuitous Dispositions by Conjunct Persons so that the Defender needs not alleadge that either the Disponer was Bankerupt or insolvendo but that the Ladies Infeftment is betwixt Conjunct Persons without an onerous Cause The Pursuer answered that the Disponer was neither Bankerupr nor insolvendo and the Defender can have no Interest unless there were fraud or prejudice which the Defender cannot alleadge because the Pursuer is content that the Defender have access by his Appryzing to the Joynture Lands In so far as will satisfie his Annualrents and by the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditorâ— the Lords are impowred to restrict Appryzings to their Annualrent and so he can pretend no prejudice providing he assigne the Lady to his Appryzing in so far as he satisfies his Annualrent out of her Additional Joynture The Lords found the answer to the Reduction Relevant upon purging of the Appryzers prejudice not only by admitting him to have access to the Appryzed Lands upon Assignation as said is during the Legal but with Declaration that if the Lady Redeemed not within the Legall the Lands should be irredeemable and the Lady totally excluded Earl of Lauderdail contra Lord Oxfuird February 11. 1665. THe Earl of Lauderdail his Guidsir being Infeft in the Barony of Musselburgh which is a part of the Abbacy of Dumferling by a Gift from King Iames in Anno 1584. Excepted by the Act of Parliament for Annexation of Kirklands in Anno 1587. And repeited in the Act of Parliamet 1593. His Father got a Gift in Anno 1641. And Oxfuird got another the same year from the King as Heir to Queen Ann his Mother who had a Heretable Disposition of the whole Lordship of Dumferling from the King after Lauderdails first Right Lauderdail obtained Conformation of his first and subsequent Rights in the Parliament 1661. Declaring all Rights formerly granted by the King since Lauderdails first Right void Which Ratification bears an express provision That it shall not be prejudged by the Act salvo jure cuâ—uslibet The Defender alleadged absolvitor in hoc judicio possessorio because his Father was Infeft by the King in Anno 1641. And by vertue thereof in possession twenty years before this persuit and as for his Ratification the Defender not being called thereto it cannot take away his Right being founded super jure communi untill the Pursuer insist in Reduction In which case the Defender shall answer but is not oblidged to answer in hoc judicio and as for the exception of the Act salvo jur It s against the common Law and the Act salvo jure is posterior without repeiting that exception The Pursuer opponed his Ratificatiom excepting the Act salvo jure which being done upon the King and Parliaments certain knowledge upon consideration of Lauderdails prior Right The Lords cannot be Judges to reduce the Sentence and Statute of Parliament as Durie observes to have been found in the Case of the Earl of Rothes and Iohn Stewart of coldinghame The Defender repeiâ—ed his answer and for these Decisions opponed the Tennor of the Act salvo jure 1633. And repeited 1661. Whereby the Lords are ordained to decide in the Rights of privat Parties according to Law without respect of Ratification or other privat Statuts in favours of particular Persons such as this which being after this decisions clears and enlarges the power of the Lords The Pursuer opponed his Ratification and exception of the Act salvo jure which bears expresly That it should stand as a publick Law and so was no privat Statute mentioned in these Acts Salvo jure The Lords having considered the Case and that such exceptions from the Act Salvo jure were of dangerous consequence to the Leidges They ordained the Parties before answer to dispute the point of Right as if such an exception of the Act Salvo jure had not been granted but they thought that Defense upon a possessory Iudgement being but a point of form whereby the Rights of Parties were not competent by exception or reply the Parliament might dispense therewith and also might repone Parties as to the matter of Prescription or quoad minor non tenetur placitare but if without these and such the Pursuer had a prior valid Right The Lords were loath to enter upon the case of
ordinar and known but here the Casualities belonging to the Bailliâ— proprio jure the Constitution of the Burgh could not prejudge them even albeit the Lord of the Regalities consent was thereto produced seing the Ballie consented not but as to the Possession and Prescription whether the Town could Prescribe the Right of the Civil Jurisdiction albeit the Baillie exercised the Criminal Jurisdiction of Bloods or whether the Town could Prescribe their Right of a part of the Civil Jurisdiction in so far as concerned Trade The Lords superceeded to give answer while the first of Iune and that they had time to consider the Depositions of the Witnesses fullie Creditors of Lord Gray contra Lord Gray Eodem die CErtain Creditors of the Master of Grayes being Infeft in Annualrent out of certain of his Lands pursues Poynding of the Ground It was alleadged for the Lord Gray his Son absolvitor because he has Right to an Appryzing and Infeftment of Alexander Milne which is expired and prior to the Pursuers Infeftments It was answered that the Appryzing was satisfied by the Umquhile Master of Gray and a blank Assignation thereto was taken which was amongst the Masters Writs and this Lord filled up his Name after the Masters death this being unquestionably relevant the difficultie was concerning the manner of the Probation The Lords before answer ordained Witnesses ex officio to be examined whereupon the Lord Gray's Brother was examined who acknowledged he saw the blank Assignation by his Brother and Mr. Robert Prestoun being examined and several other Witnesses above all exception and also the Lord Gray himself who acknowledged he got the Assignation blank after his Fathers death but not amongst his Writs and that he gave a Bond therefore Many of the Lords thought that seing by the late Act of Parliament the Appryzing though expyred was Redeemable from him for the Sum he truely payed for it that it were more just and safe that he should be preferred unless the Creditors would purge and satisfie the Sum and that it were a dangerous example to find so important a Writ as this Assignation to be taken away by Witnesses yet the plurality found the Testimonies so pregnant and unquestionable They found the Reply proven thereby and found the Appryzing retired and satisfied by the Debitor and so extinct Earl of Landerdail contra Viscount of Oxenfoord last of February 1666. THE Earl of Lauderdale being Infeft in the Barony of Muslburgh which is a part of the Abbacie of Dumfermling and was Erected into a Temporal Lordship in favour of the Lord Thirlstoun thereafter Chancellourâ— the Lord Lauderdales Grand-fatherâ— in Anno 1587. Before the Act of Annexation wherein the Erection of Musleburgh to the Lord Thirlstoun is expresly excepted Thereafter in Anno 1592. the Queen was Infeft by the King in Liferent in the Abbacie of Dumfermling with the consent of the Lord Thirlstoun as to Musleburgh and his Resignâ—tion as that effect shortly after that same year the King gave the Queen an Heretable and Irredeemable Right of the whole Abbacie of Dumfermling which was Confirmed by a Printed Act of Parliament the Queen lived till the Year 1618. After which the King was served Heir to his Mother in the Abbacie of Dumfermling and Infeft therein being then Prince The King gave an Heretable and Irredeemable Right to the Lord Oxenfoords Authors of the Teynds of Coutsland as a Part of the Lordship of Musleburgh in Anno 1641. And shortly thereafter His Majesty did renew the Earl of Lauderdales Infeftment of the Lordship of Musleburgh with a novodamus Lauderdale being Forefaulted by the Usurpers Swintoun got a Donative of the Lordship of Musleburgh and amongst the rest of the Teyn is of Coutsland and did raise Inhibition and Reduction of their Rights After the Kings Restauration the Earl of Lauderdale obtains his Infeftment Confirmed in Parliament with an express Exception therein that it should not be derogat by the Act salvo jure raises Inhibition of the Teynds and pursues Action of Spuilzie and also of Reduction It was alleadged for the Defender absolvitor because he stands Infeft in the Teynds lybelled by Infeftment granted by the King before the Earl of Lauderdales Infeftment pursued on and by vertue of his Infeftment King Charles the first and Queen Anne his Authors have been in peaceable Possession uninterrupted since the Year of God 1593 And therefore their Right is accomplished and established by Prescription It was answered for the Pursuer that the Defense ought to be Repelled because since the death of Queen Anne who died in Anno 1618. Till the Interruption made by Swintoun by Inhibition and Reduction in Anno 1656. there are not 40â— years run and till the Queens death the Earl of Lauderdales Grand-father could not pursue because he had granted Resignation in her favours for her Liferent contra non valentem agere non currit Prescriptio So Wyves Provisions in their Contract of Marriage Prescribe not from their Date but from the time of their Husbands death all Obligations Prescribe only from the Term of payment and Infeftments and Oblidgements of Relief from the Distresse It was answered for the Defender that this Defense stands still Relevant First because as to any interruption made by Swintoun it cannot be profitable to the Pursuer because he derives no Right from Swintoun And as to the Queens Liferent Infeftment consented to by Thirlstoun the Queen never accepted the same but an Heretable Right from the King that same Year by which Heretable Right only she possest and did all Deeds of Property by entring of Vassalls and granting of Fews which a Liferenter could not do which Heretable Right Thirlstonn could not misken because by a special Printed Act of Parliament it is Confirmed in Parliament and past the great Seal himself being Chancellor It was answered for the Pursuer that the Defense and Duply ought to be Repelled in respect of the Reply because the Confirmation of the Queens Heretable Right in Parliament was salvo jure and he was secured by the Act salvo jure in the same Parliament and that he knew thereof at the passing of the great Seal is but a weak presumption and such knowledge could not prejudge him nor was he in any capacity to pursue upon his own Right for attaining possession seing the Queens Liferent Right and Heretable were both compatible and it was evident the Queen would exclude him by his Consent in the Liferent Right neither can the Queens acceptance be questioned after so long time seing the acceptance of the Liferent was to her advantage and profit before she got the Fee and did exclude Thirlstouns prior Right which would have undoubtedly reduced the Queens Right and was excepted in the General Act of Annexation and would not fall under the Act salvo jure It was also severally alleadged that this Earl of Lauderdales late Right was Confirmed in Parliament 1661. And all other Rights declared void and that the
Cautioners or Infeâ—tment of Land Iuly 7. 1664. Miln contra Hume of Eccles. THE ACT SALVO IVRE being excluded in a Ratification to a particular Party and that Exclusion not being repeated in the Act Salvo The Lords were unwilling to decide whether such Exclusion should be sufficient but ordained the Parties in the first place to Dispute their Rights without consideration of that Clause Febâ—uary 11. 1665. Earl of Lauderdaâ—l contra Viscount of Oxenfoord AN ADJUDGER ordained to be Received without instructing his Debitors Right who Renunced to be Heir Salvo jure superioris cujusâ—bet February 9. 1667. Ramsay contra Kâ—r ADâ—UDICATION being on a Disposition and obligement to Infeâ—t and not upon a liquid sum the Superiour was not found obliged to receive the Adjudger unless he instructed the Disponers Right Iune 24. 1663. Medowgal contra Laird of 〈◊〉 Adjudication being pursued by a Creditor on a personal Debt was not excluded by a Back-bond of the Defuncts Debitors bearing his Infeftment to be on Trust to the behove of a third Party whose Creditors compeared against the Adjudger yet was not put to Dispute his Debitors Right till aâ—ter the Adjudication he might use Exhibition of his Evidents but the Adjudication was granted with the burden of the Back-bond November 23. 1663. Livingstoun and Sornbeg contra Lord Forrester and Creditors of Grange Adjudication was Excluded as to the Property in favours of a Party shewing the Deâ—unct to be Denuded and himself Infeft but was Sustained to Adjudge any Right of Reversion Clause irritant or Provision in favours of the Defunct Debitor Iuâ—y 22. 1664. Inter â—osdem Adjudication was Sustained against a second appearand Heir upon a Decreet cognitionis causa upon the Renunciation of a former Heir without a new Charge against the Heir or his Renunciation The Defender declaring that the Lands should be Redeemable within ten years if the Pursuer Entered within these years Ianuary 17. 1666. Crawford contra Auchinleck Adjudication was found not to be stopped upon a better Right than the Deâ—uncts alleadged upon by a Party compearing but the Pursuer was suffered to Adjudge upon his periâ— November 15. 1666. Chein contra Christie ADMIRAL or the Iudge of the high Court of Admirality does Reduce the Decreets of inferiour Admirals or their Deputs February 24. 1668. Captain Mastertoun contra Strangers of Ostend The Lord Admiral being out of the Countrey found not necessary to be called in the Reduction of a Decreet of Admirality where the Iudge pronuncer of the Decreet was Called Inter â—osdem ADVOCAT was found obliged to Depone concerning the having of his Clients Writs February 1. 1666. contra Rallo An Advocat being in his Duty hindering a Suspension to pass being threatned by a Party who said he would make him repent what he had said if he were in another place and calling him Liar and Knave the Lords imprisoned the Party and Fined him in 500. merks Iuly 14. 1668. Mr. David Fâ—lcoâ—er contra Sir Iames Keith ADVLTERY was found not to infer Escheat unless the Adulterer were Convict Criminally or Denunced as Fugitive though he had confessed and stood in Sackcloath a year Ianâ—ary 9. 1662. Baird contra Baird ALIBI was found not receivable for proving a false datâ— to annul the whole Write where the Witnesses insert proved the 〈◊〉 of the Subscription though of aâ— Erroneous date February 23. 1667. Laird of May contra Ross. ALIMENT was found due by the Heir to his Brothers and Sisters their Mother being dead and they left without any Provision Ianuary 24. 1663. Children of Wedderly contra Laird of Wedderly Râ—o absente Aliment was found due by an Heir-male to Heirs of Line to whom he was obliged to pay such a sum when they were Mâ—rriageable without mention of Annualrent or Aliment here the Heir-male sâ—cceeded to a considerable Estate November 8. 1663. Lady Otter contra Laird of Otter Aliment was found due by an Heir-male to an Heir-â—emale of a second Marriage till her age of fourteen from which time her Portion bear Annualrent and beaâ— no mention of Aliment till then her Mother being dead and having no way to subsist without consuming the Stock of her Portion February 11. 1663. Frazer contra Frazer Aliment was found due by an Heir-male to Heirs of Line till their Marriage and not till the Term of payment of their Portions only seing the same bear no Annualrent râ—o absâ—â—te November 12. 1664. Daughters of Balmerino contra Lord Balmerino Aliment of a Child was found not due where the Child was freely intertained by the Mothers Father who demanded nothing during the time of the Intertainment and was holden as freely gâ—fâ—ed for all years before the pursuit Iuly 21. 1665. Laird of Ludquhairn contra Laird of Geight Vide Mother Aliment was found due upon a Bond of Provision granted by a Father to his Daughter obliging him to Intertain her till the Term of payment of her Portion which bear no Annualrent and that not only till the Term of payment but thereafter till her Marriage and even for years in which her Mothers Brother Alimented her Gratis after her Fathers Death but for no time of his Life seing she leâ—t her Fathers House upon pretence of her Step-mothers severity Ianuary 21. 16â—8 Steuart contra Laird of Rossesyth Alâ—ment of a Daughter by her Mother Married was â—ound due the Daughter being appearand Heir to her Father whose whole Lands the Mother Liferented though the Daughter Renunced to be Heir Iuly 16. 1667. Haâ—iltoun contra Symontoun Aliment was not found due to an appearand Heir who was Major and keeped a Brewary by a Liferenter whose Liferent was very mean and intertained one of his Children Ianuary 27. 1669. Stirling contra Heriot ANN was found to be the whole year wherein the Defunct dyed if he dyed before Michalmas and if he dyed after Michalmas and before Ianuary to be the whole year in which he dyed and the half of the next year but if he reached Ianuary dying in February he hath that whole year Iuly 5. 1662. Executors of Fairly contra his Parochioners Anâ— of a Minister having a Wife and no Bairns was found to divide equally betwixt his Wife and nearest of Kin Iune 24. 1663. and Iuly 19. 1664. Scrymzour contraâ— Executors of Murray Ann of a Minister dying after Michalmas and before Marâ—â—nmas was â—ound to extend to that years Stipend and the halâ— of the next Iuly 19. 1664. Inter â—osdem ANNEXED PROPERTY of the Crown was found not validly dissolved unless the dissolution had preceeded the Gift and Infeftment and had proceeded upon weighty Reasons by a special Act and not by a Clause iâ— a Ratification of the Gift February 25. 1669. Kings Advocat contra Earl of Mortoun and Viscount Grandiâ—ound absent ANNVITY of Teinds included being in question it was recommended to the Parties to settle but the Lords inclined to Liberat the Teinds Ianuary 10. 1662. Laird of Rentoun contra Ker. ANNVS DELIBERAND I was found to
stat sententia dubius est eventus litis neither can Reduction which is a petitory Judgement sist the Pursuers Process which is a possessory Judgement upon pretence of prejudiciallity otherwise Possession might still be inverted upon such pretences Nor can the Earl be put from his Possession thereby Especially for the years preceeding the intenting of the Reduction The Lords Repelled the Defense as to the years ante litem motam by the Reduction but Sustained it for the years since in respect the Earls Possession was not clear and that the Valuation was exorbitant near as great as the Stock Hellen Hepburn contra Hamiltoun of Orbestoun December 12. 1661. HEllen Hepburn as Executrix to her Father Humbie Pursues Sir Iames Hamiltoun of Orbestoun for payment of a 1000. merks due to her Father by Bond. The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because there being a Bond of 10000. pounds granted by Balhaven Humby Prestoun and Orbestoun for the use of the late Duke of Hamiltoun but there being nothing to Instruct that it was the Dukes Debt yet there was a Transaction with the Dutches of Hamiltoun for a lesser Sum whereof Balhaven Prestoun and the Defender had payed their part by which Transaction the Pursuers Tutrix and Overseer did agree to quite this Bond in respect that her Father was acquited of any share of the Bond of 10000. pounds The Pursuer answered First That the Defense ought to be Repelled because being but a Verbal Agreement before Writ was subscribed either Party might Resile Secondly The Transaction cannot be Instructed there being no Write and Witnesses are no competent neither can the Tutrix Oath prove against the Pupil The Defender answered to the first that the Transaction being pactum liberatorium it required no Write and so there was not locus penitentiae And as to the Probation of the Transaction though Tutors Oath of Knowledge of any Debt of the Pupils Predecessors will not prove against the Pupil because the Tutor is singularis testis and not in officio But a Tutors Oath as to Deeds done by himself in officio would sufficiently prove the same The Lords thought there was not locus penitentiae from the Traâ—saction though but Verbal but as to the manner of Probation they ordained the â—utrix and overseers Oaths to be taken ex officio Gordoun of Gight contra Abercrombie of Birkbog Eodem die SIR Alexander Abercâ—ombâ—e of Birkbeg having obtained Decreet of of Ejection against Sir George Gordoun of Gight for Re-possessing him in certain Lands and paying the double Rent for the violent Profits Gight Pursues Reduction of the Decreet on these Reasonsâ— First because there was no Law nor Practick to make the violent Profits of Lands without Burgh to be the double of the Rent which is only competent by Custom in prediis urbanis Secondly The Ejection was prescribed not being intented within three years conform to the Act of Parliament Thirdly Gights Defense of Entring in vacuum possessionem was only found probable scripto vel juramento whereas being facti it was probable by Witnesses The Lords Repelled the First and Second Reasons as Competent and emitted in the Decreet and as to the Third The Decreet did bear the alleadgence in the Decreet to be Gights entring into void possession with consent of Partie which consent not being qualified by any palpable fact was not Probable by Witnesses Iames Hamiltoun contra the Tenents of Oversheâ—ls December 13. 1661. JAmes Hamiltoun Merchant in Glasgow having right to two apprysings of the Lands of Oversheils Pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties and after Litiscontestation Iohn Rollane Writer Compears for his interest and produces an Apprysing at his Instance with a Charge against the Superiors It was alleadged he could not be admitted in this state of the Process The Lords admitted him in respect he craved no alteration to be in the Litiscontestation but concurred therein and craved Preference to what should be found due thereby The said Iohn being admitted alleadged he ought to be Preferred because he had charged the true immediate Superiour whereas the other two Apprysers had taken Infeftment as if the Lands had holden immediatly of the KING It was answered for Iames Hamiltoun that he ought to be preferred because he was Infeft long before Iohn Rollane and supposing his Infefment were not of the immediate Superiour yet being in Possession by vertue thereof five or six Years he hath the benefit of a Possessorie Judgement and his Infeftment cannot be taken away without Reduction The Lords preferred Iohn Rollane and granted not the benefit of a Possessorie Iudgement without seven years Possession Iohn Boyd contra Laird of Niddrie and Edmonstoun Eodem die JOhn Boyd as Assigny Constitute to a Bond of a thousand merks by Wolmet charged Niddrie the Debitor who Suspends on double Poynding In which Compearance was made for Iohn Boyd who having declared upon Oath that the Assignation was to his behove for the satisfaction of the Sum of fourteen hundred pounds and that the remainder was to Wolmets own behove according to which he had granted back bond to Wolmet and thereafter granted a second back bond to Major Bigger oblidging him to make the Sum forthcoming to Biggar which was done before any Arrestment but depones that he knows at that time his first back bond was given and that a Discharge of his first back bond produced was by a mistake keeped up by Major Biggar and not delivered up to him till within this few days upon this Oath the Laird of Edmonstoun who had arrested all Sums due to Wolmet in Niddries the Suspenders hand in Iune 1658. alleadged That the ought to be preferred to Biggar because it is clear by the Oath that the superplus of the Sum was to Wolmets behove and he having arrested it before the discharge of Iohn Boyds first back bond was delivered to Iohn Boyd or expresly delivered to Iohn Boyd's behove or otherwayes that the first back bond were re-delivered no deed that Iohn Boyd could do without Wolmets expresse consent could prejudge Wolmets Creditors It was alleadged for Biggar that albeit the first back bond was not delivered back to Iohn Boyd before the Arrestment nor the discharge delivered to him yet Wolmet having subscribed the discharge and delivered it albeit it came not to Iohn Boyds hands it was sufficient to take away the first black bond The Lords preferred the Arrester and found the discharge could operat nothing unlesse it were delivered to Iohn Boyd or some Person to his behove before the Arrestment for they thought if discharges by Creditors put in a third Parties hands not delivered to the Debitor should be sufficient it would eâ—ervart all Arrestments unless the deliverie were exprest to the Debitors behove Homes contra Iohn Bonnar December 14. 1661. MAry and Homes as Donatar to the Escheat and Liferent of Umquhile Iohn Home pursued Iohn Bonnar for Compt Reckoning and Payment of the Sum of 16000. merks due to the Rebel
Few-dutie produced he acknowledged the Pursuer to be Proprietar 2dly If any such Back-bond was no way granting the same he offered him to prove that it was Conditional so soon as the said Umquhile Robert Lord Kirkcudbright should require Ita est he has never required The Defender alleadged he had done the equivalent because in a Double Poynding formerly pursued be the Tennents he had craved Preference and the Pursuer alleadged upon the Condition of Requisition in the Back-bond and also that be the Back-bond the granter and his Wifes Liferent was preserved whereupon the Defender was excluded The Lords â—â—und the Alleadgeance of the said Double Poynding was not Equivalent to the Requisition and therfore found the Replyes Relevant and Assigned a day to the Defender to produce the Back-bond and to the Pursuer â—â—â—â—prove the Qualitieâ— thereof and so found the Reply not to acknowâ—â—ge the Defense but reserve it to either Partie to alleadge contra â—oducenda and found the Personal Obligdement sufficient to dâ—bar the Purâ—â—â—â— albeit the Defender had no other Real Right seeing thereby she was oblidged to grant a Real Right to the Defender Alexander Barns contra Applegirth Ianuary 1. 1662. ALexander Barns having Conform to the Act made by the Iudges obtained Letters of Horning Summarily at his Instance as Heir to his Brother Iames Bâ—rns upon production of his Retour and a Bond granted by Iohnstoun of Applegirth and thereupon having Denunced him and Apprized his Lands Applegirth Suspends on this Reason because the foresaid Act of the Iudges was now Void and by the late Act of Parliament confirming their Judicial Proceedings liberty is granted to quarrel and reduce them upon Iniquity and this was Iniquitie to charge him Summarily contrair to Law The Charger answered non Relevat because he followed the Order in use at that time and the liberty of Quarrelling is for Unjustice in the Matter and not in the Order of Procedor for then all their Debates would be null because they proceeded not upon Continuation and Letters The Lords sustained the Charge as a Libel to the effect the Suspender might have his Defenses if he any had to be proven not iâ—stantlie but upon Terms but declared the Apprysing should stand valid for whatsomever was found due but prejudice to the Horning as accords Sir Alexander Hoom of St. Bathanes contra Orr and Pringle Ianuary 3. 1662. SIr Alexander Hoom of Saint Bathanes having pursued Improbation and Reduction upon Inhibition against Iohn Orr and Wateâ— Pringle and insisted for all Writs of the Lands in Question made to the Defenders Predecessors and Authors of the Lands in Question and the Defender having alleadged no Process for Writs made to his Authors unlesse they were called and having condescended particularly on the Authors to be called The Pursuer offered him to prove that these Authors were fully denuded in favours of the Defender and that the Writs were in the Defenders own hands The Defender answered non Relevat though they were in his hands because his Authors being lyable for warrandice ought to be called to defend there own Rights The Pursuer answered the Defender might intimate to them the Plea The Defender answered he was not oblidged to Intimate the Plea but the Pursuers to call the Authors in this Case the Summonds was sustained for his Authors Writs in Anno one thousand six hundred fiftie nine Years And now the Pursuer insisting for the Defender taking a second time to produce The Defender having a reviewe of the said Act and Interlocutor The Lords reponed the Defender and would not sustain the Pursuit or Act as to the Authors Rights uncalled Tippertie contra his Creditors Eodem die Innes of Tippertie being charged by several of his Creditors Suspends and alleadged payment made by the Suspenders Son to them The Chargers answered non Relevat because they declare the Charge to be to that Sons behove who payed them so that they must alleadge it was payed by his means The Suspender Replyed That seeing they declared it to be to his Sons behove the payment was sufficient because he offered him to prove by a Transaction the Son was oblidged to pay his Debts The Charger answered denying any Transaction if it were proven the Suspender behoved to instruct his part of it performed The Lords found the Reasons and Reply relevant reserving the said alleadgance against the Transaction when produced James Seaton contra Anothonie Rosewall Jannuary 4. 1662. JAmes Seaton and others pursue Anthonie Rosewall to hear it found and declared That two Apprysings to which he had right were fully Satisfied by his and his Authors Intromission within the Legalls respective in the Compt. The Defender alleadged he was only comptable according to his intromission conform to the Act of Parliament one thousand six hundred twenty one anent Apprysings and not according to a Rental of the Lands as they payed when he entred The Pursuers answered that that they could not charge him by his Yearly Intromissions which they could not know but he behoved to charge himself with the Rent of the Lands as they payed at his entrie thereto and if any Deductions or Defalcations were in subsequent Years by necessary setting of the Lands at a lower Rate poverty of the Tennents or waste he behoved to condescend there upon and their the Reasons and Veriâ—ty thereof for in Law an Appryzing giving jus pignoris pratorij the Appryser is comptable for his Diligence having once entered in Possession and thereby excluded the Debitor and Con-creditors from the Possession It were against Law and Conscience to say That if he should abstain and suffer the Tennents to keep the Rent or Depauperat or the Lands to be waste without any Diligence that his Legall should thereby expire and the Debitor and Creditor should be excluded as was found in the Case of the Earl of Nithisdale and Countess of Buckcleugh and was several times so found be the Lords before The Lords found the Defender comptable by a Rental as the Lands payed the time of his Entry but Prejudice of his just Defalcations he clearing a reasonable Cause thereof and proving the truth of the same for they thought that albeit Apprizers are only comptable for their Intromission That is only for such parts of the Lands as they intend only to possesse and not for these they never possest yet in so far as they once entred to possesse they must do Diligence It was further alleadged that no allowance ought to be given to the Defender of a Composition he had given to the Superiour in respect a prior Appryzer had given a Composition before and so he was oblidged for none The Defender answered that both the Prior and Posterior Composition was within a Years Rent which was due to the Superiour which the Lords allowed seeing it was not alleadged that the Composition of a Years Rent was discharged by the Superiour but only according to the Custome of the Burgh where the Lands
known or might have been known to the Pursuer the time of the Bargain at least to his Tutors who made the Bargain Secondly there is no legal Distress but voluntar payment made all the years bygone The Lords Repelled the Defense and found that seeing the Distress by the Stipend was unquestionable payment made thereof without Processes prejudged not and that the Pursuers knowledge could work nothing being then a Pupil Laird of Elphingstoun contra Sir Mungo Murray Eodem die THe Laird of Elphingstoun having Charged Sir Mungo Murray for the price of some Lands bought from him he Suspends and alleadges that by the Disposition the Charger is oblieged to relieve him of all Inhibitions and now produces several Inhibitions The Charger answered non relevat unless there were a Distress seeing the Disposition bears not to purge but only to relieve or to warrant against Inhibitions The Lords considering that the Chaeger vergebat ad inopiam found the Reasons Relevoan till Cauton were found to warrant the Suspender from these Inhibitions They found also that where the Charger was oblieged to pay to the Suspender the Composition for his Entry to the Lands That the Suspender should have no Composition if he got it Gratis albeit he alleadged he got it for other good Services Skeen contra Lumsdean Eodem die ANdrew Skeen having Charged Alexander Lumsdean for payment of a sum for which he was Cautioner for his Brother Mr. Thomas Lumsdean he Suspends upon this Reason that the cause of the Bond was two Bills of Exchangeâ— which was Protested The Suspender answered he offered him to prove they were payed after the Protest by him who drew the Bills or by Mr. Thomas Lumsdean in whose Favour the Bills were drawn The Suspender replyed that the Alleadgence ought to be Repelled because he was assigned to the protested Bills for relief of this Cautionry and intimat his Assignation to Skeen who delivered the Bills and got the Bond Charged on The Charger offered him to prove paymentâ— before that Assignation or Intimation and ad modum probationis produced an Instrument under the Seal of Camphire and a Declaration of the Conservator there bearing that upon inspection of Mr. Thomas Lumsdeans Compt Books they found that he had acknowledged two or three sums payed in part of these Bills and exprest the Dates thereof prior to the Assignation The Suspender alleadged the Compt Books could not prove unless they were produced Cognosced and Proven to be Lumsdeans Compt Books Secondly they could not prove contra tertium Thirdly the Question being de data and they holograph they could not prove their Date Fourthly these Testificats can prove nothing unless they had been taken upon Processes or by Commission The Lords found the Testificats could not prove but that the Compt Book being Cognosced might prove against the Assigney being Brother to Lumsdean and the Books out of his hand since he was broken for amongst Merchants Compt Books or Writs without Witnesses by their Custom are sufficient and ordained Lumsdean and his Brother to Depone upon the having of the Books to produce them if they had them and if not granted Commission to the Magistrats of Camphire and Conservator to Cognosce the Books and to report what they find of this matter in them Marjory Gray contra Dalgardno February 7. 1662. MAjory Gray pursues Dalgardno as vitious Intromettor with the Goods of a Defunct to pay his Debt who alleadged Absolvitor because the Defunct Died Rebel and at the Horn and so nihil fuit in bonis defuncti seing by the Rebellion all his Moveables belonged to the Fisk ipso jure without necessity of tradition for the King jure coronae hath the right of Lands without Infeftment and the right of Moveables forefaulted or fallen in Escheat without Tradition or Possession The Pursuer answered non relevat because the Defender Intrometting without any warrand from the Fisk is quassi prodo and Moveables are not ipso facto in the Property of the Fisk by the Rebellion But if they be Disponed by the Rebel for an onerous Cause the Disposition before Rebellion will be valid or if they be arrested for the Defuncts Debts and recovered by Sentence making forth-coming or if a Creditor Confirm himself Executor Creditor to the Defunct Rebel he will be preferred to the Fisk by all which it appears that the Rebellion transmits not the Property The Defender answered that these Instances do only show that the King prefereth Creditors and takes but the benefit of what the Rebel had deductis debitis or what was Contracted with him bona fide but doth not say that the Property of the Goods were not in the Fisk but in the Rebel The Lords repelled the Defense The Defender further alleadged that not only was the Defunct Rebel but that he had a Gift of his Escheat The Pursuer answered non relevat unless it had been before the vitious intromission or at least ante motam litem The Lords Repelled the Defense unless the Defender would alleadge that the Gift was ante motam litem for they thought that the Taking of the Gift was like the Confirmation of an Executor which purged vitious Intromission being ante motam litem Iohn Bonnar contra Robert Foulis Eodem die JOhn Bonnar pursues Robert Foulis to pay the Debt of a Person Incarcerat by Act of Warding whom the Bailzie set at Liberty without Warrant The Defender alleadged no Processes because the Person Incarcerat was not Called who might have proponed Exceptions against the Debt that it was payed c. Secondly that thereafter the Pursuer had taken himself to the Incarcerat Person and gotten part of payment from him The Lords Repelled the Defenses and decerned but because there was a Reduction depending of the Decreet whereupon the Person was Incarcerat and that he was set at Liberty in Anno 1659. when there was no Iudicatory sitting they superceeded Extracting for the time till the Reduction was Discust Countess of Buckcleugh contra Earl of Tarras Eodem die THe Countess of Buckcleugh pursuing Reduction of a Contract of Marriageâ— betwixt her Sister and the Earl of Tarras The Lords would not Sustain incident for the Earl of Tarras albeit he was minor that Contract being his own Writ and not his Predecessors Lockerbie contra Applegirth Eodem die JOhnstoun of Lockerbie having obtained Decreet against Ierdine of Applegirth for a Sum payed by the Pursuers author as Cautioner for the Defenders Father The Lords found Annualrent due by the Principal to the Cautioner by an Act of Sederunt 1613. and that from the year 1619. until now in respect the Cautioner had payed upon distress by Decreet of Transferrence and a Charge of Horning thereon Acheson contra Mcclean Eodem die DAm Iean Acheson pursues the Laird of Mcclean as representing their Predecessors who was Cautioner in a Suspension The Defender alleadged nothing produced to prove the Suspension Discussed but Letters of Horning upon a Protestation which cannot
Disponed these Lands to the Pursuer with her consent Subscribing the Disposition It was Duplyed The Defenders Subscription and Consent was Extorted metus causa whereupon she has Action of Reduction depending and holds the production satisfied with the Writs produced and repeates her Reason by way of Duply viz. if she was compelled by her Husband it was by just fear because she offered to prove by Witnesses that he threatned her to consent or else he should do her a mischief and that he was a fierce man and had many times beaten her and shut her out of Doors and offered to prove by the Nortar and Witnesses Insert that at the time of the Subscription she declared her unwillingness The Lords found the Defense and Duply Relevant David Wilkie contra Sir Andrew Ker. Eodem die DAvid Wilkie and others Tacks-men of the Castoms Charged Sir Andrew Ker for the Tack-Duty of the Customs of the Border Anno 1650. Set by them to him he Suspends and alleadges by the publick Calamity of the English Entry in Anno 1650. in Iuly Traffick was hindered and by the Kings Proclamation against Commerce with these The Charger answered it was a Casuallity ex natura rei and that they had payed without Defalcation and the Suspender had profit in former years The Lords before answer Ordained the Suspender to Compt upon what benefit he got in Anno 1650. and what Profite above the Tack-duty in former years Adamsons contra Lord Balmerino Iune 26. 1662. ADamsons being Infeft in an old Annualrent out of two Tenements in Leith and having thereupon obtained Decreet of Poynding the Ground in Anno 1661. and insisting for poinding one of the Tennents Goods now belonging to the Lord Balmerino for the whole Annualrent Balmerino Suspends on these Reasons First The Heretor against whom the Decreet of poinding was obtained and all the Tennents were Dead and therefore it can receive no summar Execution against the present Heretor and his Tennents but there must be a new Decreet against them Secondly Balmerino hath peaceably possessed this Tenement twenty or thirty years and thereby hath the Benefit of a possessory Judgement by which his Infeftment cannot be questioned without Reduction and Declarator Thirdly The Englishes possessed this Tenement several years by the publick Calamity of War and therefore there must be Deduction of these years Annualrents as is frequently done in Feu-duties Fourthly The two Tenements being now in the hands of different singular Successors Balmerino's Tenement can only be poinded for a part of the Annualrent The Pursuer answered that Poinding of the ground is actorialis chiefly against the Ground and therefore during the Obtainers Life it is valued not only against the ground while it belonged to these Heretors and Possessors but against the same in whosoever hands it be that the Moveable Goods therein or the Ground Right thereof may be Apprized To the second Annualrents are debita fundi and a Possessory Judgement takes neither place for them nor against them To the third though in some cases Feu-duties ceass by Devestation that was never extended to Annualrents due for the profit of a Stock of Money To the fourth the Annualrent being out of two Tenements promiscuously The Annualrenter may Distress any part for the whole in whosoever hands the Tenement may be The Lords Repelled all these Defenses but superceded Execution for one half of the Annualrent for a time and Ordained the Suspender to give Commission to Balmerino to put the Decreet in Execution against the other Tenements for its proportion for his relief medio tempore Wilson contra Thomson Eodem die WIlson having obtained Decreet against Thomson for poinding of the Ground of a Tenement of Land Thomson Suspends on this Reason that the Chargers Infeftment is base and before it was cled with Possession the Suspender was publickly Infeft and thereby excludes the base Infeftment though prior The Charger answered that the Reason ought to be repelled because he had used Citation upon the base Infeftment before the publick Infeftment by which Citation res fuit letigiosa The Lords Repelled the Reason in respect of the Answer and found the base Infeftment validat by the Citation whereupon the Decreet followed Ruthven contra Laird of Gairn Iune 27. 1662. THe Laird of Gairn having Infeft his Son in his Estate reserving his own Liferent after his Sons Death his Oye pursues him for an Aliment out of the Estate conform to the Act of Parliament appointing the Heir to be Entertained by the Donatars to the Ward Conjunct-feears or Liferenters thereof The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Act of Parliament cannot be extended to his case who voluntarly Infeft his Son in his Estate with the burden of his Liferent Secondly If any Aliment were due the Mother who is Liferenter must bear her part Thirdly Aliment is only due where the Heir hath no other means But here the Heir hath a Stock of Money which though Liferented by his Mother yet he may Entertain himself out of the Stock The Pursuer answered First That the Act of Parliament anent Alimenting of Heirs is generally against Liferenters without exception Secondly The Disposition by the Defender to the Son was for a Tocher worth all the Estate he then had wherefore no part was Liferented by the Son or his Wife the Pursuers Mother but only a sum of Money which came by her self and there is no reason that the Stock thereof should be exhausted for the Pursuers Aliment the Defender having now succeeded to a plentiful Estate The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Replyes Mr. David Watson contra Mr. Iames Ellies Eodem die MR. David Watson having acquired Right to the Superiority of Stenhouse milne pursues the Feuers for their Feu-duties who alleadge First no Process the Lands in Question being Kirk-lands Disponed to a Lord of Erection and it is declared that the Lords of Erection having only right to the Feu-duty till they be Redeemed by the KING at ten Years purchase by the Act of Parliament thereanent in Anno 1633. And thereby none have Right but such as subscribed the submission surrendring their Interest in the KING'S hands untill the Pursuer Instruct that his Author did subscribe the said submission he hath no Interest Secondly absolvitor from the Feu-duties 1650. and 1651. Because the Lands were wasted these Years by publik calamity of War Thirdly absolvitor from Harrage and Carrage because all Services are reserved to the KING by the said Act of Parliament The Lords assoilzied from Harrage and Carrage but differed for the Feu-duty being smal and found no necessity for the Pursuer to instruct that this Author did subscribe the Surrender after so long time but that the same was presumed for his so long bruiking the Fee Sir William Wilson contra Sir William Murray Eodem die WIlson having Apprysed Sir William Murrays Estate pursues him and his Tenents for Mails and Duties who alleadged that by the Act
was Sealed although it mentioned former Requisitions that was but the assertion of the Nottar or of the Keeper of the Register and therefore preferred Nasmiths Gift Andrew Clapertoun contra Lady Ednem December 11. 1662. IN Anno 1621. Umquhile Sir Iohn Edmistoun of Ednem granted a Bond of Provision to Iean Stirling of two Bolls of Victual which he obliged himself to pay to her out of the Mains of Ednem or any other of his Lands by vertue thereof she was in Possession out of the Mains of Ednem till the year 1640. Andrew Clappertoun her Son and Assigney pursues the Lady Ednem as Intrometter with the Rents of the Mains of Ednem to pay the Pension since The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because she stands Infeft in the Mains of Ednem by vertue of her Liferent and thereupon has possessed and the Pursuers Pension is meerly personal and does not affect the Ground nor is valid against singular Successours and though conceived in the best way can have no more effect then an Assignation to Mails and Duties which operats nothing against singular Successors unless it had been an Ecclesiastical Pension clothed with Possession having Letters conform which only is valid against singular Successors The Lords found the Defense Relevant Iohn Oglvie contra Sir Iames Stewart Eodem die PAtrick Leslie and several Cautioners granted Bond to Sir Iames Stewart who assigned the same to John Denholme who used Execution in his Cedents name and took some of the Debitors with Caption and being in the Messengers hands this Iohn Ogilvie assisted to the making of their escape and thereupon being incarcerat by the Magistrats of Edinburgh which concourse of their Authority by their Officers as use is in executing Captions within Edinburgh by aggrement the said Iohn Ogilvie payed 800 lib. to be free and thereupon obtained Assignation from Sir Iames Stewart to as much of the Bond with warrandice from Sir Iames own deed and excepting from the warrandice an Assignation formerly made by Sir Iames to Iohn Denholme Iohn Ogilvie having pursued one of the Debitors he was assoilzied upon a discharge granted by Sir Iames Stewart and Iohn Denholme and they both with one consent whereupon Iohn Ogilvie charged Sir Iames upon the Clause of Warrandice who Suspended and alleadged that the foresaid discharge was nothing contrair to his oblidgement of Warrandice because in the Warrandice Iohn Denholmes Assignation was excepted and consequently all deeds done by Iohn as Assigny Ita est this discharge was granted by Iohn Denholme and would be valid by Iohn Denholme subscription and there was no prejudice done to this Pursuer by Sir Iames Stewarts subscription seing without it the discharge would exclude him The Charger answered that Iohn Denholme subscribed but as Contenter and was not mentioned in the discharge as Assigney The Suspender answered that the discharge being with his consent was as effectual as if he had been principal Partie and each of them discharged with others consent The Lords found the Reason of the Suspension relevant George Loggie contra Peter Loggie Eodem die GEorge Loggie having borrowed 800 merk from Peter Loggie his Brother gave a Wodset therefore The said George being an old man without hope of Children the Reversion was only granted to George and the Heirs of his own Body and his Liferent of the Wodset Lands was Reserved without mentioning of any Back-tack Dutie or Annualrent George having used an Order and Consigned the 800. merk obtained Declarator Peter Suspends and alleadges no Redemption ought to have been till the Annualrent were consigned with the Principal The Charger answered that the Contract of Wodset bare no Annualrent The Suspender answered that albeit it did not yet he having lent his Money in these Terms in hopes of Succession and his Brother having now Married a young Wife he ought not to take advantage of him seing the Annualrent is due in equitie for the profit of the Money The Lords in respect of the Tenor of the Contract of Wodset found the Letters orderly proceeded without any Annualrent and that in this case it could not be due without 〈◊〉 had been so pactioned and agreed Lord Balmirino contra Town of Edinburgh December 18. THe Lord Balmirino pursues the Town of Edinburgh for Spoliation of the Tynds of the Aikers of Restalrige whereof the Towns Hospital had a Tack which being expired Inhibition was used yearly for several years The Defender alleadged absolvitor from any Spuilzie of Teinds because since the KING' 's Decreet Arbitral and the Fyfteen and Seventeen Acts of Parliament 1633. Spuilzie of Teinds is taken away especially by the said Fyfteen Act. The Parliament Ratifies a former deed of the King 's Declaring every Heretor shall have the drawing of his own Teynd and the benefit of a Valuation and in the mean time so long as the Teynds are not Valued the Heretors are only lyable for the Fyft of the Rent in name of Teynd Secondly By a Contract betwixt the Town and the Pursuers Father of the Aikers of Restalâ—ige lyand runrig with these are set for half a boll beer the Aiker which is by the Contract Declared to be the just and true Rate and Value thereof which by necestar consequence declares the Value of the Teynds now in Question being runrig with the other The Pursuer answered to the first That the foresaid Act of Parliament was only meaned in relation to the KING'S Annuity and albeit the foresaid Clause therein be general yet it is clear by the 17. Act which is posterior that the first part shall be the Teynd after the Valuation duely led which hath been constantly allowed by Custom of the Commission of Plantations which gave only warrand to Heretors to lead their own Teynd during the Dependence of a Valuation and therefore Spuilzie of Teynds have been frequently sustained since the saids Acts As to the second whatever be the way of conception of the Tack for the other Aikers not in question be though it did acknowledge the same to be the just Value thereof yet it cannot extend to other Teynds seing where the Parties agree in the matter they are not solicitous for the conception of the words which cannot be drawn in consequence to any other matter The Lords repelled both these Defenses but declared they would not sustaine Spuilzie as to the Oath in Litem but admitted the Value of the Teynd to the Pursuers probation Reserving to themselves the modification of the prices if they should be exorâ—itantly proven but not of the quantaties Lady Tursapie contra Laird of Tursapie December 20. 1662. THE Lady Tursapie pursues the Laird of Tursapie who succeeded as Heir to his Brother her Husband for the Aliment of the Defuncts Family till the next Term after his Death and specially for the Alinent and to the Pursuers Son Heir appearand to his Father The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Lybel was no wayes relevant against him as Heir but by the
general Declarator it were not competent not being instantly verifyed without Reduction 3ly It were not probable but by Writ before the Denunciation and not by the Creditors Oath or having discharges being in prejudice of the KING but that no hazard might be of ante-dating it was required by Act of Parliament that beside the Writ the Parties should depone upon the truth of the Date The Defender answered to the first all Defenses competent in the general Declarator are reserved in the special To the second there is a Reduction depending The Lords found the Defense relevant only scripto of the Denuncer The Defender further alleadged the Horning was null as being upon a null Decreet and falling therewith in consequence The Lords repelled the Defense and found though the Decreet were null through informality yet the Horning would not be anulled but the Partie was in contempt in not Suspending debito tempore Compearance was also made for Mr. William Lauder who alleadged he had Disposition from the Rebel before year and day run The Lords found this Alleadgeance not relevant unless it were alleadged to be for a just Debt before the Denunciation It was further alleadged for Mr. William that the Pursuer granted Back-bond to the Thesaurer to imploy the Gift by his appointment and he offered to satisfye the Donatars Debt and the whole expense of the Gift The Lords found this not relevant without a second Gift or Declaration from the Thesaurer Thomas Crawfoord contra 〈…〉 Eodem die THomas Crawfoord as Executor Creditor to Umquhile Robert Inglis Pursues some of his Debitors It was alleadged no Process because Thomas as Factor for Robert Inglis had pursued the same Partie for the same Cause before the Commissaries of Edinburgh wherein Litiscontestation was made and so now it cannot be pursued elsewhere but the Process ought to be transferred and insisted in The Pursuer answered that he pursued then as Factor but now as Executor-Creditor who did not consider what Diligence Defuncts did but might insist therein or not 2dly This being a dilator is not instantly verifyed The Lords found the Defense relevant but would not find it competent unless instantly verifyed and because it behoved to be instructed by an Act Extracted Catharine Frazer contra Heugh Frazer February 11. 1663. THe said Catharine only Child of a second Marriage being provided to eight thousand merk of Portion at her age of 14 years but no oblidgment of Aliment or Annualrent till then pursues her Brother as Heir to her Fathers Estate being of a good condition for Aliment He alleadges he was oblidged for none not being Parent nor his Father oblidged by Contract or Bond for it The Lords found an Aliment due for the Pursuers Mother was not alive and able to Aliment her Lockie contra Patoun February 12. 1663. ELizabeth Lockie Spouse to Doctor Patoun pursues a Reduction of a Disposition granted by her Husband to certain Persons as prejudicial to her Contract in which Contract there was a Clause declaring Execution to pass at the instance of certain Persons who concur with this pursuit The Lords sustained the pursuit though it was not for Implement but for Reduction of a Right impeding the benefit of the Contract without concurse of the Husband seing the Process was against a Deed of the Husbands and he called passive Earl of Southesk and Carnegy contra Bromhall Eodem die BRomhall having taken the Lord Sinclar with Caption Southesk and his Son gave Bond to produce him to the Messengers or to pay the Sum. on the third of February betwixt two and ten whereupon Southesk having reproduced him craved by Supplication his Bond up or to be declared satisfied and extinct The Defender answered First He not being a Member or Dependent on the Colledge of Justice cannot be called thus summarily especially to declare a Bond void which is in effect a Reduction 2dly The Bond was not performed in so far as the Lord Sinclar was not reproduced till the 4th of February The Pursuer answered that the Defender living in Edinburgh and not compearing the Bill per modum quaerelae might be sustained To the second it being modica mora of one day without damnage to the Defender and there being trysting amongst the Parties all the time betwixt it was sufficient The Lords sustained the Petition and found it extinct Relict of George Morison contra His Heirs Eodem die THis Relict pursues for Implement of her Contract It was alleadged she had accepted a Wodset in full satisfaction thereof which now being Redeemed she could crave no more but Re-imploying the Money to her in Liferent The Lords found that this acceptance by the Wife being donatio inter virum uxorem she might now revock it and therefore found the Heir lyable to make up what was in the Contract The Town of Linlithgow contra Unfree-men of Borrowstounness February 13. 1663. THe Town of Linlithgow insisted in their Charge upon a Bond granted by some Inhabitants of Borrowstounness oblidging them to disist and cease from usâ—ing the Merchant Trade under the pain of 500 merk which was Suspended on this Reason that the Bond was extorted by unwarrantable force in so far as the Suspenders were taken in Linlithgow brevi manu and incarcerat till they granted the Bond. The Charger produced a Decreet of the Lords in Anno 1643. against several Inhabitants in Borrowstounness compearand who having Suspended the general Letters upon Act of Parliament for finding Caution to desist c. The Letters were found orderly proceeded and the Town of Linlithgow impowred not only to seize upon the Merchant Goods of the Inhabitants of Borrowstounness if they medled in Merchant Trading but also bearing with power to put the Persons using the saids Merchant Trade in Prison till Justice were done upon them and thereupon alleadge that the Suspenders being incarcerat by vertue and conform to the foresaid Decreet standing there was no unwarrantable Force used 2dly They produced an Act of the Council of Linlithgâ—w Bearing the Suspenders to have compeared before the Council and to have confessed their wronging of the said Town in the Trade of Merchandize and that there was Horning and Caption against them for the Cause and therefore declared their willingness to grant the Bond in Question The Suspenders answered to the First That albeit the foresaid Decreet bear compearance yet there is no Dispute in it and it is evident to be by Collusion and Surreptitious because this Conclusion now alleadged is ultra petita there being no such thing in the general Letters nor doth the Decreet bear any special Charge given neither is this Conclusion warrantable by any Law or Act of Parliament 2dly This Decreet could be no warrant to Incarcerat the Suspenders because it is given only against some particular Persons then living in Borrowstounness without calling either of the Barron or Baillies of the Burgh of Bâ—rronie and therefore is null as to any other Persons and as to the
Intimation being Contracted by and so known to Ker himself and therefore found Ogilbies Discharge ineffectual Town of Edinburgh contra Lord Ley and William Veatch July 8. 1664. IN a Double Poynding raised by the Town of Edinburgh against my Lord Ley on the one part and William Veitch upon the other The Ground whereof was this The Town of Edinburgh being Debitor to umquhil Dowglas of Mortoun in a Sum of Money his Son Confirmed himself Executor to his Father and Confirmed this Sum which was Arrested in the Towns hands by William Veatch first and thereafter by my Lord Ley. It was alleadged for William Veatch that he ought to be preferred having used the first Diligence by Arresting several years before my Lord Ley and having obtained Decreet against the Town before the Commissars but before it was Extracted my Lord Ley obtained Advocation It was alleadged for my Lord Ley that he ought to be preferred because the sum Arrested being due to umquhil Dowglas of Mortoun There was never a Decreet obtained at the Instance of this Executor establishing it in his Person and therefore this Competition being betwixt William Veatch who was only the Executors proper Creditor and not the Defuncts Creditor The Defuncts Money ought to be applyed First to pay the Defuncts Debt before the Executors Debt albeit the Executors own Creditor had done the first Diligence The Lords found that the Lord Ley as being Creditor to the Defunct ought first to be preferred seing now he appears before the Debt was Established in the Person of the Executor Nisbit contra Lesly Eodem die JOhn Nisbit as Assigney Constitute by Major Drummond Charges Lachlan Lesly to pay four Dollars for ilk Souldier of sixty conform to a Contract betwixt Major Drummond and Lodovick Lesly for whom Lachlan was Cautioner Lachlan Suspends on this Reason that the Charge is to the behove of Francis Arneil who was Conjunct Cautioner and bound for mutual Relief and therefore he can ask no more then his share of what he truely payed in Composition The Charger answered that he nor Francis Arneil were not Charging on the Clause of Relief but on the principal Contract as Assigney And though he had gotten Assignation thereto gratis he might crave the same except his own part Which the Lords found Relevant Heugh Kennedy contra George Hutchison Eodem die HEugh Kennedy as Assigney by Sir Mark Ker to a Bill of Exchange which was drawn by George Hutchison upon William Schaw at London payable to Sir Mark for like value received from him did obtain Decreet against George Hutchison and one Schaw as Intrometters with the Goods of William Schaw both for the Bill it self and for the Exchange and Re-exchange the Bill being Protested for not payment This Decreet being Suspended it was alleadged that there could be no Exchange or Re-exchange nor any thing payed for the Bill because the Bill was not lawfully protested but being accepted by Schaw at London he shortly after dyed and it was protested at his house where he dyed before none of his Relations having neither Wife nor Children The Charger answered that he took Instruments on the Defense and alleadged that he needed not to prove the passive Title Secondly That he had done all that was requisit having protested at the Dwelling-house where Schaw resided The Lords found that in this Case that Death Interveening which was an Accident there could be no Exchange nor Re-exchange because this was no voluntar Failzâ—e nor fault But found that the Charger as Assigney might either take himself for the single value against the Person drawer of the Bill or to his Successors on whom it was drawn Earl of Airly contra Iohn Mcintosh Eodem die THe Earl of Airly pursues Iohn Mcintosh for Contravention and Lybels these Deeds that the Defenders Herds had been found Pasturing several times far within his Ground for a considerable time which Ground was without all Controversie the Pursuers The Lords Sustained the Lybel it being always proven that the Herd herded by his Masters Command or Ratihabition and referred to themselves at their conclusion of the Cause to consider whether they would sustain the several times of hirding as several Deeds toties quoties or if only as one Deed made up of all and how far the witnesses should be received as to command or direction of the Defender Dumbar of Hempriggs contra Frazer July 11. 1664. HEmprigs as Executor to Dumbeath having pursued the Lady Frazer Relict of Dumbeath and the Lord Frazer for his Interest for payment of Executory intrometted with by the Lady there being Litiscontestation in the Cause Dumbeath calls the Act and craves the Term to be Circumduced against the Lord Frazer who alleadged that now his Lady was dead and so his interest being jus mariti ceased It was answered Litiscontestation being made the Debt was Constitute in the Husbands Person as if he had Contracted to pay it Litiscontestation being a Judicial Contract Secondly The Lord Frazer was Decerned to give Bond to pay what his Lady should be found due Frazar answered that no Bond was yet given and that the Ordinance was only against him as he was cited which was for his Interest which is Seassed And which the Lords found Relevant and Assoilzied Grahame of Hiltoun contra the Heretors of Clackmannan Iuly 13. 1664. GRahame of Hiltoun having obtained a Decreet against the Heretors of Clackmannan for a sum of Money Imposed upon that Shire by the Commity of Estates the Heretors of the Shire have raised a Revew and alleadged that this Decreet being obtained before the Commissioners in the English time he has liberty to quarrel the Justice thereof within a year conform to the Act of Parliament and now alleadges that the saids Commissioners did unjustly repell this Defense proponed for singular Successors within the said Shire that they ought not to be lyable for any part of the said Imposition having Acquired their Rights long after the same and before any diligence was used upon the said Act of the Committee It was answered that there was no injustice there because this being a publick Burden imposed upon a Shyre by Authority of Parliament it is debiâ—um fundi and affecteth singular Successors especially seing the Act of the Committee of Estates was Ratified in the Parliament 1641. which Parliament and Committee though they be now Rescinded yet it is with expresse Reservation of Privat Rights acquired thereby such as this The Pursuer answered that every Imposition of this nature though by Authority of Parliament is not debitum fundi but doth only affect the Persons having Right the time of the Imposition whereanent the minde of the late Parliament appeareth in so far as in the Acts thereof ordaining Impositions to be uplifted during the troubles Singular Successors are excepted It was answered exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis such an exception had not been needful if de jure singular Successors had been free It was
not for all Right he hath or may have or does not dispone with absolute Warrandice In these Cases the Authors Right supervening accresces not to the Acquirer but himself may make use thereof against the Acquirer much more any other having Right from from him 2ly The maxime holds not if the Authors Right be Reduced before he acquire the new Right in which case the first Right being extinct nothing can accresce thereto but the Author may acquire any other new Right and make use thereof 3ly The maxime hath no place if the Author do not acquire a new Right to the land which could be the foundation and ground of the Tack granted as if he acquired but the Right of an Annualrent which could be no ground of the Defenders Tack much more if he acquire a Right to the Mails and Duties of the lands either upon Sentence to make Arrested Goods furthcommand or an Assignation or Disposition of the Mails and Duties made to the Author for satisfying of a Debt to him by the Disponer This would be no Right to the land that could accresce to Validat a Tack The Defender answered First that his first Defense was yet relevant because albeit his Authors Right were reduced he not being called his Right would be a sufficient colourable Title to give him the benefit of a Possessory judgement untill his bona fides were interrupted by Process because his subaltern Right is not extinct till either by way of Action or Exception it be declared extinct as falling in consequence with his Authors Right reduced seing there is no mention thereof in the Decreet of Reduction 2ly Albeit Diligence had been used yet if the user thereof insisted not but suffered the Defender to possess bona fide seven year thereafter it revives that benefit of a new Possessory Judgement The Lords as to this Poynt found that the Interruption of the bona fides by Process did still take the same away unless it were Prescrived but found that before any Process the Defense should be relevant and therefore sustained only Process for the year since the Citation As to the other Defense in jure The Defender answered that his Defense stands yet Relevant notwithstanding all the Fallacies alleadged which are without warrant in Law and without example with us where this Maxime hath ever been held unquestionable that jus Authoris accrescit Successori unlesse the Successors Right be expresly limited to a particular Right or to any Right the Author then had but the Defender needs not Disput the Equivalence of the Cause unlesse such expresse Limitation were added there is no ground to presume an Exception upon the Personal oblidgment of Warrandice from fact and deed which oftimes is put in Contracts fully onerous but on the contrair there is a several Defense upon that very Clause that the Earl of Hoom whatever Right he should acquire yet if he should make use of it against this Defender he comes against his own Warrandice whereby he is oblidged that he has done nor shall do no deed prejudicial to the Defenders Tack neither is there any ground of Exception albeit the Authors Right was reduced before the new Right acquired from that ground that the new cannot accresce unto the old Right being Extinct because the Maxime bears that it accresces Successori non jure Successoris so that albeit the new Right do not Validat the old Right yet the new Right becomes the Defenders Right eo momento that it became the Authors Right per fictionem juris without deed or diligence and cannot be taken away by any subsequent deed of that Author more then if before such a deed he had particularly established his Successors therein because the fiction of the Law is equivalent to any such establishment neither is their any ground of Exception that the Authors Right Superveening is but an Annualrent which cannot Validat a Tack because if the Author were making use of that Annualrent to poynd the ground the Defender upon his Tack and Warrandice would exclude him because he could not come against his own dâ—ed and oblidgment yea albeit it were but a Right to the Mails and Duties quocunque modo The Lords having considered the Earl of Hooms new Superveening Right and that it was but the Right of an Annualrent of 300 lib. Starling with a Clause that incase of failzie of payment he might uplift the hail Mails and Duties till he were payed and that the Defenders Tack included only Personal Warrandice They repelled the Defense and found that such a Right could not accresce to the Defender to validat his Tack wherein some of the Lords had respect to that point that the Right was Reduced before this new Right but others as it seems on better grounds layed no weight on that if the cause onerous had been the full value and equivalent or if the Tack had born for all Right that I have or shall acquire which would accresce to the Successor as oft as ever it was acquired though all the prior Rights had been reduced but in this Case the Author not acquiring a new Right to the Lands but only to the Mails and Duties which in effect is but Personal it could not accresce to the Defender more then if the Author had been Factor to a thrid Part by the new Right and albeit the Clauses of Personall Warrandice might have Personally excluded the Earl of Hoom himself yet seing that Right could accresce to the Defender the Earl of Hoom having renunced or assigned it to a thrid Partie The Personal Objection against the Earl of Hoom upon the Personal Clause of Warrandice ceases neither did the Pursuer insist upon the Earl of Hooms Right but his own Elizabeth Scrimgeor contra Executors of Mr. John Murray Eodem die IN a Compt and Reckoning betwixt Elizabeth Scrimgeor relict of Mr. Iohn Murray Minister and his Executors these Queries were reported to the Lords by the Auditor First Whether the Defunct dying Infeft in an Annualrent could have an Heir as to moveable Heirship The Lords found he would seing the Annualrent was Feudum and he might thereby be esteemed as Baro as well as a petty Fewer Quest. 2. Whether the Defunct having died the day before Martinmas 1661. He would have right to any part of the Stipend 1662. As the Annat The Lords found he would have the half of 1662. Quest. 3. Whether he would have like right to the Gleib as to the Stipend by the Ann. The Lords found that could not be debaitable betwixt the Defuncts Relict and Executors albeit there was no compearance for a new intrant in which Case they thought that so soon as the intrant 〈…〉 were admitted he would have right to the Manse and Gleib and not the Defunct though the Defuncts Wife would have right to a part of the Stipend due after his entrie Quest. 4. Whether the Heretable Debt could exhaust the moveable Estate of the Defunct to deminish
a Compt by the Debitors own hand writ though not subscribed has been found probative The Lords found that if this had been a current Compt-book it would have been probative but having been only some feu scheduls of Paper found it not probative without subscription albeit it was acknowledged by the Oath to be the deponents hand writ John Boyd late Baillie in Edinburgh contra Mr. William Kintore Iuly 4. 1665. THere being mutual Reductions betwixt Mr. William Kintore and Iohn Boyd as to the Rights of the Lands of Moutlothian Iohn Loyd deriving Right from Mr. Robert Logan to whom Logan of Coatfield with consent of Mr. Iames Raith and who for all Right he had to the Land of Mounlothian disponed the same And Mr. William Kintore having Appryzed upon a Decreet against Coatfield as Cautioner for a Tutor and upon the Act of Caution inhibited It was alleadged for Iohn Boyd that whereas by a former Interlocutor the day of he having objected against Kintor's Decreet that thereby the Tutor and his Cautioner were found lyable to uplift the Annualrent of Sums that were in the hands of secure Creditors which the Tutors had not uplifted and to be lyable for Annualrent post finitam tutelam now he produces a Decision out of Dury Iuly 18. 1629. Nasmith contra Nasmith whereby it was found that a Tutor having uplifted his Pupils Annualrent though very considerable was not lyable for any Annualrent therefore 2ly The reason of the Lords Decision then being that albeit the Tutor was not lyable to uplift and imploy the Annualrent every year as it was due yet he was lyable once in the Tutory but it is offered to be proven that he died two years before the Tutory expired in which time he might both have uplâ—fted this Annualrent and re-imployed it and therefore being prevented by death he ought to be free both of the Annualrent it self and of the Annualrent thereof The Lords having considered the Decision found it so short and not to hold forth fully the Case notwithstanding thereof they adhered to the former Interlocutor and found that Tutors are oblidged to uplift and once in their Tutory to re-imploy the Annualrents of the Pupil albeit the Debitor were secure but if the Case had been of Rents of Lands the Lords thought these ought to have been uplifted yearly and to be imployed on Annualrent but they found the second alleadgance Relevant not to free the Tutor of payment of the Annualrent it self though in secure hands because he ought to have uplifted it and had it ready but found him free of the Annualrent thereof there being a competent time in which he might have given it forth before the Pupillarity past if he had not been prevented by death but ordained Kintore to assigne to Boyd the Right of the Annualrent that he might recover the same from the Debitors It was further alleadged for Kintore that Coatfield the common Author his Disposition to Mr. Robert Logan Iohn Boyds Author was after Kintors Authors Inhibition It was answered that albeit the Disposition by Coatfield to Mr. Robert Logan be posterior yet Mr. Iames Raith had a Disposition of the same Lands anterior who by consenting and joynt Disponing to Mr. Robert Logan the Lands of Mountlothian did in effect constitute him Assigney to his anterior Disposition which is now accomplished by the Adjudication adjudging the Right of the Lands from Coatfildâ— Heirs and thereupon Infeftment has followed by precepts out of the Chancellary for supplying Coatfilds procuratory of Resignation which took no effect in his life It was answered that Mr. Iames Raiths Right being but a Wodset his consent cannot import the transmitting of his Right albeit he joyntly Dispond seing he transmits no part of the Sums in the Wodset and therefore does no more in effect but restrict his Wodset to the remanent Lands and consents that Coatfield should Dispone these Lands to Mr. Robert Logan and so it imports but non repugnantiam and a Provision that he nor his Successor should not quarrel their Right upon his anterior Right Which the Lords sustained Mr. Walter Innes contra George Wilson Iuly 4. 1665. INnes of Auchbuncart being pursued as Heir to his Father upon all the passive Titles alleadged that his Father was denounced Rebel and his Escheat gifted and the Defender had Right or warrand from the Donatar before intenting of this Cause The Pursuer answered non relevat except the Gift had been declared and that the Defenders Intromission had been after Declarator and the warrand but the Intromission being anterior cannot be purged ex post facto The Defender answered that as the confirmation of an Executor excluds vitious Intromission had before the Confirmation ante motam litem so the Gift and VVarrand though without Declarator purges anterior Intromission ante motam litem Which the Lords found relevant Commissar of S. Andrews contra Boussi Iuly 4. 1665. THe Commissar of St. Andrews having charged Hay of Boussi to Confirm his Fathers Testament he Suspends and alleadges his Father had Disponed all his Moveable Goods and Gear to him and so nihil habuit in bonis and offered him to prove that he was in possession of the whole Goods before his Death It was answered the Disposition was but simulat in so far as it contained a power to the Disponer to dispose upon any part of his Moveables during all the days of his life and if such a Disposition were sustained there should never be another Testament confirmed and all people would follow this course which would not only exclude the Quot but keep the Means of Defuncts in obsâ—uro The Lords in respect of the generality of the Disposition and the Clause foresaid repelled the Reason George Dumbar contra Earl of Dundie July 5. 1665. GEorge Dumbar having charged the Earl of Dundie as Cautioner for the Laird of Craig to pay 8000 merks of Tochar provided by Craigs Sisters Contract of Marriage the Earl of Dundie Suspends on this Reason that he is but lyable for his half because they were not bound conjunctly and severally The Charger answered that he was bound as Cautioner and full Debitor which was sufficient Which the Lords sustained Mackie contra Stewart Iuly 5. 1665. JAmes Mackie as Assigney by Agnes Schaw conveens Stewart of Mains as as representing his Father who was Cautioner for imploying a Sum of Money to her in Liferent It was answered First the Contract is prescribed 2ly It bears these words that the Tochar being payed The Principal and Cautioner obligded them to imploy it upon security so that the obligation is conditional And if it be not instructed that the Tochar was payed the Defender is not lyable The Pursuer answered to the first contra non valentem agere non currit prescriptio she being a VVife cled with a Husband her not pursuing her own Husband or his Cautioner cannot prescrive her Right To the second The prescription is run against the Husband and his
Mails and Duties by the Escheat It was answered for the Earl that having both Rights in his Person he might poynd the Ground for the Feu-dutie and his Donatar might pursue for the Maills and Duties 2dly His acceptance of the Feu-dutie albeit it could not consist with the Maills and Duties yet it would only extend to these Years that the Feu-dutie was accepted and to no others The Lords found the acceptance of the Feu dutie Relevant only for these Years for which it was received but it occurred to some of the Lords that if it were alleadged there were three consecutive Discharges of the Feu-dutie that these as they would presum all bygone Feu-dutie payed so they would extend to the Maills and Duties for all years preceeding the Discharges Therefore the Defender was ordained to condescend if so many Discharges were and that this point might be debated William Crawfoord contra Andrew Duncan June 7. 1666. WIlliam Crawfoord as Assigney to a Bond of 200. merks granted by Andrew Duncan pursues for payment It was alleadged absolvitor because the Bond was null having no Date at all data est de substantialibus It was answered that the Pursuer offered him to prove by the Defenders Oath that it was his true Subscription which was sufficient and the Date is only substantial when Improbation is alleadged or any Right that might take away the Writ if it were of such a Date as a prior Assignation or general Discharge The Lords found the Reply Relevant with this provision that the Defender might adject what quality he thought fit as these mentioned or that it was done in Minority or not delivered c. but they found him not oblidged to depone simpliciter upon the verity of the subscription and to prove such qualities as they had done before in a Holograph Writ wanting Date the last Session in the Process betwixt the Earl of Kinghorn and Sir James Murray Elizabeth Anderson contra George Cunninghame Iune 9. 1666. THis Cause betwixt Elizabeth Anderson and George Cunninghame anent a Legacie lest by the said George his Wife to the said Elizabeth Anderson being debated the 7. of February last The Lords then found that George by confirming his Wifes Testament in giving up his Debts to exhaust the free Gear and abate the Legacie did not hinder himself to adduce further Debt for a further abatement but now it being further alleadged that immediately before the Confirmation the Bond he would now add was registrat and he charged therewith he could not be ignorant thereof at the time of the Confirmation The Lords altered their Interlocutor and found that having scienter omitted that Debâ— he could not bring it in to the Legatars prejudice This was stopt by Bill the next day Colin Hay contra Magistrates of Elgin Iune 12. 1666. COlin Hay pursues the Magistrats of Elgin for the Debt of a Rebel escaping out of the Prison of Elgin whom he had arrested there It was alleadged for the Defenders absolvitor because the Rebel was not incarcerat by the Pursuer upon his Caption but being incarcerat by another was only arrested in the Tolbooth by the Pursuer and all that is produced to instruct the same is only the Execution of a Messenger who arrested the Rebel It was answered there was no difference whether the Rebel had been incarcerat upon the Pursuers Caption or had been arrested for in both Cases the Magistrats are lyable and the keeper of the Tolbooth ought to have a Book for certifying the Magistrats of all incarcerations and Arrests in Prison and if they be neglective therein it is on their perills and yet here the Messenger not only Arrested but the Executions bore that he intimat the same to the Provost and Baillies Which the Lords found sufficient and Repelled the Defense and found no difference betwixt Incarceration and Arresting in Prison Sinclar of Bryme Supplicant Eodem die SInclar of Bryme gave in a Bill bearing that he had obtained Suspension of all Execution and specially of Appryzing which he presented at the time of the Appryzing and yet the Messenger and Writer went on and Appryzed and therefore craved that the Appryzing might be stopt at the Registers and Seals The Lords refused to grant the desire of the Bill without there had been a Summons against the Appryzer past the Signet but would not upon a Bill cite Parties out of the Town having no dependence on the House nor annull or hinder any pretended Right they had without citing of them but resolved to take in consideration the contempt of the Messenger and Writer at the discussing of the Cause Sir Hendrie Hoom contra Tennents of Kello and Sir Alexander Hoom. Iune 13. 1666. JOhn Hoom Younger of Kello being Forefaulted in the Parliament 1661. For being with the English Armie against the Kings Armie at Worchester 1651. Sir Alexander Hoom obtained Gift of the Forefaultry and thereupon came in possession Sir Hendrie Hoom having Appryzed the Lands of Kello from the said Iohn Hoom and his Father Alexander Hoom upon their Bond and having charged the Superiout in 1653. to Infeft him obtained Decreet of Maills and Duties against the Tennents which being Suspended upon double Poynding and Sir Hendrie and Sir Alexander competing It was answered for Sir Alexander the Donatar that he had possest three years and offered him to prove that the Rebel had possest five years before therefore craved the benefit of a possessorie judgement 2dly That he was preferable in poynt of Right in so far as he offered him to prove that the Rebel was five years in possession before the Forefaulture which gives the King and his Donatar compleat Right by the Act of Parliament It was answered for the Creditor that he ought to be preferred because there being no retour upon the Act of Parliament finding by the Inquest that the Rebel was five years in possession as Heretable Possessor he can neither have the benefit of a possessory Judgement nor stop the Creditors Diligence who found themselves upon the Appryzing against the Father who stood publickly Infeft and there is no sufficient Right in the Rebels Person alleadged nor produced It was answered that the five years possession might be proven by Witnesses by way of Exception 2dly It was offered to be proven by an Inquest conform to the Act of Parliament The Lords found no benefit of a Possessory Iudgement competent neither would they sustain the five years possession by way of Defense but decerned superceeding Extract while the 15. of July within which time if the Donatar obtained the retour of an Inquest he should be heard thereupon The Donatar further alleadged seperatim that the Rebel was Infeft by the Father which was sufficient to prefer him without an Inquest It was answered non relevat unless he had either been publickly Infeft or by base Infeftment cled with possession before the Superior was charged upon the Creditors Appryzing which being equivalent to a publick Infeftment
fit and is not conveenable for his Mis-authorizing or Omission that infers only that he is only Curator honorarius The Defender did furder alleadged that the Father had furder Authorized in so far as he Subscribed the said Bond and so consented that his Son should Subscribe and neither was the Deed in rem suâ—m but in rem creditoâ—is The Lords found the Reasons of Reduction Relevant and Repelled the Defenses and albeit many thought that the Father Subscribing with the Son was sufficient to Authorize yet that it was not sufficient being Caution for himself in rem suam but did not proceed to cause the Parties condescend how near Sir George was to Majority and what was his way of living Earl Cassils contra Tennents of Dalmortoun and John Whitefoord of Blarquhan Decem 11 1666 AN Action of Double Poynding at the Instance of the Tennents of Balmortoun against the Earl of Cassils on the one part and Iohn Whitefoord of Blarquhan on the other both claiming Right to their Multures It was alleadged for the Earl of Cassils that the Lands in question being holden Ward of him is now in his hands by reason of the Ward of Knockdaw his Vassal he had now Right to their Multures and they ought to come to the Miln of his Barony whereof these Lands were Pertinent and shew his Infeftment containing the Lands of Dalmortoun per expressum It was alleadged for Iohn Whitefoord that he ought to be preferred because that Kennedy of Blarquhan the Earls Vassal both of the Lands of Dalmortoun and Blarquhan had Disponed to him the Lands of Blarquhan and Miln of Sklintoch with astricted Multures used and wont at which time Blarquhan caused his Tennents of Dalmortoun to come to the said Miln of Sklintoch whereby the Thirlage was not only Constitute of the Lands of Blarquhan but of Dalmortoun It was answered for the Earl First That the Thirlage of Dalmortoun could not be Constitute by the said Clause because the Lands of Dalmortoun being no part of that Barony whereof the Miln of Sklintoch is the Miln But a distinct Tenement holden of a distinct Superiour Such a general Clause could never have Constitute a Thirlage unless the Lands had been exprest 2ly Albeit the Servitude had been Constitute never so clearly by the Vassal Yet if it was without the Superiours consent it could not prejudge him by Ward or Non-entry It was answered for Iohn Whitefoord to the First That the Clause was sufficient to Constitute the Thirlage and if it wrought not that Effect it was of no Effect because the hail Lands of the Barony were Disponed with the Miln and neither needed nor could be Thirled And therefore the Clause of Thirlage behoved to be meaned of some other Lands 2ly Vassals may lawfully Constitute Servitudes without consent of the Superiour which are not Evacuat by Ward or Non-entry 3ly It is offered to be proven that the Earl consented to the Right of the â—â—lture in so far as the Lands of Dalmortoun being Appryzed from Blarquhan by Iohn Gilmour he assigned the Appryzing to Iohn Whitefoord who Assigned or Disponed the same to Kilkerren in which Asignation there was an express Reservation of the Multurs of Dalmortoun to the Miln of Sklintoch upon which Infeftment the Earl received Kilkerren in these Lands who is Author to the present Vassal The Lords found the Clause aforesaid in Iohn Whitefords Charter not to infer a Servitude of the Lands of Dalmortoun not being therein exprest and holden of another Superiour Nor no Decreets nor Enrolments of Court alleadged to astruct the Servitude And found also the second Reason Relevant viz. That the Earl as Superiour not having consented was not prejudged by any Deed of the Vassals But as to the third Point the Lords found that the Reservation in Kilkerrens Right unless it were per expressum contained in the Charter Subscribed by the Earl of Cassils could not infer his consent albeit the Charter related to a Disposition containing that Clause but if it were alleadged to be exprest in the Charter they Ordained before answer the Charter to be produced that they might consider the terms of the Reservation Sir Henry Home contra Creditors of Kello and Sir Alexander Home Decemb 12 1666 SIR Henry Home having appryzed the Lands of Kello before the year 1652. pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for either Creditors appryzers who alleadged they ought to come in with him pari passu by the late Act between Creditor and Debitor because the appryzings being since the year 1652. was within a year of his appryzings being effectual by Infeftment or Charge It was answered that the Act of Parliament was only in relation to Compryzings both being since the year 1652. and the Pursuers appryzing being led before falls not within the same It was answered that the Act of Parliament in that Clause thereof in the beginning mentions expresly that Compryzings led since 1652. shall come in pari passu with other appryzings but doth not express whether these other appryzings are since 1652 but in that is general and the Reason of the Law is also general and extensive to this Case It was answered that the posterior part of that same Clause clears that point both in relation to the appryzings in whose favours and against which the Law is introduced viz. that the Clause is only meant the appryzings led since 1652 shall come in pari passu which must both comprehend these that come in and these with whom they come in The Lords Repelled the alleadgence quoad other Compryzings and found that their Compryzings could not come in with the Pursuer he having appryzed before the year 1652. and Charged before their appryzing Ianet Thomson contra Stevinson Decem 13 1666 JAnet Thomson pursues a Reduction of a Disposition made by her to Stevinson upon Minority and Lesion and also upon this Reason that the Disposition was done within some few dayes after her Pupillarity and it being of Land ought not to have been done without authority of a Judge especially seing she had no Curators The Defender answered to the first there was no Lesion because the Disposition bears a sum equivalent to the value of the Land To the second non Relevat The pursuer answered that the Subscribing and acknowledging the receipt of Money by a Minor cannot prove it self but the Minor is Les'd in Subscribing the same The Defender Duplyed that he offered to prove by Witnesses that the price was truely payed and profitably Employed The Lords found not the second Reason of Reduction Relevant the authority of a Judge being only required to the alienation of Lands made by Tutors of their Pupils Lands Anna Fairly contra Creditors of Sir William Dick. December 14 1666 ANna Fairly alleadging that she obtained an Assignation from umquhil Mr. Alexander Dick as Factor for his Father in satisfaction of a Sum due to her by his Father pursues for delivery of the assignation
The Tower of Babel falling upon the Roof made it Ruinous It was answered That was an accident without the Pursuers fault and the Tennent ought to pursue these whose Tenement it was that fell The Lords found the Reason was not Relevant to Liberate from the Mail unless the Suspender had abstained to Possesse but found it Relevant to abate the Duties in so far as he was Damnified Oliphant contra Hamiltoun of Kilpoty Eodem die WILLIAM OLIPHANT having obtained a Decreet for Poynding of the Ground against Hamiltoun He Suspends on this Reason that he was neither Decerned as Heir nor Possessor but as appearand Heir to the Heretor and was never Charged to Enter Heir The Lords Repelled the Reason and found this Action being real was competent against the appear and Heir without a Charge William Oliphant contra Hamiltoun Eodem die OLiphant pursuing the foresaid Poinding of the Ground upon an Annualrent It was alleadged Absolvitor from the bygones before the Pursuers Right because his author was Debitor to the Defender in a liquid sum equivalent It was answered that the Pursuer was singular Successor and no personal Debt of his Authors could infer Compensation of a real Right against him The Lords found that the bygain Annualrents were moveable and compensable with any liquid Debt of the Pursuers Authors contra Brand. Ianuary 3. 1667. Chapman having left his Pack in custody with Brand In Dundee about ten or twelve dayes after Brand opened the Pack and made use of the Ware The Chapman now pursues him for a Spuilzie who alleadged Absolvitor because the Pack was put in his hands for security of a Debt due by the Pack-man and he being informed that the Pack-man would not rerurn did by warrand of a Baillie in Dundee cause four of the Neighbours Inventar and Price the Ware It was answered non relevat for though the Pack had been impignorat the Defender could not appryze it summarly but behoved to take a Sentence to Poind the same The Lords Repelled the Defense It was further alleadged that there could be no Spuilzie nor Oath in litem of the Pursuer because there was no Violence It was answered that the Oath in litem is Competent whether it were a Spuilzie or a breach of Trust actione deposâ—â— It was answered that the Oath in litem being granted mainly because Parties injured by breach of such Trusts cannot be put to prove by VVitnesses that which is taken from them none being oblieged to make patent his Pack or other privat Goods to VVitnesses yet where there is another clear way to prove the quantities viz the Oathes of the four Persons who opened the Pack there is no reason to put it to the Pursuers Oath especially seing their Inventar is not the eight part of what he claimes The Lords admîtted the Pursuers Oath in litem reserving their own Modification with liberty to the Defender if he thought fit to produce what of the Ware he had and to produce these four Persons that the Pack-man may Depone in their presence Earl of Sutherland contra Earls of Errol and Marischal Eodem die THere being a Decreet of Parliament ranking the Nobility whereby Earl of Sutherland was put after the Earls of Errol and Marischal In which Decreet there is a Reservation to any to be heard before the Judge Ordinar upon production of more ancient Evidents whereupon the Earl of Sutherland pursues Reduction of the Decreet of Ranking containing an Improbation of all VVrits Patents and other Evidents granted to the Defenders or their Predecessors whereby they are Constitute or Designed Earls they did produce the Decreet of Ranking and the Earl of Errols Retour whereupon the Pursuer craved Certification contra non producta after all the Terms were run The Defenders alleadged no Certification because they had produced sufficiently by producing the Decreet of Ranking and their Retoures and the Pursuer had only produced his own Retoure which was since the Decreet of Ranking so that the Decreet of Ranking was sufficient to exclude all his Titles produced It was answered the Retour being the Sentence of a Court Serving this Earl as Heir to his Fore-Grandsire Grandsires Grandsires Fore-Grandsires Goodsire who is Designed Earl by King Alexander the second It was sufficient in initio litis Likeas he did formerly produce the Original Evidents and which was now in the Clerks hands and might have been seen by the Defenders if they pleased The Lords found the Retoures not sufficient alone and Ordained the rest to be Reproduced and seen by the Defenders Smeatoun contra Crawfoord Eodem die UMquhilâ— Patrick Smeatoun granted a Disposition to Crawfoord his VVife and her Heirs of a Tenement of Land whereupon nothing followed during her Lifetime her younger Brothre Iames Crawfoord Served himself Heir-General to her and obtained a Decreet of Implement against Iohn Smeaton as Heir to his Father and having used Horning thereon obtained Adjudication against Smeatoun and his Superiour and thereupon was Infeft which Right was Disponed by him with consent of William Crawfoord elder Brother to the VVife The said Iohn Smeatoun Dispones the same Tenement to Alexandor Smeatoun and he is Infeft and thereupon pursues a Reduction of Iames Crawfoords Retour and of all that followed thereupon in consequence on this Reason that the Disposition to the VVife belonged not to Iames Crawfoord her younger Brother who was Heir of Line but to William Crawfoord her elder Brother as Heir of Conquest and so the Service was null following thereupon and the Pursuer being first Infeft from Smeatoun he hath the only Right because any Infeftment to William the Heir of Conquest will be posterior It was answered that it was jus tertij to the Pursuer whether the Heir of Line was Served or Infeft or the Heir of Conquest likeas the Heir of Conquest did concur and had consented to the Disposition The Lords found not the Defenses Relevant but considering the Case as Calumnious seing it was but of late cleared by Decisions whether the Heirs of Line had right to Dispositions without Infeftment they did superceed to give answer but ordained the Defender to give in what Evidences he could give of the onerous cause of his Disposition Paul Henrison contra Laird of Ludquharn and Captain Seatoun Ianuary 4. 1667. THe Debate betwixt Paul Henrison and Ludquharn was this day heard again and it was alleadged that the Kings Proclamation declared War against the King of Denmark and his Subjects Ita est the Owners of the Ship are Subjects to the King of Denmark because it is notour that this Isle is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark and till of late was in the same condition as any other of his Territories and albeit the Duke of Holstein have now an Interest by Possession or Infeodation that alters not their subjection to the Crown of Denmark but the same is still presumed unless they will positively prove that the same is alter'd and the Duke of
Holstein constitute Soveraign therein and they liberat from his Jurisdiction Tolls and Imposts for War It was answered that this Stranger was not obliged to Dispute the Right or Investiture of the Duke of Holstein but it was sufficient for him to say that before this War they did own him as their Prince for simple acknowledgement of a Superiour or Investitur from him doe not make Subjects or comprehend them within the Wars and Quarrels of their Superiours yea though there were a Tribute or Jurisdiction due to that Superiour yet if the Prince do enjoy the Priviledges of making War and Peace he is not a simple Subject but in so far a Soveraign Prince as some of the Princess of the Empyre hold of the Emperour paying him Tribute and there lyes an appeal to the Soveraign Imperial Court yet because they can make War and Peace they are not necessarly involved within the Emperours Quarrels So the Duke of Holstein being a Soveraign Prince and possessing this Island so as to make use of the Subjects thereof in Peace and War therefore is not comprehended in the King of Denmarks Quarrel nor is he or his Subjects in the Sense of the Proclamation The Lords adhered to their former Interlocutor upon the 22 of December when this Case was Debated and Repelled the Alleadgences proponed for Ludquhurn unless it were alleadged that the Inhabitants of this Island do contribute with the King of Denmark in this War against the King and they so alleadging The Lords Ordained the Ship and Goods to be valued and delivered to the Stranger upon Caution or otherwise to be Sequestrat in some Merchants hands that the Ship might be made use of for Fraught and the Goods sold and not made unprofitable and according to the course of Admirality the Lords Ordained Ludquharn to find Caution for Cost Skaith and Damnage by the delay of that alleadgence Mr. Iames Cheap contra Mr. Iohn Philip. Ian. 5. 1667. THe Lords having Considered the Testimonies of the Witnesses adduced before answer betwixt Mr. Iames Cheap and Mr. Iohn Philip upon the Debate mentioned the 19. of December last found the same to prove and to qualifie the Minute they being the Witnesses insert above exception and it but a Minute wherein particulars are not at all nor fully set down which will not be drawn in example as to any full and extended Writs either for altering any Clause therein exprest or for adding thereunto any omitted Laird of Polwart contra Laird of Halyburtoun Ianu. 16. 1667. THe Laird of Polwart as Heir to his Father pursues Hallyburtoun for payment of a Ticket of 250 merks due by the Defender to the Pursuers Father and for a composition payed by the Pursuers Father for receiving him in certain Lands Disponed to him by the Defender wherein he was oblieged to obtain him Infeft The Defender alleadged absolvitor from the payment of the Ticket because it must be presumed to be payed on these grounds first Since the Ticket the Defender sold Land to the Pursuer so that it must be presumed it was Counted and included in the price and albeit that presumption were not sufficient alone it is fortified by these two viz. That it is twenty eight years since the Bond was granted and no word ever heard thereof and that umquhil Polwart in his Testament gave up an Inventar of the Debts owing to him wherein no mention is of the Bond. It was answered that a Writ could not be taken away by Witnesses proving payment much less by presumptions and as to the Taciturnity which is the main one umquhil Polwart dyed about seven years after the Bond was granted and the Pursuer was Minor most of the time since It was answered that Presumptions have been oftimes sufficient to take away VVrits as was found in the case of the Lady Trabroun The Lords Found the Presumptions not Relevant and that they were nothing so strong as these of the Lady Trabroun which were thus Trabroun granted a Bond of 5000 merks to Alexander Peebles which was taken away on these Presumptions that thereafter Trabroun had granted a Bond of 10000 merks to the said Mr. Alexander who was his Advocat with whom he had many Affairs and therefore it was to be presumed the last Bond included the first especially seing Trabroun decaying in his Fortune Mr. Alexander apdryzed his Lands upon the last Bond and not upon the first which he might have done with the same Expence and that he never moved any thing thereupon all his Life by the space of twenty six years and in the Inventar of his Testament he made no mention of it and that his Executors being Examined ex officio did acknowledge they had found it amongst old cast Papers The Defender furder alleadged absolvitor from the Composition because he was never required by Polwart to procure the Infeftment from the Earl of Hume which he could easily have done gratis he being his Uncle especially seing there was no Term in his Obligation to perform and therefore Interpellatio tantum inducit moram The Lords found the Defense Relevant and Assoilzied from the Composition albeit it was alleadged that Polwart for several years had not Componed that the Composition was much less then a years Rent and that Halyburtoun was not in good Terms with the Earl of Hume which was not respected seing Hslyburtoun was not required Reid contra Salmond Eodem die REid pursues Barbara Salmond and Iames Telzâ—fer her Husband for a debt due by her Father as behaving her self as Heir by Possessing a House wherein her Father died Infeft and by Setting another House of his to Tennents It was answered that Iames Telzifer was Tennent in the House Possest by him before the Defuncts Death and might Possess per tacitam relocationem Neither could he safely leave the House till he had given it over to some having Right VVhich the Lords found Relevant 2ly It was alleadged that the Defunct had Disponed the same Tenement to the defenders Son his Oye which disposition albeit it attained not Infeftment yet it was a sufficient Title for Mails and Duties and to continue Possession and to purge the vitious Title of behaving as Heir Which the Lords found also Relevant Barbara Chapman contra Iohn White Ianu. 18. 1667. BArbara Chapman pursues a Reduction ex capite inhibitionis viz. That Calander being Charged to enter Heir to his Father who was the Pursuers Debitor and upon the Charge Inhibition was used against him after which he Disponed to the Defenders Father It was alleadged by the Defender that he is minor non tenetur placitare de haereditate paterna It was answered that Calander his Fathers Author was never Infeft Secondly That the Defenders Father did Dispone the Land to his second Son by both which it could not be called haereditas paterna The Lords Sustained the Defense notwithstanding of the Reply and found no Process till the Defenders majority and that he was not oblieged to
certain-Lands upon the Renunciation of Barbara Nisbet insists upon that Member of the Summons against the Superiour Iohn Ker that he should receive and Infeft her who alleadged no Process unless the Pursuer show the Right of the former Vassal whose Heir had Renunced for the Pursuer can be in no better case then the appearand Heir who if she were craving to be Entred behoved to Instruct her Predecessors Right The Pursuer answered that her adjudication against the Defender as Superiour is in common form which hath been ever sustained upon good ground because a Creditor has no Interest to have his Debitors Rights when he is seeking adjudication which must be his Title to demand the Rights but the Superiour is obliged by Law to reserve the Adjudger without Instructing any Right further then the adjudication which hath been frequently so found in the case of Appryzers The Lords having considered the case and paralel with that of Appryzers found this difference that Superiours got a years Rent for receiving Appryzers but not of Adjudgers yet in respect of the common custom of these Summons they â—epelled the defence and Decerned the Superiour to receive the Pursuer salvo jure â—ujuslibet suo Dam Geibs Moncreiff contra Tennents of Neutoun and William Yeoman Eodem die DAm Geils Moncrief being Served to a Terce of the Lands of Newtoun pursues the Tennents for a third part of the Duties who having Deponed that they payed so much for Stock and Teind joyntly for Yeards Parks and the whole Lands possest by them Compeared William Yeoman as now having Right to the Fee who alleadged no Terce of the Teinds because they fell not under Terce 2ly No Terce of the yeards because as the Mannor-place belonged to the Fiar without division so behoved the closs Gairdens Orchards yards c. The Lords found the Pursuer to have no Right to the Teind by her Terce unless there had been an Infeftment of the Teinds by Erection and therefore laid by the fourth part for the Teind and found that the years in question being possest by the Tennents and there being nothing alleadged nor instructed that there was a Tower Fortalice or Mannor-place having a Garden or Orchard for pleasure rather then profite they found no necessity to decide what Interest a Tercer would have in such but these being set by appearance as Grass Yeards they Repelled the alleadgeance Earl Tullibardine contra Murray of Ocâ—tertyre Feb. 12. 1667. IN the Declarator at the Instance of Tullibardine against Murray of Ochtertyre Dispute the first of â—ebruary last It was now further alleadged for Ochertyre that Clauses Irritant in Wodsets not being illegal or null by our Law albeit the Lords do sometimes Restrict the Effect thereof ad bonum aequum to the just Interest of the Parties against whom the same is conceived they do never proceed any furâ—her But here Ochertyre is content to make up to the Earl his just Interest by paying a greater price for the Land then Sir Iohn Drummond and whereas it was alleadged that this was not receivable now after the Earl had made bargain with Sir Iohn Drummond Ochetyre now offered to prove that before any Bargain was agreed in Word or Writ he did make offer to the Earl of fourscore ten thousand merks which he offered to prove by Witnesses above all exception who communed betwixt them viz. the Lord â—tormount and the Laird of Kylar It was answered that the Pursuers adhered to the Lords former Interlocutor whereby they have restored the Earl against the Clause irritant he satisfying Ochtertyre his whole Interest cum omni causae the same Point being then alleadged and Dispute aâ—d both Parties being judicially called and having declared their minds concerning any such offer whereby the Earl upon his hoâ—our declared that before the agreement with Sir Iohn Drummond Ochtertyre offered not so much by 4000 merks 2ly Any such alleadgence albeit it were competent it were only probable sâ—ripto vel juramento the Earl now having Disponed to Sir Iohn Drummond so that the Effect would be to draw him into double Dispositions which is of great consequence both as to his Honour and Interest especially seing that Ochtertyre did not take an Instrument upon the Offer It was answered for Ochtertyre that the former Interlocutor cannot exclude him especially seing he did only then alleadge that he made a general offer of as much for the Land as Sir Iohn Drummond would give therefore but now he offers to prove that he offered 90000 merks which is 2000 merks more then Sir John's price The Lords found that they would only restrict the Clause irritant to the Effect that the granter of the Wodset might suffer no detriment which they found to be Effectual if the Wodsetter offered as great or a greater sum then the other buyer before any Bargain agreed between them either in Word or Writ â—ut found it not probable by Witnesses but by Writ or the Earls Oath and found that a general offer was not sufficient unless it had Exprest a particuâ—ar sum Lord Iustice Clerk contra Rentoun of Lambertoun Feb. 13. 1667. THe Lord Rentoun Justice Clerk putsues Rentoun of Lambertoun as heir to his Father for Compt and Payment of his Rents Woods and Planting intrometted with by Lambertoun in the beginning of the troubles It was alleadged for the Defender absolvitor because by the Act of Indemnity the Leidges are secured as to all things done by any pretended Authority for the time Ita est The pursuer being sequestred the Defenders Father medled by Warrand from the Committee of Estates and made Compt to them as appears by his Compt producedâ— which is ballanced by the Committee 2ly The said accompt bears That Lambertoun made Faith that it was a true accompt nothing omitted in prejudice of the publick after which he could not be questioned either for any thing in the accompt or for any thing omitted and not charged The Pursuer answered that the Act of Indemnity contains an express exception of all Persons that medled with any publick Moneys and had not made Compt therefore that they should yet be comptable 2ly The accompt produced contains two accompts one in anno 1641 another in anno 1643. The first is not approven by the Committee but adjusted by three persons who were no members of the Committee and whose Warrand is not Instructed and the second compt is only approven wherein the Charge is a Rest in the Tennents hands of the former accompt and the Oath is only adjected to the second accompt which cannot Import that Lambertoun ommitted nothing in the first accompt but only that he ommitted nothing in the second and his Oath is only to the best of his knowledge and can import no more than the Oath of an Executor upon the Inventar which excludes not the Probation of super Intromission It was answered for the Defender that the second accompt being the rest of the first accompt the approbation
of the second must approve both and the approbation is sufficient Warrand for him to intromet and the Auditors to compt with him The Lords Repelled the Defense upon the Act of Indemnity in respect of the foresaid Exception contained therein and likewise found that the Oath subjoyned to the second accompt could not exclude the Pursuer from insisting for the Defenders Fathers intromissions ommitted out of the first accompt and wherewith he Charged not himself but found that the Defender was secure by the Act of Indemniâ—y so far as he had charged himself with and compted and found that he was not obliged after so long a time to instruct his Commission or the Warrand of the Auditors that fitted his accompts but that the approbation was sufficient to astruct the same Lady Diana Maxwel contra Lord Burley and others Feb. 15. 1667. LAdy Diana Maxwel Lady Cranburn and other Executors confirmed to the Countess of Dirletoun pursued the Lord Burley as Representing his Father for payment of a Bond granted by his Father and others to the umquhil Earl of Dirletoun for the price of a great quantity of Victual and that upon these Grounds that the Pursuers are Executors surrogat to the Countess and have licence to pursue which Countess had an assignation from the Earl to his Houshold-stuff which bore this general Clause And to his Chattel and other Moveable-goods and Gear whatsomever under which generality this Bond is Comprehended being moveable and for Victual and so is a Chattel as the word is understood by the Law of England whereby all that is not by Infeftment of Fee is comprehended by the word Chattels and belong to the Executors as Laisses c. 2ly The Countess was nominat universal Legatrix in the Earls Testament and thereby has Right to this Moveable-bond 3ly As Relict she has Right to the half It was alleadged for the Defender no Process upon any of these Titles First Because the assignation cannot be extended to this Bond neither is the word Chattels to be Interpret according to the Law of England the assignation being made by a Stots-man and made in Scotland after the Scottish manner 2ly The Pursuers as Executors to the Countess cannot pursue upon the universal Legacy the Debitors of the Defunct but only the Defuncts Executorsâ— because this Bond is yet in bonis primi defuncti and must be Confirmed 3ly The Relict cannot pursue the Debitors for her half but at least she must call the Executors The Lords found both the last Alleadgences Relevant but as to the first before answer they ordained the Pursuer to adduce what Evidences they had to instruct the signification of the word Chattels by the Law of Englâ—nd in respect it was notour to them that the Lord Dirletoun beìng a Servant of the Kings lived the most part of his time in England and in Scotland there is no use of the word Chattels Isobel Glen contra Iohn Hume Feb. 19. 1667. ISobel Glen as assigney by Mr. Edward Jameson having obtained Decreet against the umquhil Earl of Hume for certain by-run Stipends and thereupon having arrested in my Lord Whitekirks hands certain Sums due by him to the Earl of Hume She now pursues to make forthcoming Compearance is made for Iohn Hume who produces an assignation by the Earl of Hume to the sums due by Whitekirk and also produces a Gift of the Earls Liferent-Escheat and alleadges first No Process at the Arresters Instance because the Earl of Hume being dead the Debt must be first Establisht by a Decreet against one Representing him who must be called principaliter before the Person in whose hands the arrestment is made can be decerned to pay that which was the Defuncts 2ly Iohn Hume must be preferred as Donatar because the arrestment was laid on after the Earl of Humes Rebellion by which his Goods belonged to the King and no Sums can be made forth-coming as belonging to him after the Rebellion because they belonged to the King It was answered to the first That if the Earl of Hume had not dyed at the Horn the Pursuer would have either Confirmed as Exâ—cutor Creditor or called the Earls Executors but that is not necessar seing the Earl died at the Horn and could not have one to Represent him in mobilibus and that now the Donatar who succeeds compears To the 2. the Pursuer as Arrester ought to be preferred because albeit the arrestment be after the Rebellion yet it is before the Gift or Declarator and it is for a Debt due by the Earl before the Rebellion and so doth exclude the Donatar for which they produced a Decision marked by Dury Pilmour contra Gaigie In which case the Gift was granted by a Lord of a Regality having the benefit of the Escheat whereanent the Lord Advocat Represented that this could not be drawn in consequence to prejudge the King or his Donatar because the Lord of Regality being a Subject debuit invigilare sibi by declaring the Rebellion without delay but the King cannot so soon know nor is he prejudged by the neglect of his Officers Yet the â—ords uâ—animouslie preferred the Arrester the Advocat forbearing to Vote for they tâ—â—ught the câ—se of Creditors for Debts before Rebellion were not to be prejudged â—â—â—ng Diligence before Declarator or if they should Poind Arrest Adjudge c. Cranstoun contra Wilkiâ—on Feb. 20. 1667. BY Contract of Marriage betwixt Wilkison and his Spouse he is obliged to Infeft her in a Tenement exprest therein and in all the Conquest during the Marriage which Infeftments were to be taken to them the longest liver of them two in Conjunct-Fee and their Heirs betwixt them Which failzing to the Heirs of the Mars Body Which failzing to the Wifes Heirs whatsomever after which the Husband purchâ—sed a piece of Land but took the Infeftment thereofâ— to him and his â—ife and the heirs betwixt them Which â—ailzing to his own heirs whatsomever omitting the wifes heirs This Cranstoun obtains hiâ— self Infeft in this Conquest Tenement as Heir to the Wife and thereupon obtained Decreet for Mails and Duties Wiâ—â—ison as Heir to the Husband pursues Reduction of the Decreet on these grounds first That Cranstouns Infeftment as Heir to the Wifeâ— was null because the Wife was not Fiar but Liferenter 2ly The Wife having accepted of an Infeftment posterior to the Contract without mention of her Heirs that innovat the Provision of the Contract and excludes her Heirs It was answered first That the Man and Wife being Conjâ—nct fiars the Wife was Fiarâ— and the Man but Life â—enter because the last Termination of Heirs whatsomever Terminat upon her 2ly Albeit Cranstoun had taken his Infeftment wrong Wiâ—kison cannot quarrel the same because he as Heir to Wilkison was obliged to Infeft him as Heir to the Wife and to the posterior Inâ—eftment it is contrair to the provision of the Contract of Marriage and there does appear no accepting thereof by the Wife 3ly Cranstoun is
1668. THe Laird of Wamphray being due a yearly Annuity to his Good-mother the Lady Wamphray which now belongs to the Laird of Castlemaines her Husband jure mariti there is a competition thereanent betwixt Factor to the Earl of Dumfress whose Name was used in the Gift to Dumfreis behove as Donator to the Escheat of Castlemaines and Smart as having appryzed from Castlemaines the Right to this Liferent jure mariti who alleadged that he ought to be preferred to the Donator because albeit his Appryzing was after the Rebellion yet it was upon a Debt anterior to the Rebellion and was long before the Donators Gift and therefore according to the known Custom Diligences of Creditors being before the Gift or Declarator are alwayes preferred to the Donators of single Escheat It was answered for the Donator that that Custom was never further extended then to Moveables or Moveable Sums poynded or made forthcoming upon Arrestments but never to Rights having tractum futuri temporis which cannot be carried by poynding or Arrestment but by Appryzing or Adjudication as Tacks or Liferents when Assigned so that the jus mariti being a Legal Assignation and thereby falling under the Husbands single Escheat falls to the King and Donator by the Rebellion and cannot be taken away by an Appryzing pesterior to the Rebellion Which the Lords found Relevant and preferred the Donator Mr. George Iohnstoun contra Parichloners of Hodony Eodom die MR. George Iohnstoun having Right to a Tack set by the Parson of Hodony for his Lifetime and three years thereafter and having used Inhibition pursues the Possessors of the Lands who alleadged Absolvitor because the Tack is null being set for more nor three years without consent of the Patron by the Act of Parliament 1621. It was answered that the Pursuer restricts his Tack to three years The Defender opponed the Act of Parliament declaring such Tacks simply null as were set for more then three year The Lords Sustained the Tack for three years as allowed by the Act of Parliament Râ—bert Thomson contra Earl of Glencairn Iuly 21. 1668. RObert Thomson having pursued the Earl of Glencairn for a Compt of Wright Work wherein he was Imployed by the late Earl for his Lodging and Yeards when he dwelt in my Lord Oxfoords House It was alleadged for the Earl that the Imployment being a Direction was only probable scripto vel juramento The Lords before answer having ordained Witnesses to be Examined and their Testimonies being clear and pregnant that the late Earl did imploy the Pursuer in this Work and called for him frequently and ordered the Work from time to time they Sustained the Witnesses in the Probation and found it proveâ— It did not appear that this Pursuer was within three years of the Work but the Defender did not insist in any Defense thereupon Patoun contra Patoun Eodem die PAtoun in his Sonâ— Contract of Marriage Dispones to him his Estate and the Tocher was payable to the Father after the Contract and before the Marriage the Father takes a Bond of 2800. Merks from his Son the Wife and her Brother pursues a Reduction of this Bond as fraudulent contra bonos more 's contra pacta dotalia It was alleadged for the Father that he might very lawfully take a Bond from his Son for provision of his Children after the Contract and before the Marriage having Infeft his Son in his whole Estate which was worth 1000. Merks yearly and getting but 2500. Merks of Tocher and having some Debt and many Children It was answered that the Estate was not worth 600. Merks of Rent and the Fathers Liferent of 400. Merks reserved so that the Annualrent of this Bond would exhaust the remainder and they would have nothing to live upon The Lords having considered the Contract and Alleadgances thought that it was not sufficient to annul the Bond that it was after the Contract and before the Marriage if there was any reasonable cause Therefore and before answer ordained the Commuuers at the Marriage to be Examined whether it was communed and agreed that the Tocher should be accepted for fâ—tisfaction of the Debt and Bairns Portions and they having Deponed Affirmative The Lords Reduced the Bond as contrair to the Communing at the Contract of Marriage the Estate being very mean Sir Iohn Weems contra Campbel of Ednample Eodem die SIr Iohn Weems having Charged Ednample for Maintainance due in Anno 1648. He Suspends on this Reason that upon consideration of the burning of his House in the time of the Troubles he got an Exemption and Discharge from the King and Parliament Anno 1651. It was answered that that Parliament was Rescinded and the Charger had a Commission to uplift all Maintainance in Anno 1648. from the Heretors notwithstanding of any exemptions granted by these pretended Parliaments and their Committees The Suspender answered that the Act Rescissory has an express Reservation of all privat Rights acquired by Authority of these Parliaments for the time and so this Exoneration of his becoming his privat Right falls not by the Act Rescissory and as to the Act of Parliament and Commission to the Charger it must be understood salvo jure and cannot take away the Suspenders anterior Right acquired Which the Lords found Relevant and Suspended the Letters and found that the Suspenders Exoneration was not taken away either by the Act Rescissory or by the Act and Commission in favours of Bogie Lord Rentoun contra Laird Lamertoun Eodem die THe Lord Rentoun Justice Clerk having pursued Lamertoun as Representing his Father for the Pursuers Rents and Goods intrometted with by the Defenders Father in Anno 1641. The Defender excepted upon the Act of Pacification in Anno 1641. and upon the Act of Indemnity in Anno 1661. and produced his Fathers Commission by which he medled so that having done by publick Authority for the time in relation to the War and differences of the time he was secured by both these Acts. The Pursuer answered that the Act of Pacification and that whole Parliament was Rescinded and the Act of Indemnity had an express exception of all that medled with publick Monies of Fines Forefaultors or Sequestrat Estates and had applyed the same to their own use and had not duly counted therefore and the Pursuer insisted for what the Defenders Father had applyed to his own use or had not duly counted for The Defender Duplyed that his Father had duly counted for his whole Intromission and had made Faith to the Committee of Estates particularly that he had truly given up his Charge without omission and thereupon was Discharged The Pursuer answered that he had instructed much more Intromission and was content to allow the particulars in the Compt produced and craved the superplus which he had now proven by Witnesses adduced before answer and as for the Oath it could only be understood as an Oath of Credulity like that of Executors Confirming Testaments which doth
Reversion and the Liferents in favours of Mr. Iohn and also his own power of preference of the Creditors and Mr. Iohn his Infeftment upon the Disposition whereupon he alleadged that he ought to be preferred to the Mails and Duties because he stands publickly Infeft by vertue of the said Disposition before any Infeftment in the Person of the Pursuer It was answered for the Pursuer that the Infeftment produced cannot Exclude him because it is expresly granted for satisfying of the Sum whereupon his Infeftment proceeds It was answered for Mr. Iohn Prestoun that he having a power to prefer any Creditor he pleased he payed other Creditors to the value of the Estate whereby Newman is excluded It was answered for Newman that this Disposition was fraudulent and fimulat in prejudice of lawful Creditors whereof he has Reduction upon the Act of Parliament 1621. as being granted by a Brother to another with a power of preference of Creditors at the Purchasers option which Clause is altogether null especially as to the preferences done since lawful Diligence was used by this Pursuer by Horning Inhibition Arrestment and Appryzing and as no Debitor can so prefer himself so neither can he give such a power to any other and therefore the Pursuer ought to be preferred to all the Creditors conform to his Diligence It was answered for Mr. Iohn Prestoun that there being no Diligences done before the Disposition by any Creditor Craigmiller might Dispone being for an onerous Cause as he pleased and might prefer one Creditor to another 2dly Albeit this power of preference were not simply to be allowed after Diligence done by Creditors to prefer others to them Yet it ought to be Sustained in so far as Craigmiller might lawfully have done viz. to prefer Mr. Iohn for the Sums due to himself and for his relief of such Sums as he was Cautioner in The Pursuer answered that such a Disposition was not made nor doth this Disposition any way relate to Mr. Iohns Sum and his Relief but generally and equally to all and there is no difference but the unwarrantable power of preference which can have no effect after Diligence done The Lords found the power of preference not to be Sustained as to any other Debts then to such as were due to Mr. Iohn himself and for which he was Cautioner before the Disposition and found as to these that the power of preference was lawful and valide and was equivalent to this Clause with power to Mr. Iohn to satisfie himself and those to whom he was Cautioner primo loco Wallace of Galrigs contra Mckernel Ianuary 9. 1669. UMquhil Wallacâ— of Galrigs being alleadged to have given a Seasine propriis manibus to his second Wife of two Chalders of Victual The Lords Sustained the Seasine without any other Adminicle But that the Wife had quite her former Liferent by a former Husband in favours of Galrigs whereupon Galrigs offered to improve the Seasine by the Witnesses insert which being four two Deponed positively that they were never Witnesses to a Seasine given by Galrigs to his Wife and the third Deponed that he remembred not that he was Witness the fourth Deponed that he was Witness but said that this Seasine was in Summer whereas it bore to be in Winter the Nottar abode by the Seasine but was not Examined The Lords found the Seasine improven but would not Examine the Nottar nor any other Person mainly in consideration that the Seasine was prâ—priis manibus without any other Adminicle otherways the Nottar and one Witness affirming the Lords would have Examined the Nottar or any other persons or Evidences for astructing the verity of the Seasine George Hume contra Seaton of Menzies Ianuary 13. 1669. GEorge Hume as Assigney by the Earl of Wintoun to a Bond granted to the Earls Factor for his behove having Charged thereupon The Creditor Suspends in Discussing whereof it was alleadged for George Huâ—â— that he ought to have Annualrent because the Suspender by a missive Letter produced written to the Umquhil Earl of Wintoun obliged him to pay Annualrent for the time by gone and therefore ought to continue the same till payment The Suspender answered it contained nothing as to the Annualrents in time coming The Lords found Annualrents due from the beginning both before and after the Letter though they exceeded the Principal Sum seing once Annualrent was promised for some Terms Alexander Mckenzie of Pitglasse contra Ross of Auchinleck Ianuary 14. 1669. ALexander Mckenzie having Right to two Compryzings of the Lands of Auchinleck one in Anno 1644. and another in Anno 1647. which being alleadged to have been satisfied within the Legals and the matter referred to an Auditor who reported these Points to the Lords First Whether the Appryzer should Compt for the Mails and Duties so as to impute the same to both Appryzings as to years after the second Appryzing or to impute them wholly to the first Appryzing during its Legal and then to the second Appryzing during its Legal It was alleadged for the Appryzer that he having two Titles in his Person it was free for him to impute his Possession to either of them and yet he was so favourable as not to crave his option but to impute proportionally to both albeit in Law when Receipts are not specially as to one Cause electio est Debitoris 2dly When any payment is made by a Debitor to his Creditor indefinitly it is still imputed to the Annualrents in the first place before it can satisfy any Stock so that any satisfaction gotten by him must first be imputed to the Annualrent of both the Sums and then to the Stock of the first It was alleadged for Auchinleck that the Intromission could only be attribute to the first Appryzing First Because by that Right the Appryzer entered in Possession and cannot invert his Possession to a third Parties prejudice 2dly The first Appryzing est potior jure for if the two Appryzings were in different Persons he that had the second could never attain Possession against the first 3dly In dubio solutio est imputanda in duriorem sortem and therefore to the first Appryzing for if imputation be made to both the first Appryzing will not be satisfied within the Legal and the Debitors Right will be taken away which is most infavourable 4thly The Appryzer as he did not Possess by the second Appryzing so he could not because the first Appryzing carries the Right of Property and the second carries only the Right of Reversion The Lords found the Possession was only to be attribute to the first Appryzing and not to the second while the first were satisfied The next point was that it was alleadged the Appryzer had sold a part of the Lands within the Legal and therefore the worth of these Lands ought to be allowed in satisfaction of the Sums It was answered that the Appryzer could not Dispone the Lands simply but only his Right of Appryzing which
them off from some Merchant and therefore payment should not be made to such Persons till they produce the Merchants Accompt and his Discharge or if it be and if these Persons interposed pay not the Merchant as in this case the loss must not be to the Merchant but to these who payed to the interposed Persons upon their hazard and if this were not all Merchants would be ruined for no Persons of quality do immediatly take off from the Merchants themselves The Lords found that these Articles in the Accompt in relation to the Petticoat and the 114. pounds which were known by the Defender or his Lady to be taken off in their Name and put in Andrew Bruce his Book were due by them and that though the same had been paid to Margaret Sinclar it was upon the Defenders peril if she paid not the Merchant They did also find that the Goods being acknowledged to be converted to the Defenders use they were lyable to the Pursuer in so far as they proved not they paid Margaret Sinclar and found the same probable by Margarets Writ or by Witnesses but found not that Ground Relevant that Margaret Sinclar was intrusted generally to take off Ware or that the Grounds alleadged did instruct a particular Warrand to take off from the Pursuer and therefore did not find the payment made to Margaret Sinclar which she failed to pay the Merchant to be upon the Defenders peril except as to the two parcels of Accompt aforesaid which the Defenders knew to be in their Name in the Pursuers Book Countess of Dundee contra Straitâ—un February 24. 1669. THe Countess of Dundee as Donatrix to her Husbands Escheat pursues Straitoun for a Sum due to her Husband The Defender alleadged absolvitor because that same day this Bond was granted by him to the Earl a Creditor of the Earls arrested to whom the Defender had made payment and obtained his Assignation and therefore as Assigney craves compensation and preference as Arrester It was answered that this Debt being contracted by the late Earl after he was Rebel it cannot burden his Escheat in prejudice of the King and his Donator for though Creditors whose Debts were due before Rebellion arresting after Rebellion may be preferred yet no Debt contracted by the Rebel after Rebellion can burden his Escheat neither by arrestment nor compensation Which the Lords found Relevant and preferred the Donatrix except as to what was due to the Defender by herself or for Drogs to her Husband which she was content to allow The Earl of Kincardin contra The Laird of Rosyth Eodem die THe Earl of Kincardin pursues the Laird of Rosyth for the Teinds of his Lands to which the Pursuer has Right The Defender alleadged that he had obtained a Decreet of the high Commission for Plantations against the Earl whereby they Decerned the Earl to Sell and Dispone these Teinds for a price mentioned in the Decreet being about nine years Purchase thereof and therefore the Pursuer cannot have Right to the Teinds themselves but only to the Annualrent of that Sum which was the price The Pursuer answered that he opponed the Decreet produced which did not de presenti adjudge the Teinds to the Defender but Decerned the Pursuer to sell them to him upon payment of the said price which can give no Right to the Teinds till the price be payed or at least offered which was never done The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply The Earl of Annandail contra Young and other Creditors of Humeâ— Eodem die THe Earl of Annandail having obtained Assignation from Iohn Ioussie to a Sum of Money due by the Earl of Hume whereupon Inhibition was used Anno. 1634. and shortly thereafter an Appryzing upon which Aunandail was lately infeft whereupon he now pursues Reduction of the Infeftment granted by the Earl of Hume to Young as being after his Inhibition which Inhibition being auterior to the most part of the Debs Wodsets and Apprizings of the Estate of Hume and being supposed to be the leading Case that the Decision thereon might rule all the rest many of the Creditors did concur with Young and produced their Interests and craved to see the Process It was answered that they had no Interest in Youngs Right and so could not crave a sight of the Process It was replyed that albeit the Sentence against Young could not directly operate against them yet indirectly it would as being a Dicision and Practique in the like case The Lords found this no Interest to stop Process but allowed any Creditors that pleased to concur in the Dispute It was then alleadged Absolvitor because this Assignation Inhibition and Apprizing albeit standing in the Person of the Earl of Annandail yet it was truely on Trust to the behove of the Earl of Hume and if to his behove it did accresce to the Defenders as having Right from him and for evidence of the Trust they condescended upon these grounds First That the Debt was contracted 35. years since and no Diligence ever used thereupon till now except an Apprizing whereupon no Infeftment was taken till of late albeit Infeftments were taken of the Estate of Hume upon many posterior Apprizings which are now expired and will exclude this Apprizing 2dly The Assignation granted by Iousie to Annandails Father was immediatly after the Lands of Dunglasse was Sold by the Earl of Hume to the Laird of Dunglass by whom Ioussie was payed as a part of the price by Sir William Gray who was then Debitor to Dunglasse likeas Ioussies Oath being taken ex officio upon his Death-bed Depones that Sir William Gray payed him the Money albeit he knew not by whose Means or to whose use yet he knew nothing of any payment made by the Earl of Annandails Fatherâ— 3dly This Inhibition and Apprizing was never in Annandails or his Fathers Possession but still in the Possession of the Earl of Hume and his Agents and still in his Charter Chist 4dly The Earl of Annandail took a Security from the Earl of Hume for all Sums due to him or for which he was Cautioner wherein there is neither mention nor reservation of this Sum or Apprizing 5thly The Earl of Annandail has consented to many of the Creditors Rights which he would never have done if this Apprizing had been to his own behove thereby preferring others to himself the Creditors therefore craved Witnesses to be Examined ex officio upon all these points for clearing of the Trust which being an obscure contrivance can be no otherwise probable all the Actors being now Dead and is most favourable in the behalf of Creditors who if this pursute take effect will be utterly excluded for if the Inhibition Reduce their Rights the Pursuers Apprizing supervenient upon that same Sum is now expired and irredeemable The Pursuer answered he did declare he would make only use of this Right for satisfaction of the Debts due to him and for which he was
or Brybing the Witnesses it is most Relevant and express in Law l. 33. ff de re judicata bearing testibus pecunia corruptis conspiratione adversariorum c. which being pessimi exempli in odium corrumpentis not only are the Witnesses punishable but the Sentence annullable which is confirmed toto titulo Codicis si ex falsis instrumentis and that without regard whether they undertake or Depone falsly or not as is observed by Bartol l. in princ ff de falsis adict l. divans 33. de re judicata Num. 7. and Covaruvias in repet C. quamvis fol. 57. Col. 3. which he attests to be the common opinion and which is likewise attested by Boss. in tit de falsis num 1608. and by Will. 66. com opin fol. 2991. and especially by Hartman tit 15. de testibus observ 16. where he doth expresly maintain that it is not so much a lawful to instruct a Witness excitandae memoriae causa non si subito deprehendatur haesitet titubet in respect any such instruction is subornationis velamentum and which Opinion hath been likewise Confirmed by the Decisions of the most eminent and famous Courts of Justice as may appear per Capell tholos deces 2804. and others And which is likewise the Opinion of Clarus viz. That the foresaid Acts of Corruption are disjunctive and separatim Relevant as may appear by Fassum Num. 12 13. quâ—st 53. de exceptionibus quae contra testes opponi possunt And to the last alleadgeance against the Probation by Witnesses that it would infer an endless course of Reprobators It was answered that by the same Reason Reductions might be taken away because the Decreet Reductive might be Reduced and that Decreet by another Reduction without end But Reprobators have every where been Sustained and no such inconvenience ever found neither can it be imagined that every Pursuer of a Reprobator will prevail which this infinite progress must suppose only it may infer that Witnesses in Reprobators ought to be more unquestionable than the Witnesses called in question thereby The Lords found that Reprobators were competent albeit the Witnesses upon Oath Deponed upon their own Hability at the desire of the Party and albeit the Party Protested not for Reprobators seing he was not admitted to compear and found that Member of the Reprobators upon the poverty not Relevant in this Clandestine Crime neither that Member upon their alleadged Infamy unless it were alleadged that they were infamous infamia juris by any Deed which the Law expresly declares to infer Infamy or were declared infamous sententia judicis and found that Member of the Reprobators upon instructing or prompting the Witnesses Relevant without necessity to alleadge the Witnesses undertaking or Deponing conform and that in odium corrumpentiâ— without inferring any blemish upon the Witnesses so prompted who consented not or swore falsly and found that Member Relevant of Corrupting the Witnesses by giving or promising of good Deed more than might be suitable to the Witnesses for their Charges but as to the manner of Probation by Oath or Witnesses The Lords superceeded to give answer till a Practique alleadged upon were produced Pringle contra Pringle February 1 1971. PRingle of Soutray having only three Daughters does in his Testament done upon Death-bed Dispone his whole Lands to his eldest Daughter and Constitute her universal Legator with this provision that she pay 10000. merks to the other two Daughters the Disposition as to the Lands being Reduced as being in Testament and on Death-bed the universal Legacy was Sustained to give the eldest Daughter the Right of the Deads part whereupon it was alleadged for the other two Daughters that if the eldest insisted for the universal Legacy she behoved to have it with the burden of the ten thousand merks which was a burden both upon the Land and Moveables and doth no more relate to the one than the other so that albeit the Right of the Land be Evicted the Moveables remains burdened as if a Father should Dispone certain Lands to a Son with the burden of Portions to the other Children albeit a part of the Lands were Evicted the Portions would be wholly due without abatement It was answered for the eldest Daughter that in latter Wills the mind of the Defunct is chiefly regarded not only as to what is exprest but to what is implyed or presumed and here it is evident that the mind of the Defunct was that his two younger Daughters should only have ten thousand merks in satisfaction to all Rights of Lands or Moveables Now seing they have gotten two third parts of the Land which is much better than ten thousand merks It cannot be thought to be his meaning to give them any share of his Moveables also but that the half thereof which was at his disposal should belong to the eldest Daughter without burden Which the Lords found Relevant and declared the same to belong to the eldest Daughter without burden of the Provisions Alexander Ferguson contra Parochioners of Kingarth Eodem die ALexander Ferguson being one of the Prebands of the Chapel-Royal by His Majesties Presentation and Collation pursues the Heretors of the Paroch of Kingarth for the Teinds as being annexed to the Chappel-Royal as appears by the Books of Assumption and three Presentations from the King produced Compearance is made for the Minister of Rothsay who alleadged that he had Presentation to the Kirk of Kingarth from the King and Collation thereupon and so had best right to the Teinds of his Paroch because de jure communi decima debentur pâ—rocho and as for the Pursuer he shews no Right by any Mortification of these Teinds to the Chappel-Royal Neither can he make it appear that ever he or any other Prebander were in Possession civil or natural thereof 2dly Albeit the Prebanders had had a Right the same is now taken off by Prescription because it is offered to be proven that the Minister hath been 40. years in peaceable Possession before the Pursuers Citation which not only takes away the bygones but the whole Right and establishes the same in the Ministers person The Lords found the Books of Assumption and the three Presentations from the King sufficient to instruct the Pursuers Title and found the Defense of Prescription Relevant as to the bygones before the Citation but not to Establish the Right in the Minister or to take it from the Chappel-Royal as to years after the Citation and in time coming in respect of the Act of Parliament providing that the Kings Interest shall not be prejudged by the neglect of His Officers Blair of Bagillo contra Blair of Denhead February 3. 1671. BLair of Bagillo having granted Bond to Blair of Denhead he did Assign the same to Guthrie of Collistoun Bagilio raised Suspension against Collistoun as Assigney in Anno 1632. and now Collistoun insists in a Transferring of the old Suspension and Decreet Suspended against Bagillo's Heirs to the effect
Partiality and Corruption of Witnesses and the question being only the manner of Probation by the Law of God and all Nations Witnesses are the general mean of Probation and so ought to take place in all Cases where Law or Custom hath not restricted the same and it cannot be pretended that ever there was one Decision of the Lords finding Reprobators only probable scripto vel juramento And it being acknowledged that Witnesses are competent ante sententiam there is neither Law nor Reason to refuse the same post sententiam especially with us where the Names of the Witnesses are never known till they be produced neither is their Testimonies published or ever known before Sentence So that the other Party can have no interest to quarrel their Testimonies or know them before Sentence and so Reprobators shall never be effectual unless proven by the Oath of the Party that hath Corrupted them which is as good as absolutely to refuse Reprobators for it cannot be imagined that a Party will Corrupt Witnesses and not resolve to deny it upon Oath And as â—o the inconvenience to singular Successors the Oath of the Author may be as hazardous to them as Witnesses and if the acquirer of the Sentence be denuded if in that Case even their Oath be not receivable it is easie to Evacuat all Reprobators And as for the inconvenience of perpetuating Processes that holds whether Witnesses be receivable in Reprobators before Sentence or after and if admitting of Witnesses be so qualified that it be only when the Witnesses in the first Sentence are not above Exception and the Witnesses in the Reprobators above all exception and that it be in a palpable Fact of receiving Bribes and recently only after Sentence and with a liberty to the Obtainer of the Sentence to astruct the same by other Witnesses or Evidences as in Improbations for Reprobator is a kind of Improbation there can be no hazard of multiplying Reprobators but this inconvenience if it were Relevant would not only take away all Reprobators but all Reductions for the Decreet Reductive may be quarrelled by a second Reduction and that by a third and so without end But the inconvenience on the other hand is far greater that all Parties will be sure to Corrupt VVitnesses if they do but resolve not to confess it and VVitnesses will be easie to be Corrupted being secured against all Redargution And whereas it is pretended that Witnesses with us prove not above 100. pounds that is only where VVrit may and uses to be adhibite in paenam negligentium But otherwayes VVitnesses are adhibite in the greatest matters as Improbation of VVrits Probation of Tenors Extortion Circumvention Spuilzies Ejections and Intromissions of whatsomever kind or quantity The Lords found Reprobators upon Corruption and prompting of VVitnesses only probable scripto vel juramento after Sentence this was contrair the opinion of many of the Lords and was stoped till a further hearing at the Bar. Earl of Hume contra The Laird of Rislaw Iuly 18. 1671. THe Kirk of Fogo having been a Kirk of the Abbacy of Kelso when the same was Erected this Kirk was reserved in favours of the Earl of Hume and Disponed to his Predecessors whereupon he pursues the Laird of Rislaw for the Teinds of his Lands as a part of the Teinds of Fogo who alleadged absolvitor because his Predecessors obtained Tack of their Teinds from the Minister of Fogo as Parson thereof which Tack though it be now expyred yet he bruiks per tacitam relocaâ—ionem The Pursuer Replyed that his tacite Relocation was interrupted by Inhibitions produced The Defender answered that the Inhibitions were only at the instance of the Earl of Hume who was never in Possession of his Teinds whose Right he neither knew nor was obliged to know and the Earl ought to have used Declarator against the Defender and the Parson of Fogo his Author which was the only habile way and not the Inhition The Lords Sustained the Processe upon the Inhibition and restricted the Spuilzie to wrongous Intromission unless the Defender could propone upon a Right in the Person of himself or his Author that could either simply exclude the Earls Right or at least give the Defender or his Author the benefite of a possessory Judgement and put the Earl to Reduction or Declarator VVhereupon the Defender alleadged that the Parson of Fogo was presented by the King as Parson of Fogo and did so bruik by the space of thirteen years which was sufficient to Defend him in judicio possessorio It was Replyed First That the Minister cannot pretend the benefit of a possessory Judgement because his Possession was not peaceable in so far as it was within the thirteen years it was interrupted by the Pursuers Inhibitions The Defender answered that he offered to prove thirteen years Possession at least seven years peaceable Possession before any Inhibition which is sufficient for as thirteen years Possession makes a presumptive Title decennalis triennalis possessor non tenetur docere de titulo yet where the Defender produces a Title viz. a Presentation as Parson he is in the common Case of a possessory Judgement upon seven years Possession The Pursuer further Replyed that albeit the seven years were peaceable and sufficient for a possessory Judgement yet the Defender cannot maintain his Possession by tacite Relocation for he having no positive Right in his Person his Tack being Expired he can only maintain his Possession upon his Authors Right as Parson and so can be in no better Case than his Author who if he were compearing not pleading the benefite of a possessory Judgement he would be excluded by this Reply that he had acknowledged the Earls Right and taken Assignation from him to the Tack-duty due by the Defender which though it would not be sufficient after the Defenders Tack to exclude the same if it were not expired yet it is sufficient against his tacite Relocation which can only subsist while his Author hath Right and Possession and being but a presumptive continuation of the Right it is easily taken away by any Deed of the Author It was answered that tacite Relocation being introduced by Law was as strong as a Prorogation and continuation of the Tack which could not be prejudged by any posterior Deed of the Parson The Lords found the Defense upon the Parsons Right cled with seven years peaceable Possession Relevant in judicio possessorio to defend the Defenders tacite Relocation but found the Reply Relevant that the Parson had accepted Assignation from the Pursuer to make the Defender lyable for the ordinary profits after the Assignation and after the first Inhibition but only for the Tack-duty till the first Inhibition and found that the tacite Relocation was not in a like case as if the Defender had a Tack or Prorogation Andrew Harlaw contra Agnes Hume Iuly 18. 1671. ANdrew Harlaw having obtained Decreet against Agnes Hume as Executrix to her Husband She Suspends and
1662. Children and Creditors of Bryson OATH IN LITE â— was admitted for proving of Ware in a Pack given in custody where the keeper opened the same though he made Inventary before Witnesses by a Baillies Warrant Ianuary 3. 1667. Packman contra Bran. OATH QVALIFIED was not sustained importing a compensation yet the â—ame was admitted to be proven as an Exception at advising of the cause December 9. 1664. Lermont contra Râ—ssel AN OBLIGATION by three persons to cause a Minor releave a sum not bearing conjunctly and severally was found not to oblige every one in solidum as being for an indivisible Fact but resulting in a divisible sum Iuly 16. 1669. Dennistoun contra Semple of Fulwood OFFER of the remander of a Sum not being special and not being Consigned was found not to purge a Failzie December 19. 1661. Deuar contra Countess of Murray Offer conditional to pay a suâ— for a Mother on condition it were at such a time and place and were made known whether or not it were accepted was found not obligatory after the Mothers death unless the condition had been fulfilled then 〈◊〉 Iune 24. 1664. Allan contra Colner Offer of Caution to a Wodsetter that he ought to quite possession or restrict to the Annualrent was sustained though made at the parties dwelling House when he was out of the Countrey seing the Act of Parliament did not require that offer to be by Instrument and though the instrument of offer did not bear a Procuratory to him that made the offer the said procuratory being now produced Iune 16. 1671. Lord Loviâ— contra Lord Mcdonald THE OFFICE of a Commissar Clerk was found noâ— to be annulled by his absence for a time out of the Countrey and being denunced sine crimine February 6. 1666 Archbishop of Glasgow contra Logan An Office of a common Servant viz. a Town Clerk being given ad vitam was found to imply a tacite condition to be also ad culpam and that such a fault did resolve the same as was of knowledge and consequence February 14. 1665. Town of Edinburgh contra Thomson OVERSEâ—RS were found lyable for nothing if they intrometted not Ianuary 10. 1665. Swintoun contra Norman PART AND PERTINENT of Lands disponed by a Minute was found to extend to a common Paâ—â—urage in a Muire possessed as pertinent of the Land in the Bargain and that the Writes upon the extension of the Minute ought to bear the â—ame expresly February 14 1668. Borthwick contra Lord Borthwick Part and pertinent cum pascuis pasturn in a Charter given by the King to the Feuars of his Property was found to carry common pasturage in the Muire of the Barony which being now possessed 40. years by the Feuars of the Barony is presumed to have been so at the time of the Charter being past memory and that interruptions of any other Right exclusive of this common pasturage was sufficient to preserve the same February 15 166â— Laird of Haining contra Towâ— of Selkirk â—art and pertinent was not excluded albeit an alleadgeance was proponed on an old Seâ—sine of the Lands in question as being separatum tenementum the Seasine being â—ound null and no Title for Prescription February 15. 1671. Earl of Argile contra Laird of Mcnauchtoun ALL PARTIES HAVING INTEREST not necessary to be cited at the Mâ—râ—at Cross in the Declarator of the Expyring of a Feu ob non solutum 〈◊〉 though the Summons bear warrand for the citation December 1. 1664. Eaâ—l of Sâ—therland contra Gordoun PARIOIDE doth not infer Treason as against the Act of Parliament against murder under Trust which is meaned by paction in reâ—pect of the special Act of Parliament against Paricide which doth not exclude the Paricides Collaterals but him and his descendents from the succession of the slain which therefore cannot belong to the Fisk Ianuary 22. 1663. Zeaman contra Oliphant PASSING FROM A REASON of Suspension pro loco tempore was found not to hinder the proponing of the same against that Decreet and against an Appryzing thereon the matter being yet illiquid and a singular Successor in the Appryzing Iune 17. 1664. Laird of Tulliâ—llan contra 〈◊〉 and Braâ—foord Passing from a Reason of Compensation and taking up a Writ for instructing thereof was admitted before Extracting of a Decreet though the Writ was long in the Chargers hand not being judicially given up to him and that another emergent exception might now be admitted Iuly 14. 1664. Lord Balmerino contra the Creditors of Dick. PAYMENT made before the hand was found Relevant against a singular Successor the Kings Donaâ—ar of Forefaâ—lture because it was but of one Term and so accustomed by the Baroâ—y to pay at the Entry and be free at the â—sh Ianuary 7. 1662. Earl of Laudâ—â—dail contra Tennents of Swintoun Payment made bâ—na fide to Baiâ—ns of a Sum by a Disponer in â—avours of these Bairns was sustained though after Reduction raised unless a Reason had been Libelled against that which was ordained to be payed to Bairns and shown before payment Iuly 14. 1662. Mâ—ntgomerie of Mackâ—ichill contra Wallace Payment made bona fide to a Procurator was thought to be Relevant though the Procuratory should be improven if therein there did appear no ground suspition to have put the Debitor in maâ—â— fide February 1. 166â— Elphingstoun of Selms contra Lord Rollo and Laird of Niddrie Payment made by Heretors to Ministers of their Stipends during the time they Preached and before any Process against them was found to liberate the Heretors notwithstanding they were outed by the Act of Parliament anent these Ministeâ—s who entered since the year 1649 and had not gotten Presentation and Collation whereunto the Heretors â—eâ—e not obliged tâ— inquire seing the Ministers were suffered to Preach without challenge February 10. 1666. Collector of the vacant Stipends contra the Heretors of Mayâ—ole and Giâ—van Payment made bâ—na fide was found not to extend to payment made by a Tennent before the time nor to a Sub-Tenent to the Tennent before the Term February 5. 1667. Lady Traquair contra Howaâ—son Payment made of a Decreet by giving Bond of borrowed money and taking Discharges of the Decreet was found no Homologaâ—ion or Transaction but that after the party might quarrel both Decreet and Bond in consequence unless abatement were gotten upon Transaction of the Sum in the Decreet seing it was not voluntarly done but upon Caption Iâ—ly 3. 1668. Rew contra Houstoun Payment of the Rent of a Shop was sustained being a Taâ—k set by a Father to a Tennent for the annualrent of a sum though the Father had given a Right to his Son reserving his own Liferent seing he set the Tack as Feear and though the Son after his death warned only by Chalking the Door without any other intimation the Tacks-man was Liberate of the Rent for his Annualrent as bonae fidei possessor by his Tack till he was cited on the Sons Right February 16. 1669.
of his Estate that she might not be abused in her Marriage by her Mother or her Freinds the same was sustained after the Pupils age of eleven years though the Mother was unmarried and the Daughter valiâ—udinary February 6. 1666. Laird of Dury contra Lady Dury A Tutor was found to have a year to imploy sums not bearing annualrent and not to be obliged to uplift sums where the Pupil was fully secured or where on a sudden the Debitor break but was found lyable for all Diligence according to the Debitors condition by Horning Caption Arrestment Poinding and Appryzing of the Debitors Estate which should be known to him and not for Horning only Iuly 9. 1667. Steâ—in contra Boyd In a Tutor compt the Tutor was not found lyable for the Services he got to the Pupils Tennents in kind and that where he was super-expended a Decreet might be at his instance against the Pupil on the Pupils own Process Ianuary 11 1668. Grant contra Grant A Tutor was found lyable to compt as Tutor and not as Pro-Tutor on production of a Writ under his hand designing himself and acting as Tutor Testamentar without necessity to the Pursuer to produce the Testament December 2. 1668. Sâ—atoun contra Sâ—atoun A Tutor was found lyable for the Annualrent of his Pupils sums which were in responsal Debitors hands but not to re-imploy the same upon annualrent in respect the Tutor dyed durante tutela and that what annualrents he had received his Successors were only lyable for the same and the annualrent thereof from the time the Pupil past pupillarity it being sufficient to lift and imploy the annualrents of Pupils sums at any time during the ordinary course of the Tutory afâ—er the Pupils passing pupillarity Iuly 9 1669. Kintor contra the Heirs and Successors of Logan of Coatfiâ—ld This was stopped on the Purâ—uers Bill till it were furder heard upon the grounds of the first Decision A Tutor having cited his Pupils Friends on both sides that â—t might be declared by the Lords that the Pupils Lands were â—racked above the true value and that they wâ—re not able to pay their Rents without casting the Land waste no party appearing the Process being considered by the Lords they granted Commission to Gentlemen in the Countrey to try the matter of Fact and report February 5. 1670. Tutor of colzâ—an contra nearest of kin of the Pupil A Tutory granted to two and bearing them to be joyntly was found void by the death of either Ianuary 17. 1671. Drummond of Riccartoun contra Feuars of Bothkenneth TVTOR DATIVE of a furious person was found not to exclude the nearest Agnat as Tutor of Law to be served quandocunque though the Idiot was necessitate to pay upon the Tutors citation to make forthcoming Ianuary 21. 1663. Mr. Iames Steuart and Robert his Tutor Dative contra Spreul Vâ—â—â—MUS HAERES being gifted was found to have no effect till there be be a declarator thereupon in the same way as in Bastardy Iuly 30. 1662. Laird of Balnagoun contra Dingwall The like Iuly 31. 1666. Crawfoord contra Town of Edinb VSE OF PAYMENT of a duty to a Minister for Teinds and his discharge for the whole Teinds for a long time was found sufficient against him who had the Tack and Prorogation of these Teinds until interruption by Citation or Inhibition thogh the duty was very smal the Minister was but stipendiaâ— having that quantity allocat out of these Teinds Ianuary 19. 1669. Earl of Athol coâ—tra Robertson of Strowan VSVRY was not inferred by a Creditors taking a Tack for his furder security for so much Victual or 20. shilling less than the 〈◊〉 at the setters option that abatement being for the setters pains and hazard in getting in the price November 23. 1664. Scot contra Laird of Barefoord VICCARAGE was not found due out of Yeards which were aparâ— of the Chanons Portions which had never paid Viccarage Iune 30. 1668. Minister of Elgin contra his Paâ—ochioners THE VIOLENT PROFITES of an Ox Spâ—ilzied in Labouring time was found to be 5. shilling every day during the Labouring time February 28. 1668. Lord Iustice Cleâ—k contra Hume of Linthil VITIATION of a Contract of Marriage diminishing the Tocher and Ioyntuâ—e by the Husband and Father after the marriage was found not to prejudge the Wife who consented not but her Right was extended as before the Vitiation in prejudice of the Husbands Creditors infeft by him albeit the Contract being Registrate the Viâ—â—ation could not not appear to the Creditors when they lent their Money Iune 11. 1670. Hunter contra The Creditors of Peter VITIOVS INTROMISSION was not â—lided because the Defunct dyed Rebel at the Horn and so there was nothing in bonis defuncti unless the Defender alleadged he had the gift of Escheat ante motam litem February 17. 1662. Gray contra Dalgarno Vitious Intromission was retrinched to single avail because the Defender entered in possession by a disposition of the moveables though no delivery or possession was in the Defuncts life February 27. 1662. Chalmers contra Dalgaâ—no Vitious Intromission was purged by the Intrometters confirming within year and day after the Defuncts death the Executry being his Wifes albeit after intenting of the pursuers cause Ianuary 28. 1663. Stevinson contra Ker and others Vitious Intromission was purged by a Disposition and Instrument of Possession in the Disponers Lifetime though the Defender judicially acknowledged there was no natural possession Iuly 6. 1664. Brown contra Lawson Vitious Intromission was not sustained after the Intrometters death against any representing him where there was nothing done to instruct it in his Life further than Quo ad valâ—rem but not as an universal passive Title Iuly 10. 1666. Cranstoun contra Wilkison Vitious Intromission was elided because the Intrometter had warrand from the Donator of the Defuncts Escheat thogh there was no Declarator seing the Warrand and Intromission was ante notam litem Iuly 4. 1665. Innes contra Watson Vitious Intromission was not inferred by intrometting with 50. pound the Intrometter having after his Intromission confirmed himself Executor and omited that sum but was only found lyable for the sum it self February 26. 1668. Râ—oth contra Cowan Vitious Intromission was found not receivable by Defense against an Assignay viz. That the Cedent who was Creditor to a Defunct was vitious Intrometter with his goods and so Debitor the Assignation being for an onerous cause Ianuary 20. 1671. Captain Ramsoy contra Henrison WARD was found not to fall by the death of an Appryzer who had Charged unless he had put the Superiour in culpa by preseâ—ting a Charter to be subscribed by him and offering a Sum with a Bond and Caution for what more the Lords should modifie for that years Rent and that therefore the Ward fell by the death of him against whom the appryzing was led February 9. 1669. Black contra French Ward being gifted by the King the Donatâ—r was found to have
Writ was reduced upon that Sentence as posterior and prejudicial to the bargain Ianuary 21. 1669. Creditors of Pollock contra Pollock Witnesses were admitted to prove a Merchant compt as to Articles more then three years preceeding the Citation it being a curâ—ent accompt though begun by the Defunct and continued afâ—er hâ—â— deceass by his Funeral provision and by the Chamberâ—â—â—â— of his Heir then a Pupil seing three years intervâ—eâ—ed not in any part of the accompt February 26. 1670. Grahame contra Laird of Stanâ—byres Witnesses were admitted to prove the vâ—â—iation of a Contract of Marriage and not to annul it but to extend it as it was before the viâ—iation Iune 11. 1670. Hunter contra Creditors of Peter Witnesses were admitted to prove intromission with Mails and Duties of Tennents though silver Rent intrometted by one who was infeâ—t in an annualrent out of the Tenements albeit by the intromission the principal sum for which the annualrent was constitute would be satisfied and the infeâ—tment extinct February 4. 1671. Wishart contra Arthur Witnesses were admitted to prove an appryzing to be to the behove of the apparent Heir in respect of this concurrent presumpâ—ion that the appryzing was assigned to the appear and Heirs brother February 22 1671. Gordoâ—n contra Mcculloch Witnesses were admitted to proveâ— Ministers possession of â—ands to be by tollerance of an Herâ—â—or and â—o not â—o be a Glâ—ib belonging to the Kirk where the Ministers possession was decenâ—â—lis trienâ—alis but that writ was necessary if his possession haâ—t been for 40. years to prove the tollerance Iune 22. 1671. Minister of contra Duke of â—alâ—leugh WITNESSES EX OFFICIO were received for proving the delivery of a Bond blank in the Creditors name the matter being betwixt brother and sister where Trust was very presumâ—able February 21. 1667. Iohnstoun contra Iohnstoun Witnesses were examined â—x officio to prove Warrant or Command to a deed done in prejudice of him who had the Commission to do the same deed and could have â—indered others February 21. 1667. Lord Râ—â—toun contra Laird of Lambertoun Witnesses and the writer of a disposition were examined ex officio on thâ— Terms of the Treaty and whether when thâ— writ was read being an absolute disposition it was not read as being redeemable Iuly 2. 1667. Allan contra Fairie Witnesses ex officio being admitted hinc inde not the greatest quantâ—ty proven by two but the quantity proven most pregnantly was followed November 23. 1667. Lord Iustice Clerk contra Laird of Lambertoun Witnesses ex officio were examined to instruct the cause of a Bond to be by arbitriment and exorbitant it being 37. years dorment without annualrent and the sum filled up with a different hand February 6. 1668. Chisâ—holm contra Witnesses taken ex officio proving the imploying of a Wright in his woâ—â— in a Lodging possest by the â—mployer and his frequent direction anent the work were found to prove against his Heir though above 100. pound and though direction alone without sensible acts is only probable by writ or oath Iuly 21. 1668. Thomson contra Earl of Glencairn Witnesses ex officio 〈◊〉 â—â—de examined in a Reduction on death bed albeit the day of compearance was not come to prevent the death or collusion of the most necessary Witnesses February 16. 1669. Creditors of my Lord Balmerino and Cowper contra Lady Cowper Witnesses ex officio were ordained to be examined before answer for clearing a Trust of the right of â—n appryzing upon divers probabilities hinc inde alleadged February 24. 1669. Earl of Annandail contra 〈◊〉 and Crediâ—ors of Hume A Witness examined ex officio prevaricating in his oath first denying and then acknowledging the same thing was declared in famous and set on the Pillory with a Paper on his â—ace signifying his Fault Iuâ—y 6. 1669. Barclay contra Bâ—rclay Witnesses ex officio being examined were admitted to take away a Bond wholly blank or blank in the Creditors name Fâ—bruary 2 3. 1670. Iack contra Boyd of â—â—nkil and the Earl of Kâ—ngâ—orn conâ—ra Laird of Pâ—â—arro Witnesses ex officio were examined anent the being of a Bond amongst the Writs of a Creditor or his Factor that thereby the debitor might be liberat of the Bond as being retired but was not admitted to prove payment or saâ—isfaction thereof though it was an old Bond without any diligence or payment of annualrent for a long time February 14. 1671. Nâ—â—peir contra Earl of Egâ—â—toun Witnesses ex officio were examined in a circumvention for annulling a disposition made by a simple perâ—on of his whole Estaâ—e without reservation on these points whether the writ was read to him when he subscribed whether he was drunk so that reaâ—on and judgement was disordered and what motives were used to make him subscribe Iuly 11. 1671. Stevâ—ns contra Neâ—lson WITNESSES INSERT in a writ and the Writer were â—ound to have â—ccession as users of that writ as false yet was examined though they were socij criminâ—s and Forgers by their own confession being in an imporbation Ianuary 26. 1670. Lady Toâ—viâ— contra Capâ—ain Barclay A WODSETTER was found to compâ— for the superplus above his â—enâ— though the Woâ—set waâ— before the Act of Parliament 1661. betwixt Debitor and Creditor albeit therein the Vsurpers Act and all such Acts made or to be made were â—enunced Ianuary 29. 1662. Laird of Lamingâ—oun conâ—ra Cheâ—slie A wodset bearing in the Reversion a Tack â—aâ— within the worth of the Land to be given after Redemption was sustained as not Vsurâ—ry but the Wodâ—etter was at a great loss by a Liferent medâ—o â—â—mpore Iune 21. 1662. Laird of Polwarâ— contra Huâ—â— A Wodsetter pursuing for his money was found not to have access thereto tilll he recovered the Possession taken from him by a third party intruding seing he did not de recenti intimate the inâ—rusion and demand his money February 17. 1665. Hopringle of Torsonce contra Ker of Sâ—nderland-hill A Wodset being redeemedâ— upon an Order used though without citation of all parties having interest at the Mercat Cross on the declaraâ—or albeit thereby the Wodsetters Wiâ—e who had a base subaltern infeftment from him in Liferent was excluded and the Redeemer was not found obliged to know the same albeit registrate in the Register of Seasines Iuly â—7 1665. Hamiltoun contra her Tennents A Wodset by a Father to a Son redeemable by the Father during his Liâ—e from his Son on a Rosenoble beâ—ng craved to be declared the Son having appryzed and thereupon alleadging that he had right to the Reversion aâ— and while his Aâ—priâ—ing were Redeemed and till that his Father could not Redeem which at first was sustaâ—ned the case of the Son being favourable the Father having disponed the whole right to a second Wiâ—e but being thereafter debaâ—ed in presentia the Lords were of different judgements and decided not in respect the case seemed to hinder Debitors to Redeem aâ—terior Compryzings
THE DECISIONS OF THE LORDS OF COUNCIL SESSION In the most Important Cases Debate before them With the ACTS OF SEDERUNT AS ALSO An Alphabetical Compend of the Decisions With an Index of the Acts of Sederunt and the Pursuers and Defenders Names From June 1661. to July 1681. PART FIRST c. OBSERVED BY Sir JAMES DALRYMPLE of Stair Knight and Baronet c. EDINBVRGH Printed by the Heir of Andrew Anderson Printer to His most Sacred Majesty Anno DOM. 1683. Unto the Right Honourable GEORGE EARLE of ABERDEEN c. Lord High Chancellour of SCOTLAND Sir David Falconer of Nevvtoun Lord President of the Session Sir George Mckenzie of Tarbet Lord Clerk-Register Sir Iames Foulis of Collingtoun Sir Iohn Lockhart of Casslehill Sir David Balfour of Forret Sir Iames Foulis of Reidfoord Sir Alexr Seton of Pitmedden Sir Roger Hogg of Harcarse Sir Andrew Birnie of Saline Sir Patrick Ogilvie of Boyn Sir Iohn Murray of Drumcairn Sir George Nicolson of Kemnay Iohn Wauchop of Edmistoun Sir Thomas Steuart of Blair Sir Patrick Lyon of Carse SENATORS of the COLLEDGE of JUSTICE and Ordinar LORDS of COUNCIL and SESSION WILLIAM Marquess of Queensberry c. Lord high Thesaurer of SCOTLAND IOHN Marquess of Athol c. Lord Privy Seal and Vice-Admiral of SCOTLAND ALEXANDER Earl of Murray c. Conjunct-Secretary of State IAMES Earl of Pearth c. Lord Justice-General Extraordinar LORDS of the SESSION My Lords MY Duty and Affection obliges me to Dedicate these Acts and Decisions to your Lordships because they are your own I have only been your Servant in Observing and Collecting them and am confident they will serve for the Illustration and Vindication of your Justice and Faithfulness in your Service to the King and Kingdom to whom it cannot but be highly acceptable and satisfying to see that in so long a tract of time you have kept so steady and equal a course in the Administration of Justice with 〈…〉 It hath been looked upon as the priviledge of Judgesâ— to bring in Causes to be determined in what order they thought fit which gave occasion of great Reverence to and dependence upon them and of gratifications to their Friends but your Lordships having found so much inconveniency to the Subjects by their tedious expensive and uncertain attendence unavoidable in that way you did therefore willingly and of your proper motion quite that Priviledge and ordered that all men should have dispatch in Justice as their own diligence put them in readiness to demand it without pretence of complaint for being postponed or delayed and you gave the rise for interposing the Authority of Parliament to that Order which could not but avoid the suspition of inequality which did occur while every Judge in his course did choise at discretion what Causes to hear which were readily supposed to be these of his Friends and Relations As your Lordships have been equal in the Order so these Decisions will show that you have been impartial in the matter of Justice and it will appear that you have followed the same uniform Course of Justice otherwise it had been impossible for you to quadrat with your selves if you had followed any other Rule for if personal Interest had great influence it could not fail but the same case would have been diversly determined amongst different Parties The way of Truth and Justice is one and never crosseth or justâ—eth with it self but the way of Error and Partiality is infinite and can never be long consonant and the pretence of varying upon differences in the cases will easily be perceived when these are not the true motives of Variation nor can the greatest caution keep former Cases so in memory as not to fall in flat contradictions in some length of time when Justice is not the Rule It was no wonder that inconsistencies did occur when former Decisions were but little known and were only Transmitted by uncertain Tradition from the memory of Judges or Advocats where a constant Custom was not introduced but in circumstantiat Cases all the points of Fact could not be so preserved but Pleaders would differ about them and controvert whether the difference were so material as to be the just motives of alteration and if they should have recourse to Records they could thence have little remedy seing many eminent Decisions came to be Transacted before any Act or Decreet thereupon were Recorded and though they were yet the Motives upon which the Lords did proceed were seldom decernable in the mass of Disputes The contrarieties that are remarked by the judicious and industrious Lord Dury who did serve and observe about the same length of time that I have done are the more excuseable that before his time the Decisions of Session were not much marked and but in few hands yea it was a long time before the Decisions observed by Dury were become common and were cited by Pleaders or noticed by Judges It is impossible to evite the clamours of Parties coming short of their expectation when they are in heat and fervency carrying on their Cause and when they have heard the Wit and Eloquence of their Advocats endeavouring to make their Case if not evidently just at least probably such but when that fervour is cooled upon second Thoughts re-considering the Motives upon which the Lords proceeded if they see that they Decided not otherwise upon the same Grounds they cannot be so far wanting to their own quiet as not to acquiesce and rest satisfied considering that their first Thoughts were in fervour and at best were but the Conceptions of Parties whose interest hath a secret influence to byass their first Apprehensions they could not but be convinced that the private and particular opinion of Parties interressed should quietly cede to the Judgment of so many learned and experienced Judges having no other concernment in the event of the Cause but that Justice might be inviolable and that no pernicious or dangerous preparative might be laid to the common detriment of all and who by all the obligations whereof men are capable towards God their Prince Countrey and Posterity are engaged to be careful and tender of Justice It is the great interest of Mankind that every man should not be Judge in his own Cause but that there should be indifferent Judges of good report men of courage fearing God and hating covetousness who might hear and determine the Controversies of Parties which necessarly doth imply that either Party should acquiesce in the publick judgment of Authority It is amongst the greatest interests of Mankind that they may securely enjoy their Rights and Possessions being free from fear to be over-reached or oppressed without remedy which can not be attained unless their Rights be lodged in the hands of just and judicious Judges wherein at first they could have little more to rest on but the Reputation that their Judges were such nor could the Judges then have any other Rule then bonum equum according
to the discretion of good men and therefor did differ little from Arbiters until they came to have fixed Customs and Statutes clear and known which could not come the length of a sufficient Rule for all Cases for there will ever be new Cases occurring and therefore the best expedient to give this most desireable Security is to show that Judges do alwayes proceed suitably to themselves without interfeiring and that they make not Law like the Delphick Sword bowing or bending to the several Parties but as a firm and stable Rule which will ply to no obliquity but whatever must be regulate by it must be applyed to it and be straight like it and so quadrat one to another which can be no way better known than by the publishing and comparing of Decisions whereby it may be seen that like Cases have like events and that there is no respect of persons in Judgment all men cannot be Lawers nor can the most part have discretion enough to understand aequum bonum yet few will be found to want capacity to compare Decisions and so perceive if they be congruous and uniform and if they find them such they may easily be perswaded that their uniformity could be by no other Rule than Law and Justice It is no small prejudice to any Nation to make them believe or suspect that their Rights are not secured in just hands for that overturns their quiet and security The most part will never have a Pursuit determined against them and far fewer will find themselves worsted by personal considerations But no man can say but he may and most do fear that they shall be involved in Law Suits and if they be not perswaded to find a sure Remedy by just and knowing Iudges then all is unsecure and disquieted so that it is more the advantage of a Nation that their Judges were but reputed just though they were not then that they were just yet were reputed unjust for this Case toucheth and grieveth all whereas the former can reach but a few King Iames the fifth who Institute the Colledge of Justice Ordered one of the Lords to keep a Journal of their Decisions with which Henry Sinclar Dean of Rastalrig was entrusted and did observe the same for the space of ten years as Maitland Hadingtoun Hope Balfour Spotswood Dury and several others since have done And after Our Sacred Soveraign who now Reigns did Restore the Colledge of Justice to it 's ancient Constitution and Splendor and did make a full Nomination of the Senators thereof and Call most of the Eminent Advocats to the Bench so that after a long interruption the Session was almost wholly new therefor it was very necessary that their Decisions should be Observed which induced me being one of that Nomination to undertake that Task which I did constantly follow making up this Journal of all the Decisions that had any thing of difficulty or importance in them which I did design to leave behind me as a Token of my most devoted affection to that excellent Society The Colledge of Iustice in which with much satisfaction I spent the far greatest part of my Life and was very happy in the mutual affection of my Colligues both while I was at the Bar and on the Bench yet the weight of the Charge I did bear which in a few years sunk my Predecessor Sir Iohn Gilmour though a man of great strength of Body and Spirit when he undertook that Office made me consider that it was fit for me before Age or Infirmity should make that burden more uneasie to have some remnant of my Life of which I might be Master without Diversion for which some of your Lordships and others knew my Resolution to retire long agoe and therefore I did propose to your Lordships the publishing of these Decisions wherein I have your allowance and approbation I shall need to say nothing as to these Decisions in behalf of your Lordships I hope the Matter will speak more for your Honour than to need any thing further from me I might say great things of that Judicature and of your selves particularly but I shall forbear least any should think it might look like flattery and therefore shall only add a little for my self I did not pick out such Decisions as I liked best leaving out others which might have showen contrariety nor did I express my opinion when different from the plurality but I had ever that Deference to your Judgement that I did not omit any thing that was said for it much less did I magnifie my own opinion against it though I cannot say that I did oft differ from it I did form this Breviat of these Decisions in fresh and recent Memory de die in diem as they were pronunced I seldom eat before I Observed the Interlocutors I judged of difficulty that past that day and when I was hindered by any extraordinary occasion I delayed no longer then that was over It was neither feazable nor fit that I should set down the large Pleadings or the Written Informations of Parties I did peruse them throughly and pitched upon the Reasons which were of moment as to the points determined whereas in the same Informations there were many obvious clear Points insisted on which I omitted I did alwayes relate the Case as it was proposed or resumed to the Lords and with the important Reasons offered by Parties I added these which occurred to the Lords in their Deliberations so that all the Reasons and Motives upon which the Lords proceeded will neither be found in Parties Informations nor Clerks Minuts for though it was not fit for the Lords to suggest any Point of Fact not alleadged by Parties Yet it was most proper for them to supply the Points of Law arising from the Fact proposed And in such a Breviat it is not to be expected that I should at large set down the Elegant and Eloquent Disputes of the Lawers but that I should express the Matter and Moment of their Reasons with the greatest plainness and equality that I could It is like some of my Colligues may have observed other Cases than these and in these may have worded Interlocutors otherwise and adduced some other Reasons which cannot at all weaken the Credit of these for some Decisions were past when I kept my Course in the Outter-House and others were Reported long after the Informations were given which might escape me and many I thought of no such intricacy or importance as made them fit to be published but I do with all sincerity and confidence assert that I did omit none I found of difficulty upon any design to cover inconsistencies or any other end of that kind nor is it of import what the words were if the Matter were truly exprest for no Observer did ever look into the Clerks Minuts and different Observers will not alwayes have the same Opinion of the importance of Reasons nor will find themselves obliged to adduce all
the Reasons proposed Neither have I Recorded any Decisions but what was determined while I was present being resolved to take nothing at a second hand These Decisions were Written with many different hands but all of them were then in my Family and some of them understood not the Matter by which and the haste I was forced oftimes to put them to there was much uncorrect but I did expect that I might have been present and have overseen the Press my self I began to cause Transcribe them with a better hand and did consider whether it were not fit to amplifie and embellish the Disputes so as might have been expected from so pregnant and eloquent Pleaders as our time hath afforded who have been nothing short of their Predecessors but I thought that this would look too like a new Frame from my own Fancy or Memory after so long a time and therefore I resolved they should be keept as they were at first Written and if so they prove uniform as it will be a great evidence of your Lordships Justice so it will be a strong proof that they are sincere and authentick having been Written on the several Sederunt dayes for more then twenty years together and therefore I do intâ—eat the favour that what is uncorrect may be excused and supplied from the Matter I had the best opportunity to make these Observations being scarce a day absent in any of these Sessions wherein I have marked them from the first of Iune 1661. until the first of August 1681. And I was not one day absent from the thirteenth of Ianâ—ary 1671. when it pleased His Majesty to appoint me to be constant President of the Session in place of my Lord Craigmiller who had then demitted except the Summer Session 1679. when I attended His Majesty by His own Command during all which time I hope your Lordships will bear me Witness that I never used Arrogance or Insolence or the least reproachful or bitter expression against any of the number and I do with great thankfulness acknowledge that I could not have expected more kindness and respect than I found from your Lordships which made me in gratitude take this Opportunity to testifie the Honour and Value I have for that honourable Society and that I am in great sincerity LEYDEN October 30. November 9. 1683. My Lords Your Lordships most humble Servant IA DALRYMPLE His Majesties Gift and Priviledge to Sir Iames Dalrymple of Stair for Printing his Institutions the Acts of Sederunt and Decisions of the Lords of Session CHARLES by the grace of God King of Great-Britain France and Ireland Defender of the Faith To all and sundry Our Leidges and Subjects whom it effeirs to whose knowledge these Presents shall come Greeting Forasmuch as Our Trustie and welbeloved Counsellor Sir James Dalrymple of Stair President of Our Session hath Observed and Written the Acts and Decisions of the Lords of Our Session since Our happie Restauration to this time and hath also Written the Institutions of the Law of that Our ancient Kingdom of Scotland And We being well satisfied with his pains and diligence therien and knowing his long experience and knowledge of the Laws and Customs of that Our Kingdom and his constant affection and faithfulness to Vs and being confident of the great benefit may arise to all Our Subjects of that Our ancient Kingdom by publishing of the saids Decisions and Institutions and being willing to give to the said Sir James all encouragement therein Therefore wit ye Vs to have Ratified and Approven Likeas We by thir Our Letters Ratifie and Approve the Contract agreed upon betwixt the said Sir James and Agnes Campbel and Patrick Tailziefer Merchant in Our Burgh of Edinburgh now her Spouse having the Right to and exercing the Office of Our Printer in Our said ancient Kingdom of Scotland for Printing of the saids Books in all the Heads Articles and Clauses therein contained whatsomever Prohibiting all others to Print the saids Books for the space of ninteen years without the special leave of the said Sir James his Heirs and Successors as the said Contract of the date the 26. â—f March 1681. yearâ— at length contained in the said Gift and Ratification under Our Privie Seal more fully bears Given at Our Court at Whitehall Aprile 11. 1681. years and of Our Raignâ— the 33. Year Per Signaturam manu S. D. N. Regis supra scriptam Act of Sederunt Decimo Iunij 1681. THe Lord President did signifie to the Lords that he having these twenty years Observed the remarkable Practiques or Decisions that had past in this Court either upon Debate in presence of the whole Lords or upon Report from the Ordinary in the Outter-house expressing not only the sum of the Debate as it was considered and resumed by the Lords with the Interlocutor But also the Grounds whereupon the Lords proceeded and being of intention to put these Decisions in Print he had acquainted the King therewith and had His Majesties allowance and approbation therein And the saids Lords considering that the Lord President has been at extraordinary pains in Observing and Collecting these Decisions and that the publishing thereof will be of great use and advantage not only to the Colledge of Iustice but to the whole Leidges They approve his Resolution to Print the saids Decisions and did render him hearty Thanks for undertaking this Work tending so much to the publick Good Errata vide after the first Index INDEX Of the Acts of Sederunt ACt for uniformity of Habite amongst the ordinary Lords Iune 5th 1661. Act for continuing Summons and Writing in Latine as formerly 1661. Act anent Wakenings June 11. 1661. Act for retaining the principal Writs presented to the Register and giving forth only Extracts thereof 1661. Act for Protestation Money July 4th 1661. Act for granting Commissions to Debitors who are sick or out of the Countrey on the Act Debitor and Creditor July 31 1661. Act discharging Lessons the last Moneth of the Session November 28. 1661. Act anent Executors Creditors February 28. 1662. Act anent granting of Bonds by apparent Heirs whereupon Apprizings or Adjudications may follow in prejudice of the Defuncts Creditors 1662. Act anent Advocats and Expectants not paying their dues 1662. Act discharging Confusion the last day of the Session February 21. 1663. Act in favours of the Keeper of the Minute-Book June 6. 1663. Act concerning the buying of the Citiedail September 8. 1663. Act anent the Seal of Court November 26. 1663. Act against general Letters June 8. 1665. Act for Keeping the Barâ—s June 22. 1665. Act anent Proâ—tutors June 30. 1665. Act Ordering no sight of Process in the Summer Session which were seen in the Winter before November 8. 1665. His Majesties Instructions to the Commissars February 20. 1666. Orders to be observed in Confirmations of all Testaments Ibid. Instructions to the Clerk Ibid. Act against Decreets for not Reproduction of Cessiones bonorum November 6. 1666. His Majesties Letter
to the Lords concerning Prizes January 3. 1667. Warrand for general Letters for the Contribution due out of Benefices to the Lords November 17. 1668. Oaths to be taken for the price of Fowls January 15. 1669. Act anent Extracts of Registrate Writs bearing the Procurators names though not Subscribing December 9. 1670. Act anent Extracting Acts and Decreets Ianuary 20. 1671. Act against Magistrates of Burghs for letting Prisoners for debt go out of the Tolbooth Iune 14. 1671. His Majesties Order to the Commissioners of His Thesauray to free the Lords from the Cess July 19. 1671. Act for Keeping the Bars November 3. 1671. Act concerning priviledged Summons July 21. 1672. Act anent payment of Dues for Summons containing two Diets July 11. 1672. Act concerning Bankrupts January 23. 1673. Act Ordaining Advocations or Suspensions of Processes for Conventicles to be only past in presentia or by three Lords in vacant time June 24. 1673. Letter anent Pryzes July 8. 1673. Act for Ordering new hearings in the Outer House July 11. 1673. Letter from His Majestie against appeals June 17. 1674. Act concerning Acts before Answer July 23. 1674. Act for Tryal of those presented to be Ordinary Lords of Session July the last 1674. Act upon the Marquess of Huntly's disowning Appeals January 26. 1675. Act concerning Prisoners for debt February 5. 1675. Act anent Bills of Suspension February 9. 1675. Act Ordaining Processes after Avisandum to be carryed to the Ordinary that same day and Reported in his Week June 2. 1675. Heugh Riddel sent to the Plantations July 20. 1675. Act anent passing of Bills for liberty out of Prison July 21. 1675. Act concerning the granting of Protections February 1. 1676. His Majesties Letter concerning the Clerks June 20 1676. Act concerning the Registers Iuly 4. 1676. Act for Inventaring the Registers Books July 13. 1676. Act anent the manner of Booking Decreets of Registration November 21. 1676. Act anent the Registers of Seasines and Hornings in the several Shires January 4. 1677. Act concerning Arrestments February 1. 1677. Act concerning Advocates June 7. 1677. Act concerning the sisting of Execution upon Bills of Suspension July 3. 1677. Act concerning the Suspensions of Protestations July 10. 1677. Act against Solicitations November 6. 1677. Act concerning Bills relating to concluded Causes November 9. 1677. Suspensions of the Excize to be past only in presentia December 6. 1677. Warrand anent Precepts for giving Seasine upon Retoures February 15. 1678. Act in favours of the Lord Register February 22. 1678. Act Discharging Clerks to lend out Processes to any except Advocats and their Servants February 26. 1678. Act prohibiting the Clerks to give up Bills relating to Processes whereupon there is any Deliverance of the Lords July 23. 1678. Act discharging Advocates and Writers Servants to Write their Masters Subscription July last 1678. Act Ordaining Hornings and Inhibitions to be Booked which were not Booked the time of the Vsurpers January 3. 1679. Orders for payment of the Dues of the Signet where Suspensions are appointed to be discust upon the Bill January 24. 1679. Act in favours of Intrant Advocats February 7. 1679. Act anent Executors Creditors November 14. 1679. Act anent the Registration of Hornings November 19. 1679. Act against Solicitations December 24. 1679. Act anent the taking of Renunciations from Persons Inhibited February 19. 1680. Act against Petitions for alteration of Acts Extracted February 24. 1680. His Majesties Letter in favours of the Lord Register anent the nomination of the Clerks of Session June 8. 1680. Act concerning Nottars July 29. 1680. Act concerning Bills of Suspension November 9. 1680. Act anent the marking of Advocates compearance for Defenders November 25. 1680. Act in Favours of the Macers February 15. 1681. Act anent Seasines and Reversions of Lands within Burgh February 22. 1681. THE ACTS OF SEDERUNT OF THE LORDS of SESSION Beginning the 5th Iune 1661 and ending in February 1681. ACT for Vniformity of Habit by the ordinary Lords Iune 5th 1661. THE Lords did find that the whole fifteen ordinary Lords of Session of whatsoever Place Dignity or Title they be should carry and use the ordinary Habit and Robes of the ordinary Lords of Session in all time coming ACT for continuing Summonds and writing in Latine as formerly Iune 6. 1661. THE Lords taking to their serious consideration of how dangerous consequence the alteration of Formes and Customes is They have therfore ordained and hereby ordain all Summonds which formerly abode Continuation and shall be insisted in before them to be continued in time coming and an Act to be made thereanent and Letters to be direct thereon as was in use to be done before the Year 1651 not exceeding the Rates and Prices formerly exacted And also considering that during the Power of the late Usurpers the use and custome of writing in Latine was then discharged by the pretended Commissioners for Administration of Justice Therefore the saids Lords ordain all Charters Seasings and other Writes of that nature alswell such as pass the Seals as other ways which were in use to be formed and written in Latine to be continued in the same Language as formerly before the Year 1652. And to the effect none may pretend Ignorance hereof ordains these Presents to be published at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh after sound of Trumpet by a Macer ACT anent Warnings Iune 11th 1661. THE saids Lords ordain That all wakenings of Processes lying undiscust be execute upon 24 hours against all such Persons as are for the time within Edinburgh or Leith and upon 6 dayes against all other Parties within this Kingdom and upon fifteen dayes against all such Persons as are out of the Kingdom ACT for retaining the Principal Writes presented to the Register and giving forth only Extracts thereof THE which Day the Lords of Council and Session taking into their consideration That the custom of the Clerks in the Usurpers time of giving back to the Parties the Principal Bonds Contracts and other Writes given in to be registrat did tend to the hazard and prejudice of the Leidges and was contrary to the practise formerly observed They do therefore ordain that the Clerks of Session and all Clerks of Inferiour Courts and Judicatories shall henceforth keep and retain the Principal Writes for which they shall be answerable and give forth only Extracts thereof as formerly before the Year 1651. and ordains these Presents to be published at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh Likeas the saids Lords require the Clerks of the Session to be careful in preserving and keeping all Principal Bonds Contracts and other Writes to be given in to them to be registrat and that they be countable for them and for their Servants so long as they shall give them trust thereof And that once in the two years they deliver them to be keeped by the Clerk of Register with the Publick Records of the Kingdom ACT for Protestation Money Iuly 4. 1661. THE said day the Lords taking to their
Consideration the Litigiousness and Malitiousness of some Suspenders who upon frivolous and unjust Reasons and Grounds purchase Letters of Suspension and Advocation and will not at the Day of Compearance nor on any other of the Days appointed for Production of the saids Principal Letters of Suspension and Advocation produce the respective Letters aforesaid but keep the famine up of purpose to trouble vex and put to farther Charges and Expenses the Chargers and Parties Persuers in the Principal Cause Advocated to the saids Lords Therefore the saids Lords ordain the several Sums of Money following to be payed by the saids Suspenders and Purchasers of the saids Letters of Advocation to the Chargers and Parties Pursuers in the Principal Cause Advocated to the saids Lords And that upon their purchasing of Protestation or Act of Remit against the said Suspenders and purchasers of the saids Letters of Advocation viz. If the sum charged for be an hundred merks or within the same the sum of 8. lib. Scots and if the sum be above 100. merks or not a liquid sum the sum of ten pounds money foresaid And for every Remit the sum of 15. lib. Scots and ordains an Act to be extended hereupon in manner foresaid ACT for granting Commissions to Debitors who are sick or out of the Countrey on the Act Debitor and Creditor Iuly 31. 1661. THE Lords of Session considering that in prosecution of the Act of Parliament of the 12. of Iuly last anent Creditor and Debitor such Debitors as are far off the Countrey or are or shall be disabled by Sicknesse to come here to take the benifite of the Act will be thereby prejudged of the benefit thereof if some course be not taken to prevent the same They do therefore impower the Lord President or the Lord Register or any two of the Lords of Session upon Petitions and sufficient Attestations of the Sicknesse of any Debitor or of their being forth of the Countrey to give Commission during this ensuing Vacation to such Persons in the Countrey as they shall think fit to receive the Oath and Declaration of the Debitors conform to the said Act and to report the same betwixt and the day of November next to come to the Clerk of Register or his Deputs Clerk to the Bills to be Recorded with others of that nature ACT discharging Lessons the last moneth of the Session November 28. 1661. THE same day the Lords considering that in the end of the Session the giving way to Young-gentlemen to give proof of their Literature by making publick Lessons is greatly prejudicial to the Leidges that time which is appointed for hearing and discussing of Interloquitors being taken up with the saids Lessons Therefore the Lords renews a former Act made to the effect after-specified in Anno 1650. And of new ordains in all time coming That any who are to make their Lessons shall come and make them at such times of the Session as the hearing of them be not prejudicial to the administration of Justice and that none shall be heard to make such Lessons any time the last moneth of of the Session ACT anent Executors Creditors February 28. 1662. THE which day the Lords of Councill and Session considering the great confusions that arises amongst the Executors of Defunct Persons and prejudices sustained by many of them in prosecution of their respective diligences against the Executors of Defunct Persons and otherways by obtaining the saids Creditors to be themselves decerned Executors Creditors to the Defunct in prejudice of other Creditors who either dwelling at a far distance or being out of the Countrey or otherways not knowing of the death of their Debitors are postponed and others using sudden diligence are preferred In respect whereof and for a remeid in time coming The saids Lords declare and ordain that all Creditors of Defunct Persons using Legal diligence at any time within half a year of the defuncts death by citation of the Executors Creditors or intrometters with the Defuncts Goods or by obtaining themselves decerned and confirmed Executors Creditors or by citing of any other Executors confirmed the saids Executors using any such diligence before the expiring of half a year as said is shall come in pari passu with any other Creditors who have used more timely diligence by obtaining themselves decerned and confirmed Executors Creditors or otherwise It is always declared That the Creditor using posterior diligence shall bear a proportional part of the charges wared out by the Executor Creditor first decerned and confirmed before he have any benefit of the Inventarie confirmed and that it shall be lawful to the saids Creditor to obtain himself joyned to the said Executor and ordains these presents to be insert in the Books of Sederunt and to be Proclaimed at the the Mercat Crosse of Edinburgh ACT anent granting of Bonds be appearand Heirs whereupon Apprysings or Adjudications may follow in prejudice of the Defuncts Creditors THE said day the Lords of Council and Session taking to their consideration the manyfest Frauds and Prejudices done by appearand Heirs to the Creditors of their deceast Fathers or other Predecessors in their just and lawful debts Therefore and for preventing any such fraud for the future the saids Lords declare That if any appearand Heir shall grant Bonds whereupon Adjudications or Apprysings shall be deduced to their own behove or that the saids Apprysings or Adjudications shall return before or after the expyring of the Legal Reversion in the Persons of the saids appearand Heirs or any to their behoves In either of these cases the saids Apprysings or Adjudications shal no ways defend them against their Predecessors Creditors but that they shall be lyable as behaving themselves as Heirs to their predecessors by intromission with the Rents of their Estates so Adjudged and Apprysed nor shall it be lawful to them to renunce to be Heirs after such intromission and ordains an Act to be made thereupon and to be registrate in the Books of Sedernut and to be published at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh ACT anent Advocats Expectants THE said day the Lords of Council and Session understanding that the greatest number of the Advocats and Expectants admitted since the first of Ianuary 1648. years Are deficient in paying of Dues to the keepers of the Box for the Advocats to wit twenty merks for every Advocate and ten merks Scots for every Expectant to the prejudice of the Box appointed for the poor and others their publick affairs Therefore the said Lords ordain all Advocats and Expectants admitted since Ianuary 1648. who are deficient in payment of the saids dues and all others who shall be admitted and receive the said respective priviledges in time coming to pay the saids dues to the keeper of the Box for the time And ordains Letters of Horning and Poynding upon sex days to be direct against the deficients upon a subscribed Roll by the Thesaurer and ordains no suspension to passe but upon consignation ACT discharging
contribution money payable to them And such other General Letters as are expresly warranted be the Acts of Parliament And ordains an Act to be extracted hereupon and insert in the Books of Sederunt ACT for keeping the Barrs Iune 22. 1665. THE Lords considering what great confusion and disorder is occasioned by the thronging of people of all sorts within the Barrs of the Inner and utter House in the morning before the Lords sit down and at twelve a clocke in the forenoon and the prejudice arising there through by the miscarrying of Processes For remeid whereof the Lords do hereby discharge the Macers in time coming to give access to whatsomever Persons of whatsoever quality within the Barr of the Inner-house after any of the saids Lords have entred the House in the morning or after twelve a clock till the Lords be all risen off the Bench and be removed out of the House And sicklike that they permit no person whatsoever to stay within the Innermost-barr of the Utter-house where the ordinary Lord and Clerks do abide neither before the ordinary Lord come out after that the Clerks and their Servants have begun to call nor during the time that the ordinary Lord is upon the Bench neither after untill the reading of the Minut Book be ended except the persons following viz. The keeper of the Minut Book the King's Solliciter and one Servant appointed by His Majestie 's Advocat And that person appointed for reading the Minut Book during the time of the reading of the Minut Book and no longer And the Macers are hereby authorized to carrie immediately to prison any person that shal be found within any of the saids Barrs during the time foresaidâ— Certifying the saids Macers that if any of them shal be found negligent in performance of their dutie in the premisses They shall forthwith be removed from their Office And ordains an Act to be extended hereupon ACT anent Pro-tutors Iune 10. 1665. FOrasmuch as in the Action of compt and reckoning depending at the instance of Robert and Bessie Swintouns against Iames Notman at length heard before the Lords of Council and Session It being questioned and debated how far a Pro-tutor is lyable by the Law and Practice of this Kingdom whether for ommission as well as for commission and intromission And the saids Lords considering That albeit Pro-tutors be excusable as to their bygon intromissions In regard it was not constant hitherto how far they could be lyable yet finding it expedient that the foresaid question should be determined as to the future and the Leiges no longer left in uncertainty thereanent Therefore the Lords declare that whatsoever person or persons shall in time coming intromet with the means and estate of any Minor and shall act in his affairs as Pro-tutors having no right of Tutory nor Curatorie established in their Persons They shall be lyable aswell for what they might have intrometted with if they had been Tutors and Curators as for what they shall intromet with de facto Sicklike and in the same manner as Tutors and Curators are lyable by the Law and Practice of this Kingdom And the Lords declare that they will observe this as an inviolable practice in time coming And ordain these presents to be published at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh and an Act to be extended thereupon and insert in the Books of Sederunt ACT ordering no sight of Processes in the Summer Session which were seen in the Winter before November 8. 1665. THE Lords considering That through the shortness of the Summer Session unnecessary giving out and malicious detaining of Processes which have been seen the Winter Session immediately preceeding The Leiges are oftimes frustrate of Justice during that Session after much charges expenses time vexation and trouble And having it always in their thought how Justice may be speedily administrat with the greatest ease and least expenses to the Subjects Do declare that in the future they will not allow Defenders and their Procurators to see Processes in communi forma during the Summer Session where the same has been seen and returned by them the Winter Session immediately preceeding and that they will proceed to do Justice therein without indulging to defenders any such sight during the Summer Sessions in the future where there hath been no material amendments made be the Pursuers of their Summonds nor new pieces produced in the Process to be instructions and grounds thereof and which were not seen the Winter Session immediately preceeding And ordains these presents to be insert in the Books of Sederunt His Majesties Instructions to the Commissars February 20. 1666. THE Lord President having received the Instructions following from Iohn Earl of Rothes His Majesties High Commissioner did communicat the same to the hail Lords and that it was His Graces pleasure and desire that the same might be recorded in the Books of Sederunt The Lords of Council and Session ordained the saids Injunctions to be insert and recorded in the saids Books of Sederunt under Protestation always that the recording of there saids Injunctions should be no ways prejudicial to the priviledge of the Lords of Session or derogat in any sort from their Iurisdiction in civil causes And ordained the said Injuctions after recording thereof to be given up and delivered to the Archbishop of St. Andrews his Grace or to any having his warrand to receive the same And that the Extracts of the saids Injunctions be given to all Persons who shal conceive themselves concerned therein whereof the tenor follows Sic Supra Scribitur CHARLES R. HIS Majesty Authorizes and injoyns these following Instructions contained in five Leaves Attested and Subscribed by two of the late Commissars of Edinburgh for regulating the Proceedings of the Commissars in their respective Courts Oxford January 21. 1666. and of His Reign the seventeenth year By his Majesties Command Sic Subscribitur LAVDERDAIL INstructions and Rules set down and appointed by the Reverend Fathers Arch-bishops and Bishops in this Kingdom to the Commissars Clerks Procurator-fiscals and other Members of Court of the Whole Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction having Commission from the saids Reverend Fathers 1. Ye are by vertue of your Commission to decide and judge in Causes concerning Benefices and Teinds in matters of Scandal Confirmations of Testaments great and small within your bounds all Causes Testamentar and in all other matters wherein the Oath of Party is required if the same does not exceed fourty pounds And in all other Causes wherein the Parties submit themselves to your Jurisdictions 2. Ye are to Judge in Reductions and Declarators of Nullity of Marriage for Impotency or upon any other ground or reason whatsomever All actions of Divorcement for Adultery or upon any other ground All Actions or Questions of Bastardry and adherences when the samine shall have a connexion with the Lawfulness of Marriage or Adultery all which are reserved to the Commissars of Edinburgh and do belong to their Jurisdiction privative But
to you the Subjects of the Kings of Spain and Sweden with whom we have particular Treaties which We shall send to you And wâ—ose Ships and Goods are to pass free they having such Passes as are agreed upon of which We did send Copies to Our Privy Council and so We bid you Farewell Given at Our Court at Whitehall the twenty seven day of December One thousand six hundred sixty and six And of Our Reign the eighteen year By His Majesties Command Subscribed thus LAUDERDAIL VVarrand for General Letters for the Contribution due out of Benefices to the Lords November 17. 1668. THE Lords have Ordained and hereby Ordain Letters and Executorials of Horning to be Direct at the Instance of these Ordinary Lords who have been admitted since Iune 1663. or shall be admitted hereafter against the Arch-bishops Bishops Priors Heretors Liferenters Feuars Farmers Tennents and Tacksmen of the Prelacies within this Kingdom for payment to them of their respective proportions of the Contribution Money payable out of the saids Prelacies and Allocat to their Predecessors in whose place they have succeeded by an Act of Sederunt of the date the 11. day of Iune 1663. and a Roll subjoyned thereto containing the particular division of the Contribution Money amongst the saids Lords and that for all Years and Terms since their admission and Entry and Yearly and Termly in time coming Oaths to be taken for the Price of Fowls Ianuary 15. 1669. THE which day It being represented to the Lords That the Magistrates of Edinburgh desired to know whether they might warrantably exact the Oaths of the Poultrie-men and In-keepers concerning their contravention of the Acts lately made for the price of Fowl drest and undrest The Lords finds that the Magistrates of Edinburgh may and ought to exact the Oaths of the contraveeners of these Acts either the Poultrie-people who sell the Fowls undrest or In-keepersâ— who sell them drest And recommend to the Magistrates to be careful in the speedie and exact execution of these Acts. ACT anent extracts of Registrate writs bearing the Procurators named though not subscribed December 9. 1670. THE Lords of Council and Session do grant warrand to the Lord Register and the Clerks of Session his Deputes to registrate such Bands Contracts and other Writs as shall be given in to them to be registrat and therein to insert the consent of Advocats as Procurators to the Registration as they were in use to do formerlyâ— and accordingly to give out extracts thereof notwithstanding that the Advocats do not subscrib their consent And appoints this warrand to continue untill further order Likeas the Lords declare that any Extracts given out by the Clerks in manner foresaid since the first day of November last are warrantably given and cannot be quarrelled upon that ground that the Advocats consent to the Registration is not subscribed ACT Anent Extracting Acts and Decreets Ianuary 20. 1671. THE Lords enacted and ordained that no Act or Decreet done either in the Inner or Utter-house shall be extracted untill 24 hours elapse after the same is read in the Minut Book ACT against Magistrats of Burghs forletting prisoners for Debt go out of the tolbooth Iune 14. 1671. THE Lords considering That albeit by the Law Magistrats of Burghs are oblidged to retain in sure warde and firmance Persons incarcerat in their Tolbooths for Debt Yet hitherto they have been in use to indulge Prisoners to go abroad upon several occasions And it being expedient that in time coming the foresaid liberty taken by the Magistrates of Burghs should be restrained and the Law duely observed Therefore the saids Lords do declare that hereafter it shal not be lawful to the Magistrates of Burghs upon any occasion whatsomever without warrand from His Majesties Privy Council or the Lords of Session to permit any Person incarcerat in their Tolbooth for Debt to go out of Prison except in the case of the Parties sickness and extream danger of Life The same being always attested upon oath under the hand of a Physician Chirurgion Appothecary or Minister of the Gospel in the place Which Testificat shall be recorded in the Town Court Books And in that case that the Magistrats allow the Partie only liberty to reside in some house within the Town during the continuance of his sickness They being always answerable that the Partie escape not And upon his recovery to return to Prison And the Lords declare that any Magistrats of Burghs who shall contraveen the premisses shall be lyable in payment of the Debtsâ— for which the Rebel was incarcerat And appoints this Act to be intimat to the Agent for the Royal Burrows and to be insert in the Books of Sederunt His MAJESTIES Order to the Commissioners of His Thesaury to free the Lords from the Cess Iuly 19. 1671. CHARLES R. RIght trusty and well beloved Cusing and Counciller right trusty and well beloved Councillers and trusty and well beloved We greet you well Vpon the humble desire of President and Senators of Our Colledge of Iustice Signified unto Vs by Our Secretary We have thought fit to express Our so great tenderness of their Priviledges as to discharge the President and all the ordinary Lords of Session of their proportions of the Currant Supply granted unto Vs by the late Session of Our Parliament although they gave their Bond for the same Therefore Our pleasure is and We do hereby Authorize you to give Command nor to exact any of the said Supply from the proper states of the said President and ordinary Lords of Session but that the same be discharged And if any part thereof be already Collected that it be payed back to them respectively for which this shall be your warrand And so We bid you heartily Farewell Given at Our Court at Windsor Casile the 12 day of Iuly 1671. and of Our Reign the 23 Year Subscribed thus by his Majesties command Lauderdail ACT for keeping the Barrs November 3. 1671. THE Lords of Council and Session considering that there is great disorder and confusion occasionâ—d by the thronging in of the Advocats men and others upon the Clerks and their Servants in the Utter-house before the ordinary Lord go to the Bench. And after twelve a clock at the reading of the Minut Book For remeid whereof they ordain the Minut Book in time coming to be read in the nethermost end of the Loft appointed for the Advocats Servants And prohibit and discharge all Advocats Servants and other persons who are not licenced and allowed to enter or remain within the Innermost Barr of the Utter-house where the Clerks and their Servants stays under the pain of three pounds Scots to be applyed the one half for the use of the Poor and the other to the Macers And to be further censured by imprisonment or otherways as the saids Lords shall think sit And to the end the said Act may be more duely observed The Lord do ordain authorize and require the Macers to exact
ineffectual as to the designed end of the same do therefore statute and ordain That all Decreets of Bonorum and Charges to put at liberty to be raised thereupon shall thereafter contain the hail tenor of the Act of Sederunt above-written And that the Magistrats of Burghs shall not put out the Partie in whose favours the Decreet and Letters are granted untill first they put on the habit and come out of the Tolbooth betwixt 9. and 12. a clock in the Fore-noon with the habit on them as is prescribed by the Act. And ordain the Clerks of the Session the Keepers of and Writers to the Signet and others having interest to be careful that this Act be punctually observed And ordain a Coppy thereof to be delivered to the Baillies of Edinburgh to be Registrate in their Books and keeped for the entry and liberty of Prisoners in their Tolbooth ACT ordaining Advocations or Suspensions of Processes for Conventicles to be only past in presentia or by the three Lords in vacant time Iune 24. 1673. THis day the Lords ordained that no Bill of Advocation be past of any Processes depending before the Sheriffs and other Judges ordinary against Persons guilty of keeping Conventicles unless the same be past in presentia during the sitting of the Session or by three Lords met together in time of Vacancie and that no supension be past of Decreets given upon those Processes except upon Consignation of the sums decerned or in presence of the whole Lords or in time of Vacaâ—cie by three Lords And appoint Intimation hereof to be made to the Clerks of the Bills Letter anent Prizes Iuly 8. 1673. THis day the Lord Chancellor produced in presence of the Lords a Letter directed from the Duke of Lauderdail Lord Secretary by His Majestie 's Command to the Lord Chancellor President and remanent Senators of the Colledge of Justice which Letter being Read in presence of the saids Lords they ordained the same to be Recorded in the Books of Sederunt whereof the tenor follows For the right Honourable The Earle of Rothes Lord Chancellor of Scotland Sir James Daâ—ymple of Stair President of the Colledge of Iustice and the Remanent Senators thereof Whitehall Iune 30. 1673. My Lords Since the Receit of Yours of the 25. January I have been using my best Endeavours to know how to satisfie your Lordships desire therin And now having acquainted the KING tâ—erewith in presence of divers of his Council here I am commanded by His Majesty to let you know that the Treaty of Breda is certainly void by the War and that no Ally can claim any benefite thereby when they carry any provision of Victual or other Counterband Goods to the Ports of Our Enemies or when they have Goods belonging to Enemies on Board As to the other part of the Letter it was deliberatly thought fit in the Council of England That any number of the Dutch Nation being found aboard should not confiscat Ship and goods as it did during the last War and therefore that Article was kept out of the Rules which were given to the Court of Admiralty here in England But if any part of the Ship belong to any Inhabiting within the Dominions of the States-general the whole both Shipe and Goods are to be declared Prize and if the Master have his Residence in Holland you are left to judge in this case according to Law and as you shall think just I have likewise communicated to the KING your answers to the Swedish Envoys memorial And to the Complaints of the King of Polland and the City of Danzick which did give a great dale satisfaction to His Majesty and severalls of His Privy Council there who were presentâ— And Coppies of them were sent unto Sweden I am my Lord your Lordships most humble Servant Sic subscribitur LAUDERDAIL ACT for ordering new hearings in the Vtter-house Iuly 11. 1673. THE which day the Lords ordain any Lord who is to hear a Cause debated in the Utter-house before the Lord ordinary come forth shall go to the Bench and call the said Cause at 8 a clock in the morning And ordain the Advocats Clerks and Macers to be present and attend at the said hour and if no Procurators be present for that Partie that seeketh calling yet the said Lord shall proceed in making Act or Decreet and the said Cause is not to be heard any more thereafter And if none be appearing for the other Partie at the said hour or when the Cause shall be called then that Parties Procurators are not thereafter to be heard by the said Lord except the said Party or his Procurators give in two Dollers to the poor's Box. And ordain this Act to be recorded in the Books of Sederunt and intimate to the Advocats in the Utter-house Letter from His Majesty against Appeals Iune 17. 1674. THis day the Lord Thesaurer Deput produced in presence of the saids Lords a Letter direct from His Majesty to the Lord Chancellor Lord President and Remanent Senators of the Colledge of Iustice. Whereof the tenor follows CHARLES R. RIght trusty aud well-beloved Cusingâ— and Councilers Right trusty and well-beloved Councilâ—rs aud trusty and well-beloved We greet you well We received your Letter of the 28 February Last with an accompt of these Appeals given into you by the Lord Almond and Earl of Aboyne but could not then return any answer the Session being up And now upon full consideration of that whole affair We find it indispensably necessary for Our Service and the mentainence of Our Authority and for the quiet and security of Our Subjects in their Fortuns and Estates That the honour aud Authority of Our Colledge of Iustice be inviolably preserved and that there be an intire confidence in and defâ—rence to all the Decreets and Sentences thereof And after the Laudable Example of Our Royall Progenitors We do assure you that We will constantly mentain Our Authority exercised in that Court against all Incroachments Indignities and Reproaches that may be attempted against the same or against any of the Lords of Session whom We shall always cause to be held in special Honour as these who represent Our Person and â—ear Our Authority And as We cannot but declare Our dis-satisfaction with and abhorance of these Appeals So it is Our express pleasure that special care be taken to prevent the like practices for the future and for that effect that you cause solemn Intimation to be made to all Advocats Clerks Writeres and others who are members of or have dependence upon the Colledge of Iustice and others whom it may concern That none of them presume to advise consult propose plead speak or suggest any thing that doth import the charging of any of the Decreets and Sentences of the Lords of Session with In-justice whether in the Terms of Appealls Protestations Supplications Informations or any other manner of way either publickly in the exercise of their Function or privately in their ordinary conversation
have been addicted to any such base Acts formerly albeit the Petitioner and his Friends are ashamed in his behalf to plead any exemption from his deserved punishment which his riper years may cause him detest and abhore as an offence to the saids Lords and Scandal to his Friends and prejudice to the Party offended which the said Party offended willingly forgiveth out of respect to his Friends Therefore humbly desiring that the saids Lords for preventing such a publick Stain upon the Petitioner and his Friends by the said publick disgrace upon a youth of his years would be pleased to 〈◊〉 his Sentence as to the way and manner of the disgrace and infamy by 〈◊〉 his Imprisonment upon the Supplicants Charges till there be an occasion for Transporting of him beyond Seas or where the saids Lords shall judge convenient whether by way of banishment or otherwise during then Pleasure for which effect the Supplicant shall be obliged by Bond if the Loâ—ds shall require the same and in the mean time to be favourably pleasâ—d to discharge the Execution of the said Sentence Which Supplication being considered by the sâ—ids Lords they by their deliverance thereupon of the 16. of thus Instant granted Warrant to the Magistrates of Edinburgh to continue the execution of their Sentence pronounced against the said Hugh Riddel until VVednesday the 21. of this Moneth betwixt and which time if he should find sufficient Caution to contiâ—â—e in Prison upon his own Charges until an occasion shall offer for his Transportation to his Majesties Plantations in America and that he shall then remove to the saids Plantations and not return to this Kingdom under the pain of five thousand merks Scots Money to be disposed of as the saids Lords shall think fit in case he contraveen In that case the Lords declare they will dispense with the execution of their former Sentence and if Caution were not found to the effect foresaid betwixt and the said day they ordained the formerâ— Sentence to be then put in execution Likeas this day the Lords having considered a Bond of Cautionry produced subscribed by the said Iohn Riddel dated the 19. day of this Instant and finding the same to be conform to their foresaid deliverance therefore they have dispensed and hereby dispense with the execution of their former Sentence pronounced against the said Hugh Riddel upon the 15. Instant and grants Warrant to the Magistrates of Edinburgh to deliver the Person of the said Hugh to the said Iohn Riddel when he shall desire him in order to his Transportation ACT anent passing of Bills for liberty out of Prison Iuly 21. 1675. THE Lords considering that oftentimes where Parties have done ultimate diligence against their Debitors by apprehending them with Caption and Incarcerating them Bills of Suspension and Charges to set at liberty are presented and past in favours of these Persons without the knowledge of the Creditors at whose Instance they are Incarcerat and to their great prejudice thereby frustrating the diligence done by them For remeid whereof the Lords ordain That in time coming when any Person intends to give in a Bill of Suspension and Charge to set at liberty that he shall make previous Intimation of the same to his Creditor at whose Instance he is Incarcerat or arrested in Prison Personally or at their dwelling place by a Nottar before Witnesses mentioning the time when the Bill shall be presented in case the Creditors be within the Kingdom for the time and that the Instrument of Intimation to the Creditors under the Nottars hand be produced with the Bill of Suspension and Charge to set at liberty when the same is presented to the Ordinary upon the Bills otherwayes that the Bill be not past And the Lords ordain the Intimation to be special in the time when the Bill shall be presented being within the latitude of a Week that the Creditors may be at a certainty when to attend the same ACT concerning the granting of Protections February 1. 1676. THE Lords considering that divers Persons who are under the hazard of Caption for Debt pretending that they are cited to bear Witnesse in Processes depending before the Lords do upon production of a Charge given to them for that effect under Messengers hands procure Warrants from the Lords to Discharge the execution of Letters of Caption and Acts of Warding against them for some time albeit they be not made use of as Witnesses but only the said Charge impetrat by them from a Messenger that they may obtain the foresaid Warrant For remeid of which abuse the Lords declare that in time coming they will grant no Warrant for stopping of execution of Letters of Caption or Acts of Warding upon that ground that the Craver thereof is cited as a Witness in a Process unless with the Petition there be given in a Declaration under the hand of the Party Pursuer or Defender who adduces the Witnesses bearing that the Person who desires the said Warrand is really cited at his instance as a VVitness and that he is a necessary VVitness And the Lords declare they will fine the Party who gave the said Declaration if at the conclusion of the Cause it appear that there was Collusion in giving the same it being only done that the said Person might obtain a Personal Protection His Majesties Letter concerning the Clerks Iune 20. 1676. CHARLES R. RIGHT Trusty and well beloved Cousins and Counsellers Right Trusty and well beloved Counsellers and Trusty and well beloved We Greet you well We have often evidenced Our Affection to and Care of you the Senators of Our Colledge of Iustice and as VVe have Trusted you with the Distribution of Iustice and the preservation of the Rights and Properties of Our Subjects in that Kingdom according to Law and are very confident of your equal and expedite procedor in Iustice to all Our Subjects which is the most acceptable Service you can perform to Vs So VVe will suffer none of Our Subjects to reproach your Procedor much lesse these who serve before you and by your Favour and VVarrand have the priviledge to procure and plead for others who if they should be permitted to defame your Sentences might prove the unhappy Instruments to lessen the Honour and Confidence which hath been alwayes attributed to that Senate by Natives and Strangers and might diffuse the Leaven of Male-contents amongst Our People as if their Rights and Interests were not securely lodged and thereby make them more capable of evil Impressions and desirous of change And We do Require you by all means to suppresse and prevent all mutinous Courses which you have prudently adverted to and obviat by your Act of Sederunt of the 5th of January last wherewith We are very well satisfied And We do leave the Advocats and others of the Colledge of Justice to be Ordered by you in all things relating to their Imployments And We do further Require you to prevent and punish all Conbinations and
the general Registers of Hornings and Inhibitions and of the particular Registers thereof in the Shire of Edinburgh during the Englishes time and found that during the said time there were no Hornings Booked for the space of five years and three moneths or thereby and that no Inhibition were Booked for the space of three years and six moneths and that they had called the Persons who were intrusted in that time as Clerks to and Keepers of the saids Registers of Hornings and Inhibitions and where they were dead they called and heard their Representatives but that one of these who had the Keeping of the saids Registers from the 5. of Iune 1652. to the 8. of September 1654. Called Thomas Freeman being deceased there can be none found to represent him which being taken in consideration by the Lords they Ordain the Hornings and Inhibitions to be Booked for the saids years by such Persons as the Lord Register shall appoint and allows them for their pains three shillings four pennies for ilk Leaf of the Book Written in such manner as the Lord Register shall appoint And the Lords Ordain the same to be payed by the Persons who enjoyed and possest the said Offices and were oblieged to have Booked the same or their Representatives And where they have none to Represent them by the Person who succeeded next in the said Office and his Representatives And Ordain Letters of Horning to be direct upon six dayes to the effect foresaid Orders for payment of the Dues of the Signet where Suspensions are appointed to be discussed upon the Bill Ianuary 24. 1679. THE Lords considering that they do frequently grant Warrands to the Ordinary upon the Bills to Discuss the Reasons of Suspension upon the Bill especially where the Charger desires the same And seeing that Warrand or Deliverance hath the effect of a Suspension past the Signet the Party ingiver of the Bill of Suspension being thereby secured against any further Personal Execution untill the Reasons of Suspension be Discussed It is just and reasonable in this Case that the Dues payable for affixing the Signet should be satisfied as if the Suspension had been past and exped Therefore the saids Lords do Ordain that before the Suspenders Process be heard upon the Reasons of Suspension before the Ordinary upon the Bills in order to the Discussing thereof there be payed in to the Clerk of the Bills or his Servant in that Office the Dues payable for affixing the Signet to the Suspension for which they are to be comptable to the Keeper of the Signet under the Lord Secretary and to make payment thereof as he shall call for the same And appoint the Clerk of the Bills and his Servants to keep a Note of such Bills of Suspension whereof the Reasons are ordained to be be Discussed on the Bills to the effect foresaid ACT in Favours of Intrant Advocats February 7. 1679. THE Lords considering a Petition presented to them by Robert Nairn Son to Mr. Alexander Nairn of Greenyards mentioning That the Petitioner upon a Reference of the Lords to the Dean of Faculty and the Advocats Examinators for taking Tryal of his Qualifications in order to his Admission to the Office of an Advocat having undergone both the privat and publick Tryal and Examination and thereafter applyed to the Dean of Faculty to assign him the Subject of his publick Lesson before the Lords the same is refused until the Petitioner make payment to the Advocats Box of 500. merks Scots conform to a late Act of the Faculty made to that purpose And the Lords considering that the Office and Imployment of Advocats being a liberal profession albeit they will not allow any sums of money to be imposed upon young men at their Entry to the Office and Station of Advocats yet they recommend to them to Contribute Voluntarly for a Library to be erected for the use of the Colledge of Justice ACT anent Executors Creditors November 14. 1679. THE Lords considering that it is imcumbent to all Executors by vertue of their Office to execute the Testament of the Defunctâ— by recovering his Goods and payment of the Debts owing to him for the behove and interest of the Relict Children or nearest of Kin Creditors and Legatars of the Defunct Therefore the saids Lords do Declare that Executors decerned and Confirmed as Creditors to the Defunct are holden as lyable to do Diligence for recovery of the Defuncts Goods and the Debts due to him Confirmed in the Testament or â—iked sicklike as other Executors Dative are holden to do by the Law and practick of this Kingdom And to the effect that Creditors be not unnecessarly intangled in the Execution of Defuncts Debts beyond their own satisfaction The Lords Declare that Executors Creditors shall not be oblieged to make a total Confirmation but only of so much as they shall think fit that there may be place for an Executor ad ommissa for the rest who shall be lyable to all Parties having Interest in the same way as principal Executors It is also Declared that Executors Creditors shall have license to pursue if they will make Faith that they are doubtful of the Validity Existence or Probation of the Debts of the Defunct for which they desire license the same being returned to the Commissars within such competent time as they shall appoint and upon Caution to Confirm as hath been granted in the Case of Licenses formerly ACT anent the Registration of Hornings November 19. 1679. FOrasmuch as all Letters of Horning are to be Registrate either in the Registers of the Shire where the Denounced Person dwells or in the general Register of Hornings keeped at Edinburgh and the Sheriffs Clerks and Keepers of these Registers in the Shires are by special Act of Parliament appointed to bring in those Registers to be marked by the Clerk of Register and when they mark the Registration of any Horning upon the Letters they should also insert therein the number of the leaves of the Register wherein the same is Registrate Which Order is renewed by Act of Regulation in Anno 1672. And the due observance hereof being of great Importance for the Benefite and Security of the Leidges Therefore the Lords do accordingly Ordain all Sheriff Clerks to bring in their Registers of Horning to be marked by the Clerk of Register and that in every Horning to be Registrate by them they insert at the marking thereof the particular leaf of the Register wherein they are Registrate and that the Sheriffâ— Clerk take in no Hornings to be Registrate in their Books but against Persons dwelling within their Shire And the Lords recommend to the Lord Register to take special care of the exact observance hereof And also Ordain the Clerk of the Bills not to receive any Bill of Caption or others upon any Horning not Registrate and marked in manner foresaid And Ordain Letters of Horning to be direct hereupon upon a Charge of fifteen dayes ACT against Sollicitation
December 24. 1679. THE which day the Lords considering that notwithstanding of the Act made against Sollicitation and verbal Information dated the sixth day of November 1677. years Yet some Persons are so bold as to venture to Sollicite the Lords in their Actions And it being the Resolution of the saids Lords that so laudable and necessary an Act be made effectual Therefore they declare that in any Process now depending or which shall hereafter be intented before them when the same comes to be advised they will purge themselves concerning their receiving any Sollicitation or Verbal Information in the Cause if it shall either be desired by the Partis or moved by any of their own number And that they will delate the Persons who do Sollicite or Verbally inform them that they may be punished therefore conform to the said Act. ACT anent the taking of Renunciations from Persons Inhibited February 19. 1680. THE Lords considering That it hath been the ordinary Custom of Debitors to make payment of sums due upon Wodset or Anualrent by Infeftment and to accept Renunciations or grants of Redemption from the Wodsetter or Annualrenter albeit the Credtor had been Inhibit before payment which being made bona fide the Debitors conceived themselves secure and that they needed not search Registers to find Inhibitions against the Wodsetters or Annualrenters Which hath tended much to the detriment of Creditors seing such Sums secured by Infeftment were not arrestable For remeid whereof the saids Lords declare that if the user of an Inhibition upon search of the Registers or otherway shall find Infeftments of Annualrents or upon Wodsets in favours of their Debitor being Inhibit and shall make intimation by Instrument of an-Nottar to the Persons who have Right to the Reversion of the saids Wodsets or Annualrents that the Wodsetter or Annualrenter stands Inhibit at their instance and shall produce in presence of the Partie and Nottar the Inhibition duely Registrat Then and in that Case the Lords will not sustain Renunciations or grants of Redemption although upon true payment not being made bona fide in respect of the Intimation unless the Redemption prcceed by way of action the Inhibiter being always Cited thereto or by Suspension of double Poynding upon consignation of the sums whereupon the Annualrent or Wodset is Redeemable And ordain this Act to be Printed and afixed upon the Wall of the Utter-house that the same may be known to all the Lelges ACT against Petitions for alteration of Acts Extracted February 24. 1680. THE which day the Lords considering That some times after Acts of Litis contestation are Extracted Petitions are given in to them by one of the Parties craving the Act to be altered wherein there may be prejudice to the other Partie concerned not being present nor at that time obliged to be present conceiving himself in tuto after Extracting of the Act. For remeid whereof the Lords declares that in time coming they will receive no Bills or Supplications for alteration of Acts after the Acts are warantably Extracted seing both Parties or either of them may have a sight or Scroll of the Act before Extracting if they desire the same And likewise because sometimes Bills are given in for adducing of Witnesses which have not been contained in the first Diligence but are alleadged to have come to Knowledge since the first Diligence was taken out or after taking out of the second Diligence whereby Witnesses come to be Examined when the other Partie is not present nor obleiged to attend that they may either object against the hability of the Witnesses or propone Interrogators to them Therefore the Lords do declare that in case upon any speciallity they do give warrant to Examine any Witnesses not contained in the first and second Diligence that they will only admit the saids Witnesses to be examined at the first and second Terms of Probation when both Parties are obliedged to attend His Majesties Letter in favours of the Lord Register anent the nomination of the Clerks of Session Iune 8. 1680. CHARLES R. RIght Trusty and well beloved Councellours and Trusty and well beloved We Greet you well Whereas by Our Letter to you of the 24. of May 1676. We did Ordain That the three Clerks of the Session who do Expede your Decreâ—ts shall be Nominated by the Senators of Our Colledge of Iustice in all time coming And that the Clerk of Register give them Deputations from time to time without prejudice to the Clerk of Register of all other Benefit and Emolument belonging to or depending upon that Office And seing the Office of Clerk of Register was then Vacant and that the Nomination of the Clerks of Session was always Inherent in and Depending upon the office of Clerk of Register And that since We have advanced Sir Thomas Murray of Glendook one of your number to the said Place And being well satisfied with the good Service done by him to Vs in the late Convention of Estates and upon several other occasions Therefore as a Mark of our Royal favour to him We do by these presents Recall our said Letter anent the Nomination of the Clerks of Session and do Impower Authorize and Appoint the the said Sir Thomas Murray during his enjoyment of the said Office of our Clerk of Register Solely to nominate and appoint the Clerks of Session So that upon Death Demission and Vacancy of any of the Clerks of Session the said Sir Thomas Murray is to grant Deputations to such Persons as he shall think fit and that during their Lifetime and shall as absolutely amply and freely use and exerce the said Office of Clerk of Register as any other Clerk of Register formerly did or might do declaring the same to be as Effectuall to the said Sir Thomas Murray as to his sole Nomination of the Clerks of Session as if it had been contained in his Gift of the Office of Clerk of Register And ordaining these Presents to be Recorded in your Books of Sederunt And so We bid you heartily Farewell Given at Our Court at Whitehall the twelfth day of November One thousand six hundred seventy and nine And of Our Reign the thirty one year Sic subscribitur By His Majesties Command LAUDERDAIL ACT concerning Nottars Iuly 29. 1680. THE Lords considering That by Acts of Parliament it is Statute and Ordained That Nottars be sufficiently Qualified for exercing that Office after examination by the Lords of Session that sufficient Caution be found for their due Administration of their Office and in case the Caution be not sufficient that new and better Caution be found and after the Decease of the Nottars their Protocalls are Ordained to be brought in to the Clerk of Register or his Deputs appointed by him to that effect who is impowred to Revise the Protocalls of all Nottars and consider in what Condition they are And albeit the due observance of these Acts of Parliament be a publick Concern as to the interest and
found by the Depositions of the Witnesses that that part of the Town of Inverness on the Northâ—side of the Water only had been in Possession by casting Peats in the Moss contraverted and that the same is a part of Month Kaplock and that the Pursuer had proven the Right of Property therein And therefore ordained the Town of Inverness on the other side of the Water to desist from the Moss contraverted and granted Commission to seâ—tle the Parties anent their place in casting in the Moss or in case of variance to Report Iean Dalmahoy contra Hamiltoun of Binnie December 6. 1661. JEan Dalmahoy Charges Alexandee Hamiltoun of Binnie for a Tack-Duty of 2000. merks due to her for her Liferent-lands he Suspends on this Reason that he has taken the benefit of the late Act of Parliament between Debitor and Creditor and this Sum being above 2000. merks stands thereby Suspended for six years The Charger Answers non relevat because the Act extends not to Rents or Tack-Duties of Lands albeit exceeding 1000. Pounds but only to borrowed Sums and other money bearing Annualrent which in Recompence of that forbearance are accumulat with the Principal Sums The Lords found the Act not to extend to Rents or Tack-duties and therefore repelled the Reason Iames Hoom contra Abraham Hoom. Eodem die JAmes Hoom as Assigney to a Reversion and order of Redemption used by the Earl of Hoom against Abraham Hoom pursues Declarator of Redemption and Removing in the same Process The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Reversion expressed not Assigneys and therefore the Defender cannot be oblieged to renounce to the Pursuer an Assigney Secondly At the time of the Confignation the Earl required the Wodsetter to Subscribe the Renounciation to a blank Person upon a back Bond declaring the same to the Earls behove which he was not oblieged to do by the Tenor of the Reversion Thirdly No Declarator till the Earl produce the Sum at the Bar seeing he lifted it himself The Lords found that albeit the Reversion expressed not Assigneys yet seeing the Order of Redemption was used by the Earl himself the Assigney had sufficient Right but Decerned the Defender to Renounce only in favour of the Earl and his Heirs but not to Dispone to any other Person as the Earl desired and Declared there should be no Decreet extracted till the Consigned Money were produced and given up neither did they decern in the removing till the Parties were further heard thereupon Alexander Tailzifer contra Sornebeg Eodem die ALexander Tailzifer as Heir appearand to umquhil Tailzifer of Redheus Pursues Mistresse Margaret Forrester his Uncles Relict and Iohn Schaw of Sornebeg her Husband for Exhibition ad deliberandum of all Writs granted not only to the Defunct but also granted by the Defunct to his said Relict or any other Person The Defender alleadged non relevat for Writs granted by the Defunct to the Defender or other Persons because albeit the Pursuer were entered Heir he had no interest for Exhibition thereof unlesse there were Clauses in his favour therein nemo tenetur edere instrumenta contra se and if this were sustained it were the way to make patent all the Charter Chists in Scotland at the Instance of appearand Heirs under pretence to Deliberat but in effect to pick Quarrels and find the weaknesse thereof The Pursuer answered maxime relevat for seeing the Law gives Heirs the benefit of Deliberation they must have the necessary means thereof by Inspection not only of the benefite but also of the burden of the Defunct without which they cannot know num sit damnosa haereditas Especially in this case against a Relict who probably might have had Influence upon the Defunct Husband to grant Right to her that might Evacuat the Heritage And in this case the appearand Heir had a more large Interest to crave Exhibition nor the Heir Entered who could only crave Exhibition for Delivery Transumpt or Registration and so behoved to Libel a peculiar Interest but the appearand Heirs Interest is only ad deliberandum And therefore the Exhibition as medium thereto must reach to all whereupon he ought to Deliberat Especially the Defuncts Debt and albeit it be true nemo tenetur edere instrumenta contra se to found or give Title to the Pursuers Action Yet he having Title by the Law to crave Inspection for Deliberation hath good Interest Yea if he produce a Title in himself he may even force the Defender to Exhibite Writes ad probandum by an incident as well as third Parties to whose Writ he hath no Right save only to bear testimony for him The Lords having heard this Case in their Presence because the Point had been variously Decided as to Writs granted by Defuncts found the Libel Relevant not only for all Writs granted to the Defunct but also granted by the Defunct to his Relict Bairns or Servants in his Family at the time of his Death being such Writs upon which no Infeftment followed for as to these they thought the Registers may give as much Evidence as was sufficient to Deliberate and would not upon this ground open Charter Chists for shewing real Rights and the plurality carryed that even Personal Rights granted to strangers should not be produced hoc modo severals being of the opinion that Debts Discharges and Personal Rights should be thus Exhibite In respect that Heirs in Scotland were lyable simpliciter for all the Defuncts Debts And therefore should have Inspection as well of his Debts as of his Estate as was found before between the Lairds of Swintoun and West-nisbit observed by Dury February 26. 1633. Katharine Kinross contra Laird of Nunthil December 10. 1661. KAtharine Kinross having Charged the Laird of Nunthil for payment of a Bond granted to her first Husband and the longest liver of them two and their Heirs which failzing his Heirs he Suspends on this Reason that she is but Liferenter and the Defunct being Infeft in Fee she would not Renounce but the Heir Which the Lords Sustained and found the Letters only orderly proceeded for the Annualrent The Earl of Roxburgh contra Mcdowal of Stodrick December 11. 1661. THE Deceased Earl of Roxburgh having obtained Decreet of the Commission for the valuation of Teinds in Anno 1635. against Mcdowal of Stodrick this Earl having Right from the Deceast Earl pursues Stodrick for payment of the valued Duty The Defender alleadged no Process because he had intented Reduction of the said Decreet and Improbation of a Procuratory mentionated therein to have been produced by Mr. Robert Trotter warranding him to consent for Stodrick to that Valuation which is the only ground of the Decreet without either Dispute or Probation In which Reduction Terms are taken to produce and being prejudicial to this Action it must be first Discussed The Pursuer answered that there can be here no prejudiciallity which is only betwixt two Principal Actions but here res est judicata by a Decreet
satisfying of these and in so far the Corns were not their own and so they could pay for no more Corns then their own neither could they be lyable for dry Multure unless it were Constitute by Writ especially seeing the Charger Libels not upon the Defenders Infeftment or Bonds of Thirlage but upon his own Infeftment only generally as Infeft in the Miln of the Barony The Lords Repelled these Alleadgences and Sustained the Decreet for all the Corns except Seed Horse-corn and Teind which tholled not Fire and Water within the Thirle Nicol Harper contra Hoom of Plandergaist Eodem die NIcol Harper pursues Collonel Iohn Hoom of Plandergaist for payment of a Debt of umquhil Hoom of Plandergaist his Brother and condescends that the Defender hath behaved himself as Heir at least Successor Lucrative to his Brother in so far as his Brother Disponed the Lands of Plandergaist to William Hoom of Linthil to the behove of the Defender then his appearand Heir whereupon the Defender is now in possession The Defender alâ—eadged non relevat to infer this passive Title unless the Disposition had been to the Defender himself or that he had thereupon been Infeft but a third Party being only in the real Right and the Defunct denuded before his death albeit there was a personal obliegment of Trust in Favours of the appearand Heir if that cannot make him Lucrative Successour but the Pursuer may reduce the same if it was without Cause onerous The Lords found the Defence relevant to Liberat the Defender from this passive Title but would not put the Pursuer to Reduction but admitted it by Reply ad hunc effectum that the Defender should be countable according to his Intromission and that the Pursuer as a lawful Creditor should be preferred upon his legal Diligence to the said Disposition But the question arising whether the Disposition if in trust was Lucrative or not and what to be Lucrative imported whether without any price or within the half or third of the just price The Lords before answer ordained the Disposition to be produced and such Adminâ—â—les for instructing of the â—nerous Cause as the Defender would make use of reserving to themselves what the samine should work Robert Dickie contra Theoder Montgomery Eodem die RObert Dickie as Assigney Constitute by Robert Montgomery to a Contract betwixt Theoder Montgomerie and the said Robert Charges Theoder to pay 700. merks He Suspends on this Reason that the Debt was Discharged before the Assignation or Intimation conform to the Discharge produced The Charger answered that the Discharge is null as wanting Witnesses The Suspender replyed he offered him to prove Holograph The Charger answered non relevat against him a singular Successor especially the question being of the Date For if Writs proven Holograph could instruct their own Date no Assigney or any other person using legal Diligence by Arrestment Appryzing or otherwise could be secure But that their Cedents and Authors might evacuat the Right by Discharges or Renunciatioâ— Holograph And therefore seeing by express Act of Parliamenâ— Writs wanting Witnesses are declared null The Exception introduced by Custom of Holographon ought not to be extended especially in relation to the Debitor against singular Successors The Suspender alleadged the inconvenience was alâ— great on the other hand it being ordinar for Masters to give their Tennents Holograph Discharges and whatever favour necessar Assignations by legal Diligence might have yet this is a voluntar Assignationâ— The Lords repelled the Reason of Suspension and Reply in respect of the answer and duplâ— and found the Holograph Discharge not to prove its own date against the Assigney unless the Suspender could instruct it by other Adminicles George Grant contra Grant of Kirdels Ianuary 15. 1662. GEorge Grant pursues Reduction of a Renunciation of a Wodset made by Grant of Morinsh to Grant of Kirdels ex capite inhibitionis because he had Inhibit Morinsh the Wodsetter before he granted the Renunciation The Defender alleadged that he had a Reduction of the Bond whereupon the Pursuers Inhibition was raised depending and declared he held the production satisfied and repeated his Reason by way of Defense that the Bond was null wanting a Date either of Day Month or Year The Pursuer answered that the Bond bare the Term of payment to be Whitsunday 1635. and so instructs that the Bond was betwixt Whitsonday 1634. and Whitsonday 1635. The Defender answered non relevat unless the Month and Day were also exprest because otherwise the means of Improbation cease by proving alibi The Lords Repelled this Defense seing the Year was exprest in re antiqua but if Improbation had been insisted on less Reasons in the indirect manner would be sustained The Defender alleadged further Absolvitor because this Bond albeit it be assigned to George Grant the Pursuer yet it is offered to be proven that the time of the Assignation the said George was Pupil within twelve years of age in his Fathers Family And so in Law it is presumed that it was acquired by his Fathers Means and is all one as if his Father had taken Assignation in his own Name and granted translation to his Son And it is clear by the Testament produced that grant of Ballandallochs Father was Tutor to the Wodsetter and during his Tutory any Right taken by him of sums due by the Pupil are presumed to be satisfied by the Pupils Means and to accresce to the Pupil against whom he nor his Assigney can have no Action for any particular apart but the whole must come in in the Tutors accounts and offers to prove if need beis that the Tutor intâ—s habâ—â—t being Debitor in greater sums to the Pupil then this The Pursuer answered First the Alleadgence is no way relevant upon such presumptions to take away the Right standing in the Defenders Person Secondly The Defense is not liquid and so can make no compensation albeit his Son were expresly Assigney as he is not The Lords found the Defense Relevant unless the Pursuer would condescend and instruct that the Assignation was granted to him otherwise then by his Fathers Means Thomas Fairholme contra Margaret Bisset Ianuary 18. 1662. THomas Fairholm as Executor Creditor Confirmed to Andrew Reid pursues Margaret Bisset his Relict to deliver the Ware in his Chop contained in the Pursuers Confirmation The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because she has Confirmed the Ware in the Shop specially and particularly for the use of the hail Creditors and the Pursuers Confirmation is only general not condescending upon the particular Ware And though the Defenders Confirmation be posterior yet it is special and hath attained Possession before any Pursuit at the Pursuers instance upon his prior Confirmation and Confirmations do not establish Property until Possession or Execution but is only as a legal Disposition incompleat as Gifts of Escheat where the first Sentence or Possession gives the first real Right of Property The Pursuer answered that his Confirmation
he expresly renunced the benefit of the Usurpers Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor and all such Acts made or to be made and oblidged himself upon Honour and Conscience not to prejudge Sir John of his bargain to which no subsequent Law could derogat unless it had been specially notwithstanding any such Paction Secondly The foresaid Act has an express exception That where such Acts made and to be made are Renounced the benefit of that Act shall not be competent to such The Pursuer Answerd to the first That Pactions or Renunciation of Parties cannot operat against a posterior Law Secondly The persuâ—t here is for restricting of a Wodset to the true Annualrent for all that was done in the Usurpers Act was to take Land in satisfaction and to delay payment but this Clause of the Act is nothing such and so is Casus Incogitatus which could not be held to be Renunced unless it had been exprest as to the exception in the Act it is not an Exception general to the whole Act but to the Antecedent part of the Act and this Clause anent Restricting of Wodsets is posterior to the Exception and not derogat thereby The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and found the Exception not to Derogat to the Posterior Clause concerning Wodsets Lord Burly contra Iohn Sime Ianuary 30. 1662. THE Lord Burly pursues Iohn Sime for intruding himself in a Coal-heugh wherein the Pursuers Author was infeft severally and not in the Land but only in the Coal with power to set down Pits through all the bounds of the Land The Defender alleadged absolvitor because he stood Infeft in the Lands lybelled with Parts and Pertinents and be vertue thereof was seven Years in Possession which must Defend him in Possession until his Right be reduced The Pursuer answered that the Defender could have no benefite of a possessory Judgement not being expresly Infeft with the benefite of the Coal in prejudice of the Pursuer who was expresly Infeft and Seased in the Coal and in possession of the Coals past memory The Defender answered there was no necessity of an express Infeftment of the Coal which is carried as part and pertinent as Craig observes in dieg de investituturis impropriis to have been decided betwixt the Sheriff of Air and Chalmers of Garthgirth and so being Infeft and in possession seven years he has the benefite of a possessory Judgement The Lords found the Defense Relevant but Repelled the same in respect of Interruption within seven years which was proponed Halbert Irwing contra Mckartney Eodem die HAlbert Irwing pursues Mckartney for Spuilzie of ten Oxen. The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because he Intrometted with the Oxen by Warrant from Mr. Robert Ferguson to whom the Pursuer had given a Disposition of all his moveable Goods for relief of a Cautionry for which Mr. Robert first and now this Defender is Distrest Secondly He offers him to prove voluntar Delivery of the Oxen by the Pursuer to him for the cause foresaid But because the Pursuer hath summoned several other persons as Complices which are necessary Witnesses of purpose that he might exclude them from being Witnesses he desires they may be admitted Witnesses or otherwise Discust First that if they be Assoilzied they may be Witnesses The Pursuer answered to the first non relevat a Disposition unless there had been Delivery and albeit there had been an Instrument of Delivery yet it being dispositio omnium bonorum two years before the medling could be no Warrant for summar medling without Sentence of a Judge and gave only jus ad rem But specially the medling with the Plough Goods in time of Labourage when the Pursuer put other Goods before the Defender The Lords found the first Defense Relevant founded upon the general Disposition and Instrument of Possession and that the Disposition alone though without any possession had been sufficient against the Disponer ad vitandum spolium unless the Defender had Intrometted by violence being resisted by force But they proceeded not to the second Defense which doubtless was Relevant and the desire reasonable of Discussing the remnant Defenders First that they might be Witnesses if Assoilzied Yea it seems they could not be hindred to be Witnesses used for the Defender though they might be suspect Witnesses against him as being Interest to put the Spuilzie upon him for their own relief Sir Iames Cunninghame contra Thomas Dalmahoy February 1. 1662. SIr Iames Cunninghame pursues Thomas Dalmahoy and the Tennents of Pollomount to make payment to him of the Mails and Duties of the Lands of Pollomount resting at the Death of the late Dutches of Hamiltoun because she had granted Bond of 500. pound Sterling to the Pursuer to be payed after her Death and for security thereof had assigned the Mails and Duties of her Liferent Lands of Pollomount which should happen to be due at the time of her Death It was alleadged for Thomas Dalmahoy her second Husband Absolvitor because these Mails and Duties belonged to him jure mariti neither can he be lyable for this Debt jure mariti because it was not Established against him during the Ladies Life neither could be because the term of payment was after her Death The Pursuer answered that he did not insist against Thomas Dalmahoy as Husband but as Intrometter with the Rents of Pollomount due at the Dutches Death wherewith he hath medled since which could not belong to him jure mariti being assigned before the Marriage and if they could belong to him jure mariti yet it must be with the burding of this Debt The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply for they thought a Husband albeit he was not lyable simply for his Wifes Debt post solutum matrimonij yet that he should have no more of the Wifes Means jure mariti but what was free of Debt and so behoved to pay her Debt so far as he enjoyed of her Means Belshes contra Belshes Eodem die IN an Account and Reckoning betwixt Belshes and Belshes concerning Executry The Lords found that the prices given up by the Defunct in his Testament of his own Goods should stand and the Executor be accountable accordinglyâ— seing there was no enorm prejudice alleadged as if the Defunct had prized the Goods within a half or third of the true avail to the advantage of the Executor and prejudice of the Wife Bairns or Creditors The Lords did also allow Aliment to the Wife out of her Husbands Moveables to the next Term albeit she Liferented an Annualrent payable at the next Term. Lord Melvil contra Laird of Fairin February 4. 1662. THe Lord Melvil pursues the Laird of Fairin for Warrandice of a Disposition of certain Lands aud Teinds sold to my Lord by him with absolute Warrandice and condescends that the Teinds were affected with 13. Bolls by a Locality to the Minister in Anno 1641. The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because this Distress was
Disposition in which there was an expresse Reservation of the Ladyes Liferent so that the Back-bond could import no more then securing of that Liferent The Pursuer answered these words conform to the Disposition were set upon the Margin of the Tickit which was all written by the Defenders hand and might have been added ex post facto 2. The Tickit behoved to import more then the Liferent because the Liferent was fullie and clearly reserved and oftimes repeated in the Disposition so that Clause had been frustrat Thirdly The oblidgment to deliver the Back-bond to the Ladies Husband after her Death could not be understood to be only in relation to her Liferent which and the Husbands interest should cease by her Death The Lords found the Tickit sufficient to instruct Trust but because the Terms of the Trust were not clear They before answer in Relation to the Probation of the Terms thereof Ordain the Parties to Compt and Reckon upon all Sums due by the Lady to the Defender in contemplation of the Trust that the same might be allowed and satisfied to the Defender before he be denuded Iames Slumond contra Wood of Grange Eodem die JAmes Slumond having charged Iames Wood of Grange to pay a Sum wherein he was Cautioner for the Laird of Balcaskie to Williiam Smith merchant in Edinburgh who constitute Richard Potter Assigny who transferred the same to the said Iames Slumond and Suspends The reason of Suspension was because this Bond was payed and retired by Balscaskie the principal Debitor who took a blank Translation thereto from Potter the Assigny which Translation with the Bond it self were surreptitiously taken out of his Coffer by Iames Hay who filled up this Chargers name therein likeas the Suspender produced a Declaration of Potter that the Sum was payed â—o him by Balcaskie and therefore the Suspender craved that the Oaths of this Charger the said Iames Hay and Potter and also the Witnesses who were present at the payment of the Sum might be taken before Answer Which the Lords granted albeit the Charger had the Translation for an oneâ—rous cause Children of Monsual contra Laurie of Naxweltoun February 14. 1662. THE Children of the Laird Monsuel as Executor to their Father pursues Laurie of Maxwelltoun for a Sum due by him to the Defunct who alleadged Compensation upon a Debt due by the Defunct Assigned to the Defender by the Defuncts Creditor after the Defuncts Death and intimat before any Citation or Diligence at the instance of any other Creditor The Pursuer replyed that Debt compensed on cannot take away this Debt pursued for solidum because the Defender as Assigny can be in no better Case then his Cedent and if he were now pursuing he would not be preferred fore his whole Sum but only in so far as the Testament is not yet exhausted or other prior Diligence done for an Executor having but an Office can prefer no Creditor but according to his Diligence much less can any of the Defuncts Debitors by taking Assignation from any of the Defuncts Creditors prefer that Creditor whose intimation is no Legal Diligence The Lords found that the Defender could be in no better Case then the Cedent and could have only compensation in so far as the Inventar was not Exhausted or prior Diligence used they found also that a Decreet against a Defender for making arrested Sums forthcoming at the Instance of an of the Defuncts Creditors was null because the Executor Creditor was not called thereto albeit Decreet was obtainedâ— at the Instance of that Creditor against another Executor in a former Process Lady Muswal Elder contra Lady Muswal Younger February 15. 1662. IN a Contention betwixt the Lady Muswall Elder and Younger upon two Annualrents out of one Barony The Lords Ordained the first Annualrenter to do Diligence within twenty days after each Term that after that time the second Annualrenter might do Diligence or otherwise at her option Ordained the Lands to be divided conform to the Rents Proportionably as the two Annualrents The second Annualrent and the first to take her choise Laird of Pitfoddels contra Laird of Glenkindy Eodem die IN the Revieu of a Decreet in one thousand six hundred fiftie nine at the Instance of the Laird of Pitfoddels against the Laird of Glenkindyâ— in which Decreet Glenkindy Cedents Oath having been taken that the Cause of the Bond was for an Assignation to a Wodset which was excluded by Apprizing after Report whereof Glenkindy the Assigny alleadged that his Cedents Oath could not prejudge him and it being Answered that he made no Objection before the Oath taken neither could make any Just Objection because the Oath of the Cedent any time before Intimationâ— is sufficient against the Assigny Glenkindy Answered that his being called in that Process as Assigny and compearing and Insisting as Assigny was an intimation which was before taking of the Oath which was found Relevant in the said Decreet and now rescinded by the Lords upon this consideration that the Citation being ad hunc offectum to instruct the cause of the Bond the insisting in that pursuite could not be such an intimation as to exclude the Cedents Oath Earl of Bedfoord contra Lord Balmirino February 18. 1662. THE Earl of Bedfoord for satisfaction of his Tocher due by his Father in Law the deceast Earl of Sommerset caused Adjudge in the name of a Person intrusted all Right compent to the Earl of Summerset of the Estate of Iedburgh and being Assigned to the Adjudication pursues the Lord Balmirino for denuding himself of two Apprisings of the Estate of Jedburgh conform to three Back-bonds produced granted by umquhile Balmirino to Summerset acknowledging that he had acquired Right to these Apprysings with Summersets own Money and therefore oblidged him to denude himself thereof The Defender alleadged that his Father being intrusted by the late Earl of Summerset to acquire the Estate of Iedburgh and having the Fee thereof in his Person the Defender is not oblidged to denude himself untill he be Re-imbursed and satisfied of all Sums of Money which after the said Back-bonds he payed for Summerset or advanced to Summerset which can only be accompted to have been in Contemplation of the Trust and is particularly so exprest in Summersets Letters produced bearing that Balmirino should be satisfied of what was due to him out of Tiviotdale whre the said Estate of Iedburgh lyes The Pursuer answered non relâ—vat against him as a singular Successor 2dly Non competit by way of Exception but the Defender hath only Action therefore especially this Trust being fidei-comissum which is a kind of Deposition in which there is neither Compensation nor Retentation competent 3dly there can be here no Compensation because the Debt is not Liquid The Defender answered his Defense stands must Relevant which he founds not upon Compensation but upon the Exception of Retentation which is competent in all Mandats and Trusts by which as there is a
Direct Action in favour of the Mandator against the Mandatar or Person intrusted so there is a contrare Action in favours of the Mandatar for satisfying of all that he hath expended by Reason of the Trust and which he may make use of beway of Exception of Retention if he be pursued and whatsomever by in Relation to Compensation in deposito by the civil Law or of the difference of Action and Exception yet thereby they and by our un contraverted Custom whatever is competent by way of Action is Competent by Exception and if this be not receavable by Exception it is utterly lost because there is none to represent Summerset The Lords considering that Balmirino's Estate was disponed and Apprysed by his Vncle the Lord Couper and William Purvis the Reversion whereof was shortly to expire which they would not lengthen and that by an accompt running to the expire of these Reversions the Pursuer being a Stranger might be frustrat therefore they Repelled the Defense but declared that Estate or benefit that Bedfoord should make thereby should be lyable to Balmirino for what Debt he should instruct to be due by Sommerset and withall supersâ—â—eded the Extract fâ—r a time that if in the meane time Balmirino should cause Couper and Purvis Restrict their Rights to as much Rents as would pay their Annualrents and secure Bedfoord in the rest of his Estate and in a certain Bond produced for what should be found due They would sustain the Defense by Exception and Ordain Compt and Reckoning Lord Carnagy contra Lord Cranburn February 19. 1662. THE Lord Carnagie being Infeft in the Barony of Dirltoun upon a Gift of Recognition by the KING pursues a Declarator of Recognition against the Lord Cranburn because the late Earl of Dirltoun holding the said Barony Ward of the KING had without the KING'S consent alienat the same to Cranburn and thereby the Lands had Re-cognized The Defender alleadged First No Process because he is minor non tenetur placitare super haereditate paterna Secondly The Re-cognition is incurred by the ingratitude and Delinquence of the Vassal yet delicta morte extinguntur so that there being no other Sentence nor Litiscontestation against Dirltoun in his own Life it is now extinct which holds in all Criminal and Penal Cases except in Treason only by a special Act of Parliament The Lords Repelled both the Defenses The First in respect that the Defender is not Heir but singular Successor and that there is no question of the validity of his Predecessors Right in competition with any other Right but the Superiours The other because Recognition befalls not as a Crime but as a Condition implyed in the nature of the Right that if the Vassal alienat his Fee becomes void Children of Wolmet contra Mr. Mark Ker. Eodem die IN a Declarator of Redemption at the the Instance of the Children VVolmet against Mr. Mark Ker. It was found that the Declarator needed not be continued though the Pursuer produced not the Reversion but an attestat double thereof and offered to prove that the principal Reversion was in the Defenders hands Which was sustained the Pursuers Right being an Appryzing Earl of Calender contra Andrew Monro February 20. 1662. THE Earl of Calender pursues Andrew Monro of Beercrofts for the valued Teind Duty of his Lands several years who alleadged absolvitor for the Teinds intrometted with by his Author preceeding his Right The Pursuer Replyed that Teinds being valued are like an Annualrent and are debiti fundi by the Act of Parliament 1633. anent Valuations The Teind-masters being appointed to be Infeft in the Right of the Teind according to the Valuation The Lords found the Defense Relevant and found the Teind not to be debitum fundi albeit valued Halbâ—rt Irvin contra Mackertnay Februarie 24. 1662. THis day in a Spulzie betwixt Halbert Irvin and Mackertnay The Defender principally called having proponed a Defense upon a Disposition and Delivery of the Goods in question and craving to prove the same by others of the Defenders called as accessory as necessary Witnesses alleadging that the Pursuer had called all that were present upon the ground as accessories that thereby he should get no Witnesses The Lords Ordained the Pursuer in the Spulzie to declare whether he would insist against these others as accessory or as applying any of the Goods to their own behove or if he would not allowed them to be received as Witnesses and if he did insist against them Ordained the Processe against the principal Partie to fist till the accessions were discussed that such of them as were assoilzied might be used as Witnesses Alexander Arbuthnet of Fiddes contra Keiths February 25. 1662. ALezander Arbuthnet of Fiddes pursues Keiths the two Daughters of John Keith and their Husbands for the avail of their Marriages belonging to him as Donatar by the Earl of Marischal their Superiour The Defenders alleadged First No Process because nothing produced to instruct that the Lands were Waird or that the Earl of Marischal is Superiour Secondly absolvitor from that Conclusion of the Summonsâ— craving not only the Ground to be Poynded for the avail of the Tocher but also the Defenders personally to pay the same Thirdly Absolvitor because the Earl of Marischal consented to the Defenders Marriage in so far as he is Witness in the Contract The Lords repelled all these Alleadgances The First in respect that Waird is presumed where the contrair is not alleadged and the Defender did not disclaim the Earl of Marischal as his Superiour The Second because they found that the avail of the Marriage did not follow the Value of the Land holden Waird but the Parties other Means and Estates also so that the avail of the Marriage might be much more worth then the profite of the Waird Land and therefore behoved not only to affect the Ground but the Heir or appearand Heir personally And as to the other Defense of the Earls consent it was after this Granted and was only as Witness neither is the profite of the Marriage as to the single avail taken away by having of the Superiours tacit consent but is a Casuality simply belonging to him which cannot be taken from him unless id agebâ—tur to renunce the benefite thereof yet it seems that the Superiour consenting to his Vassals Marriage can crave no greater Avail then the Vassal gets of Tocher Brown contra Iohnstoun February 26. 1662. BRown having obtained Decreet against Archibald Iohnstoun of Clachrie for two hundred pounds Sterling He raises Reduction and Review upon this Reason that the ground of the said Decreet was a Bill of Exchange drawn by Johnstoun to be payed by Mukgown in Blackainor-fair in England Ita est the alleadged Bill is null not Designing the Writer nor having any Witnesses neither hath it the Subscription of Johnstoun nor the Initial Letters of his Name but only a mark most easily Initiable which is Written about with an unknown hand Archibald Johnstoun
his mark it being reasoned amongst the Lords whether this could be accompted a Writ Probative and it being alleadged an Astruction thereof that this Johnstoun being a Merchant and a Drover was accustomed ordinarly so to Subscribe and to give Bills for far greater Sums then this The Lords thought it would be sufficient amongst Merchants though it wanted Witnesses but being unwilling via ordinaria to allow of such a Writ or Subscription for which we have neither Custom nor Decision Yet in respect of the Decreet and of the alleadged Custom so to Subscribe They before answer ordained the Oaths ex officio to be taken of the Writer of the Bill if he could be condescended on by either Party and of the Witnesses who saw Johnstoun Write this mark or receive the Money for which the Bill was granted Creditors of Kinglassie Competings Eodem die IN a Competition betwixt the Creditors of Hamiltoun of Kinglassie It was alleadged for William Hume who had Right to an Annualrent that he ought to be preferred to Joseph Lermont who stood publickly Infeft in the Property in Anno 1655. because albeit the Annualrent of it self was base yet long before it was validat by a Decreet for Poynding of the Ground It was answered that there was no way to make a base Infeftment valide but by Possession here there could be no Possession because the Annualrent was granted to take effect only after the Granters Death and the Decreet thereupon was obtained long before his Death and so could be repute no Possession The Lords were of Opinion that the foresaid Decreet of Poynding of the Ground upon the base Infeftment Ordaining the Ground to be Poynded the Terms of payment being come and bygone was sufficient to validate the base Infeftment and that thereby it remained no more a private Clandestine Infeftment by many other Questions falling in The Matter was laid aside without Decision vide February 27. 1667. Inter eosdem John Kinard contra Laird of Fenzies Eodem die JOhn Kinard pursues a Declarator of Property of a Myre or Marish in the Carss of Gowrie against the Laird of Fenzies who had his Land on the other side thereof alleadging that he and his Predecessors and Authors have been fourty years in Possession of the Myre as proper Part and Pertinent of the Barony of Rossie and that the same is severally kend and known by March and Meith and a Dyke inclosing it from the Defenders Lands It was alleadged for the Defender that he his Predecessors and Authors this fourty years has been in Possession of the said Myre by doing all the Deeds Libelled by the Pursuer which must give them Right at least of common Passurage Fail and Divot therein and therefore craves the Defense to be found Relevant and admitted to his Probation at least that a Cognition might be by an Inquest conform to the Act of Parliament and Witnesses led hinc inde The Pursuer Replyed that he offers him to prove that by the space of fourty years he his Predecessors and Authors Possessed the said Myre not only by the Deeds Libelled but also did divide the same in several Parcels to each Tennent in the Barony and was accordingly Possessed by them which is sufficient to show that they bruiked the same as Property and not a promiscuous Commonty And as for the Defenders Alleadgances of Commonty by common Pasturage c. The same ought to be Repelled because the Pursuer offers him to prove that he interrupted and debarred the Defender from time to time which hindered him to Acquire a Right of Commonty by Possession and Prescription and he cannot alleadge that he hath any other Right by express Infeftment and therefore being so much more pregnant then the Defender there ought to be no Cognition but he preferred in Probation The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Libel and Reply but granted Commission to one of their number to Examine Witnesses for the Pursuer omni exceptione majores after which the Defender passing from his Compearance The Lords Declared they would give the Extract of the Interlocutor to the Pursuer and give his Libel and Reply by way of Condescendence and Declaration of the manner of the Property and of his Possession to his Probation Viscount of Stormount contra Heirs of Line and Creditors of the Earl of Annandale Eodem die THE Viscount of Stormont pursues a Declarator against the Heirs of Line of Umquhil James Earl of Annandale and several Creditors of the said Umquhil Earl who had Appryzed the Lordship of Skoon and were Infeft thereupon to hear and see it found and declared that David Viscount of Stormount had Disponed these Lands to Mungo Viscount of Stormount his Brother and the Heirs-male of his Body which failzing to Andrew Lord Balvaird and the Heirs-male of his Body c. with this express provision in the Charter and repeated verbatum in the Seasine that it should not be leisom to the said Mungo or any of the Heirs of Tailzie for the time to alienate the Lands or alter the Tailzie or to do any Deed whereby the same may be evicted or Apprized from the Heirs of Tailzie otherwise their Right should expire and should belong to the next Heir of the Contraveener and that thereby Iames Earl of Annandale last Infeft had contraveened the said Clauses by contracting thir Debts whereupon the Lands were Apprised and thereby had lost his Right and that the saids Creditors Bonds and their Apprizings are thereby null and void and likewise that the said Iames Earl of Annandale his Retour was null and that the Pursuer might yet Enter as Heir to Mungo Viscount of Stormont as if the said Iames Earl of Annandale had never been Infeft The Defender alleadged First No Proses in this Order without a Reduction without which no Infeftment can be taken away The Lords Repelled this Alleadgence and found that a Declarator was al 's effectual as a Reduction when all was produced that was necessar to be produced before the ground of Nullity were Discussed with which all the rest will fall in consequence and that Reduction was only necessar to force tho Defenders to produce by the Certification but if the Defender would produce himself he might proceed by way of Declarator of Nullity Secondly The Defender alleadged no Processes because by the Co-ception of the Clauses irritant the Rights is declared to belong to the nearest Heir of the Contraveener and therefore the Pursuer as served Heir-male general to Andrew Lord Balvaird hath no Interest till he be served Heir-male to Iames Earl of Annandale the Contraveener in which case he cannot quarrel his Deeds or Debts The Pursuer answered that by Heir here cannot be understood the Heir actually served but the Person only that might be Heir for the Pursuer insisted in this same Processes against the Earl of Annandale when he was living and could not have been then excluded because he was not his heir
and therefore as is ordinar in all Clauses in relation to Heirs which cannot be effectual if Heirs served be understood their Heirs appearing are understood verba sumenda sunt cum effectu The Lords also Repelled this Defense Thirdly The Defenders alleadged absolvitor Because first Clauses de non alienando are never understood to extend to necessary alienations as for provision of the Feears Wife and Children for Redemption of him from Captivity or any other accident without his Fault Secondly Clauses de non Contrahendo debitum are against Commerce and utterly rejected Thirdly Clauses irritant are resolutive albeit contained in the Infeftment are but personal obliegements and the ground of an Action against the contraveener but if the Contraveener be denuded are not effectual against singular Successors Especially Creditors Contracting bonafide with one standing Infeft before the matter became litigious by Processes upon that Clause seing no Inhibition was used ita est thir Creditors had Apprized and were Infeft before any such Processes upon this Clause or Inhibition used and no personal provision could transmit the Right from Annandale to Stormount upon contraveening the Clausses nor could hinder the transmission thereof from Annandale who had the only real Right to the Creditors by vertue of their Appryzings and Infeftments which denuded Annandale of the real Right and which real Right stands now only in the Person of the Creditors Infeft so that there can be no more in Stormounts Person but a Personal Provision for the being within the body of the Infeftment will not make this Clause real and to affect the Right quo ad singulares successores more then the Clause of Warrandice in the Infeftment which without question reaches not singular Successors and albeit some Provisions in themselves Personal may affâ—ct singular Successors as the Provision that if two years run together the Feu shall become void or the Clauses of Reversion or the Inherent Clauses or quality in Ward holding but these become real by Law and Statute for we have a particular Act of Parliament anent Reversions to be effectual against singular Successors and another anent Feus â—b non solutum canonem and there is no other case that such Provisions are real The Pursuer answered to the fiâ—st albeit alienations do not comprehend judicial Alienations by Appryzing in Recognition and are oftimes not extended to necessar Alienations Yet here the Clause bears expresly not to altenat and also to do no Deed whereby the Laws may be Evicted and Apprized without which the Clauses de alienando were utterly ineffectual and repeats the same to tâ—e second As to the third albeit de facto the real Right be in the Appryzers Infeftment yet it is in them effected with that quality in the condition and bosome of it that gives good ground not only against the Earl of Annandale Contraveener to annul his Right But also the Apprizer in consequence quia resoluto jure dantis resolvitur jus accipientis Especially in Feudal-rights where provisionis investiturae sunt legis feudi as all Feudists agree and therefore all such Pactions and Provisions are equivalent to Law 2d This Clause of the Infeftment is not only resolutive but also is an Interdiction Prohibiting the Feear for the time to alienat or do any Deed prejudicial without consent of such other Persons of the Tailzie were Majors for the time and therefore though the Pursuer should enter Heir to Annandale he might annul these Rights just as in the Case of an Heir of an Interdicted Person who may annul all Rights by his Predecessors after the Interdiction The Defenders answered that as to this Point concerning the Interdiction it cannot be effectual because by a particular Act of Parliament all Interdictions are appointed to be published and to be Registrat in the Registers of Inhibitions otherways they are null This Interdiction is neither published nor Registrat in that Register The Pursuer answered it is al 's publick because it is not only in his Infeftment at the great Seal but it is verbatum in the first Seasine and repeated in the Earl of Annandales Retour and Seasine so as that the Creditors ought to have considered his condition when they lent him Money and known that he was Infeft otherwise their mistake though it might be alleadged to be bona fidae yet if Annandale hade never been Infeft their bona fides would have wrought nothing seing therefore they did it on their peril unless they knew he was Infeft and they could not know he was Infeft by inspection of his Seasine or of the Register but they behoved to know this Clause which is verbatum in it The Lords did also Repel this Defense and Duply in respect of the Reply and Triply and found the resolutive Clause effectual against singular Successours especially considering it was so publick and verbatim in the Seasine and that it was equivalent to an Interdiction Thirdly The Defender further alleadged absolvitor because the pursuer hadâ— behaved himself as Heir to the Earl of Annandale by Intromission with the Mails and Duties of the same Lands The Lords Repelled this Defense because the Pursuer having intented Declarator against Annandale in his own life they thought the provision was equivalent to an Interdiction which purged that passive Title Creditors of Kinglassie February 27. 1662. IN the Competition betwixt the Creditors of Kinglassie mentioned the former Day the Dispute anent the base Infeftment made publick by the poinding of the Ground so long before the Term of payment being reasoned before the Lords in presentia they sustained the same as before Marjory Chalmers contra William Dalgardno Eodem die MArjory Chalmers pursues William Dalgardno as vitious Intromettor with a Defuncts Goods to pay his Debt who alleadged absolvitor because the Rebel died at the Horn and so had no Goods Secondly The Defender hath the gift of his Escheat and also is Executor Creditor Confirmed to him Thirdly The Defender had a Disposition of all the Defuncts Goods albeit he possessed not thereby during his Life yet he might Enter in possession after his Death and not be vitious Intromettor The Lords found this Defense Relevant to elide the passive Title but prejudice to either Party to Dispute their Rights as to the simple avail of the Goods and they Repelled the first Defense and found the second and third Defenses Relevant only if the Gift was before the Intenting of this Cause William Hamiltoun contra Mcfarlane of Kirktoun February 28. 1662. WIlliam Hamiltoun pursues Iames Mcfarlane of Kirktoun as Successor titulo lucrâ—â—ivo to his Father to pay his Debt who alleadged absolvitor because he was not alioqui successurus in respect that at the time of the Disposition he had and hath an Elder Brother who went out of the Countrey and must be presumed on life unless the Pursuer will offer to prove that he was Dead before this Disposition so that at the time thereof the Defender was not
appearand Heir alioqui successurus because vita presumitur The Pursuer answered the Defense was not Relevant unless the Defender would be positive that the time of the Disposition his Elder Brother was on life especially seing he had been out of the Countrey twenty years and was commonly holden and repute to be Dead The Lords sustained the Defense that the Elder Brother was on life the time of the Disposition and reserved to their own consideration the Probation in which if the Defender proved simply that his Brother was actually living the time of the Disposition there would remain no question and if he prove that he was living about that time they would consider whether in this Case the presumption of his being yet living should be probative Paâ—rick Herron contra Martein Stevenson Iune 17. 1662. PAtrick Herron having obtained Decreet of Removing against Martein Stevinson he Suspends on this Reason that the Decreet was not upon Litiscontestation but a time being Assigned to the Suspender to find Caution for the violent Profits and he failing was Decerned without being admitted to any Defense and now alleadges that he ought not to remove because he obtained Decreet of Adjudication of the Lands in question against the common Author and thereupon charged the Superiour long before the Chargers Decreet of Adjudication or Infetment The Charger answered that the Reason ought to be Repelled because the Decreet was given against the Defender compearing and failing as said is Secondly The Charger stands Infeft upon his Adjudication The Pursuer was never Infeft neither did he use all Diligence to get himself Infeft not having Denunced the Superiour and in case he had Suspended Discussing the Suspension The Lords found the Reason Relevant and Proven and Suspended because they found no necessity for an Appryzer to use further Diligence against the Superiour then the Charge of Horning unless the Superiour had Suspended both and that in competition the other Party had done greater Diligence Earl of Marischal contra Charles Bray Iune 18. 1662. THe Earl of Marischal having obtained Decreet in his own Baron Court against Bray compearing for a years Rent of his Maines of Dunnottor herein he had been possest by the English Bray Suspends and alleadges compensation upon a Bond assigned to him due by the Charger who answered competent and omitted and so not receivable in the second Instance especially being Compensation which by special Act of Parliament is not to be admitted in the second Instance The Lords Sustained the Reason of Compensation and found that a Baron Court was not such a Iudicature as that Alleadgences competent and omitted that should be Repelled in the second Instance Mr. Iohn Wallace contra Forbes Iune 19. 1662. RObert and William Forbeses and Heugh Wallace being bound in a Bond as Co-principals Heugh Wallace being Distressed for all consigned the Sum to this Chargers Son Forbes Suspends on this Reason that there is no Clause of Relief in the Bond and Wallace being Debitor in solidum and having gotten Assignation confusione tollitur obligatio The Charger answered that though there was no Clauses of Relief hoc iâ—est where many Parties are bound conjunctly and severally that each is oblieged to relieve others The Lords Repelled the Reason of Suspension for the Suspenders part and found them lyable therefore but not for the other Co-principal Parties Isobel Drummond contra Iean Skeen Eodem die ISobel Drummond pursues Iean Skeen as behaving her self as Heir to her Brother Iames Skeen by uplifting the Mails of the Lands wherein he Dyed Infeft to fulfill her Contract of Marriage with Iames. The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the uplifted those Duties by vertue of her Infeftment being Served Heir to Iohn Skeen Son to Iames Skeen the Pursuers Debitor who was Infeft not as Heir to his Father Iames but as Heir to her Good-sire The Pursuer answered in respect to the Defenders Seasine or to Iohn Skeens which were evidently null seing Iames Skeen was Infeft and so John could not pass over him to his Goodsire and if any regard were to such Infeftment it would open a Door to all Fraud and abstracting of Defuncts Creditors Evidents The Lords found the Defense Relevant to purge this viticus passive Title seing the fâ—â—â—zie was not in this Defender but in John Skeen his Brother Son but prejudice to Reduce as accords but ordained her to Renunce to be Heir to James that Adjudications might be obtained Mr. Alexander Vernor contra George Allan June 24. 1662. MR. Alexander Vernor as Executor to Mr. David Calderwood Charges George Allane to pay a part of the Defuncts Stipend as he who intrometted with the Teinds of the Lands lyable therefore whereupon he had obtained Decreet The Suspender alleadged that the Decreet was in absence and any intromission he had was only as a Merchant having bought from Sir Alexander Auchmutty the Heretor to whom he made payment bona fida before any Arrestment or Pursuit against him The Charger answered non Relevat because the Suspender is oblieged to know that by Law the Teinds are lyable for the Ministers Stipend Secondly He offers him to prove that the Suspender did not make his Bargain for so many Bolls of Victual but that he took Disposition of the Corns ipsa corpora before they were drawn The Lords found the answer Relevant to elide the Reason and found the Defender lyable for the tenth part of the Cornes he bought Robert Hay contra Hoom of Blackburn Eodem die RObert Hay Tailzior pursues Hoom of Blackburn as representing his Father upon all the passive Titles to pay a Debt of his Fathers The Defender alleadged absolvitor because there was nothing produced to instruct the Debt but an Extract out of the Register bearing the Bond to have been Registrated by his Fathers consent whereas it is nottour and acknowledged by the Summons that his Father was Dead long before the Date of the Registration The Pursuer answered the Extract is sufficient to instruct the verity of the Bond being in a publick Register of the Session alb it the Defunct was Dead the time of the Registration which might have been the Creditors mistake and cannot prejudge them seing vitapresumitur especially now when through the loss of the Registers principal Writs cannot be gotten The Defender opponed his Defense and the Decisions of the Lords lately in the like case concerning the Earl of Errol because nothing can instruct against any man but either a Writ Subscribed by him or the Sentence of a Judge upon Citation or consent and this is neither The Lords refused the Extract simply but ordained the Pursuer to condescend upon Adminicles for instructing thereof either by Writ or Witnesses who saw the Bond c. of Woodhead contra Barbara Nairn Eodem die WOodhead pursues Barbara Nairn for the Mails and Duties of certain Lands The Pursuer alleadged absolvitor because she Defender stands Infeft in Liferent of these Lands It was Replyed The Defenders Husband
Nottar as Town Clerk for the time The Lords sustained the alleadgeance to prefer Mackitrick The Executors Mr. Iames Fairly Minister of Leswald contra the Parochiners Iuly 5. 1662. THE Executors of Mr. Iames Fairly having obtained Decreet before the Comissaries against the Parochiners for the Ann as being the hail Year 1658. In respect the Minister died in February in the Year 1658. The Decreet was Suspended on this Reason that the Ann could only be half a Year seeing the Minister died before the Sowing of the Cropt or Whitsonday because if a Minister serve after Whitsonday he has the half of that years Stipend albeit he be Transported or Deposed otherwayes if a Minister should serve the whole Year till Michalmass day and then be Transported or Deposed he should get nothing so that the Ann being half a years Stipend more then the Minister served for he having only survived till Michalmes 1657. Has only the right to the Michalmes proprio jurae and half a Year thereafter as the Ann. The Charger answered That in Teinds and Stipends there are not two Terms but Michalmes for all and therefore if the Incumbent be disposed or transported before Michalmes he has nothing that Year but if he die after Michalmes any time before the beginning of the nixt Year proprio jure he has the Year he died in and the half of the next as his Ann but if he live till Ianuary in the year ensuing he has that whole year as his Ann. Which the Lords found relevant and therefore the Lords found the Letters orderly proceeded Duncan Drummond contra Colline Campbel Eodem die DVncan Drummond pursues Colline Campbel for payment of a Debt of his Fathers because in a Writ betwixt his Father and him The Father had Disponed all his moveables to him and he had undertaken his Fathers Debt whereby the Pursuer as Creditor had interest to pursue him to pay this Debt The Defender having alleadged that the Band and Disposition was never a delivered Evident either to the Father or to the Son but two blanks subscribed by them both were put in the hands of a Nottar to fill up the Bond and Disposition but before delivery both Parties resyled and desired the Nottar to Cancell and Destroy them yet Eight or Nine Years after the Nottar gave them up to this Pursuer and neither to the Father nor to the Son and the Question being how this should be proven The Lords before answer Ordained the Nottar and Witnesses insert to be examined ex Officio which being done their Testimonies proved as is alleadged before Then the Question was in jure whether the Depositation of Writs could be proven any other way then by the Oath of the Partie in whose favours the Writs were conceived he having the same in his hands The Lords found that seeing these two Writs were not produced by the Father nor the Son by and to whom they were mutually granted but by a third Partie in whose favours a Clause therein was conceived in that case the deposition probable by the Writer and Witnesses insert and by the saids Testimonies found the Writs null Robert Bones contra Barclay of Iohnstoun Iuly 9. 1662. RObert Bones having arrested certain Goods and Bestial as belonging to Iohn Wood his Debitor in the hands of Barclay pursues for making the same forthcoming The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Goods Lybelled the time of the Arrestment were the Defender proper Goods Disponed to him by the said Iohn Wood for anterior Rests and Debts and delivered also before the Arrestment It was Replyed The Defense ought to be repelled because Wood the Disponer was Rebell and at the Horn before the delivery of the Goods at the Pursuers instance and whereby the Tradition being after the Horning the Disposition is null as being incompleat before the Horning and after the Horning the Rebel could do nothing to prejudge the KING or his Donatar or the Pursuer for the Debt whereupon he was denuded which by the Act of Parliament one thousand six hundred twenty one affects the Escheat Goods ubicunque The Defender answered That the Reply is not Relevant unless it were alleadged that the Horning had been before the Disposition for it is lawful for Creditors either to Poynd Arrest or take Dispositions of their Debitors Goods though Rebel being for Debts anterior to the Horning if the Disposition and Delivery be prior to Declarator neither can the Act of Parliament one thousand six hundred twenty one against Dispositions in defraud of Creditors operat here because the Disposition is anterior to the Horning and for an onerous cause The Lords found the Defense Relevant notwithstanding the Reply Laird of Lamertoun contra Hume of Kaimes Iuly 10. 1662. HOom of Kaimes being Infeft upon an Appryzing of the Lands of Northfield led against Lamertoun pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties and obtains Decreet which was Suspended and Reduction thereof raised on this Reason that it was spreta authoritate judicis there being an Advocation judicially produced before the Sheriff before pronouncing at least before the Extracting of this Decreet in so far as the Suspender came to the Sheriff Court at the ordinar time of the Court Day at eleven hours and produced the Advocation but the Sheriff had fitten down that Day contrair his Custom at ten hours and had pronounced the Decreet before eleven hours The Charger answered non Relevat that the Advocation was produced before Extract not being before Sentence pronounced because albeit inferiour Judges are accustomed sometimes to stop their own Decreets after they are pronounced before Extracting yet sententia definitiva est ultimus actus judicis and the Extract is but the Clerks part so that it can be no contempt albeit the Judge would not prohibite the Extract and as to theâ— other Member that the Sheriff sat his Court an hour before the ordinar time non Relevat unless he did it of purpose to anticipat this Advocation The Lordâ— found the first member of the Reason that the Advocation was produced before Extract after Sentence non Relevat and as to the other member they found it relevant as it is circumstantiat to infer that it was done of purpose to anticipat the Advocation without necessity to prove otherwayes the purpose and in that case declared if the same were proven they would turn the Decreet in a Libel Iohn Ker contra Ker of Fernilee and others Eodem die IOhn Ker having granted a Bond whereupon he being Charged to Enter Heir to several persons his Predecessors and having renounced their Lands were adjudged John took Assignation to the Adjudication himself and pursues the Defenders for exhibition of the Rights and Evidents of the Lands and Delivery thereof The Defender alleadged absolvitor First Because the pursuit being upon the Pursuers own Bond now again Assigned to himself confusione tollitur obligatio The Lords Repelled this Defense Secondly absolvitor because the Pursuer can have no Interest upon
also produced three Contracts betwixt umquhil Lambertoun and Kennedy at Striveling upon the ninth of August 1651. by the last of them Kennedy was oblieged to deliver Lambertoun the Bonds for such several Sums he obtaining the Lady Levins consent of all these the Writer and Witnesses were dead and the Date proven to be false In this Process the Lords having considered all the indirect Articles of the Improbation in respect that these Writs in question were never in the alleadged Creditors hands and that there was not one Witness that did Depone that either they remembred to have Subscribed any of these Writs themselves or that they saw either the Parties or any other of the Witnesses Subscribe or any thing communed done or acknowledged by either Party contained in the Writs and that the Subscription of Watson one of the Witnesses in all the Bonds was by comparison with other contraverse Writs about the same time altogether unlike his Subscription and that the Word Witnesses adjoyned to the Subscription of all the VVitnesses did appear to be so like as written with one hand They found sufficient ground to Improve the foresaids writs besides many pregnant presumptions from Kennedies inclination and carriage which being extrinsick were accounted of less value and yet the astructions aforesaid and presumptions on that part were so strong that several of the Lords were unclear simply to find the Bonds false but not authentick probative writs VVilliam VVachope contra Laird of Niddrie Iuly 15. 1662. THe said VVilliam VVachope pursues Niddrie his Brother to pay him eleven pound Sterling for many years which he promised to pay him by a missive Letter produced bearing a Postscript of that nature The Defender alleadged absolvitor First because the Postscript is not Subscribed and so no sufficient Instrument to prove Secondly there is no ground for eleven pound Sterling yearly therein because the words are I have sent you five pound ten shillings Sterling now and I have sent you five pound ten shillings Sterling at VVhitsonday and you shall have as much as long as you live if you carry your self as ye do now which words as long as ye live cannot be understood Termly but yearly nor can relate to both the five pound ten shillings Sterling but only the last to which is adjected Donations being of strick Interpretations Thirdly The words foresaid cannot import a Promise but only a Declaration of the Defenders resolution to continue the same free kindness to his Brother which resolution he may recal at any time Fourthly The Promise is conditional quamdiu se bene gesserit wherefore the Defender can be the only Interpreter and declares that since his Brother hath not carried himself so well the meaning of such words being only this If so long as in my opinion you carry your self so and not according to the opinion of any other The Pursuer to the first Defense opponed the Letter which is holograph and albeit the Postscript be after the Subscription yet seeing it can have no other construction then to be done as a part of the Letter and not as other unsubscribed Papers whereanent it is presumed the VVriter changed his mind and left them imperfect and unsubscribed which cannot be here seeing the Letter was sent To the second he opponed the terms of the Letterâ— To the third alleadged omne verbum de ore fideli cadit in debitum and by these words can be understood nothing else but a Promise which is ordinarly made in such terms The Lords found not the first Defense Relevant per se but found the remnant Defenses Relevant and assoilzied VVilliam Swintoun contra Iuly 18. 1662. THe said VVilliam Swintoun having used Inhibition against at the Cross where he lived she falls Heir thereafter to another Person and immediatly Dispones that Persons Lands whereupon William raised Reduction of that Right ex capite inhibitionis The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Lands Dâ—poned ly not within the Shire where the Inhibition was used Therefore replyed the Land fell to the Inhibit Person after the Inhibition and the Pursuer did all he was oblieged to do or could do till that time which if it was not sufficient Creditors will be at a great loss as to Lands acquired or succeeded in alter Inhibitions The Lords found the Defense Relevant that the Inhibition could not extend to Lands in other Shires bâ—falling to the Inhibit after quocunque titulo but that the Pursuer ought to have Inhibit de novo or published and Registrat in that Shire seeing all Parties count themselves secure if no Inhibitions be Registrat in the Shire where the Lands ly without inquiring further Lord Frazer contra Laird of Phillorth Eodem die THe Lord Frazer pursues Declarator of Property of the Barony of Cairnbuilg against the Laird of Phillorth as being Infeft as Heir to his Father who was Infeft as heir to his Grand-father who was Infeft upon the Resignation of Frazer of Doors and also upon the Resignation of the Laird of Pitsligo who was Infeft upon an Appryzing led against Doors and also as being Infeft upon an Appryzing at the instance of one Henderson led against Doors and declared that he insisted primo loco upon the two first Rights flowing from Doors and Pitsligo The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Defender in an Improbation against the Pursuer and his Father obtained Certification against Doors Seasine so that it being now improven all the Rights Libelled on falls in consequentiam because Doors is the common Author to them all and if he had no real Right all their Rights are a non habente potestatem so that now the Pursuer has no more in his Person but a Disposition made by Phillorth's Grand-father to Doors and a Charter following thereupon and is in the same case as if Doors upon that ground were craving declarator of Property which he could not do nor would the Lords sustain it albeit there were no Defender because that can be no Right of Property where there is no Seasine The Pursuer answered 1. That the Defense is no ways Relevant nor is the Pursuer in the case of a Declarator upon a Disposition or Charter without a Seasine because he produces a progress of Infeftments and is not oblieged hoc ordine to Dispute Doors his Authors Rights as being a non habente potestatem which is only competent by way of Reduction some representing Doors his Author being called 2ly The Defense is no way competent to this Defender unless he alleadge upon a better Right then the Pursuers for the Pursuer hath done all that is requisit to instruct his Declarator by production of his Infeftments and his authors Rights are presumed and need not be instructed and albeit the Defender be called yet he cannot quarrel the Pursuers Authors Right or hinder his Declarator unless he alleadge upon a more valide Right in his own Person 3ly The Defense ought to be Repelled as proponed by this Defender
because he represents Frazer of Phillorth his Grand-father who Disponed the Lands in question to Doors and was oblieged to infeft him and did de facto resign in the Kings hands in his favour and so personally objection umquhil Phillorth Doors Author would be for ever excluded from objecting against Doors Right which flowed from him so neither can the Defender who represents him object against the Pursuer who is Successor in Door 's Rights The Defender answered that being called albeit he had no Right in his Person he might propone a Defense upon a Nullity in the Pursuers Right viz. that it is a non habente potestaâ—mâ— which is very competent here by exception This Declaâ—ator â—eing judicium petitorium wherein he may well repeat this Defense without necessiâ—y to call Doors because Doors being called in the Improbation all Infeftments in his Person are Improven for not production and so the Reason is instantly verified and albeit he were Successor to his Grand-father which he denys yet he may well alleadge that any Right flowing from his Grand-Father is personal and incompleat and can be no ground of Declarator of Property The Lords repelled the Defenses and found it not competent to the Defender to quarrel the Pursuers Authors Right unless he had a better Right Skeen contra Lumsdean Iuly 19. 1662. SKeen having Charged Alexander Lumsdean upon a Bond granted by Mr. Thomas Lumsdean as principal and the said Alexander as Cautioner he Suspends on this Reason that the cause of the Bond was Bills of Exchange drawn by Verhage upon Kezar in Camphire to be payed to Skeen or his Order which Bills Skeen ordered to be payed to Mr. Thomas Lumsdean's Wife and Mr. Thomas granted the Bond charged on for the saids Bills which Bills were protested upon Kezar's not paying of the Bills as the Protest bears To which protested Bills Mr. Thomas Lumsdean assigned the Suspender and whereupon he now alleadges that he must have allowance of the Bills protested being the cause of the Bond and therefore Skeen himself is lyable for the Bills which must compence the Charger The Pursuer answered that the Reason ought to be repelled because he offered him to prove that albeit the bills were protested for not payment by Kezar on whom they were drawn yet Mr. Thomas Lumsdean having gone back to Verhage who drew them Verhage payed Mr. Thomas and that before the Intimation of the Suspenders Assignation 2ly That Mr. Thomas Lumsdean being Factor in Camphire in his Factor Book upon the 109. page thereof there are four posts of Payment payed by the said Verhage to Mr. Thomas Lumsdean at diverse times conform to the Magistrates of Camphire their report upon the Lords Commission bearing that the said Factors Compt Book is Authentick and unvitiat and that Verhage who drew the Bills and Kezar upon whom they were drawn had both sworn before them that Verhage had payed the same to Lumsdean so the question was upon the manner of probation whereanent the Suspender alleadged 1. That Compt Books not being subscribed were not probative Writs even against the Merchant himself 2ly That at least they cannot prove against the Suspender his Assigney 3ly That they could be no better then Holograph Discharges by the Cedent which cannot instruct their own Date against the Assigney and so cannot prove the same to have been before the Intimation as for the Testimonies of Verhage and Kezar their Testimonies cannot take away Writs and yet are suspected being both Debitors for the Bills and that it was not instructed who write the Book whether Lumsdean himself or his ordinar Book Keeper The Lords found the Probation sufficient against the Assigney the Charger also proving that the Books were written by Lumsdean himself or by his â—rdinar Book-keeper and thought that the Book proved against this Assigney being Mr. Thomas own Brother and no suspition he would wrong him and there being four several Posts of payment in several Months besides the Depositions of the foresaids persons Fiddes contra Iack Iuly 19 1662. FIddes pursues Iack for payment of a Bond of 500. merks which Iack acknowledged to have received in custody form Fiddes to be keeped as his own Iack alleadged that he had but the custody and did conform to his Obligation he sent the Money to Dundee in Anno 1650. where he lost both it and much more of his own at the plunder of Dundee The Pursuer answered no way granting that his Money was lost at Dundee yet it ought not to liberat the Defender because he oft-times required and desired the Defender to pay him his Money before the plundring of Dundee and seing he did not then give it it was lost upon the Defenders hazard The Defender answered that any requisition was made was but verbal without Instrument and that it was made to the Defender being in Edinburgh after this Money and the Defenders whole means was sent to Dundee for safety and that at the time of any such desire he shew the Pursuer so and bid him send for it to Dundee when he pleased he should have it The Lords before answer having ordained Witnesses to be examined hinc inde and having advised the same found that the Pursuer did desire his Money and at that same time the Defender told him it was at Dundee and said he might have it when the pleased to send for it and Witnesses also proved that he was at Dundee and was in esteem as a man of good means then and that he was there aâ—the plunder of Dundee and ever since was in a poor miserable condition and some of them deponed that he had a considerable sum of Money far above this in question there The Question was whether this probation was sufficient to assoilzie albeit none of the Witnesses did particularly Depone that they knew the Pursuers Money to have been at Dundee and lost there Tâ—e Lords found that the probation was sufficient the Pursuer giving his oath in Supplement that it was there and lost there for they considered that at the time of the Pursuers Requisition the Witnesses proved the Defender declared it was there and that ex natura rei it was hard to prove particularly this Mony being a Fungible to have been lost there but that it behoved to be presumed so seing the man lost his whole means there and hath been poor ever since Montgomery of contra Eodem die MR. William Wallace having obtained a Disposition of the Lands of Hagburn from Thomas Hunter he gave a Back-bond oblieging him to sell the same at the best avail and as a part of the price to pay a Bond of Provision to Thoma's Sisters and Brother granted by their Father and having retained his own Sums and such as he was Cautioner for was oblieged to count for the rest and being first pursued before the Englishes and now before the Lords he was decerned to take the Lands at sixteen years purchase and a half and to count
it be by Intromission with the Mails and Duties of the Lands Appryzed conform to the Act of Parliament 1621. but no other payment or satisfaction by the Debitor is sufficient to take away an Infeftment contra singularem successurum The Lords Repelled the Defense founded upon Lovits Appryzing in respect of the Reply of satisfaction thereof and found no necessity to alleadge that the Person having Right to the Appryzing was otherways denuded the by acknowledgement of payment or satisfaction and that there needed no formâ—â— grant â—f Redemption or Renunciation Registrat conform to the Act of Parliamâ—n anent the Registration of Seasings Reversions c. wâ—ich the Lords found only to extend to Wodsets properly so called and not to Appryâ—zings neither yet to an Infeftment for Relief whereunto the Rents were not to be only for the Annualrent of the sum but to satisfie the Principal and therefore seing the Lords found that the only Right was in the Defenders Grand-father and that he Disponed to the Defender that he could be in no better case then his Grand-father as to the Disposition granted by his Grand-father without a Cause Onerous being after the Disposition of the same Lands by that same Grand-father to the Pursuers Author but found it not necessar to determine the Case of lucrative Successor as it was here stated to make the Successor lyable to all his Predecessors Debts Iames Birsbine contra Iohn Monteith Iuly 24. 1662. JAmes Birsbine pursues Iohn Monteith as Cautioner for Iohn Birsbine who was Executor to the Pursuers Father for payment of the Pursuers Legacy The Defender alleadged no Processe because the Executor himself is not Discussed and the Cautioner is only lyable subsidiary The Pursuer Replyed there is a Decreet obtained against the Executor produced and there was no further Discussing requisite because he is broken and the Pursuer is content to assign the Debt to the Cautioner The Defender answered non Relevat for a Decreet is no sufficient Discussing but there must be Registrat Horning at least albeit the Executor had neither Lands nor Moveables to Poind or Apprise The Lords sustained the Defense and found the Reply not Relevant till the Registrate Horning were produced Alexander Shed contra Robert Gordon and David Kill Eodem die ALexander Shed pursues Robert Gordon Pupil as lawfully Charged to enter Heir to his Father to pay a Debt of his Fathers compears David Kill the Pupils Uncle who was Tutor nominat to him but refused to accept and therefore shunned to propone any Defense in the Pupils own nameâ— least it should be an acceptance or gestio and therefore produced a Bond of the Defuncts and as Creditor alleadged that he would not suffer his Debitors Estate to be affected in his prejudice and offered him to prove that the Debt pursued on was satisfied The Question was whether he had Interest as Creditor to propone this Defense The Lords having considered the Case amongst themselves found that where Creditors in this manner compeared it is not cnmpetent to allow their Defense because it may delay the other Creditors pursuing so that a third Creditor may be preferred in Diligence and therefore they Repelled the Defense hoc loco but declared that it should be receivable against the Pursuer whenever he should pursue for affecting any of the Defuncts Means or Estate in the same case as now Mr. Patrick Weyms contra Mr. Iames Cunninghame Eodem die MR. Patrick Weyms having an Order of Parliament for a Terms vacant Stipend of the Paroch of Leswade Mr. Iames Cunninghame alleadged that Terms Stipend was not vacand but belonged to him as incumbent viz. Whitsonday 1659. because he was admitted before Michalmess 1659 and shortly after Whitsonday and so the legal Terms of Stipends not being divisable at two Terms but at Michalmess joyntly he being incumbent before Michalmess hath the whole year The Lords Repelled this alleadgence but preferred Weyms and found that Ministers had Right to their Stipend Termly and if he entered before Whitsonday he had Right to the whole year and if after VVhitsonday and before Michalmess but to the half Barbara Naesmith contra Iohn Iaffray Iuly 25. 1662. BArbara Naesmith pursues Iohn Iaffray her Son as Heir and Executor to his Father for payment to her of her umquhil Husbands hail Means and Eschaeat by vertue of a Missive Letter written by the Defunct her Sponse bearing that if he happen to die before his return that his VVife should do with what he had as she pleased that he thought it too little for her but he desired her to Discharge a 1000. Pounds or a 1000. Merks to his Brother Alexander and 500. Merks to his Sister Magdalen if she follow her advice The Lords having formerly found that this Letter was donatio mortis causa or a Legacy and so could only affect Deads part It was now further alleadged that by the pursuers Contract of Marriage he was oblieged to imploy 6000. merks on Land or Annualrent to him and her and the longest liver of them two and to the Bairns to be gotten betwixt them which failzing his Heirs This Obliegement to imploy being a Debt the Moveables must be lyable for it primo loco and the Pursuer can only have Deads part of the remainder of free Goods The Pursuer answered that this Destination being on Heretable Clauses cannot affect the Moveables 2ly The Bairns cannot have Right thereto till they be Heirs and so they will be both Debitors and Creditors and the Obligation will be taken away by Confusion The Lords found this Defense Relevant notwithstanding of the Answer and that albeit the Clause was Heretable quoad creditorem yet it was Moveable quoad debitorem and so behoved to be performed out of the Defuncts Moveables and that the entring thereto would not take away the Obliegement by Confusionâ— more then one paying a moveable Debt wherein he is both Debitor and Creditor yet he will have action of Relief against the Executors out of the Moveables It was further alleadged that in the said Missive there are two particular Legacies left to the Defuncts Brother and Sisters which must abate the general Legacy The Pursuer answered that both Legacies were only left thus I wish c. which cannot be obligator nor constitute an effectual Legacy but is only a desire or recommendation left in the Pursuers option and for Magdalens Legacy it was conditional the following the Pursuers advice which she did not but left her contrair her will The Defenders answered that verba optativa were sufficient in Legacies at least were sufficient to make a fidi commissari Legacy because all fidi commissis either for restoring the Inheritance or for restoring Legacies in the Civil Law were in such Terms and albeit such words would not be sufficient intor vivos yet favore ultimo voluntatis where the Defuncts will howsoever manifested is the Rule and so is most extended such words are sufficient as to the condition in Magdalens Legacy
Infeftment in Possession 7. years before the warning by vertue of a Gift of ultimus haeres granted by the English Exchequer The Pursuer answered ought to be Repelled because the foresaid Gift is null ipso jure in so far as it is not confirmed by the late Act of Parliament anent judicial proceedings in the Usurpers time wherein Gifts of Bastardy and ultimus haeres were excepted The Defendet answered 1. That his Infeftment being cled with 7. years Possession cannot be taken away by exception neither is he oblieged in hoc judicio possessorio to Dispute the validity thereof 2ly The said Act of Parliament doth not declare it null much less null by Exception such Gifts but doth only not confirm them The Lords Repelled this Defense and found the Infeftment null in it self seing it was not confirmed The Defender further alleadged absolvitor from this warning because the Pursuers Gift is not yet decalred It was answered for the Pursuer no necessity of Declarator because it cannot be ever made appear that any such thing was required or was in Custom and Use more then in the case of a Gift of Ward or a Gift of Forefaultry The Lords found that this Gift behoved to be declared in the same way as a gift of Bastardry William Zeoman contra Mr Patrick Oliphant WIlliam Zeoman as having Right by an Appryzing to the Lands of Newton pursues Mr. Patrick Oliphant to hear and see it found and declared this his Appryzing was satisfied by Intromission with the Mails and Duties within the Legal The Defender alleadged Appryzing cannot be satisfied by his Intromission because any Intromission he had was by vertue of other Rights viz. Mr. Iames Oliphant the common Author having killed his own Mother and thereupon he being declared Fugitive not only upon the Paricide but upon a Criminal Dittie againstâ— him upon committing Murder under Trust which is Treason The Defender obtained Gift of his Forefaultry and thereupon stands Infeft and in Possession The Pursuer answered non Relevat 〈◊〉 Because the Act of Parliament against Paricide doth not declare it to infer Forefaultry but only that the committer thereof should be excluded from Succession and as to the committing of Slaughter under Trust the Act of Parliament expresseth what it meaned by Trust viz. though getting assurance from persons that had been formerly in variance 2ly vvhat ever the cause were yet the Infeftment upon the gift of Forefaultry cannot be respectedâ— unless there had been a Doom of Forefaultry pronunced for all that the Justice General does is to charge the party accused to find Caution to underly the Law and if he appear not he is Denunced Rebel and his Escheat only falls or if having found Caution he appear not in causa he is Denunced Fugitive which hath the same effect but none of them can inter Forfaulture unless Doom of Forfaulture had been pronounced which the Justice doth not but when the Defender compears albeit the Parliament Forefaults persons absent having taken probation of the Libel contra absentes and unless the Justice had either cited the party with Letters of Treason under certification of Treason and that certification had been granted or had cognosced the Crime The Defender being present the Gift of Forfaulture can work nothing The Lords found the Reply Relevant unless the Defender would alleadge as aforesaid because the Defender was not clear in the matter of Fact they before answer Ordained him to produce the Gift and Warrands Creditors of Andrew Bryson contra his Son November 14. 1662. IN an Accompt and Reckoning betwixt the Creditors and Bairns of umquhil Andrew Bryson the Auditor being warranted to call all Parties havers of the said umquhil Andrew his Compt Books before him his Son Mr. Andrew being Called and Examined upon Oath Depones that he neither has them nor had them since the intenting of the Cause but refused to Depone upon his having of the same at any time before or upon his knowledge who had them The Lords having heard the Auditors Report thereanent found that he ought not to be examined upon his knowledge who had them but that he ought to Deponeâ—f at any time before the Citation he had the same and frandfully put the same away quia propossessoria habetur qui dolo possidere Mr. Thomas Nicolson contra Lairds of Bightie and Babirnie Eodem die THere having been mutual Molestations betwixt Mr. Thomas Nicolson Advocat and the Lairds of Bightie and Babirnie anent a common Pasturage in the Muire of Bighty lying contigue to all their Lands It was alleadged for Babirny that he ought to be preferred to Mr. Thomas Nicolson and the said Mr. Thomas excluded from all Commonty because Babirny stands Infeft in the Lands of Babirny which infeftment bears with common Pasturage in the Muir of Bighty and Mr. Thomas had no express Infeftment therein It was answered for Mr. Thomas that the alleadgence is not Relevant to exclude him because he his Predecessors and Authors are and have been Infeft in his Lands cum communi pastura and by vertue of the saids Infeftments in peaceable Possession Immemorially or by the space of 40 Years which was sufficient to establish the Right of Communitie with Balbirnie notwithstanding his Infeftment bears express It was answered for Balbirnie that not only was his Infeftment more express but Mr. Thomas Lands and his were holden of divers Superiours viz. Balbirnie of the KING and Mr. Thomas were Kirk-lands and albeit the Muire lyes contigue to Mr. Thomas Lands yet it is not of the same Paroch The Lords repelled the Reasons of Preference for Balbirnie in respect of the Answer It was further alleadged for Balbirnie that the Alleadgeances and Answers for Mr. Thomas Nicolson ought to be repelled because he offers him to prove that Nicolson was interrupted since the Year 1610. and condescended by yearly turning his Cattel off the ground and stopping him from casting Peits and therefore he must say 40 Years Possession by vertue of an Infeftment preceeding that Interruption It was answered for Nicolson non relevat unlesse either a Legal Interruption by Lawborres or Summons or at least a compleat and full Interruptio facti by debarring him on whole year from any deed of Community but for turning off his Goods which were presently put on again and he enjoying all his Profit such were Attempts and Incompleat Interruptions whereof he needed take no notice thereof seing he continued his Possession otherwayes there would be great inconveniences by such Interruptions which would be noticed by the Leidges and yet would cut off the Probation of the old Possession before the same The Lords found that whatsoever the Interruption 40 Years or immemoria possessione before the Interruption behoved to be proven for they thought that what Servituds were introduced only by Possession by the patience and presumed will of the other Partie being either Proprietar or having right of Communitie any Interruption was sufficient to show that the other
had died Infeft in the Annualrent if there had been Bairns of the Marriage they Male and Female joyntly and equally behoved to be Served specially as Heirs of Provision to their Father and so Infeft and failzing Bairns Thomas and Margaret behoved also to be so served and Infeft for albeit there needs no general Service where Persons are nominatim substitute in a personal Right requiring no Infeftment yet where there is Infeftment there must be a special Service And therefore found the Father Feear might uplift the Mony or might change the Destination thereof as he pleased and albeit Thomas and Margaret were Infeft nominatim yet they found the Seasine was without Warrand bearing only to Infeft them in case of failzie of Heirs of the Marriage and the Infeftment could only be granted to the Conjunct-feears Iohn Scot contra Montgomery Eodem die JOhn Scot as Assigney to certain Bonds granted by Montgomery to Andrew Robertson charges Montgomery who Suspends upon this Reason that he instantly instructs by a Back-bond that the Bonds is for the price of certain Lands and by the Back-bond it is provided that these Sums should not be payed till the Writs of the Lands were delivered and payment made of some Duties thereof The Lords found the Back-bond being before the Assingation relevant against the Assigney albeit the Bonds were simple bearing borrowed Money Greenlaw contra 〈…〉 Ianuary 15. 1663. GReenlaw being pursued by 〈…〉 for Spuilzie of two Mares in May 1654. alleadged Absolvitor because he was then in Arms for the King and took these Mares for the Service and had warrand from his Officers which he offered him to prove by his Pass and Capitulation produced expressly including him with his Officers who Capitulate The Pursuer answered the Mares were great with Foal and altogether unfit for the Service and if they were specially commanded to be taken it might be instructed by Writ The Lords considering this Capitulation being about that same time found that albeit there had been no Order yet the Defender being then in Arms acting modo militari the Act of Indemnity freed him and would not give occasion to such Process and therefore Assoilzied Tennents of Kilchattan contra Lady Kilchattan Major Campbel and Baillie Hamilton Ianuary 16. 1663. OLd Kilchattan in his Sons Contract of Marriage Dispons the Lands of Kilchattan to his Son young Kilchattan and his Lady in Conjunct-fee whereupon there was Infeftment taken in favours of the Husband and Wife to be holden from the Disponer and of the King but the same was not confirmed till the year 1662. At which time Major Campbel procures a Confirmation of the Conjunct-Infeftment and Seasine thereon which Confirmation hath a Clause insert bearing the same to be only in so far as may confirm and establish the Right of an Annualrent granted by young Kilchattan to the Major and thereafter the Lady Confirms the Conjunct-Infeftment simply In Anno 1654. young Kilchattan Infefts Major Campbel in an Annulrent out of the Lands thereafter Heugh Hamilton Appryzed from young Kilchattan and was Infeft upon this Appryzing about that time It was alleadged by the Lady that she ought to be pre-ferred because she being joyned with her Husband in the Conjunct-Fee and thereupon Infeft it is sufficient to give her the Right of Liferent which is but a personal servitude It was answered first That Major Campbel having procured the first Confirmation which is expresly limit unto his Annualrent must be preferred to the Lady and that such limitations might lawfully be because it being free for the Superiour to Confirm or not or to Confirm a part and not the rest he might Confirm it to what effect he pleased and his Confirmation being extended no further the Lady cannot crave preference because she is now only Infeft in the Lands in question in Warrandice that her principal Lands shall be worth so much and it is not yet declared in what they are defective The Lords in respect the Ladies Right was not Confirmed preferred the Major as to his Annualrents It was alleadged for Heugh Hamiltoun that he must be preferred to the Annualrenter because he being publickly Infeft upon his Apprysing before the Infeftment of Annualrent at least before it was cled with Possession whereby it became a valid Right the King's Charter upon the Apprysing is virtually and equivalently a Confirmation of Kilchattans Infeftment especially in favours of a Creditor who could not perfectly know his Debitors condition which if he had known and given in expresly a Confirmation to the King it would have been accepted seeing the King respects none and therefore the King 's granting of a Charter upon the Apprysing must be interpret equivalent The Lords found that the Charter upon the Apprysing was not equivalent to a Confirmation It was further alleadged for Heugh Hamiltoun that the Confirmation obtained by Major Campbel behoved to accresce to him who had the first compleat Right by publick Infeftment upon the Apprysing and albeit that base Infeftment upon the Annualrent granted by Kilchattan to Major Campbel was prior yet it was null till it was cled with Possession and therefore if it was not cled with Possession before Heugh Hamiltouns Infeftment the Confirmation must accresce to Heugh Hamiltouns Infeftment The Lords found that the base Infeftment was not null for want of Possession albeit it might be excluded by a publick Infeftment before Possession but found that Heugh Hamiltouns publick Infeftment was not compleat in it self because it put Heugh Hamiltoun only in the place of young Kilchattan who had a null Right till Confirmation Which Confirmation they found did accresce to the base Infeftment being cled with Possession at any time before the Confirmation for at that time it became a compleat Right at which time the Appryzing and Infeftment was no compleat Right and therefore the Confirmation albeit it had not had this restriction accresced to the base Infeftment as being the first compleat Right in suo genere Earl of Roxburgh contra a Minister Eodem Die IN a review of a Decreet at the Instance of a Minister against the Earl of Roxburgh the point in question was whether or no the Judges for the time or now the Lords of Session were competent to discuss this Nullity of a Decreet of Locality by the Commission for Plantation in that it called the Earls Lands expresly designed to be his Lands and he was not called The Lords found that albeit they would not decide upon the Nullities of the Decreets of the Commission competent by way of Reduction which behoved to be before the Commission it self yet this Nullity being palpable and competent by Exception or Suspension that they might thereupon Suspend simpliciter the Decreet of the Commission Earl of Errol contra Parochioners of Ury Eodem die THe Earl of Roxburgh pursues the Heretors for the Teind from 1648. till 1662. as he who had Right during that tyme by the Act of Parliament 1649. Establishing the
Right of the Teinds in the Patron in leu of their Patronage and also as he who had Tack thereof and had since possessed be tacit relocation The Defender alleadged as to the first Title that the Parliament 1649. was not only annulled but declared void ab initio as a meeting without any Authority as to the tacit Relocation it could not extend any further then so many years as the Beneficed Person could set It was answered for the Earl that the Rescissorie Act could not prejudge him as to any thing anterior to it's date unless it had born expresly to annul as to bygones The Lords found the Lybel and Reply Relevant as to bygones before the Act albeit there be no salvo in that Act as there is in the Rescissory Acts of the remanent Parliaments and found that the Pursuer had Right per tacitam relocationem till he was interrupted even for years which the Beneficed Person could not validly set as a Liferenters Tack will be validly set as a Liferenters Tack will be valide against the Feer per tacitam relocationem after her Death though she could grant no Tack validly after her Death Relict of Mr. Thomas Swintoun Minister of Ednems contra Laird of Wedderburn Eodem die THe Minister of Ednems Relict Insisting for the reparation of the Manss It was alleadged for the Heretors that those who have Right to the Teinds as Tacks-men or otherwayes ought to bear a proportion of the reparation The Lords found that albeit these who have right to the Teinds were accustomed to Repair the of Kirks and the Heretors the rest of the Kirk yet there was neither Law nor Custom alleadged the Teinds could be burdened with any part of the Reparation Sword contra Sword Eodem die ONe Sword as heir Served and Retoured to Bailzie Sword of Saint Andrews pursues for Intromission with the Moveable Heirship for delivery of the same and produces his Service done at Saint Andrews and Retoured whereby he is Served as Oye to the Defunct Bailzie his Father Brother compears another Party who is likewise Served Heir to that same Bailzie at Edinburgh and produces his Service Retoured by which he is served Heir to Bailzie Sword as his Father Brother Son whereupon he hath raised a Reduction in Latine under the Quarter-seal of the other Service which was prior and alleadges that he being in a nearer degree of Blood then the other in so far as he is a Father Brother Son and the other Service bears him to be but a Father Brothers Oye The Lords having considered both the Retoures and that they were not contradictory inferring manifest Error of the Assize because it was sufficient for the Assize to Serve the Father Brothers Oye if they knew of no nearer Degree And also because the Defunct Bailzie might have had two Father Brothers one elder then his Father and the other younger and thereby two Heirs one of Line and another of Conquest which not being clear by the Retoures the Lords will not prefer the first Retour as standing but would hear the Parties upon the Reduction Mr. James Stuart contra Mr. John Spruile Ianuary 21. 1663. MR. Iames Stuart and Robert Stuart Bailzie of Lithgow as Curator to him as a Furious Person or Idiot by Gift of the Exchequer pursues Mr. Iohn Spruile for Sums of Mony due to Mr. Iames. It was alleadged no Process at the Instance of Robert Stuart as Curator because by Law the Tutors or Curators of Furious Persons are conform to the Act of Parliament to be Cognosced by an Inquest whether the Person be Furious and who is his nearest Agnat of the Fathers side past twenty five The Lords found Process Robert Stuart finding Caution to make forth coming and declared it should be but prejudice to the nearest Agnat to Serve according to the said Act of Parliament for they thought that as the Lords might name Curators ad litem in the interim so might the King and that the Exchequer was accustomed to do William Zeoman contra Mr. Patrick Oliphant Ianuary 22. 1663. IN a Competition betwixt Zeoman and Oliphant anent the Estate of Sir Iames Oliphant who having killed his Mother was pursued Criminally therefore before the Justice and being Charged to underly the Law for the said Crime under the pain of Rebellion he compeared not and the Act of Adjournal was declared Fugitive and his moveable Goods ordained to be Inbrought The Criminal Libel proceeded both upon the Act of Parliament against Paricide and also upon the Act of Parliament declaring that killing of Persons under assurance of Trust to be Treasonable Hereupon the King granted a Gift of Sir Iames Forefaulture to Sir Patrick Oliphant who thereupon was Infeft It was alleadged for William Zeoman who had Right by Appryzing that there could be no respect to the Gift of Forefaulture because Sir James was never Forefault but only declared Fugitive and Denunced as said is and that any Doom of Forefaulture had been pronounced the Crime behoved to have been proven before an Assize else there could be no Forefaulture neither could the Donator possess medio tempore till the Crime were yet put to the Tryal of an Assize because Sir Iames is dead The Lords found that the Gift of Forfaultuee could not be effectual for the Reasons foresaid and found that the Act against Paricide could be no foundation of a Gift because it only excluded the Murderer and his Descendents to succeed to the Person Murdered by declaring expresly that the Murderers Collaterals should succeed and so there was no place for the King And as for the other Act of Murder under Trust they found that there being no probation it could work nothing and there is no doubt but though there had been Probation that Act of Murder under Trust doth not directly quadrat to this Case upon that natural Trust betwixt Parents and Children but only to Trust given by express Paction or otherwise it could evacuat the benefit of the foresaid other Act anent Paricide and would prefer the Fisk to the Collaterals of the Murderer if he had done no wrong contrair to the said Act anent Paricide which is not derogat by the other Wallace contra Edgar Eodem die IAmes Wallace as Assigney by Iames Scot to a Decreet obtained against Iohn Edgar in Drumfreis having Charged thereupon Edgar Suspends and alleadges Compensation upon Debts due by Scot the Cedent to the Suspender before the Intimation of his Assignation and therefore according to the ordinary Course Debts due by the Cedent before Intimation are Relevant against the Assigney and condescends upon several Bonds and Decreets against the Cedent assigned to the Suspender before the Chargers Intimation The Suspender answered that albeit any Debt due by the Cedent to the Debitor before Intimation will be relevant to compense against the Assigney yet that will not extend to Sums assigned to the Debitor before the Chargers Assignation unless that Assignation had been
the Houses The Lords found there was yet place to Resile and therefore assoilzied Margaret Stevenson and her Son contra Ker and others Eodem die MArgaret Stevenson pursues Margaret Ker as vitious Intromissatrix with the Goods of her Husband for payment of a Debt wherein he was Cautioner She alleadged absolvitor because her Iutromission was purged in so far as she had Confirmed herself Executrix Creditrix It was answered by the Pursuer non relevat unless before intenting of the Cause The Defender answered it was sufficient being within year and day after the Defunct's Death Which the Lords found Relevant Lord Balnagoun contra M. Thomas Mckenzie Eodem die BAlnagoun as Donator to the Escheat of his Father pursues Mr Thomas Mckenzie for the price of some Lands sold to him by his Father and for the annualrents since It was answered for the Defender that there was no Annualrent due by the Minute and albeit it was the price of Land yet Balnagoun had never made Mr. Thomas a Right to this day but had forced him to be at a huge Expenses and Plea and so was in mora that the price was not payed and albeitâ—he did possess the Lands it was by redeeming Wodsets thereupon contained in the Minute The Lords found Mr. Thomas lyable either for the Annualrent or for the superplus of the Rents of the Land more then payed the Annualrent In this Process it was found that the Probation of a Tenor before an Inferiour Iudge was null Margaret Edgar contra Iohn Murray Ianuary 29. 1663. MArgaret Edgar having Charged Iohn Murray as Cautioner for the umquhil Viscount of Stormont he Suspends and offers him to prove by her Oath that she transacted with him to accept a Decreet against the principal to free him The Charger answered that she being a Wife clade with a Husband could not swear in his prejudice The Suspender Replyed that before her Marriage he had raised a Pursuit and Cited her to hear and see it found and declared he was free of Cautionry in respect of the said Transaction and so the matter being Litigious her marrying during the Dependence cannot exclude him from his Oath but must work against her Husband who is only jure mariti a Legal Assigney The Lords found this Reply Relevant Scot contra Mr. John Dickson Eodem die SCot as Assigney by her Father to a Bond Charges Mr. Iohn Dickson to make payment he Suspends on this Reason that the Assignation being while the Charger was Wife to Scot her Husband the Sum belonged to the Husband jure mariti and therefore craves Compensation of the like Sums payed to or for the Husband The Charger answered that though the Date of the Assignation was before her Husbands Death yet her Father keeped the same in his Custody and it was not Intimate till after the Husbands Death and so the Right not being Established in the Wifes Person by Intimation could not accresce to the Husband unless the Suspender would instruct that it was Intimate before The Lords found that seing the Assignation was now in the Wifes hands they would not put the Suspender to prove the Delivery thereof during the Marriage but that it was presumed to have been delivered according to the Date and that thereby it became the Husbands jure mariti though no Intimation was in his time Archibald Stuart contra Bogle and Matthie Ianuary 30. 1663. BOgle and Matthie being Conveened before Archibald Stuart as Baillie of the Regality of Glasgow for a wrong committed upon two other Persons in the Kirk upon the Sabbath thrusting in upon them in Seat and beating them they were therefore amerciat in 200. Pounds half to the Party and half to the Fiskall It was alleadged the Fine was exorbitant and that Inferiour Courts could not amerciat above ten Pounds as it had been found by several Decisions It was answered that this Court being a Regality and the Fact so atrocius the Fine was very Competent The Lords Sustained the Decreet Town of Linlithgow contra Inhabitants of Borrowstounness Eodem die THe Town of Linlithgow having apprehended an Inhabitant of Borrowstounness in their Town being an un-free man and exercising the Trade of Merchandise they put him in Prison he granted Bond to forbear in all time coming Likeas they fined him in a 100. merks he Suspended and raised Reduction on this Reason that the Bond was extorted when so far as he was summarly taken and put in Prison and could not get out till he promised to give the Bond and immediatly after he was out subscribed the same The Charger alleadged there was no unjust force or fear because by the Acts of Parliament in favours of Free Borrows all unfree men are discharged to exercise the Trade of Merchandise whereupon they had obtained Decreet against the same Suspender to desist and cease therefrom Secondly They and all other free Borrows had immemorially possessed this priviledge to apprehend persons found within their Town and forced them to find Caution as Law will upon Debt due to any in the Town and particularly to put them in Prison till they give such Bonds in Surety as this The Suspender answered to the first there was no such Warrand by the Act of Parliament but only to Charge with general Letters un-free men to find Caution and for the Priviledge of Borrows to arrest un-free persons within their Towns it is only in case of Debts and other Merchandises due to Burgesses but cannot be extended to this Case where there is a special Order set down by Act of Parliament The Lords found that the Burghs Royal summarly upon Staple Ware of un-free men and might judge thereanent but not summarly Incarcerate their Persons but only to Charge them and found their Custom and Priviledge not to extend to this Case and therefore found the Reason of Reduction Relevant The Lady Carnagy contra The Lord Cranburn Eodem die LAdy Anna Hamiltoun and the Lord Carnagie her Husband as having obtained a Gift of Recognition from the King of the Barony of Innerweek and being thereupon Infeft pursues the Lord Cranburn to whom the samine was Disponed by the Earl of Dirletoun Grand-Father to both for declaring the Recognition and the Donatrix Right in so far as Iames Maxwel late Earl of Dirletoun holding the saids Lands of His Majesties Ward and relief had without His Majesties consent Alienat and Disponed the same to Iames Cicile his Oye then second Son to the Lord Cranburn procreat betwixt him and the Earl of Dirletouns second Daughter It was alleadged for the Defender absolvitor because where there was no Infeftment there could be no Alienation nor Recognition and there could be no Infeftment without the same were granted to the Disponer or his Procurator to the accepter to his Procurator but here there was no accepter nor Procurator because Cranburn being then a Child and in England had granted no Mandat to take this Seasine and therefore had raised Reduction thereof
a price the price would not belong to the Executor or Fisk but to the Heir any sums due for Damnage and Interest not performing a Disposition or upon Eviction belongs to the Heir not to the Executor The Defender answered that this sum is not in the case of any of the former alleadgences neither is the question here what would belong to the Executor but what would belong to the Fisk for Moveable Heirship belongs to the Heir and not to the Executor and yet belongs to the Fisk so do sums without Destination of Annualrents wherein Executors are secluded So also doth the price of Lands when they are de presenti sold by the Defunct The Lords found this sum moveable and belonged to the Fisk and therefore Assoilzied the Defender from that Member also Mr. Ninian Hill contra Maxwel February 5. 1663. MR. Ninian Hill pursues Maxwel as heir to his Father Iohn Maxwel for payment of a sum due to be payed to Maxwels Relict yearly after his death and assigned to the pursuer The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Pursuers Cedent being Executor her self to the Defunct was lyable for this sum intus habuit It was answered for the Pursuer that this being an annual payment after the Defuncts death it was proper for his heir to pay the same not for his Executor and if the Executor had payed it he would get releif off the heir Which the Lords found Relevant Grahame contra Ross Eodem die THe Parties having Competed upon Appryzings being decided the 24. of Ianuary Wherein the Lords found that none of the Appryzers should come in with him who was first Infeft till first they payed their proportional part of the Composition and Expenses now having considered again the Tenor of the Act of Parliament they found that they behoved to satisfie the whole and that the obtainer of the first Infeftment should bear no share of it that being all the other Appryzers gave â—to got the benefit of the Act to come in pari passu Lenox contra Lintoun Eodem die LEnox being Married to Margaret Mcgie who was an Heretrix she dying Lenox Son was Infeft as Heir to her who dying also without Issue this Lenox as his Brother by his Mother and alleadging him to be appearing Heir to his Brother Lenox in these Lands whereunto his Brother succeeded to their Mother craves Exhibitions of the Writs of the Lands ad deliberandum The Defender Lintoun alleadged absolvitor because his Son being Infeft in the Lands as Heir to his Mother his nearest Agnat on the Fathers side his apparent Heir and â—one on his Mothers side for we have no intrin succession neither holds it with us materni maternis paterni paternis Which the Lords found Relevant and that the Father was apparant Heir to his Son being once Infeft as Heir to the Mother and therefore Assoilzied Lady Carnagy contra Lord Cranburn Eodem die THis day afternoon the Lords Advised the rest of the Defenses proponed for the Lord Cranburn in the Recognition pursued at the Instance of my Lady Carnagy who alleadged first that Recognition was only competent in proper Ward-holdings and not in blench Feu or Burgage these only being feuda recta militaria and all others but fendastra But the Lands of Innerweek are not a proper Military Feu holding Ward being only a Taxed Ward wherein the word Duties is Taxed yearly and the Marriage is Taxed to so much and so is in the nature of a Feu neither was it ever yet found in Scotland that a Taxt-ward did fall in Recognition The pursuer answered that the Defense is not Relevant to rule in our Law being that alienation of Ward-lands without the consent of the Superiour infers Recognition and neither Law nor Custom hath made exception of Taxt-wards which have but lately occurred in the time of King Iames who and King Charles were most sparing to grant Gifts of Recognition whereby there hath been few Debates or Decisions thereanent and there is no consequence that because the Casuality of the Ward when it falls is liquidat and Taxed or the value of the Marriage that therefore the Fee is not a Military Fee wherein the Vassal is oblieged to assist his Superiour in Counsel and in War in the stoutest Obligations of Faithfulness and Gratitude and therefore his withdrawing himself from his Vassallage and obtaining another to him is the greater Ingratitude that the Superior had Taxed the benefite of the Ward and Marriage at low rates which Casualties cannot be drawn to prejudge the Superior of other Casualties but on the contrair exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis The Lords repelled this Defense It was further alleadged that here was no offer of a Stranger but of the Vassals own Grand-child who now is his apparent Heir in one half of these Lands as being the eldest Son of his second Daughter and Recognition was never found in such a Case The Pursuer answered that albeit the Defender be now apparent Heir to the Vassal Disponer yet the Case must be considered as it was in the time of the Disposition when he had an elder Brother the then Lord Cranburn living and was not alioqui successurus and the Lords had formerly found that an alienation of Ward-lands by the Earl of Cassils to his own Brother albeit he was his nearest of Kin for the time having no Children yet seing he could not be esteemed alioqui successurus or Heir apparent in regard the Earl might have Children therefore they found Recognition incurred The Lords repelled this Defense 3ly It was further alleadged that there could be no Recognition where there was no alienation of the Fee without the the Superiors consent here there was no alienation of the Fee because the Seasine being taken to be holden from Dirletoun of the KING not confirmed was altogether null and therefore Dirletoun was not Divested nor Cranburn Invested for such an Infeftment is ineffectual and incompleat till Confirmation and could never be the ground of Pursuit or Defense against any Party 2ly By such an Infeftment the Superiors consent is a Condition implyed for an Infeftment to be holden of the Superior is null till Confirming and implyes as much as if the Seasine had been expresly granted si dominus consenserit and so can be no obtrusion or ingratitude 3ly Craig in his Dieges de recognitionibus Reports the Decision of the Lords betwixt Mckenzie and Bane whereby they found that the Seasine being unregistrat was null and inferred no Recognition quia non spectatur affectus sed effectus yet that was but an extrinsick nullity much more here the Seasine being intrinsically null The Pursuer answered First That if this ground hold there could be no Recognition except by subaltern base Infeftments holden of the Vassal in which there is far lesse ingratitude there being no new Vassal obtunded nor the Vassal withdrawing himself from his Clientel nor any prejudice to the Superior because subaltern Infeftments
would exclude none of the Casualities of the Superiority yet such Alienations exceeding the half of the Fee do unquestionably infer Recognition though the ingratitude be no more then this that the Vassal renders himself unable fitly to serve his Superior by delapidating his Fee or the Major part thereof how much more when he does all that in him is to withdraw himself from the Superiors Clientel by obtruding to him a Stranger alienating from him the whole Fee and albeit the Seasine be null as to other effects till it be Confirmed Yet as Craig observes in the foresaid place Vassalus fecit quantum in se erat 2ly Though by our Statute or peculiar Custom such Seasins unconfirmed are null yet by the Act of Parliament 1633. Anent Ward holdings Recognition is declared to proceed according to common Law which can be no other then the common Feudal Customs by which Customs it is sure that the Recognition is chiefly inferred by the Vassals alienation As to the implyed condition si Dominus consenserit though that were expresse yet the Vassal giving Seasine the Tradition of Seasine is inconsistant with such a condition being understood as a Suspensive condition for he that delivers Possession de facto cannot be said upon any condition not to deliver the same de facto and therefore it is but protestalio contraria facto and if it be understood as a resolutive condition as needs it must it impedes not the Alienation but only might resolve the same As to the Decision upon the not Registration of the Seasine una herundo non facit ver and albeit it might be a rule in that individual Case It cannot be extended ad alios casus although it were a Statute much lesse a Practick The Lords also repelled this Defense 4ly It was further alleadged by the Defender that Dirletouns Infeftment was granted by the KING Haeredibus assignatis quibuscunque and thereby the KING consented that he should dispone his Right to any Assigney or singular Successor and this Clause is equivalent to the ordinar Feudal Clauses Vassallo quibus dederit which is ever understood to exclude Recognition neither can this be understood to be stilus curiae as when Assigneys are casten in in Charters passing the Exchequer but this is an original Grant under the KINGS own Hand The Pursuer answered that this Defense ought to be Repelled because such Concessions contrair to common course of Law are stricti juris and not to be extended ad effectus non expressos praesertim prohibitos but the adjection of Assigneys is no ways to allow Alienations of the Fee without consent but to this effect because Feuda and Benficia are in themselves stricti juris and belong not to Assigneys unlesse Assigneys be expressed and therefore albeit no Infeftment had been taken the Disposition Charter or Precept could not be Assigned so that this is adjected to the end that those may be Assigned before Infeftment but after Infeftment Assignation hath no effect and this is the true intent of Assigneys In Dispsitions of Land it is clear when the Disponer is obliged to Infeft the Acquirer his Heirs and Assigneys whatsoever there is no ground whereon to compel him to grant a second Infeftment to a new Assigney but only to grant the first Infeftment to that Person himself or to any Assigney whatever which clears the Sense in this case It hath also this further effect that singular Successors thereby might have right to a part of the Lands which though it would not infer Recognition if done yet if there were no mention of Assigneys it would be null and as not done in the same Case as a Tack not mentioning Assigneys The Lords Repelled this also 5ly It was further alleadged that Recognition takes only place where there is contempt and ingratitude and so no Deed done through ignorance infers it as when it is dubious whether the Holding be Ward or not and therefore Recognition cannot be inferred seing there is so much ground here to doubt this Right being a taxed Ward and to his Heirs and Assigneys and it is not clear whether it would be incurred through a Seasine à se or to one in his Family whereupon the wisest of men might doubt much more Dirletoun being illiterate not able to read or write It was answered ignorantia juris neminem excusat 2ly Vbi est copia peritorum ignorantia est supina Here Dirletoun did this Deed clandistenly without consulting his ordinar Advocats or any Lawyers and so was inexcusable and if pretence of ignorance could suffice there could be no Recognition seing it cannot misse to be ignorance that any should do that Deed that will be ineffectual and losse their Right The Lords Repelled this Defense and all the Defenses joyntly and Decerned Lord Loure contra Earl of Dundee February 6. 1663. THe Lord Loure pursues a Reduction of a Disposition made by Carnegy of Craig to the Earl of Dundee as being posterior to the Pursuers Debts and in prejudice thereof upon the Act of Parliament 1621. against Bankrupts and for instructing of the Reason repeats the Disposition it self being betwixt confident Persons Cusing Germans and without cause onerous in so far as it bears Reservation of the Disponers and his Ladyes Liferent and Provision to be null if Craig have Heirs of his Body in whose favours Dundee is to denude himself upon payment of his expense The Defender alleadged that the Lybel is not Relevant Primâ— because Craig is no Bankrupt nor any Diligence done against him before the Disposition 2ly He is not insolvent by the Disposition because there is reserved to him a Power to sell as much of the Land as is worth 80000 lib. for Debt and so is not in fraâ—dm creaâ— oruâ— but the Pursuer ought to pursue for that Provision either by Appryzing or personal Action The Lords found the Reason relevant and proven by the tenor of the Disposition and therefore reduced to the effect that the Pursuer mâ—ght affect the saids Lands with all Legal Diligence for his Debt as if the Disposition had not been granted for they thought seeing by this Disposition there remains not Estaâ—e sufficient ad paratam executionem and that there was no Reason to put the Pursuer to insist in that Clause to restrict himself thereby to a part of the Land but that he ought to have preference for his Debt upon his Diligence affecting the whole Land William Montgomery contra Theoder Montgomery and Mr. William Lauder February 10. 1663. WIlliam Montgomery as Donatar to the Liferent-escheat of Theodor Montgomery pursues a special Declarator against the Tennents of Whit slide belonging to Margaret Hunter in Liferent and now to Theodor jure 〈◊〉 for their Duties It was alleadged that the Horning was null because the Dâ—bt was satisfied before Denunciation The Pursuer answered that it was not competent in the special Declarator to question the nullity of the Horning 2ly Though it were in a
Renunciation of that priviledge of Wifes and it hath been frequently found that minors making faith cannot be restored lesionem conscientia ex juramento violato The Lords having debated the case at large amongst themselves found the Bond null notwithstanding of the Oath for they thought that where the deed needed no Restitution as in the case of minors these deeds are valid but the minor may be restored but in deeds ipso jure null where there need no Restitution an Oath cannot make that ane Legal deed which is none it was winne by a Vot or two many thinking that such priviledges introduced by Custome or Statute might be Renunced and much more sware against but that it were fit for the future that all Magistrats were prohibited to take such Oaths of Wifes or Minors who are as easily induced to Swear as to oblidge and if they did that they should be lyable to pay the Debt themselves Dumbar of Hemprigs contra Lady Frazer Eodem die MY Lady Frazer being first married to Sir Iohn Sinclar of Dumbeath next to the Lord Arbuthnet and last to the Lord Frazer Dumbar of Hemprigs as Executor confirmed to Dumbeath pursues her and the Lord Frazer her Hushand for his interest for delivery or payment of the Moveables of Dumbeath intrometted by her It was answered That she had Right to the half of Dumbeaths Moveables as his Relict and her intromission was within that half It was Replyed that she had only right to third because Dumbeath had a Bairn of the former Marriage who survived him and so the Executory must be imparted It was duplyed that that Bairn was for as familiat married and provided before her Fathers Death and so was not in familia and albeit if there had been any other Bairns in the Family that Bairns part would have accresced to them yet being no other It accresced to the Man and Wife and the Executory is bipartiti The Lords found the Defense and Duply relevant albeit it was not alleadged that the Tocher was accepted in satisfaction of the Bairns Part of Gear unless those who have Right would offer to confer and bring in the Tocher received in which case they might crave a third if the same were not Renunced oâ— the Tocher accepted instead thereof It was further alleadged for the Lord Frazer that he could not be lyable as Husband because his Lady being formerly Married to the Lord Arbuthnet he got the Moveables and his Successors should be â—yable at least in the first place The Lords repelled the alleadgeance but prejudice to the Lord Frazer to pursue the Successors of the former Husband for repetition as accords Mckenzie contra Iohn Ross. Eodem die JOhn Ross having Appryzed certain Lands belonging to Mckenzie there is a Pursuite of Compt and Reckoning intented for declaring that the Apprysing was satisfyed within the Legal It was alleadged that the Appryzer was not Comptable for more of the other Parties Minority then seven years because in the Act of Parliament 1621 Anent Appryzing it is so provided and albeit the meaning of the Act of Parliament was declared to be otherwayes by the Act of Parliament 1641. Yet that Declaration was contrary to the clear meaning by the general rescissory Act 1661. The Lords having considered the Rescissory Actâ— and the Reservation therein of the Right of Private Parties following upon the deeds of these Parliaments In Respect thereof and of the Custome this 20 years the Appryser useing to Compt for all found the Appryser Comptable for the whole Year of the Minority William Blair contra Anderson Eodem die William Blair as Assigny by the Wife and Bairns of Mr. David Anderson by his second Marriage pursues his Daughters both of the first and second Marriage as Heirs of Lyne for Implement of the second Contract of Marriage and the Daughters of the second Marriage offering to Renunce to be Heirs of Line but prejudice of their Provision by Contract of Marriage as Bairns of that Marriage The Assigney insisted against the Daughters of the first Marriage as lawfully Charged c. Who alleadged no Processe because the Provision by the Contract of Marriage insisted on run thus That Mr. David obliged himself and his Heirs-male Successors to him in his Estate but did oblige no other Heirs Ita est there is an Heir-male The Pursuer answered albeit Heirs-male were only expressed other Heirs were not excluded specially seing he bound himself so that the effect thereof would only be that the Heir-male should be lyable primo loco The Lords found the Heir-male lyable primo loco and the Heirs of Line secundo loco and found the Heir-male sufficiently discussed by an apprizing of the Clause of the Contract of Marriage in favours of the Heirs-male they not being Infeft as yet and having no other Right Scots contra Earl of Hume February 19. 1663. THe four Daughters of 〈…〉 Scot pursues an Ejection against the Earl of Hume out of some Lands belonging to them It was alleadged for the Earl absolvitor because he entered into Possession by vertue of a Decreet of Removing given at his instance Anno 1650. It was Replyed that the Decreet was only against the Pursuers Mother that they were never called nor decerned therein The Earl answered First That the Decreet was against the Mother to remove her self Bairns Tennents and Servants and her Daughters were in the Family being then young Bairns and he was not obliged to know them they not being Infeft but having only an old Right whereupon there was no Infeftment for 40. years the time of the Decreet The Lords in respect of the Defense restricted the Processe to Restitution and the ordinary Profits and decerned the Earl to restore them to Possession instantly but superceeded payment of Profits till both Parties were heard as to their Rights for they found that the Decreet of Removing could not extend to their Children and albeit they were not Infeft yet they might maintain their Possession upon their Predecessors Infeftment how old soever seing they continued in Possession Bessie Muir contra Jean Stirling Eodem die THe said Bessie Muir pursues her Mother as Executrix to her Father for payment of a Legacy of 8000. merks left in his Testament subscribed by the Defender and Confirmed by her after her Husbands Death The Defender alleadged absolvitor because she by the Contract of Marriage was Provided to the Liferent of all Sums to be Conquest and albeit she consented to the Legacy it was Donatio inter virum uxorem and for her Confirmation it cannot import a passing from her own Right but only her purpose to execute the Defuncâ—s Will according to Law especially she being an illiterat Person The Pursuer answered that this Donation was not by the Wife to or in favours of the Husband but of their Children which is not revockable and also the Confirmation humologats the same seing the Wife might have Confirmed and Protested to be withont prejudice of her
Infeftment was only base not cled with Possession and that the Defenders Title was by another Party Possessing and publictly Infeft before his Fathers Death Which the Lords found Relevant Iames Allan contra Iames Paterson Iune 17. 1663. JAmes Allan charges Iames Paterson as Cautioner in an Indenter for a Prentise set to the Charger for five years and insists upon that Article of paying two dayes wadges for ilk dayes absence and subsumes that the Prentise left his Service after the first two years and was absent three years The said Iames Paterson Suspends on this reason that it must be presumed Collusion betwixt the Charger and his Prentise that having gotten the Prentise Fee and not learned him the Trade he had suffered him to escape never making intimation to the Suspender that he might have brought him back to his Service while now that he is out of the Countrey and not knowing where The Charger answered that there was nothing to obliege him to make such intimation neither could a sufficient presumption of Collusion be sustained The Lords found the Letters orderly proceeded either while the Cautioner caused the Prentise Re-enter and serve out his time or otherways payed fifty pound for damnage and interest to which they modified the Charge Margaret Fleming contra Iames Gilleis Iune 18. 1663. MArgaret Fleming being Infeft in an Annualrent of 700. merks out of Houses in Edinburgh in Liferent with absolute warrandice from all dangers perils and inconveniencies whatsomever pursues Declarator against the said Iames Gilleis as Heretor for declaring that her Annualrent should be free of all publick burden since the rescinding of the Act of Parliament 1646. whereby Liferenters were ordained to bear proportional part for their Annualrents with the Heretors The Defender answered the Libel was not Relevant for albeit the Act of Parliament was rescinded the justice and equity thereof remained that whatever burden were laid upon Land shouldly proportionably upon every part therof and every profit forth of it Which Defense the Lords found Relevant and Assoilzied Francis Hamiltoun contra Mitchel and Keith Eodem die SIr Alexander Keith of Ludquharn being oblieged by Bond to Robert Mitchel in Leith for the price of certain Bolls of Victual was arrested in Leith till he found Francis Hamiltoun Cautioner as Law will and both being pursued on the Act raised Advocation on this reason that the Baillies of Leith had unjustly forced him to find Caution as Law will he not being dwelling in Leith nor Leith not being a Burgh Royal but a Burgh of Barony It was answered that the priviledge and custome of the Town of Edinburgh was to arrest within Leith and all other priviledges and pendicles thereof The Lords found that it behoved to be condescended in what place of Leith Ludquharn was arrested for the Peer of Leith was a part of the Burgh Royal of Edinburgh and was served by a Bailie of Edinburgh called the Water Baillie and if he was arrested there it was valid but the rest of Leith is but a Burgh of Barony and in that part thereof the Baillie is called Baron Baillie it were not valid Euphan Hay contra Elizabeth Carstorphine June 19. 1663. THe said Euphan having obtained Decreet against the said Elizabeth for certain Furnitur to her House She suspended on this reason that her Husband was not called The Charger offered to prove in â—ortification of her Decreet that her Husband was 20. years out of the Countrey and she repute as Widow Which the Lords found Relevant George Reid contra Thomas Harper Eodem die THese Parties competing in a double Poinding George Reid craved preference because he was assigned to the Mails and Duties by Thomas Mudie Heretor of the Land Thomas Harper alleadged that he had arrested the Duties upon a Debt owing to him by William Mudy Father to the said Thomas and any Right Thomas had was fraudulent and null by exception by the express words of the Act of Parliament 1621. being betwixt Father and Son without any onerous Cause and he ought not to be put to Reduce in re minima his Debt being within a 100. pound The Lords found he behoved to Reduce conform to their constant Custom in Heretable Rights Ferguson contra Ferguson June 23. 1663. UMquhil Ferguson in Restalrig having a Tack set to him by the Lord Balmerino for certain years his eldest Brother Son as heir of Conquest and his youngest Brother Son as heir of Line competed for the Mails and Duties of the Lands The Lords found the Tack to belong to the Heir of Line albeit it was Conquest by the Defender Mcdowgal contra Laird Glentorchy June 24. 1663. Mcneil having Disponed certain Lands to Mcdowgal wherein he was Heir apparent to his Goodsyrs Brother oblieged himself to Infeft himself as heir therein and to Infeft Mcdowgal at least to renunce to be heir to the Effect Mcdowgal might obtain the Lands adjudged whereupon Mcdowgal having raised a Charge to enter heir Mcneil renunces and thereupon Mcdowgal craves the Land to be Adjudged and Glentorchy Decerned to receive and Infeft him Glentorchy alleadged that he could not receive him because he had right to the Property himself unless the Pursuer condescend and instruct his authors in whose place he craves to be Entered had Right The Pursuer answered that lie needed to instruct no Right nor was he oblieged to Dispute the Superiours Right but craved the ordinar course to be Entered suo periculo with reservation of every mans Right and the Superiours own Right as is ordinary in Appryzings and Adjudications The Defender alleadged that albeit that was sustained in Appryzings where the Superiour gets a years Rent and though it might be allowed in ordinar Adjudications proceeding upon a liquid Debt favore creditorum yet not in such a Case as this where the Vassals apparent Heir Dispones and oblieges himself to Renunce of purpose to Charge his Superiour The Lords found no Processe till the Pursuer instructed his Authors Titles But an Infeftment being produced he was not put to Dispute the validity thereof in this instance Menzeis contra Laird Glenurchy Eodem die THe Daughters of Mr. William Menzeis as Executrix to him pursues Glenurchy for payment of a Bond due to their Father he alleadged minority and Lesion and that he had Reduction thereupon depending The Pursuers answered no Lesion because this Bond being granted to their Father for his Stipend by the Defender who was Heretor of the Land he was not leased because as Heretor he was lyable for the Stipend The Defender answered that his being Heretor could not Obliege him because his Grand-father was then living whose Liferent was reserved in his Disposition who and the intrometters could only be lyable Stipends not being debita fundi and it were of very evil consequence if the Heretor were lyable during the whole life of a Liferent The Lords found that there being a Liferenter the Heretor was not lyable and therefore sustained
Author It was answered for the Charger that the Retour could not be taken away hoc ordine by Reduction but behoved to be by a Summons of Error for Reducing the Service by an Inquest of Error to be pursued in Latine by a Precept out of the Chancellary It was replyed that there needed no Service of Error but the Retour and Infeftment might be Reduced unless there had been the question of propinquity of Blood of a nearer Heir which might have made the Inquest an Assise of Error which could not be in this case seing the Inquest had done their Duty who 〈…〉 produced one of the Grandsyres Seasine found him to have dyed last Vest and Seased as of Fee and neither could know nor was oblieged to know that there was a posterior Infeftment to the Defenders Uncle or Father The Lords found the Reduction receivable hoc ordine Hamiltoun contra a Dumb man in Glasgow Iuly 9. 1663. THis Dumb Man having Right to an Annualrent of twenty pound yearly out of a Tenement in Glasgow thereupon 〈…〉 Hamiltoun his Creditor having arrested and obtained Decreet for payment of this Annualrent in Satisfaction of the Dumb-mans Debt It was alleadged for the Person whose Bond was lyable for the Annualrents Absolvitor for five years thereof because he had payed these years to the Dumb-mans Sister by his consent in so far as he Delivered the Money to the Sister in presence of the Dumb-man and obtained her Discharge thereupon in his name subscribed also by him with the initial Letters of his name It was answered non relevat because the Discharge bore not that the Dumb-man received the same but his Sister and bears that she is obliedged to warrant it at the Dumb-mans hand and his presence and seing of Money Delivered and his Subscription cannot import his consent because he being Dumb could not know what the extent of the Sum was nor whatfor years it was The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply Mr. Thomas Kirkcaldy contra Mr. Robert Balcanquhil and Heretors of Tranent Eodem die THe Heretors of Tranent raised a double Poynding against Mr. Robert Balcanquhil on the one part and Mr. Thomas Kirkcaldy on the other part both claiming the Stipend of Tranent 1662. It was alleadged for Mr. Robert Balcanquhil he ought to be preferred because he was Minister at Tranent by Presentation and Collation long anterior to Mr. Thomas Kirkcaldy and albeit he was Deposed in Anno 1648. yet he was Reponed by the Bishop of Edinburgh and Synod of Lothian in October 1662. because of that Narrative that he was unlawfully Deposed in Anno 1648. and so being Reponed before Martinmass 1662. he thereby must have Right to the half due at Martinmass 1662. It was answered for Mr. Thomas Kirkcaldy that Balcanquhils Repossession being after Michaelmess 1662. which is the Legal Term of Stipends and he having Served till that time by a Title standing Reposition can operat nothing before its Date and so cannot reach to Michaelmass Term The Lords preferred Mr. Thomas Kirkcaldy to the hail year William Hay contra Iohn Nicolson Iune 16. 1664. JOhn Nicolson having granted an Assignation in Anno 1653. of a Bond granted to him by Iames Crightoun Sheriff of Nithisdail principal and umquhil William Livingstoun Cautioner the name of the Assigney was left blank till 1663. at which time William Hayes name was filled up and which Assignation contained a Clause of Warrandice against all deadly as Law will William Hay having used Execution on the Assignation against the Principal and Cautioner in the Bond returns upon the Warrandice and Charges Nicolson who Suspends on this Reason that the Clause of Warrandice as it is conceived in the Assignation could import no more then that the Debt Assigned was a real Debt resting and not to be Evicted by any other Right Especially seing it did not bear expresly to warrand it to be good valide and sufficient which might infer to warrand not only that the Assignation should clear the Right of the Debt but that the Debitor should be solvendo And secondly considering that there is no onerous equivalent Cause for granting the Assignation Nicolson the Creditor might have Discharged Livingstoun the Cautioner and given him an Assignation that he might thereupon Charge the Principal The Charger opponed the Clause of absolute warrandice which have ever been esteemed to reach to the Debtors being solvendo The Lords found the Claúse thus concieved could not extend to the sufficiency of the Debtor Thomson contra Reid Iune 15. 1664. JAmes Thomson in Cryle having Appryzed certain Tenements in Edinburgh from Iames Sinclar pursues Iames Reid as one of the Possessors for Mails and Duties who alleadged that he had bruiked by Tack from Iames Sinclar before the Appryzing which Tack bare 80. pound of Tack Duty and to continue for seven years and bare expresly a provision that the said Iames Reid should retain the Annualrent of 600. merks adebted to him by Sinclar as a part of the Tack Duty and that he should not be removed untill the said 600. merks were payed The Pursuer answered that the alleadgence was no way Relevant to accompt the payment of the 80. pounds of Tack Duty to the Pursuer out of which the Defender could have no Retention of his Annualrent because that is but a personal provision adjected in the Tack and no part of the Tack and can work no more then if such a Provision had been made out of the Tack in which Case it would only have been a part of the Tack Duty in Compensation of the Annualrent as an Assignation would not be effectual against a singular Successor and would endure no longer then the Land was his who assigned the Duties So now the Land ceassing to be Sinclars the Assignment or Alocation thereof to be retained for satisfaction of the Annualrent is not Relevant against this Appryzer no more then that part of the Clause by which the Defender is provided not to remove till his Sum be payed which was never sustained to be effectual against a singular Successor The Defender answered that this Defense stood Relevant because the Clause of Retention is adjected immediatly to the Tack Duty and so is as a part thereof and so is real and Effectual against a singular Successor because if Sinclar had set the Tack for a grot it would have been valid and therefore might more set it for the satisfaction of the Annualrents and so much Duty further The Lords Sustained the Deâ—ense that seing there remained a Tack Duty over and above the Retention of the Annualrent and that the Tack had a particular Ish of seven years that it was valid but found the Case dubious if there had been no Tack Duty over and above the Annualrent but that the Land had been either set expresly for satisfaction of the Annualrent or for such a sum equivalent thereto to be retained In which case the Tacks would want a Tack Duty
Benefice by his Right of Presentation and Collation It was alleadged for the Collectors of the vacant Stipends that his Stipend was not as the allowance of an helper but was a several Congregation separate from the Parsonage of Peebles and at the Parsons Presentation and that no helper has a Presentation and that the Incumbent not being admitted till after Michaelmess has no Right to any part of the Fruits of that year though he was Presented before because the Kirk cannot be said to be full but vacant till the Minister be admitted The Lords found that this Kirk having a Presentation could not return in the vacancy to the Parson of Peebles and that the Presentation being at Lambas and the Incumbent serving at the Kirk and Entring to his Tryals immediatly till he was Entred which was in October thereafter and that he had Right to the half of that years Stipend not being presented before Whitsonday and found the other half to belong to the Collector of vacand Stipends Lairds of Tulliallan and Condie contra Crawfoord Eodem die THe Lairds of Tulliallan and Condie as having a Right from him pursues Declarator of the Expiration of an Appryzing led at the Instance of Crawfoord to which Margaret Crawfoord his Daughter has now Right and condescends that the sum Appryzed for was satisfied within the Legal by Compensation in so far as Tulliallan had Right to a Contract whereby Crawfoord the Appryzer was oblieged to deliver so many Chalders of Coal weekly or in Case of Failzie four pounds for ilk Chalder It was alleadged for the Defender that this Article of Compensation ought to be repelled First because the said Contract is prescribed 2ly The Appryzing proceeded upon a Decreet of Compt and Reckoning wherein an Alleadgence being founded upon the same Contract was past from pro loco tempore and so can never now be made use of to take away that Decreet much less the Appryzing against a singular Successor who seing the same past in tuto to take Right without the hazard thereof 3ly The Defender cannot be oblieged after fourty or fifty years time to prove the Delivery of an yearly Duty of Coal 4ly The Compensation is not de liquido in liquidum because the one is a personal Contract the other is an Apprysing and Infeftment the one hath not a liquid price Constitute but bears expresly such a Sum in case of failzie and not as the price which being much more then the ordinar price then is but a personal failzie which cannot be liquidat till Declarator and modification of a Judge The Pursuer answered that he was evicting the rigor of an Appryzing in causa maxime favorabili And as to the first alleadgence anent the Prescription offers to prove Interruption by Arrestments c. To the second not Relevant according to the Custome before the years 1649. competent and omitted was not relevant against Decreets of Suspension But Suspenders might either omit or pass from their Reasons and Suspend upon them again which could not but be alswell effectual against the Assigney as the Cedent As to the third this Article being instructed by Writ no presumption nor less time then Prescription could take it away To the which the Coals having a liquid Sum in lieu thereof the Article is liquid and as payment within the legal will annul an Appryzing so will Compensation which is equiparat in Law though the Case would not be alike in a Wodset against a singular Successor The Lords found the Defenses against this Article relevant viz. that the Article was not liquid by a Sum Constitute expresly for a price and that it being alleadged that in the Decreet this alleadgeance was past from and an expresse reservation that it might be made use of against any other just Debt then that which was in the Decreet whereupon the Appryzing proceeded The Lords had also consideration that the Legal of the Appryzing was not yet expired Lyon of Muirask contra Laird of Elsick Eodem die LYon of Muirask pursues the Laird of Elsick upon a Debt of his Fathers as Successor titulo lacrativo The Defender alleadged absolvitor because any Disposition he had from his Father was in his Contract of Marriage whereby 10000â— merks of Tocher was received by his Father and 14000. merks of Debt more undertaken for his Father with the burden of his Fathers Liferent The Pursuer answered the alleadgeance ought to be repelled because he offered him to prove that the Land Disponed was then worth fourty or fifty Chalders of Victual so that the Cause onerous was not the half of the value and therefore as to the Superplus he was Lucrative Successor The Defender answered that any onerous Cause or price though incompetent was enough to purge this passive Title and albeit the Pursuer might reduce the Right and make the Lands lyable because the Cause was not onerous and equivalent yet he could not be personally lyable in solidum for all the Defuncts Debts The Lords having seriously considered the bussinesse after a former Interlocutor the last Session Assoilzing from the passive Title but finding the Lands redeemable by the Pursuer or any other Creditor for the sums payed out did now find further that the Defender was lyable for the superplus of the just price of the Land according to the ordinar Rate the time of the Disposition and that the superplus over and above what he payed or undertook ought to bear Annualrent as being the price of Land Iames Iustice contra Earl of Queensberry Eodem die IAmes Iustice as having right to a Bond of 6000. merks due by the Earl of Queensberry pursues the Earl and the Lord Drumâ—anrig his Son as taking his Estate with the burden of his Debt to pay it who alleadged no Processe because the Pursuers Right was an Assignation granted by a Tutrix not bearing in Name of the Pupil or as Tutrix in his Name because being in infancy he could not subscribe but bearing to be done by her as taking burden for the Pupil The Lords found the Assignation not formal not bearing the Pupil Disponer with his Tutrix but yet found the Letters orderly proceeded the Charger before Extract producing a Ratification by the Pupil and Tutrix formally done Laird of Prestoun contra Nathaniel Ebred Iune 24. 1664. THe Laird of Prestoun pursues Reduction and Improbation against Nathaniel Ebred of all his Rights of certain Lands The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Lands in question are Abbay-lands Erected in a temporal Holding in favour of Prestoun and therefore by the Act of Parliament 1633. all such Lands are annexed to the Crown and the Feu-duties are only found due to the Lords of Erection ay and while they be redeemed which is repeited in the 30. Act of Parliament 1661. and therefore the Pursuer not being Superiour but the King he has no interest to Improve of Reduce The Pursuer answered that he opponed his Infeftment of the Lands holden of the King
with the Kings Advocats concurse The Defender answered that the Advocats concurse was but ex stilo curiae and he could make no concurse sufficient for any Improbation and Reduction without the Kings special order The Lords found the Defense Relevant and Assoilzied at which time it was remembred that Sir Thomas Hope insisting in an Improbation of his Good-son the same was not Sustained because it wanted the Kings expresse Order Town of Cowper contra Town of Kinnothy Eodem die THe Town of Cowper having Charged the Town of Kinnothy to desist from Merchant Trade They Suspend and alleadge that they have the Priviledge of Burgh of Barony in keeping Hostlers and selling Wine The Charger answered that selling of Wine is one of their chiefest and expresse Priviledges The Lords considering that this dipped upon the Controversie betwixt Burgh Royal and Burgh of Barony which has remained undecided these thirty years would not Discusse this particular but found the Letters orderly proceeded in general ay and while the Defenders found Caution to desist from Merchant Trade without determining how far that reached Moffet contra Black Eodem die THere being a Bargain betwixt the said Moffet and Black for some Packs of Plaids by which it was agreed that the buyer for satisfaction of the price should give Assignation to certain Bonds exprest but there was no mention what Warrandice At the Discussing of the Cause the Seller craved absolute Warrandice and alleadged that seing it was not Communed that it should be a restricted Warrandice it behoved to be an Absolute being for a Cause onerous and for the price of the Goods 2ly Seing the Agreement required an Assignation in Writ to Bonds the Buyer might re integra resile seing neither the Plaids nor Bonds were Delivered The Lords found that thē Buyer who insisted behoved either to give absolute Warrandice that the Bond was not only due but should be effectual and the Creditor solvendo otherways they suffered the Seller to Resile especially seing the Bargain was not made first by words Absolute for such a price and afterwards that it had been agreed to give such Bonds for that price In which case the Bargain though verbal would have stood Alexander Falconer contra Mr. Iohn Dowgal Eodem die ALexander Falconer pursues Mr. Iohn Dowgal for payment of 1000. merks left in Legacy by umquhil Iohn Dowgal by a special Legacy of a Bond adebted by the Earl of Murray whereupon he conveens the Earl as Debitor and Mr. Iohn Dowgal as Executor for his Interest to pay the special Legacy The Exceutor alleadged that the sum belonged to him because he had Assignation thereto from the Defunct before the Legacy The Pursuer Answered that hoc dato there was sufficiency of Free-goods to make up this Legacy and albeit it had been legatum rei alienae yet being done by the Testator scienter who cannot be presumed to be ignorant of his own Assignation lately made before it must be satisfied out of the rest of the Free-Goods Which the Lords found Relevant Duke and Dutches of Hamiltoun contra Scots Eodem die DUke and Dutches of Hamiltoun being Charged for payment of a Sum due to umquhil Sir William Scot of Clerkingtoun and assigned by him to his four Children alleadged that by Act of Parliament Commission was granted for deducing so much of his Creditors Annualrents as should be found just not exceeding eight years and therefore there could be no Sentence against him as to that till the Commission had decyded The Pursuers answered that these Annualrents were not due for the years during the time the Duke was Forefault by the English which ended in Anno. 1656. and they insist but for the Annualrents since that year It 's answered for the Duke that albeit he had payed many of these years Annualrents by force of Law then standing yet that could not hinder the Deduction but that he would have Repetition or Deduction in subsequent years The Pursuers alleadged he behoved to seek the Heir for Repetition and could not deduce from them The Lords in respect of the Commission would not Decide nor Discuss the Alleadgence anent the years Annualrent but Superceeded to give Answer till the Commission had determined even till seven years after the Forefaulture to make up these that was payed before In this Process compearence was made for Sir Laurence Scot the Heir and Executor Dative who alleadged that there was 2000. merks of the Sum belonged to him because his Fathers Assignation to the Children contained an express Division of their shares which was so much less then the hail Sum Assigned The Children answered they opponed their Assignation which bare expresly an Assignation to the hail Sum and Bond it self and albeit the Division was short it was but a mistake of the Defunct and cannot prejudge the Assigneys Which the Lords found Relevant George Melvil contra Mr. Thomas Ferguson Iune 25. 1664. GEorge Melvil pursues Mr. Thomas Ferguson his step-son for the value of his aliment after the Mothers Decease The Defender alleadged◠Absolvitor because the Defunct was his own Mother and he had no means of his own and it must be presumed that she Entertained him free out of her Maternal Affection and that his Step-Father did the same after he had Married his Mother The Lords sustained the first part of the Defense but not the second anent the Step-father after the Mothers decease Alexander Allan contra Mr. John Colzier Eodem die ALexander Allan pursues Mr. Iohn Colzier to pay a sum of ninety two pounds adebted for the Defenders Mother and that upon the Defenders Missive Letter by which he oblieged him to pay the same The Defender answered absolvitor because by the missive produced he offered him to become the Pursuers Debitor for the sum due by his Mother being about ninety two pounds but by a Postcript requires the Pursuer to Intimat to him or his Friends at Falkland whether he accepted or not which he did not then till after the Defenders Mothers Death and so it being a Conditional offer not accepted is not binding Which the Lords found Relevant and Assoilzied Cauhame contra Adamson Eodem die THomas Cauhame having Appryzed a Tenement in Dumbar from Ioseph Iohnstoun pursues Iames Adamson to remove therefrom who alleadged Absolvitor because this Apprizer could be in no better case then Iohnstoun from whom he Appryzed whose Right is affected with this provision that he should pay 600. pounds to any person his Author pleased to nominat Ita est he hath Assigned the Right to the Defender so that it is a real Burden affecting the Land even against this singular Successor and included in his Authors Infeftment The pursuer answered that albeit it be in the Infeftmen yet it is no part of the Infeftment or real Right but expresly an obliegment to pay without any Clause Irritant or without declaring that the Disponers Infeftment should stand valid as to the Right of that Sum. The
1621. It was answered for the Lady They opponed the Lords dayly Practique ever since the said Act that Infeftments were never taken away thereupon by Exception or Reply Which the Lords found Relevant Montgomerie contra Hoom. Eodem die WIlliam Mongomery pursues Alexander Hoom to Remove who alleadged absolvitor because he stands Infeft and by vertue thereof in seven years Possession and so hath the benefit of a Possessorie Judgement It was Replyed that before any such Possession a Decreet of Removing was obtained against the Defender which made him mala fide Possessor It was duplyed that since that Decreet which was in absence the Defender had Possessed it seven years without Interruption which acquired the benefit of a new Possessorie Judgement And alleadges that an Interruption of Possession ceases by seven years albeit in the Point of Right it ceases not till Fourty The Lords found the Interruption stands for fourty Years and that no Possession thereafter upon that same ground could give a new Possessorie Iudgment the Possession being Interrupted not only by Citation but by a Decreet of Removing which stated the other Partie in Civil Pessession Earl of Sutherland contra Mcintosh of Conadge Eodem die THe Earl of Sutherland pursues Mcintosh of Conadge for the profit of a Regality belonging to the Earl viz. Blood-wyts Escheats c. whereof Conadge had obtained Gift from the Usurpers the time that Regalities were Supprest and declared that he insisted for those only that were yet unuplifted for which the Parties Fyned had not made payment albeit some of them had given Bond. The Defender alleadged absolvitor for Blood-wyts and Amerciaments which might have been done by the Justices of Peace because as to these the Inglish had done no wrong seing the Justice of Peace might then and may now Cognosce and Fyne for Blood-wyts whithin the Regality The Pursuer answered that as he might have Re-pleadged from the Justice General if he had not been impeded by the Act of the Usurpers so much more might he have re-pleadged from the Justice of Peace and therefore any Blood-wyts decerned by them belonged to him as Lord of the Regality The Lords repelâ—ed the Defense and joâ—nd the dead of the Iustice of Peace could not prejudge the Pursuer M. John Muirhead contra Iuly 21. 1664. MR. John Muirhead as Assigney pursuing he alleadged that the Assignation not being intimat before the Cedents death the Sum was in bonis defuncti and the Assigney could have no Right without Confirmation The Lords Repelled the alleadgance James Johnstoun Merchant in Edinburgh contra The Lady Kincaide November 11. 1664. JAmes Iohnstoun pursues the Lady Kincaide as Executrix to her Husband who alleadged absolvitor because the Testament was exhausted and she had obtained a Decreet of Exoneration which being standing un-reduced she behoved to be assoilzied seing there was no Reduction thereof raised 2ly Albeit the said Exoneration were quarrallable hoc ordine yet it appears thereby that the Testament was exhausted The Pursuer answered that the first Defense on the Exoneration non Relevat unless the Pursuer had been cited to the giving thereof it operats nothing against him nor needs he Reduce it 2ly The second member of the Defense of exhausting the Testament mentioned in the Exoneration non Relevat unlesse it were alleadged exhausted by lawful Sentences before intenting of the Pursuers Cause The Defender answered that it was Relevant to alleadge that payment was made of lawful Debts of the Defuncts instructed by writ before intenting of the Pursuers Cause for seing the Debt was clear the Executor ought not to multiply Expenses by defending against the same unless it were alleadged there were collusion to prefer the Creditors payed The Lords repelled both members of the Defense and found that the Executrix might not without a Sentence prefer any Creditor especially seing it was not a Debt given up in Testament by the Defunct neither was it alleadged that the Pursuer had long neglected to pursue Nicolas Murray Lady Craigcaffie contra Cornelius Neilson Merchant in Edinburgh November 12. 1664. NIcolas Murray pursues a Reduction of a Decreet of the Baillies of Edinburgh obtained against her at the instance of Cornelius Neilson upon this Reason that she being pursued for the Mournings for her self and Family to her Husbands Funeralls which Mournings were delivered to her by the said Cornelius and were bought by her from him or by her Order sent to her which was referred to her Oath and she deponed that Cornelius had promised to his Father to give necessars for his Funerals out of his Chop and according to that promise had sent unto her The Baillies found that this qualitie adjected in the Oath that the Furniture was upon Cornelius promise to his Father resulted in ane Exception which they found probable by Write or Oath of Cornelius who having deponed denyed any such promise and therefore they decerned the Lady to pay Against which her Reason of Reduction is that she ought to have been Assoilzied by the Baillies because her Oath did not prove the lybel viz. That she bought the Wair from Cornelius or made her self Debitor therefore but only that she received the same from him without any Contract or Ingadgment which would never make her Debitor for a Wife or a Bairn in Family are not lyable for their Cloaths unless they promise payment but only the Father and in the same manner the Mourning for the Funeralls of the Husband is not the Wifs Debt but the Husbands Executors The Defender answered that the Reason was no ways Relevant seing the Pursuers Oath proved the receipt of the Goods which was sufficient ad victoriam causa The quality being justly taken away for albeit the Husband or his Executors were lyable for the Relicts Mournings yet a Merchant that gives off the same to the Relict is not oblidged to dispute that but may take himself to the Relict who received the same without either Protestation or Aggreement not to be lyable The Pursuer answered that whatever Favour might be pleaded for a Merchant Stranger yet this Furniture being given by the Defuncts own Son to his Relict could not oblidge her The Son being the Fathers ordinar Merchant The Lords found that the Oath before the Baillies proved not the lybel and that the accepting of the Mournings did not oblidge the Relict but the Executors seing the Defunct was a Person of their quality that his Relict required mourning and therefore Reduced Galbreath contra Colquhoun Eodem die WAlter Galbreath pursues an Exhibition of all Writs made by or to his Predecessors ad deliberandum The Lords restricted the lybel to Writs made to the Defunct or his Predecessors or by them to any Preson in their own Family or containing any Clause in their â—avour whereupon the Defender having Deponed that he had in his hand a Disposition of Lands made by the Pursuers Predecessors Irredeemably and that he had his Predecessors progress of these Lands but that
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
amongst themselves how dangerous it were if the Creditors or Persons intrusted obtaining Infeftment of an intrusted Estate the Back Bond of Trust being personal would not exclude them and albeit the Person intrusted were not solvendo as in this Case the Intrusted Estate as to the Heirs and Creditors would be inavoidablie lost And some being of opinion that a Personal Exception upon a Back Bond could not be competent to burden or qualifie a real Right or an Action for obtaining thereof But the most part were of opinion that albeit the Right if it were compleat would be real yet this Action for obtaining thereof is but Personal for real Actions are such only which proceed upon real Rights and against the Ground such as upon Annualrents and therefore this being a Personal Action might be excluded or qualified by a Personal Exception upon the Back Bond. And therefore they Adjudged with the Burden of the Back Bond. Earl of Sutherland contra Hugh Gordoun December 1. 1664. THe Earl of Sutherland pursues a Declarator against Hugh Gordoun his Vassal that his Right being holden Feu two terms has run into the third and thereby the Right is extinct not only by the Act of Parliament but by a particular Clause in the Defenders Infeftment at least in the Disposition whereupon his Charter and Seasine proceeds There is also called an Apprizer who alleadged that he being a singular Successor and a stranger to his Authors Rights during the Legal unexpyred is not oblieged to possess and cannot omit his Right by his Authors fault or by his own Ignorance The Lords having considered this Case and reasoning amongst themselves upon the difference of a Clause Irritant in an Infeftment Feu and the benefit of the Act of Parliament they found that if the Pursuer insisted upon the Act of Parliament the Defender might purge the Failzie by payment at the Bar but if he insisted upon the Clause in the Infeftment it behoved to be considered whether that Clause was in the real Right by the Charter and Seasine either specially or generally under the provisions contained in the Disposition Or if it was only in the Disposition In which case though it might operat against the Vassal or his Heirs yet not against the Appryzer unless the Seasine had been immediatly upon the Disposition In which case the Disposition serves for a Charter And therefore ordained the Pursuer to condescend and it is like that in favours of the Appryzer being a stranger they would suffer him to purge at the Bar utcunque in this Cause it was not found necessar to cite all Parties at the Mereat Cross albeit the Letters bear so Veatch contra Paterson December 2. 1664. PAterson having set some Lands to Veatch in Anno 1645. The Tack contained a Clause that the Tennents should be relieved of all publick Burdens and having left the Land in 1653. two or three years thereafter he raised a Pursuit against Paterson the Heretor for payment to him of all the publick Burdens he had payed out and renews the same Pursuit and produces the Receipts of the publick Burdens and alleadges that there was a Penalty in the Tack of an hundred pound that he should Possesse Veatch at the Entry of the Tack wherein he failzied The Defender alleadged that it must be presumed that all the Tickets and publick burden was allowed in the Rent or otherwise past from by the Pursuer seing he voluntarly payed his hail Rent Or otherwise all the publick burdens in Scotland payed by Tennent may infer a Distress upon their Masters to repay the same The Pursuer answered that that presumption could not take away his Writ viz. the Tickets produced but if the Defender gave Discharges he ought to have made mention of the allowance of the publick Burdens therein The Lords having considered the Case as of Importance for the preparative found the Defense upon the Presumption Relevant unless the Pursuer instruct by Writ or the Defenders Oath that these Tickets were not allowed in the Rent And as for the Penalty the Lords found that it ought to be restricted to the damnage and that the same was not now probable otherwise then by the Defenders Oath Iames Wilson contra Alexander Home of Linthill Eodem die JAmes Wilson having pursued Alexander Home of Linthill as Sheriff of the Shire for the Debt of a Rebel whom he suffered to Escape In which this Defense was found Relevant that the Rebel in the taking had wounded these that were taking him and had Escaped vi majore The Laird of Clerkingtoun contra The Laird of Corsbieâ— December 3. 1664. SIr William Dick having Appryzed some Lands holden of the Town of Irving and charged the Magistrates to receive him The Laird of Corsbie having Compryzed the same Lands some dayes after was received by the Town the next day after Sir Williams Charge and about a Month after Sir William was also Infeft Clerkingtoun having Right from Sir William pursues Corsbie First for Mails and Duties Corsbie was found to have the benefit of a possessory Judgement by seven years Possession and thereupon was Assoilzied Now Clerkingtoun insists in a Reduction on this Reason that he having first Appryzed and Charged the Superiour they Colluded with the Defender and gave him a voluntar infeftment the next Day after his Charge and therefore his Infeftment though after ought to be drawn back to his Charge and Diligence and he preferred The Defender answered that the Reason ought to be Repelled because the weight of the Reason is the Pursuers Diligence and the Superiours Collusion which hold not because all the Diligence Sir William Dick did was the first Charge upon the Letters of four Forms which bear only with Certification that in Case of Disobedience Letters of Horning would be direct simpliciter and this is no more then a Premonition and put no Obligation upon the Superiour until the second Charge which was Horning Neither did Sir William ever insist any further then the first Requisition The Lords found that the first Charge was sufficient in this case where the Superiour gave an Infeftment before the Expyring of the first Charge and before the second Charge could be given and thereby that a Superiour might prefer an Appryzer though posterior to a prior do what Diligence the prior could But they found that seing Sir William Dick had been silent until his Legal Reversion was Expyred and had not challenged the Defender who was in Possession and thereby had Excluded him from the benefit of Redemption competent to him if he had been found to be but the second Right within the Legal Therefore the Lords found Sir William Dicks Appryzing Redeemable by Corsbie within year and day after the Sentence Mr. Iames Hutcheson contra Earl of Cassils Eodem die MR. Iames Hutcheson having Charged the Earl of Cassils for his Stipend The Earl Suspends and alleadges first that the Charger had no right to the Whitsonday Term 1663. because
that Term was past before his Presentation at least before his Institution and Collation 2ly There being but a Decreet of Modification and no Locality The Earl alleadged Locality should be first made and he lyable but for his proportional part of the Stipend The Lords found that the Stipend affected the Teinds and the Minister might take himself to any of the Heretorsâ— in so far as he had Teind and therfore sustained the Condescendence and ordained the Charger to prove what Teind my Lord had without prejudice to him to crave his Relief Lady Craig and Greenhead her Husband contra Lord Luire Decemb. 7â— 1664. THe Lady Craig being Infeft in Liferent pursues her Tennents Compearance is made for the Lord Luiâ—e who Appryzed the Lands of her Husband and alleadges that he ought to be preferred because he stands publictly Iâ—feft and any Right the Lady has is but base holden of her Husband and before she attained Possessionâ— he was publickly inâ—eft It was answered for the Lady that her Husbands Possession is her Possession and so her Infeftment was cled with Possession from the Date thereof It was answered that that holds only in the case of an Infeftment to a Wife upon her Contract of Marriage but this was but an additional gratuitous Infeftment stante matrimonio she being competently provided before by her Contract In which case such Provisions cannot prejudge Lawful Creditors neither can the Hushands Possession give the benefit of a possessory Judgement to the Wife unless she had Possessed seven years after his Death The Lords found that such Infeftments as these being gratuitous and voluntar could not be prejudicial to the Husbands Creditors nor give the Wife a possessory Iudgement And the case here being with a Creditor of the Husbands they did not proceed further to consider and determine if the Husbands Possession in such a case would not validat the base Right as to any acquired Right thereafter Eccles contra Eccles. Eodem die IN an Action of a Compt and Reckoning betwixt these two Infants It was alleadged for the Defender that he being pursued upon his Fathers back-bond oblieging him to make Compt and Payment of the means of umquhil Fergus Eccles his Brother to Thomas Ecclesâ— and umquhil Andrew Eccles the Pursuers Father It was answered upon condition that Mr. Hugh the Defenders Father should have the third part to himself The Question was concerning the manner of Probation The Pursuer alleadged it was only probable scripto he being a Pupil and his Father dead The Defender alleadged it was probable by the Tutors Oath being so likely in it self that Mr. Hugh being the third Brother should have the third share and that Thomas the Tutor did accordingly allow him the third share and there was produced a Testificat of Balloche that there was an agreement Notwithstanding whereof the Lords refused to take the Tutors Oath ex officio seing they found albeit it were Affirmative it could not prove against the Pâ—pil Scot in Cairlyle contra Henderson and Wilson December 8. 1664. RItchard Scot having Charged Henderson and Wilson upon their Bonds they Suspend and offer them to prove payment of a part by Witnesses and alleadges that it being the Law of England that Wâ—tnesses can prove to take away Writ that therefore these Bonds being Contracted in England with English men the Suspenders ought to have the same benefit of Probation they would have had if they had been Arrested in England upon their Bonds or pursued there and adduced a Practick of Dury in Anno 1628. The Lords having accuratly Considered and Debated this Case amongst themselves and finding that locus contractus was in England But the Bonds bare expresly a Clause of Registration in Scotland And that such Bonds had been ordinar betwixt Merchants in England and Merchants in Scotland and in no time such a Probation admitted and that it would furnish an ordinary delay in such Cases to the disadvantage of Merchants and hindering of Trade by always offering to prove payment in England by Witnesses which could require long time Therefore they found the reason only probable scripto vel juramento Mr. Cornelius Inglis contra Mr. Rodger Hogg December 9. 1664. MR. Cornelius Inglis pursuing a Removing against certain Tennents near Dumbar upon an Infeftment and Appryzing It was alleadged for the Tennents that they were Tennents to Mr. Rodger Hogg by payment of Mail and Duty to him and he was not called The Pursuer answered non relevat unless the Defenders condescend upon Mr. Rodgers Right which might defend him and them The Defenders answered first that they could not be oblieged to Dispute their Masters Right but he ought to be called to Dispute his own Right 2ly It was insinuat that Mr. Rodger had an Appryzing and a Charge against the Superiour The Lords repelled the Defense unless the Defenders condescended upon such a Right as were valide to exclude the Pursuer being prior to his but the Tennents alleadged no such Right and Mr. Rodgers Charge was posterior to the Pursuers Infeftment Iohn Veatch younger of Dawick contra Alexander Williamson Eodem die JOhn Veatch pursues Williamson upon the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor for paying to him of his proportional part of the Mails and Duties of Appryzed Lands as coming in pari passu with the Defender by an Appryzing within a year of his The Defender alleadged absolvitor because he has Right to the first Appryzing led before the Act of Parliament betwixt Debitor and Creditor and therefore he has the benefit of the 21. Act of the last Session of Parliament declaring that where an Appryzer for his own Security had redeemed a prior Apprysing and gotten Right thereto before the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor The said first Apprysing should have the same effect it would have had before the Act Debitor and Creditor and should not come in pari passu The Pursuer answered that behoved only to be understood where the second Appryzer had upon necessity to shun the expyring of the legal redeemed and gotten Right to the first Apprysing which could not be said here because the Debitor being minor the legal had and has a long course to run The Lords sustained the Defense without any such limitation in respect of the express Tenor of the Act of Parliament Robert Learmonth contra Laurance Russel Eodem die RObert Learmonth being pursued by Laurance Russel for the price of Wines and the matter referred to his oath gave in a qualified Oath bearing that the Wines in question were sent to him not to be sold till further order and that therefore he keeped them unsold till the end of the year and when they were in hazard of spoilling sold them for 12 pound Sterling the Tun and that he that sent them was Debitor to him by Bonds and Decreets in a greater sum It was alleadged neither member of the quality was competent not the first because it was offered to be proven that the
Litle contra Earl of Nithsdail Eodem die LItle pursues an Improbation and Reduction against the Earl of Nithsdaile of the Rights of some Lands Whereinâ— the Lords sustained the Pursuers Interest on a Compryzing and Charge without Infeftment and though the Appryzing was on Litles own Band simulat and assigned to himself and found such Deeds might make him lyable as behaving as Heir if he Intrometted and were sufficient Titles any other way The Lords also found that Certification ought to be granted against Retours and Charters though in publick Registers but not against Writs Registrate in the Books of Session the date being condescended on by the Defender were sustained against all Writs granted to the Defender and his Authors but such as Seem to represent them are called nor against Writs granted by the Pursuer his Predecessors or Authors but only his Predecessors to whom he doth Succeed jure sanguinis and such Authors as he produces Right from but they would not admit Certification against Appryzing if the Infeftment thereupon were produced Sir John Baird contra The Magistrats of Elgine Ianuary 25. 1665. SIr Iohn Baird pursues the Magistrats of Elgine for the Debt of a Rebel whom they suffered to escape forth of their Prison It was alleadged for the Magistrats absolvitor because they could be oblidged no further but for their ordinar diligence of Custodie but not contra vim majorem and offered to prove that about six a clock at night in the winter time the Rebels Lady going in to Sup with him the keeper opening the Prison Door to let her in six or seven Armed men pressed in with her and that there was sixty more at the Gate The Pursuer answered non relevat because it was the Keepers fault to let in any body at that time of night The Lords found the Defense relevant to be proven by Witnesses above exception which were condescended on Parson of Dysart contra Watson Eodem die ANderson Parson of Dysart having a designation of four Aikers of Iohn Watsons Land which was Bishops Land charges him to removeâ— Watson Suspends on this Reason that there are Parsons Lands in the Paroch more ewest to the Kirk and lying about the Parsons Mans and therefore according to the Order of the Act of Parliament anent Designation of Glebs the Parsons Lands must be designed in the first place before the Defenders Lands which are Bishops Lands It is answered for the Charger that the Parsons Lands were Feued out before the said Act of Parliament and are all build with houses incorporat within the Town of Dysart It was answered that the said Act of Parliament bears That the Parsons Lands shall be first Designed although they be Feued out before Which the Lords found relevant and Ordained the Parsons Land to be cognosced what quantitie was wanting thereof to be made out of the Bishops Land William Menzies contra Laird of Drum Eodem die WIlliam Menzies as Executor to Alexander Menzies and umquhil Margart Gordon the other Executor having obtained Decreet against the Laird of Drum for 8000 merk The said Margaret being dead William charges for the whole Margaret having died at the Horn Compearance is made for the Donatar It was alleadged for Drum that he could not be conveened at the instance of this Pursuer without concourse of the other Executor or some to represent her had been called For they might have alleadged that this Charger is satisfied of the half of his Executry The Lords found that seing the Testament was execute by a Sentence the other Executor needed not be called 2ly Drum alleadged that he could not be lyable to this Executor but for the half It was alleadged for the Donatar that he craved preference for the other half It was answered that the Donatar could have no interest because the Sum was Heretable It was answered that albeit it was Heretable yet it became moveable by the Executors taking a Decreet therefore in the same Case as if Requisition had been used In this the Lords did not decide some being of opinion that it was Moveable others contrair because an Executor being but a Successor as a Decreet of Registration or Transferrence would not change the Nature of the first Bond so neither would this Decreet The Heretors of the Fishing of Don contra The Town of Aberdeen and their Feuers Ianuary 26. 1665. THe Heretors having Salmond Fishing in the Water of Don above Aberdeen pursue a Declarator of their Right of Salmond Fishing and that they ought to be Free of the prejudice sustained by the Cruives built at Aberdeen and insist upon these Particulars That the Town of Aberdeen hath no Right to Cruives but is only Infeft cum piscationibus piscarijs and within such a bounds which cannot carry Salmond Fishing being inter regalia much less Cruives It was answered that such a Clause granted to an Incorporation or Community or being in Baronia with Immemorial Possession is sufficient and that there is a later Right granted to the Town with power of Cruives within the said Bounds uti possidebantur It was answered that the Pursuers had their Cruives established before that time The Lords found the Town of Aberdeens Title to Cruives albeit conceived but conform to the first Clause with long Possession was sufficient 2ly The Pursuers insisted against the Transporting of the Cruives from one place to another which they could not do Cruives being a Servitude strictissimi juris as a way being once chosen and fixed cannot be changed especially in respect of the Clauses uti possidebantur It was answered that there being a Bounds expressed and mentioning Cruives to have been there before the meaning can be no other then that these Cruives should be removed if Inundations alter the present stans and uti possidebantur is only understood of the way of building as before The Lords found by the said Clause that the Cruives might be Trasplanted within the Bounds having but one Cruive Dyck and the former Dyck demolished so that the Fishings above be in no worse condition then formerly 3ly They insisted for the wydnesse of the Heeks whereanent it was alleadged that by an Act of Parliament King Iames the fourth Hecks were appointed to be five Inches wyde which is confirmed by an Act 1661. It was answered that the Act King Iames the 4th did relate to a former Act of King Davids which was not to be found but there were two Acts by King Iames the 3. Relating to the old Act by King Alexander which was found to bear three Inch. So that the Act K. Iames the 4th though posterior being but Relative and the Act Related not known The Lords found it was a mistake in the writing of the Act and that in the stead of King David it should have expressed King Alexander and so born only three Inches seing otherwayes five Inch would let the greatest part of Salmond passe 4ly They Insisted for the Saturndays Slop and craved that
on Saturnday the whole Cruives might stand open So that no Fish might be taken thereby according to the old Statute of King Alexander from the Even Sun on Saturnday till the Sun rising on Munday The Lords found that the Saturndays slop ought to be of the whole Cruives and that from Saturnday at six a clock till Munday at Sunrising 5ly They Insisted for the Hight of the Cruives and alleadged that the same ought to be no higher then the water in its ordinar Course neither the time of the Flood nor of Drought otherwayes they might build the same as high as they pleased and that it ought not to be builded perpendicular which will hinder the Salmonds up-coming but slopping from the Ground to the top The Lords considering that there was no particular Law as to the hight of Cruives and that â—hir Parties had suffered the other to enjoy the Cruives above 40. Years that therefore the same should be uti possidebantur no higher then the old Cruives were 6ly They Insisted for the Liberty of the Midlestream beside and attour Saturndays Slop which is specially contained in the Acts of Parliament of King Alexander and King Iames the third and fourth and is renewed in the late Act of Parliament of King Charles the second The least quantity of which bears That five foot of the middle Stream must be constantly free It was answered 1. That the old Acts anent the midle Stream were wholly in desuetude and were in effect derogate by the Act of King Iames the sixt anent Cruives which ordains the Saturndays Slop to be keeped but mentions not the midle Stream And as for the late Act of Parliament it was Impetrat by these same Parties and never past in Articles or noticed by the Parliament but as an ordinar Confirmation It was answered that there was no prescription of publick Rights against standing Laws and albeit the desuetude of such Laws could be effectual yet the late Law Revives and Confirms them all per expressum which is not a particular Confirmation bearing mention of any particular Partie or particular Right but as a general Confirmation of general Laws anent all the Cruives in Scotland The Lords considering that the midle Stream has been long in desuetude and that this late Ratification was past without notice therefore before answer They Ordained the Parties to adduce Witnesses whether the midestream was accustomed in any Cruives in Scotland and whether the same would be beneficial or hurtful to the Salmond Fishing of the Kingdom in general and whether it were destructive to the Cruives in Common and likewise they gave Commission to examine the Witnesses hinc inde whether their new Cruives were builded upon challes or they otherways builded then the former Cruives to the prejudice of the Fishing above in the water George Hutcheson contra Dickson of Lonhead Eodem die GEorge Hutcheson pursues Dickson for a Sum of moneyâ— and for the Annualrent since the denunciation of the Horning Whereupon the Defender answered that the Horning was only at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh where the Defender dwelled not and so was null and could not give Annualrent It was answered that albeit such Hornings be not sufficient for an Escheat yet they are sufficient for Caption and so are not null and therefore Annualrents having so much ground in equity and by the civil Law being due ex mora such denunciations should be sufficient for Annualrent The Lords found such Hornings null and would not allow Annualrent Logan contra Galbraith Eodem die LOgan charges Galbraith to remove from a House who Suspends and alleadges that she is Served and Kenned to a Terce of the House which Terce she brukes pro indiviso with the two thirds The Charger answered the Reason ought to be repelled because albeit the Defense pro indiviso be relevant against such who can obtain division It being their own fault that they do not first divide or they pursue Removing but where it is a House being unum tenementum indivisibile the Heir or Successor of the Husband who has two thirds and continues in his Possession as well as the Relict in her third ought to be preferred in the Possession quia majus trahit minus The Lords found the answers relevant to elide the Reason and decerned the Relict to remove with this quality that if the Feear did not dwell in the House himself the Relict should be preferred giving as much Mail as any other Tennant and giving Caution for the two part Lairds of Berfoord and Binstoun contra Lord Kingstoun Ianuary 21. 1665. BErfoord and Binstoun pursues the Lord Kingstoun for Spuilzie of certain Corns he alleadged absolvitor because he Legally drew the same as their Teynd by vertue of his Tack from the present Minister and Inhibition thereon It was answered First That was not sufficient summarly to draw the Defenders Teynds unless there had been a Sentence on the Inhition which is but as a warning and so must not infer Removing brevi manu ad vitandum tumultum 2ly If he had Legally pursued them for a Spuilzie they would have alleadged and now alleadge that they have Tacks standing from the Minister for the time who though deposed yet lives and all incumbents Tacks serve during their natural life and no Tack from the next incumbent Prejudges during the life of the former conform to an expresse Act of Parliament The Defender duplyed that albeit an Act of Parliament required removing not to be summarly in Lands it did not so in Teynds 2ly The Pursuers Tacks are null without consent of the Patron The Pursuer triplyed that they are standing cled with seven years possession and their Tacks are subscribed by the Patron Quadruplyed he was not then Patron but was standing Fore-faulted unrestored Quadruplyed it is sufficient coloratus Titulus cum possessione till the Reduction And the Lord Bothwells Son Patron was after restored whereby it revived The Lords repelled the Defense in respect of the Pursuers Tacks and found the Defender might not brevi manu intromet there being any pretence of Title but they desired the Pursuer to restrict to wrongous intromission and without Oath in litem Sir John Scot and Walter Scot contra Sir John Fletcher Eodem die WAlter Scot as being Assigney by Sir Iohn Scot of Scotstarvet to an Atlas Major of the late Edition pursues Sir Iohn Fletcher for delivering thereof as belonging to the Pursuer and now in his hand The Defender answered non Relevat unlesse it were condescended quâ— Titulo for if it came in the Defenders hands by emption or Gift it is his own and in mobilibus possessio presumit Titulum seing in these Writ nor Witnesses uses not to be interposed and none can seek recovery of such unless he condescend quo modo desijt possedere else all commerce would be destroyed and who ever could prove that once any thing was his might recover it per mille manus unless they instruct their
title to it 2. Though it should be condescended that they were lent yet it must be proven only scripto vel juramento being a matter above an hundred pound The Pursuer answered that in liquid Sums or Promises Witnesses are not receivable above that Sum but in corporibus or facts as in bargains of Victual made and delivered Witnesses are sufficient though for greater Value The Lords found the Pursuer behoved to condescended upon the way the books was delivered and found it probable by Witnesses Mr. William Kintor Advocat contra John Boyd Baillie in Edinburgh Eodem die MR. William Kintor and Iohn Boyd having both adjudged the Lands of Mountlouthian pursue mutual Reductions of each others Rights Mr. Williams Right was upon a Decreet cognitionis causa against the Appearand Heir renuncing against which Iohn Boyd alleadged that the Adjudication was null proceeding upon a null Decreet cognitionis causa First In so far as it was lybelled at the instance of Kintor as Assigney by his Brother who was Heir to his Father and Execut-Executor and neither Retour nor Testament produced and so was null for want of probation The Pursuer answered that he had now produced in supplement of the Decreet the Writs The Lords sustained the Decreet only as ab hoc tempore 2ly Boyd alleadged that the Decreet cognitionis causa proceeded on six hundered merks which was Heretable by Infeftment and contained Clause of Requisition and no Requisition produced The Lords found the Decreet null pro tanto and to stand for the rest being upon diverse Articles 3ly Boyd alleadged that the said Decreet ought to be Reduced in so far as it proceeded against the Cautioner of a Tutor for payment of the Annualrent of his Pupils money during the Tutorie and for the Annualrent of that Annualrent a tutâ—la finita because the Tutor had uplifted at least ought to have uplifted and imployed the same for the Pupills behove ex officio It was answered that albeit Tutors are oblidged for their Pupils Rent which are in Tennents hands yet not for the Annualrent of their Money being in secure hands then and now if the Tutor had lifted it it would have been lost he being broken and the Cautioner also and the Debitors being great men as the Marquess of Hamiltoun and Lord Burghlie they would easily have Suspended and lost the Pursuers pains The Lords found that Tutors were oblidged to uplift their Pupils Annualrents though the Creditors were secure and to imploy them for Annualrents but not for each year they were due but ante finitam tutelam because though he had them he was not oblidged every year to imploy them severally and so sustained the Decreet 4ly Boyd alleadged that the years of the Tutorie ought to have been proven which was not and so the Decreet is null The Lords sustained the Decreet seing it was lybelled in communi forma unless it were alleadged that some of these years were post sinitam tutelam here a Testificat of the Pupils age was produced Lord Borthwick contra Mr. Mark Ker. Ianuary last 1665. THe Lord Borthwick pursues a Reduction ex capite inhibitionis of all Rights made by Sir Mark Ker to Andrew or Mr. Marks Ker of Moristoun of certain Lands The Defenders alleadged no Process because none to represent Sir Mark Ker were called who being bound in warrandice to the Defenders ought to be called whereas of old Processes sisted till warrands were first discussed so now the warrand ought at least to be called The Pursuer answered that he was not craving Reduction of Sir Marks own Right but of Moristouns Right granted by Sir Mark who was common Author to both And as to the warrandice the Defender might intimat the plea if he pleased The Lords found no Process till the warrand were called Alison Kelloâ— contra Pringle Eodem die ALison Kello pursues a Reduction against the Lairds of Wadderburnâ— and Pringle and craves Certification It was alleadged for Pringle no Certification because he was minor non tenetur placitare de Haereditate Paterna The Pursuer answered primo non relevat against the Production but the Minor must produce and may alleadge that in the Debate against the Reason 2ly Non constat that it is Hareditas Paterna and therefore he must produce at least his Fathers Infeftment 3ly All he alleadges is that his Father had an Heretable Disposition without Infeftment which cannot make Haereditatem Paternam else an Heretable Bond were not Reduceable against a Minor or an Appryzing and Tack 4ly Albeit the alleadgeance were proponed in the discussing of the Reason yet the Reason being super dolo metu upon which the Defenders Original Right was granted and not upon the poynt of Preference of Right the brocard holds not in that Case as it would not hold in Improbation in casu falsi The Lords found that the Defender ought to produce his Fathers Infeftment and that a naked Disposition would not be sufficient which being produced they would sustain the Defense quoad reliqua against the Production but that they would examine Witnesses upon any point of fact in the Reason to remain in retentis that the Witnesses might not die in the mean time without discussing the Reason but prejudice of their Defenses Anderson and Proven contra Town of Edinburgh Eodem die ANderson being Creditor to Proven arrests in the hands of Gairdner all Sums due by him to Proven and thereupon pursues before the Commissaries of Edinburgh Gairdner gives his Oath that he is Debitor to Proven no way but for the Tack Dutie of the Customs of Edinburgh whereunto he was Sub-tacks-man to Proven conform to his Bond produced whereupon the Commissaries decerned Gairdner Suspends on double poynding It was alleadged for the Town of Edinburgh that the Sum in question being a Sub-tack dutie they had the common priviledge of all Masters against their Tennents and Sub-tennents that they might pursue either of them as they pleased without an Arrestment or any Diligence and were alwayes preferable for their Tack-dutie to any other Creditor of the principal Tacksman It was answered that Custom was not in the case of Rents of Lands wherein their is tacita hipotheca and that the principal Tacks-man was only their direct Debitor and the Sub-tacksman paying to the Principal Tacksman or which is equivalent to his Creditor is for ever free and the Town of Edinburgh hath secured themselves by taking Caution of the Sub-tacksman The Lords found the Town of Edinburgh preferable for their Tack-dutie and that they had immediat Action against the Sub-tacksman unless he had made payment bona fide before that they might exclude any other Creditor of the Principal Tacks-man for their Tack-dutie George Baptie contra Christian Barclay Eodem die CHristian Barclay having pursued George Baptie before the Commissares of Edinburgh for Solemnizing Marriage with her because he had gotten her with Child under promise of Marriage as was instructed by his Bond produced
Terms run in the third unpayed the Tack should expire and be null ipso facto without Declarator It was answered that notwithstanding clauses so conceived The Lords hath been accustomed to put them to Declarator in which case they have the priviledge to purge the Failzie at the Bar and if need beis the Defender will now purge The Lords found the reply relevant in respect of the conception of the Clause and would not suffer the Defender to purge for albeit in Declarators against Feues ob non solutum canonem the Lords will suffer the Defenders to purge at the Bar when the pursuite is upon the Act of Parliament yet they will hardly suffer them to purgewhere that Clause Irritant is exprest in the Infeftment so Proprietars may pursue their Tennents for failzing to pay the Duties of their Tack and to find Caution in time coming else to remove when there is no such Clauses Irritant and then they may purge but when the Clause Irritant is exprest there is far less reason they should have liberty to purge in Tacks then in Feus where the penalty is much greater Pringle of Torsonce contra Ker of Sunderland-hall February 17. 1665. PRringle having appryzed the Right of a Wodset from the Heirs of Sir George Ramsay does thereupon require and charge for the Money It was alleadged that he cannot have the Wodset Sum unless he not only Infest himself in the Wodset and renounce the same but put the Defender in peaceable possession as he did possesse the Wodsetter from whom the Pursuer appryzed and who can be in no better Case then the Wodsetter himself The purâ—uer answered that he was willing to renounce all Right and Possession but could not put the Defender in Possession because a thrid Partie had intruded himself without the Pursuer or his Authors Fault and the Wodset being but a Pledge the Hipothecar is not lyable contra vim majorâ—m but only pro culpa lata levi Therefore if a Pledge be taken away by force it hinders not the Creditor to demand his Sum. The like must be in intrusion which is an Act of force and the Pursuer who hath only his Annualrent is not oblidged to consume the same upon recovery but the Defender may do the same The Defender answered that whatever might be alleadged in the Case of Intrusion if in continent the Wodsetter had intimate the same and required his Money yet this intruder has continued a long time The Lords found the defense and duply relevant to stop the payment of the money till the possession were delivered seing the intrussion was ex inter vallo James Butter contra Gray of Balbrino Eodem die JAmes Butter having pursued Gray for payment of a Sum of Money he alleadged prescription because fourty years had run from the date of the Bond being the last of December 1624. before any Judicial Act or other interruption done thereon The Pursuer replyed that he had cited the Defender upon the first Summons upon the 24 of December 1664. which was six days within the fourty years from the date 2ly It was much more within the 40 years from the Term of payment of the Bond from which only and not from the date prescription runs quia contra non valentem agere non currit prescriptio The Defender answered that the citation on the first Summons was not sufficient unless there had been an Act of Continuation or some Judicial Act within the 40 year Because the Act of Parliament bears expresly If the Creditor follow not and take document within 40 years the Bond shall expire The Lords found the reply relevant and that the Citation on the first Summons was sufficient being within 40 years of the term of payment Sir John Baird contra Magistrats of Elgine Eodem die SIr Iohn Baird pursues the Magistrats of Elgine for the Debt of a Rebel escaping out of their Prison who alleadged absolvitor because the Rebel had the benefit of the Act Debitor and Creditor and produced the Clerk of the Bills Certificat thereupon when he was offered to Prison and being Imprisoned joyntly for an other Debt The Magistrats protested that they excepted him not prisoner for this Debt It was answered that the benefit of the Act contains an express nullitie if the Annualrents be not payed conform thereto The Defenders answered that they could not be Judge to the discharge and that upon the like case of a Protection of the Kings the Magistrats of Strivling were liberat The Lords repelled the Defense unless the Clerks attest the discharge had been first produced or shown to the Magistrats before the Prisoner was let go In which case they might either have refused him or let him goe free Marquess of Huntly contra Gordoun of Lesmore February 22. 1665. THe Marquess of Huntly as Donatar to the Forefaulture of the Marquess of Argyle as to the Estate of Huntly obtained Decreet of Parliament against Gordoun of Lesmore for payment of the Mails and Duties of certain Lands and for removing therefrom He Suspends on these Reasons First That the Decreet was null not preceeding upon lawful Citation but far fewer dayes then is appointed by Law and that he was absent and now alleadges that his Right to the Lands in question was by excambion with the Marquess of Argyle for Lands holden of the Marquess of Huntly which he had possessed thirtie or fourtie years before and thereefore if the Pursuer were dispossessed of the Lands in question he behoved to possesse him in other Lands 2ly The Decreet is null as not proceeding upon tryal of an Inquest cognoscing the Marquess of Argyle Heretable possessor five years before conform to the Act of Parliament nor could that be cogâ—oâ—â—ed because the Defender himself was Heretable possessor these years 3ly The Defenders Right from the Marquess of Argyle albeit it was post comissum crimen yet the cryme was latent proceeding upon missive Letters of his that was found out of the English hands which the Defender could not know The Pursuer answered to the whole that he opponed the Decreet of Parliament which ought not to have been Suspended by the Lords of Session who are not Judges to Decreets of Parliament who may dispence with the Dyets and Solemnities of Law and the Pursuer insists not upon the benefit of the five years possession but upon this ground that the Defenders Rights from the House of Huntlie or from Argyle were holden base of Argyle and not confirmed by the King and therefore by the Forefaulture of Argyle the Superiour who by his Right came in Huntlies place these unconfirmed base Rights fall Which the Lords found relevant and in the same Process Mails and Duties being but generally decerned without expressing the quantities The Lords ordained the Pursuer to condescend upon the quantities and gave him a term to prove Viscount of Kingstoun contra Collonel Fullertoun Eodem die THe Viscount of Kingstoun pursues Collonel Fullertoun upon the
warrandice of an Assignation made by the said Collonel to Sir Arthur dowglass of whittinghame The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Assignation was only made in trust which he offered to instruct by many Adminicles of which these were the chief that by the Witnesses adduced it was cleared that this Assignation remained in the hands of one Cranstoun who was filler up of the date and Witnesses therein that it was never delivered to Whittinghame and that the Right Assigned was still retained by the Collonel who thereupon obtained two Decreets before the Lords and uplifted the Money from Sir William Thomson Debitor Cranstoun who keeped the Assignation being an Agent in the house never questioning the same nor Sir Arthur or any of his owning the same for the space of 20 year till of late Kingstoun gave 300. merk to get the Assignation out of the hands of one Ienkin who got it from Cranstoun and that the Money was to have been presently imployed for the levying of Souldiers for a French Regement whereof Fullertoun was Collonel and Sir Arthur Livetenant Collonel there were also two Letters of Sir Arthurs produced by the Collonel acknowledging the trust thereof the one was alleadged to be holograph but nothing adduced to prove the same but three other writs subscribed before Witnesses for comparing the Subscriptions therein with the Subscriptions of the Letters The Pursuer answered that so solemn a Write subscribed before Witnesses could not be taken away by Presumptions or Witnesses but either by Writ or Oath of Partie and as to the Presumptions adduced there are stronger Presumptions with the solemn Writ then against it Fullartoun a most circumspect man would never have given an Assignation in trust without a Back-bond and that Sir Arthur died shortly thereafter Anno 1642. and Cranstoun died Auno 1645. And Whittinghams Successors were strangers to the business and the missives adduced were not proven holograph and were suspect The Lords found the Defense founded upon the foresaid adminicles relevant and proven and therefore assoilzied Sir George Mouat contra Dumbar of Hembrigs Eodem die SIr George Mouat as Assigney to a Tochar of 5000 merk whereunto umquhile Dumbaith was contracter pursues Hemprigs as representing him for payment The Clause of the Contract bore That the Husband should have the Tochar out of the first and readiest Goods of the wifs Father and that he should have Annualrent therefore but did not expresly oblidge Dumbaith to pay and therefore he is not lyable personally unless he had intrometted with the Defuncts means The Lords found the Defender lyable seing the Clause being in re dotali it behoved to be interpret cum effectu and if it did import only a consent not to hinder the Husband it signified nothing and because in Cases conceived passivè where it does not appear who is oblidged the Contracter is understood oblidged Campbel contra Campbel Eodem die A Wife pursuing her Father in Law for imployment of her Tochar conform to her Contract He alleadged absolvitor because the Clause bore expresly that so soon as the Tochar was payed compleatly he should imploy it and so much more for the Wifs Liferent use so that unless it were shown that the Tochar was compleatly payed he was not oblidged The Pursuer answered that she was not oblidged to pay the Tochar but her Father and if any neglect or defect were therein it was not her fault but the Defender ought to have done diligence debito â—â—mpore and therefore albeit the Tochar were not payed at least he must imploy his own part proportionable to what of the Tochar he hath received Which the Lords found relevant and if the Pursuer had not restricted her self to that proportion they would have sustained it simply for all the Defnders own part Kennedy contra Weir February 23. 1665. KEnnedy of Auchtifardel having charged William Weir upon a Bond of 300 merk He Suspends and raises Reduction upon Minority and Lesion The Charger answered Minority takes no place where the Minor is in dolo as si minor sein majorem dixerit but in this Bond the Suspender expresly acknowledged himself to be then Major The Suspender answered that eadem facilitate that he was induced to subscribe the Bond he might be induced to insert that Clause which therefore cannot prove unless it were otherways proven that he did induce the Charger to lend him Money on that ground The Lords found his acknowledgement in the Bond was sufficient unlesse he instructed that he was induced to insert that Clause not on his own motion or that the Charger knew that he was Minor or was oblidged to know the same by being his Tutor or Curator or might have visibly known the same by the sight of his age and thought it not reasonable to put it to the Debitors oath to disappoint the Creditor Jack contra Pollock and Rutherfoord Eodem die MArion Rutherfoord Married David Clerk and had no Contract of Marriage with him but he having acquired a little ruinous Tennement took it to her and him in Conjunct-fee and in the time of the Plagueâ— he provided her to the Annualrent of 5000 merk His Heirs raises Reduction of the provision as being in lecto agritudinis after he had keeped his house upon suspition of the plague of which he died It was alleadged for the said Marton that keping the house upon suspition of the plague could not be as in lecto aegritudinis unless it were proven that he was infected with the Desease before the provision was granted 2ly Even in that Case Defuncts are not hindered to give Liferents to their Wives for which there is a natural obligation according to Craigs opinion The Lords repelled the first alleadgence but found the second relevant in so far as might extend to a competent provision to the Wife and therefore having examined many Witnesses hinc inde upon the Estate of the Husband and the Tochar and frugality of the Wife and finding his means did consist in a Tenement worth 500 merk by year beside that inconsiderable Tenement wherein she was Infeft they restricted her Annualrent which came to 300 merk to 123. lib. which was about the Terce of the Tenement albeit Terces of Houses within Burgh are not due In this Process the VVife and her second Husband aâ—d having repaired the other little Tenement which was ruinous and builded it much better then ever it was for which they pursued for the Reparations The Lords found that they ought to have the Reparations decerned not only in so far as is necessary but in quantum the Heir will lucrari by getting greater mail to be payed at the Wifes death she leaving the Tenement in as good case as now it is Sir James Mersser of Aldie contra William Rouan February 24. 1665. SIr Iames Mersser of Aldie as Donatar to the Gift of ultimus haeres of umquhil Iohn Rouan pursues a Reduction of the Retour and Service of William Rouan Served
Heir to the Defunct as his Goodsirs Brothers Oye and having obtained Certification contra non producta there being nothing produced but the Retour Service Brive and Executions but no Warrand of the Service either bearing the Testimony of Witnesses adduced to prove the propinquity of Blood or bearing that the Inquest of proper knowledge knew the same The Pursuer now insists in his Reason of Reduction that the Service is without Warrant and without Probation by Writ or Witnesses It was answered non relevat as it is lybelled bearing only that it is without probation by Writ or Witnesses whereas it might proceed upon the proper knowledge of the Inquest or any two of them The Pursuer answered that neither were there any Probation by Writ or Witnesses nor by the Minuts of Processe bearing that the Persons of Inquest of their proper knowledge did Serve The Lords considering that the Minuts of these Process upon Service for Serving general Heirs which may be before any Judicature use not to be exactly keeped would not instantly Reduce for want of the Warrants but ordained the Persons of Inquest to be produced to condescend whether they proceeded upon proper knowledge and what was the Reason of their knowledge Mc. Gregor contra Menzies Eodem die THere being a question arising betwixt Mc. Gregor and Menzies upon a Decreet Arbitral The Lords found the Decreet Arbitral null proceeding upon a Submission of this Tenor submitting to the Arbiters ay and while they meet at any Day and Place they found convenient with power of Prorogation without any particular Day for giving their Sentence blank or filled up because the Decreet Arbitral was not within a year of the Date of the Submission nor any Prorogation during that time Dam Elizabeth Dowglass and Sir Robert Sinclar of Longformacus contra Laird of Wedderburn Eodem die THe Lady Longformacus as Heir to her Goodsire William Dowglas of Eveling who was Donatar to the Escheat and Liferent of Iohn Stewart of Coldinghame pursues the Laird of Wedderburn for the Teinds of his Lands which Teinds pertained to the Abbots of Coldinghame The Defender alleadged absolvitor because he has Tack to run flowing from the Earl of Hoom who was Infeft in the Lordship of Coldinghameâ— and before that was Commendator thereof by His Majesty 2ly Iohn Stewart had ratified all Rights flowing from the Earl of Hoom and consequently this Tack after which the Donatar of his Escheat could not challenge the same for the Ratification is equivalent as if the Tack were granted by the Ratifier The Pursuer answered that the Defense upon the Tack and the Earl of Hooms Right ought to be Repelled because the Earl of Hoomes Right is Reduced by the Parliament 1621. on this consideration that the Earl of Bothwel being Commendator of Coldinghame had demitted the same in his Majesties hands whereupon the said Iohn Stewart his Son was provided by the King Commendator of Coldinghame and thereafter the Earl of Bothwel being Forefault the said Iohn and his other Children were Dishabilitate and declared incapable to bruik and joy his Land and Heritage or to succeed to any Person within this Realm by Sentence of Parliament whereupon the King provided the Earl of Hoom to be Commendator of Coldinghame and thereafter on the Earls own Resignation Infeft him therein in an erected Lordship and thereafter in the Parliament 1621. The King and Estates upon express consideration that Iohn Stewart was an Infant no wayes accessory to his Fathers Crimes did therefore annul his Dishabilitation and Rehabilitate him and declared that he should have Right to the Abbacy of Coldinghame in the same manner as he had before his Dishabilitation and Resciâ—ded all Rights and Infeftments of the said Abbacy granted by His Majesty to any Person of the said Abbacy since the said Dishabilitationâ— in so far as the samine might be prejudicial to Iohn Stewart's Provision that he had before After all which Iohn Stewart upon his own Resignation was Infeft in the Property of Coldinghame so that the Earl of Hoom's Right being Reduced in Parliament and falling in consequence with Iohn Stewarts Dâ—shabilitation whereupon it was founded the Defenders Tack following thereuponâ— falls also in Consequence as was already found by the Lords in Anno 1628. betwixt the said William Dowglas of Evelen and the Laird of Wedderburn conform to an Interlocutor Extracted and produced which is sufficient inter easdem partes and cannot be questioned super eisdem deductis now albeit at that time Wedderburn past from his compearance and so the Decreet against him was in absence yet the Interlocutor was ordained to be Extracted against him by the Lords which is sufficient and as for the Ratification of the Tacks granted by the Earl of Hoom the samine was after Iohn Stewart had Resigned his Comendatorship and before he was Infeft in Property The Defender answered First That the said Reduction of the Earl of Hoom's Right was without calling of the Defender or of the Earl of Hoom himselfâ— 2ly It mentions no particular Right or any Person but in general all Right and so is but a privat Right impetrat from the Parliament without hearing of Parties and therefore falls under the Act of Parliament salvo jure And as to the former Interlocutor of the Lords The reason why the Lords sustained the said Rescissory Act was because they found themselves not competent to Judge as to Sentences of Parliament or to annul the same upon the not calling of the Parties in respect that the Act salvo 1621. relates to Ratifications but not to such Sentences as this but by Act salvo 1633. It is expresly declared that that Act and all former Acts salvo should not only extend to Ratifications but to all other privat Acts impetrat without hearing of Parties and prejudicial to other Parties Rights and therefore now the Lords ought to proceed upon the Parties Right without consideration of that Act Rescissory 2ly The Act of Parliament Prohibits and annuls all Restitution of Forefaulture by way of Grace in so far as may be prejudicial to these who bona fide acquired Rights from the King medio tempore and so the Rehabilitation of Iohn Stewart cannot prejudge the Earl of Hoom or the Defender who had Right from the Earl It was answered for the Pursuer that there was no difference in the two Acts salvo jure albeit the last was more express then the first containing the same in effect 2ly Iohn Stewart being Dishabilitat by the Parliament without Citation or Crime might justly be Rahabilitate eodem modo without Citation and that not by way of Grace but in Justice as not accessory to the Crimesâ— and albeit Forefaultures may not be taken away by way of Reduction by the Act of Parliament 1584. cap. 135. yet that cannot be extended to the Dishabilitation of their Children so that the Parliament doing nothing prejudicial to any Parties Right but restoring Iohn Stewart to his just Right eo
ipso the Earl of Hooms Right fell in consequence as founded upon Iohn Stewarts Dishabilitation and with it the Defenders Tack The Lords Repelled the Defense upon the Tack in respect of the Reply for albeit the Act of Parliament 1633. be much larger then the Act salvo 1621. so that thereby the Lords might have cognosced upon John Stewarts Rehabilitation as without Citation if it had wronged any other Persons Right but finding that it was an Act of Iustice wronging no Persons Right they found the same Relevant Town of Edinburgh contra Sir William Thomson Iune 6. 1665. THe ordinar Council of Edinburgh having Deposed Sir William from his Office of Town Clerk he raised a Reduction of the Sentence on four Reasons first that the samine was null because it proceeded without Citation or necessar Solemnities of Process 2ly Because the Town could not be Judge in their own Cause 3ly Because by the Sett or the Kings Decreet Arbitral for the Government of the Town no Person could be admitted to any Office or Benefice therein but by the great Council consisting of the ordinar Council and their Deacons and consequently none could be Deposed from such Offices but by the same great Council and this Sentence was by the ordinar Council 4ly That the Sentence was exorbitant and unjust in Deposing him for an Omission sine dolo lata culpa aut damno The Lords having discussed the fourth Reason and heard the whole Dispute at length in praesentia The Defender after Interlocutor but not pronounced on the fourth Reason borrowed the Process and refused to re-deliver it The Town called upon a Copy and represented the manner of abstracting the Process The question was what should be done and whither Sir William might before Litiscontestation or any Interlocutor pronounced take up his Process The Lords admitted Protestation on the Copy and ordained an Act of Sederunt prohibiting the Clerks to give up any Process to the Pursuer after it was Dispute to the full in all the Members thereof though no Interlocutor were past or pronounced thereupon lest after so long Debate and hearing the Lords should at the discretion of Parties lifting their Process lose their time but what had been Dispute should be advised de recenti Iune 8. 1665. The Lords upon Supplication ordained an Appryzing to be allowed albeit not only the Debitor against whom it was deduced was dead but the threescore days were long since expired and ordained the allowance to be Registrat in respect that the late Act of Parliament declares that such Appryzings as are not Registrat within threescore shall not be preferred to posterior Appryzings first Registrate so that the Lords thought that where the allowance was Registrate albeit after the threescore dayes it would be preferred to any other Appryzing Registrat thereafter Eodem die The Lords intimat to the Writers Keeper of the Signet and Clerk of the Bills an Act of Sederunt prohibiting general Letters upon Presentations or Collations of Ministers whether having Benefices or modified Stipends until every Incumbent obtain a Decreet conform albeit they should produce their Predecessors Decreet conform or a Decreet of Locality containing the Stipend particularly Swintoun contra Notman Iune 10. 1665. SWintoun in his Testament having named his Wife Tutrix to his Children and Notman and others Overseers His Relict within a year was married and so her Tutory ended shortly after Notman received from her a number of several Tickets belonging to the Defunct and gave his Recept Thereof bearing that he had received them in his Custodie and keepingâ— thereafter he uplifted the Sums contained in some of the Tickets and gave a Discharge to the Relict and second Husband of some particulars and consented with the Pupil to a Discharge to a Debitor which expresly boor him to be Tutor Testamentar and did intromet with the Rents of some Tenements and Disposed upon some Sheep whereupon Swintoun the Pupil pursues him as Tutor or Pro-tutor not only for all he Intrometted with but for the Annualrent thereof and for all the rest of the Defuncts means which he ought to have intrometted with and to have called the Tutrix to an account therefore and condescended upon the insight and plenishing of the Defuncts House the Goods in his Shop he being a Merchant the Debts in his Compt Books and these due by his Tickets not only received by Notman but by others and for the remander of his Sheep and other Moveables and for the rest of his Rents not uplifted by Notman It was alleadged for Notman 1. That that member of the Libel was not Relevant whereby he was pursued not only for that he Intrometted with but what he omitted because a Pro-tutor is not obliged as far as a Tutor for the Pupils whole Means but this far only that whatsoever he intromets with as to that he is obliged as a Tutor to imploy it and preserve it and so is lyable for Annualrent therefore and in that he differs from another negotiorum gestor who is not lyable for Annualrent but he is not lyable for other particulars of other kinds that he medled not with as albeit he had medled with the Tickets yet that would not oblige him to medle with the Compt Books Plenishing or Cattel there being no Law to oblige him neither was there any possibility that he could meddle therewith being neither obliged nor able so to do having no active title in his Person for Overseer non est momen juris and by our Custom iâ— doth oblige to nothing but is as the fidei commissa were in the ancient Roman Law in the arbitriment of him to whom they were committed without any obligation or legal compulsion ex mera pietate so that his being Overseerâ—â— could oblige him in nothing and his meddling thereafter to preserve the means of the Pupil when his Tutrix and Mother had superinduced a second Husband ought not to be hurtful to him otherwayes no Overseer will ever meddle in any case with any thing of the Pupils whereby their Means may be destroyed 2ly He cannot be lyable as Tutor notwithstanding of the Discharge subscribed by him hoc nomine because albeit that would prove him Tutor where the case did not otherwayes appear seing the contrair is manifest that whereas the Discharge bears him Tutor Testamentar The Testament produced bears him only to be Overseer faâ—sa designatio non obest 3. The Ticket or receipt of the Bonds cannot obliege him for all these Bonds but such thereof whereof he uplifted the Money and only from that time that he uplifted the same especially seeing the Ticket bears that he received them in his Custodie which any friend might do especially an Overseer and does not import his purpose of Intromission The Pursuer answered to the first that his Lybel was most Relevant not only for Intromission but Omission because a Pro-tutor in Law is oblieged in all points as a Tutor not only pro commissis sed pâ—o omissis
after the Term of payment that it was Heretable and fell not to the Husband jure mariti but only the Annualrents thereof till his death albeit there was no Contract of Marriage nor a Tocher and that the Husband had after the marriage given some provision to the Wife Mr. George Norvel contra Margaret Hunter Iune 29. 1665. MR. George Norvel having Apprized certain Lands pursued for Mails and Duties against Margaret Hunter Possessor she compeared and proponed a Defense that she stood Infeft in the Lands by a Right from her Husband before the Appryzing but for proving thereof she only produced her Seasine Which the Lords found not to prove without a Warrant and therefore Decerned She Suspends and now produces her Contract of Marriage as the Warrant of the Seasine and offers to make Faith that she had found it out since the Decreet And farder alleadged that through neglect of the Advocats or Clerks her Defense was not proponed no ways acknowledging the quantities libelled which she offers to prove to be exorbitant It was answered first that praetextu instrumentorum de novo repertorum sententiae non sunt retractandae 2ly The Contract produced is not the Warrant of the Seasine but a Bond granted for Implement of the Contract and relating to the Seasine The Lords Reponed the Suspender as to the circumduction of the Term she making Faith c. and found the Contract of Marriage a sufficient Adminicle to astruct the Seasine seing it related to a Bond for the same Cause but refused to Repone her as to the quantities Heretors of the Miln of Keithick contra Feuers Eodem die THe Heritors of the Miln of Keithick pursues certain Feuers for abstract Multures who alleadged absolvitor because they are Infeft ab eodem authore without astriction before the Pursuer It was replyed the Pursuer is Infeft in this Miln which is the Miln of the Barony and per expressum in the Multures of the Lands in question and offers to prove that there is a distinct in-sucken Multure and out-sucken Multure and that the Pursuer has been in Possession of the In-sucken Multure these 40. years bygone out of thir Lands Duplyed the Defender offers him to prove that the Possession has been Interrupted by his going to other Milns frequently and without any challenge or Sentence against them And seing the coming to a Miln is but voluntatis unless they enacted themselves so to do And that the Pursuers Infeftment though expresse was latent and unknown to the Defender all that is alleadged cannot infer an astriction The Lords Repelled the Duply and thought that going to other Milns sometimes as is ordinar in all Thirlage was no sufficient Interruption if they came ordinarly to this Miln and payed in-sucken Multure and therefore found the Reply relevant Richard Thorntoun contra William Miln Eodem die THorntoun as Assigney by Patrick Seaton having obtained Decreet before the Baillies of Edinburgh against William Miln he Suspends and alleadges Compensation upon a Compt due by the Cedent and a Ticket subjoyned by him acknowledging the Compt to be due subscribed before Witnesses which must prove against this Assigney It was answered that the Ticket wanted a date and so could not instruct it self to be anterior to the Assignation It was replyed that it was offered to be proven by the Witnesses insert that it was truly subscribed before the Assignation Which the Lords sustained Stevenson contra Crawfoord Iune 30. 1665. STevinson being surrogat Executor dative ad omissa and having licence to pursue insists against Crawford for a Debt of the Defuncts alleadged omitted forth of the principal Testament The Defense was no Process until the Executor Dative ad omissa be Confirmed but he cannot insist upon a Licence to pursue because the principal Executor having made Faith that the Inventar given up by him is a full Inventar any that crave to be Dative ad omissa are never admitted but upon certain knowledge and so must Confirm and gets no Licence The Lords Repelled the Defense especially seing the Pursuer was a Creditor Younger contra Iohnstoun Eodem die AN Porteous Merchant in Edinburgh having died Infeft in several Tenements in Edinburgh above 50. years agoe his Relict possessing them as Liferenter to this time Shortly after his Death one Patrick Porteous was Served nearest and lawful Heir to him and thereupon Infeft so that his Right came by progress to Iohnstoun 40. years after Younger takes a Right from one Stephen Porteous residenter in Polland and gets him Served nearest Heir to the Defunct and thereupon raises Reduction of the first Retour and all the Infeftments following thereupon Defense absolvitor because the Defenders Author being Served Heir 40. years before the Pursuers Authors Service It is prescribed and likeways being Infeft 40. years since all quarrel against the Infeftment is prescribed For the first Point they condescend upon the second Act of Parliament anent Prescription of the Reduction of Retours which bears that if they be not pursued within 20. year they shall never be quarrellable thereafter The Lords having considered this case at length most part thought that the Retour could not prescrive by the first Act of Parliament because it excepted Minors and absents out of the Countrey which they found not to be meaned of Absents Reipublicae causa but of any absence nor that it fell not directly within the second Act which bears expresly Retours to have been reduced thereafter should be only reduceable within twenty year Others thought the Act might not be extended but bearing expresly to the future it could not be drawn back and the Act of Prescription 1617. meets not this case for if under the prescription of Actions not pursued within fourty year Serving of Persons to their Predecessors Heirs were comprehended it would impede any Person to Serve themselves Heir to any Defunct after fourty year which is yet ordinar and as to the Infefment they fand that it fell not in the Case of the Act of Parliament 1617. because it was not cled with Possession in respect of the Liferenters life whose possession behoved to be the possession of the true Heir of her Husband But the Lords did not decide it seing the Case was rarely occuring and Johnstouns Infeftment very old unquarrelled and recomended the parties to agree Mr. James Nasmith contra Alexander Bower Iuly 1. 1665. THis being a concluded Cause a Question arose upon the Probation an accompt being produced between two Merchants referred to Bowers Oath that it was his hand writ and yet resting he deponed it was his hand writ but not resting The question arose whether he behoved to condescend and instruct how it was payed because though the accompt written with his hand unsubscribed was of it self sufficient Probation the quality was not competent but he behoved to prove payment it being alleadged that Merchants hand writ is sufficient and that a Note upon the back of a Bond or foot of
Cautioner who were free to have pursued for the Tochar and did not and after 40. years she cannot be put to instruct that the Tochar was payed albeit she had been Debitor therefore her self much more when another is Debitor The Lords found both these replyes relevant Mr. John Colvil contra The Lord Balmirino Iuly 6. 1665. MR. Iohn Colvil as Executor confirmed to Umquhil Mr. Iohn Colvil Minister at Kirknewtoun pursues the Lord Balmirino for the Stipend the year 1663. and for the profit of the Gleib The Defender alleadged absolvitor because payment is made bona fide to the intrant before intenting of this Cause It was answered it could not be payed bona fide because the Minister died after Ianuary 1663. VVhich being so notour to my Lord Balmirino to whom the most of the Paroch belongs and he being so near it he ought to have made payment to no other of that year which belonged to the Defunct Minister as his Ann extending to the whole years quia annus inchoatus habeâ—ur pro completo as to the Ann so that if the Minister lived till the first of Ianuary he has that whole year The Defender answered that an Ann is only due to the VVife and Bairns of the Defunct Minister and this Minister had none 2ly That the point is so dubious in Law he knew not that it would be his unless he had lived till Whitsunday 3ly The benefit of the Gleib must be the intrants and falls not under the Ann as a part of the Stipend no more then the Manss The Lords repelled the Defense as to the Stipend and found it belonged to the Executor as nearest of kin and that the Defunct surviving the first of January gave him that whole year but found that the Gleib did not fall under the Ann nor did belong to the Defunct but only the Crop thereof if it were sowen by himself before he dyed Earl of Argyl contra Mcdougalls of Dumolich and Ziner Iuly 14. 1665. THe Earl of Argyl having raised a double poynding in name of the Tennents of certain Lands calling himself on the one part and Mcdougals on the other as both claming right to the Mails and Duties Mcdougals produce a Decreet of Parliament whereby they having pursued the late Marquess of Argyl alleadging that he had obtained the Right and Possession of these by Force and Oppression during the troubles whereupon his Rights were reduced and they restored to their Possession The Earl of Argyl produced his Seasine upon the Kings Gift with two Dispositions of these Lands granted to his Father one in Anno 1632. and another in Anno 1639. And thereupon craved to be preferred Mcdougals produced a disclamation of the Process in name of the Tennents and alleadged no Process because the Tennents who were pursuers past from the pursute It was answered that their names was but used that the Parties might discusse their Rights and so they could not disclame it being ordinar to use Tennents names in double poyndings It was answered that there was no Reason that Tennants should be forced to make use of their names to intervert their Masters Possession The Lords found that the Tennants could not disclame especially the possession being but late by Decreet of Parliament and was contraverse It was further alleadged for Mcdougals that there was nothing particularly lybelled as Rents due by the Tennants and therefore there could be no sentence The Lords repelled the alleadgeance and found the Sentence might be in general to be answered of the Mails and Duties as is ordinar in Decreets conform It was further alleadged for Mcdougals that seing this double poynding was in effect now used as a Declarator of Right no Process thereupon because in all Declarators Law allows the Defenders 21 days upon the first Summons and six on the next that they may prepare and produce their Rights and here there is but one Summons on 6 days 2ly No Process because Mcdougals being founded upon a Decreet of Parliament my Lord Argyl produces no Title but only a Seasine not expressing these Lands 3ly Decreets especially of Parliament cannot be taken away but by Reduction and not thus summarly It was answered that my Lord Argyl insisted here for taking away the pretended Decreet in Parliament and restoring the King and Donatar to the possession of the Lands so that in effect it is not so much a Declarator of a Right as a possessory Judgement And as for the Title it is sufficient to produce a Siasine seing in the Decreet of Parliament My Lord Argyls Right and possession is quarrelled as wrong and therefore was acknowledged to have been and seing Mcdougals produces no other Right and the King's Advocat concurres and if need beis my Lord Argyl offers to prove the Lands in question are parts and pertinents of the Lordship of Lorn exprest in his Seasine and albeit this be pretended to be a Decreet of Parliament yet by Sentence of Parliament since it is remitted to the Lords and is in it self visibly null as having been intented against my Lord Argyl and pronounced after his death and Forefaulture without calling the Kings Officers The Lords repelled these Defenses in respect of the replyes James Mathison contra Harie Gib Eodem die JAmes Mathison having obtained a Decreet before the Commissars of Edinburgh against Gib he Suspends and alleadges it was not a cause consistorial being a bargain of Victual and that it was not probable any other ways but by his Oath now after 12. or 13. years In respect of the Act of Parliament anent house Mails and others which comprehens this case The Lords repelled the alleadgeance and found that bargain of Victual not comprehended under that Act of Parliâ—ment James Borthwick contra Janet Skeen Iuly 15. 1665. JAmes Borthwick being Infeft in the Lands of Oversneip pursues Reduction and Removing against Ianet Skeen the Liferentrix It was alleadged that the Feer being minor non tenetur placitare super haereditate paterna And for the Liferenter that the minor was oblidged to warrand her Liferent-right and her Possession was the minors Possession so that if her Right were reduced and she removed the priviledge of the minor were altogether overthrown It was answered That the priviledge was personal and stricti juris and was to be extended to Majors and as for the warrandice it was never sustained as a ground to exclude a Reduction because warrandice would be inferred against a Minor which is but a personal obligement and not haereditas The Lords repelled the alleadgance for the Liferenter Who alleadged further that her Right being Reduced the Fee was absolute in the person of the Minor who would not suffer the Liferentrix to be removed but she did possesse by the Minors tollerance It was answered that the Pursuers Reduction behoved to accresce to him and his Right and not to the Minors Right that he behoved to enter to the Liferenters possession which would not prejudge the Minor for if
the Liferenter dyed during the Minors Minoritie he might return to the possession in the same way as if the Liferenter were in possession but as for the tollerance now the Liferenter having entered by the Liferent Right and it being reduced in favours of the Pursuer as the Minor could not thereby attain possession so neither can he give tollerance to defend the Liferenter The Lords repelled also this second Defense Patrick Urquhart contra Thomas Blair Eodem die PAtrick Vrquhart having charged Thomas Blair upon a Bond granted by him and William Young as co-principalls Thomas Blair Suspends and alleadges that William Young has payed the whole It was answered that this was not instructed and therefore not receivable being in a Suspension It was answered that though in a Suspension yet a terme is always granted where it is another mans Right It was answered that the Suspender is in hazard of breaking and has not found a good sufficient Cautioner and therefore if he get delay he ought to give better Caution It was answered that he had found Caution who was accepted and he was oblidged to do no more The Lords ordained him to make faith de calumnia upon the Reason but would not put him to find new Caution Robert Scot contra Silvertounhill Eodem die RObert Scot pursuing a Poynding of the Ground for an Annualrent Silvertounhill compeared and alleadged possession by vertue of a prior Annualrent and that the Pursuers Infeftment was base not cled with Possession For proving Possession Robert Scot produced discharges granted by the Annualrenter to the Hetetor for the time for himself and in name of the Tenents which had Witnesses But designed not the Writers name and being alleadged to be null for want thereof The Lords ordained Scot to condescend upon the writer of the discharge in respect the Annualrent did extend to 80. lib. and it did prefer one Annualrent to another Johnstoun of Scheens contra Alexander Brown Eodem die JOhnstoun being pursued to remove from certain Lands It was alleadged no Process because all Parties having interest were not called viz. The Defenders wife in respect he possest but by her Right jure mariti and she was not warned Which the Lords found relevant Mr. Thomas Johnstoun contra Mcgregor Iuly 19. 1665. MR. Thomas Iohnstoun having obtained the Gift of Bastardie of one Mcgregor and declared in general insists now in his special Declarator against Patrick Mcgregor for 2000 merks belonging to the Bastard It was alleadged absolvitor because there was a Gift granted in the Usurpers time and declared whereupon the Defender had transacted with the Donatar and satisfied him and obtained his discharge It was answered non relevat because in the Act of Parliament confirming Judicial Precedor under the Usurpers Gifts of Bastardry and all following thereupon are excepted so that the Defender had no Defense in the point of Right and as for his bona fides it only relevant for what was truly payed but not for what was in his hand The Lords repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply Mr. James Winerham conra Lady Idingtoun Iuly 19. 1665. MR. Iames Winerham pursues the Lady Idingtoun personally for Feu-Duties out of certain Lands Liferented by her It was answered non relevat for any years before the Ladies possession because Feu Duties may be Pursued either really by poynding of the Ground or personally against the Intrometters with their profits and because the Feu-duties are as the yearly Rent yet that cannot be extended further than during the years the Possessors intrometted The Pursuer answered that the whole profits being lyable for the whole Feu-duties whether of that or preceeding years the Lady was lyable not only for the years of her possession but for bygones The Lords repelled the alleadgeance and found the Lady lyable personally only for the years of her possession Ryce Gum contra Mckewn Eodem die RYce Gum having obtained Decreet before the Baillies of the Cannongate against Mckewn to repone him to an Assignation he Suspends on this Reason that the Decreet was null wanting Probation proceeding only upon the alleadged judicial confession of the Suspender without proponing any defense acknowledging the Lybel and succumbing in the Defense but simply confessing the Lybel which cannot prove against him being under the hand of an Clerk of an Inferiour Court only without the Suspenders subscription or oath Which the Lords found relevant Mr. Robert Dickson contra Mr. Mark Ker. Iuly 21 1665. THere being a competition betwixt Mr. Robert Dickson and Mr. Mark Ker as both having the Gift of the Escheat of Hoom of Garden both past the Seal in one day Mr. Robert Dickson had past in Exchequer long before and his Summons was raised two dayes before his Gift was Sealed and so was not a Regular Diligence He alleadges Mr. Mark Kers was more irregular because being a Declarator his Summons was not upon 21. days It was answered the Summons was priviledged It was Replyed that the priviledge was granted periculo petentis upon a common Bill which passes without observation The Lords considering that their Gifts were both past in one day and that there diligence was so near conjoyned the Gift and declared them joyntly Spreul contra Miller Eodem die BArbara Miller having left two Legaces and named William Wilson her Executor and universal Legatar he nominats his Wife and one Giffin his Executors Spreul having right to the two Legacies pursues the Relict and Executors of Wilson who was Executor to Barbara Miller for payment of the Legacies He alleadges absolvitor because the first Testament was not Execute 2ly The special Legacies must be abated proportionally with the general Legacies The Lords repelled both the Defenses and found the general Legacie not to come in pari passu with the special and found that the Executor of the Executor was lyable unless he could alleadge that the first Executor had done diligence and had not recovered or was exhausted Laird of Ludquharn contra Laird of Gight Iuly 21. 1665. THe Laird of Gight having Married Ludquharns Daughter who remained in her Fathers Family and brought forth a Bairn to Gight and dyed Ludquharn the Childs Guid-sir keeped her in his Family several years and now pursues Gight for her Aliment who alleadged absovitor because the Pursuer never having required a promise of this Aliment nor desired the Defender to take home his Daughter It must be presumed that the Pursuer did it animo donandi for his own Oye The Lords found this Defense relevant for all years preceeding the intenting of this Cause Thomas Rew contra Viscount of Stormont Iuly 22. 1665. THomas Rew pursues a Reduction of a Decreet obtained by the Viscount of Stormont who alleadged no Process because the Citation was not within year and day of the Summons the warrant thereof which bears to cite the Defenders to compear the day of next to come The Lords found the Defense relevant Johnstoun contra Tennents of Achincorse
Eodem die JOhnstoun having Appryzed the Lands of Achincorse and charged the Lord Dumfries his Superiour to receive him pursues the Tennents thereof for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for the Lord Dumfries Superiour who alleadged no Process till a years Rent were payed to him as Superiour 2ly It is offered to be proven that Achincorse the Vassal was in nonentrie or the Liferent Escheat fallen by his Rebellion and therefore the Superiour ought to be preferred The Pursuer answered to the first that seing it was the Superiours fault he received not him upon the charge albeit he offered to receive him now he could not have a years Rent till the Pursuer insisted to be infeft To the second the Defense ought to be Repelled seing there was no Declarator intentit The Defender answered that seing he was to change his Vassal and the Appryzer sought possession before he had access he behoved to pay the years Rent seing by the Appryzing and the charge the Superiour will be excluded from his Casualities To the second the Superiour being acknowledged by the charge he might crave the Casualities of the Superiority by way of competition and offered to produce the Horning cum processu The Lords sustained the first Defense but not the second seing there was no Horning produced nor Declarator intentit Janet Brotherstones contra Ogil and Orrocks Iuly 26. 1665. JAnet Brotherstones by her Contract of Marriage declaring that she had in Money Bonds and Goods 4000 merks is provided to all the conquest and to the Liferent of the whole Means and Moveables she pursues her Husbands Heirs for implement who alleadged absolvitor because she has not fulfilled her part of the Contract and instructs not that she delivered to her Husband 4000. merks in worth or wair It was answered it must be presumed that she has done it after so long time seing all she had came in the Possession of her Husband The Lords found the presumption not sufficient but before answer ordained the pursuer to condescend by Witnesses or otherwise how she would prove that she had that means the time of the Marriage and ordained these to be examined ex officio Thomas Kennedie of Kirkhill contra Agnew of Lochnaw Iuly 27. 1665. KEnnedie of Kirkhill as Assigney by Thomas Hay of Park to a Bond of 1000 lib. granted by Andrew Agnew younger of Lochnaw charges him thereupon who Suspends and raises Reduction on this Reason that the Bond was granted at the time of his Contract of Marriage clandestinelie without the knowledge of his Father who was Contracter contra pacta dotalia contra bonos more 's The Defender answered that he having given a very great Tochar viz. 10000. lib. above his Estate which is all payed to his Good Sons Father he did declare that he was not able to give so much and thereupon he got this Bond not to have Execution till after his death which he might lawfully do having given a Tochar suitable to the condition of the Receiver and above the condition of the Giver The Lords repelled the Reason in respect of the Answer This was thereafter stopt to be further heard Lilias Hamiltoun contra Her Tennents Eodem die LIlias Hamiltoun being Infeft by her Husband in Liferent pursues her Tennents compearance is made for their present Master who alleadged that her Husbands Right was only a Wodset granted by him and that he had used an Order and had Redeemed the Wodset and payed the money to the Pursuers Husband and neither knew nor was oblidged to know the Pursuers base Infeftment from her Husband the Wodsetter which had never any other Possession but the Husbands It was answered that the Pursuers Seasine being Registrate he was oblidged to know the same as well as if it had been an Inhibition especially seing there was no Process of Declarator in which case all Parties having intress should have been called at the Mercat Cross but a voluntar Redemption albeit upon an Order The Lords sustained the Defense notwithstanding of the Reply Adam Rae contra Heretors of Clackmannan Eodem die UMquhile Colonel Rae having advanced Victual to the Armie at Leith in Anno 1650. And gotten an Assignation to the Maintenance of August and September from Sir Iohn Smith then General Commissar in satisfaction thereof pursues the Heretors of Clackmannan for their proportions who alleadged that by their quartering of the Kings Armie their whole Rents Anno 1650. was exhausted It was answered that it was not our that the exhausting was after the Battel of Dumbar which was upon the third of September 1650. And so could not extend to the maintenance of August and September which was Assigned before for so onerous a cause The Lords repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply Captain Muire contra Frazer Iuly 27. 1665. CAptain Muir having obtained Decreet against the Heir of Colonel Hugh Frazer for 1000 merks before the Commissioners in Anno 1658. Charges thereupon They Suspend and raise Reduction on this Reason that the Decreet was null without probation proceeding only upon a Copy of an obligation alleadged taken out of the Register by one William Baily who keeped the same at London which could not prove not being under the hand of the Clerk Register or his Deputes which being proponed in the Decreet was unjustly repelled The Pursuer answered First There was no review raised within a year conform to the Act of Parliament and so the Decreet was not quarrellable upon iniquity 2ly Bailies Oath was taken by Commission that the Extract was subscribed by him 3ly The Defender proponed a Defense of payment and so acknowledged the Debt Debt It was answered that the Suspenders were and are minors and in the Act of Parliament there is an exception of Minors that they may Reduce these Decreets within a year after their Majority 2ly They ought to be reponed against their proponing of payment being Minors and as to Bailies Oath neither his Subscription nor Oath can make a probative Extract unless the new Extract were now produced seing the Registers are returned The Chargers answered that if the Suspender would alleadge that any Book of the Register containing Writs Registrat about the time of this Extract were extant and returned relevat but it is known that several of the Books are lost and this amongst the rest The Lords would not sustain the Decreet upon Bailies extract simplie neither did they put the Charger to the proving of a tenor but allowed the charger to condescend upon the way of his Instruction that such a Bond was truly subscribed by the Witnesses insent or otherwayes and ordained the Witnesses to be examined Adam Rae contra Heritors of Clackmannan Iuly 28. 1665. IN the Cause of Adam Rae mentioned yesterday some of the Heretors alleadged absolvitor because they were singular Successors and by the Act of Parliament for the Old Maintenance Singular Successors were excepted The Lords repelled this alleadgeance and found that exception only to be
Blank-bond had before the Arrestment seen the Blank-bond filled up and so had deponed or could depone that the time of the Arrestment the Debitor saw himself to be Debitor to another person filled up in the Blank than he for whose Debt it was Arrested for in that Case as the first Creditor that got the Blank-bond might have caused his Debitor retire that Bond and give a new one before any Arrestment so the showing of the filling up of the Blank was equivalent especially if the Debt could be proven no otherwayes but by the Deâ—â—tors Oath This Case was not debated nor was the hazard considered that the Debitors Oath might prefer one Partie to another nor was the case alike to a renewed Bond because a renewed Bond would bear a new date and different Witnesses that saw the new Creditors name filled up and would not depend upon the single Testimony of the Debitor Barbara Skeen and Mr. David Thors contra Sir Andrew Ramsay November 14. 1665. BArbara Skeen being provided by her Contract of Marriage with Umquhile David Ramsay to 18 Chalders of Victual or 1800 merks her Husband having acquired the Lands of Grange Muire worth 10 Chalders of Victnal she pursues Sir Andrew Ramsay as Heir to his Brother to make her up the superplus The Defender alleadged absolvitor because he offered him to prove that the said Barbara stood Infeft in the Lands of Grange Muire upon a Bond granted by her Husband which Bond bears In full satisfaction of the Contract of Marriage by Vertue of which Infeftment she having no other Right she had possest five or six years after her Husbands death and thereby had accepted that Right and had Homologat the same It was replyed that the Bond being a Deed of the Husbands a Clause foisted thereinto so far to the detrement of his Wife and the Infeftment not being taken by her but by an Acturney her possession cannot import Homologation thereof because Homologation being a Taâ—ite consent is not inferred but where the Homologator cannot but know the Right Homologat and can do the Deeds of Homologation no otherwayes but by vertue of that Right neither of which holds here because the personal oblidgement in the Contract was a ground for the Wife to have continued her Husbands possession and would have excluded his Heirs if they had quarrelled and not only the Clause must be presumed to be without the Womans knowledge but the Bond it self and the Infeftment especially considering the simplicity of Wives and their confidence in their Husbands who if this were sustained would easily deceive them It was duplyed for the Defender that he offers him to prove that the Pursuer did not continue her husbands possession but did begin Possession her Husband being never in possession before his death and that she set two several Tacks expresly as Liferenter and the third with consent of Mr. David Thors her Husband being an Advocat and so she cannot be presumed to have been ignorant but on the contraire she must bepresumed to have known the Right and could never denominat her self Liferentrix by a personal oblidgement to Infeft her in so much Victual and Money without mentioning any Land in particular and her acceptance though to her detriment may be the more easily presumed because she had two Children surviving her Husband in whose favour the Restriction did accresce and her Husband did secure her in all that he had but now ex post facto the Children being dead she could not return upon Sir Andrew her Husbands Brother contrare to her Homologation The Lords sustained the Defense and Duply for they thought albeit ignorance might be presumed in a Wife de recente intra annum luctus yet she having continued for so many years and doing so many deeds expresly as Liferenter and that the Bond was not clandistinely lying by her Husband but in a third Parties hand who had taken the Infeftment they thought in that case ignorance was not to be presumed but knowledge Wat contra Russel November 16. 1665. JEan Wat being provided by her Contract of Marriage to certain Lands and Infeft therein the Contract contains this Clause that she shall Aliment the Bairns of the Marriage after the Fathers death and in case she marrie again she shall restrict her self to six hundred merks and the superplus shal remain to the Bairns for their Aliment hereupon she pursues Robert Russel and the other Tennents for the Mails and Duties of the hail Liferent Lands who alleadged 1. That she was restricted to six hundred merks and could crave no more especially now being married to a second Husband compearance was also made for the only Child of the Marriage who claimed the benefit of the superplus by vertue of the Clause in the Contract It was alleadged further for the Defenders that they were Creditors to the Husband before the Contract of Marriage and in their Tacks had a Clause bearing That they should retain their Tack duties while they were payed and upon their Bonds they had also Apprized from the Child as lawfully charged to enter Heir all Right he had to the Lands So that if the superplus belong to the Child proprio jure it now belonged to the Defenders as appryzers They had also raised Reduction of the Clause of the Contract in favours of the Children as being granted by a Father in favours of his own Children after Contracting of their Debt and so was fraudulent and Reduceable by the Act of Parliament 1621. Against Bankerupts It was answered for the Child that as for the Appryzing and Decreet against him as charged to enter Heir he had Suspended and raised Reduction and craved to be reponed and produced a Renounciation offering to renounce all Right he could succeed to as Heir to his Father but prejudice of this Aliment which belonged to him proprio jure as a Restriction granted to him by his Mother and as to the Reason of Reduction upon the Act of Parliament There was here neither Fault nor Fraud their being no Law to hinder a Husband to give his Wife what Joynture he pleased which was never compted in defraud of prior Creditors nor is their any Restriction or proportion thereof but as the Parties agree which is always sustained in favorem dotium matrimonij and the Wife might take what Liferent the Husband was pleased to give her there was nothing to make her to restrict her self in favours of her Children for an aliment with restriction is no Deed of the Father but of the Mother It was answered for the Defenders that the reason of Reduction stood relevant seing in this case there was manifest Fraud in so far as this Liferent was exorbitant and unproportionable to the Fathers Estate whose hail Lands being only worth 1000. merks and having nothing but the Tocher which was 6000. merks he Infefts his Wife in the hail and yet restricted her to 600. merks and provided the rest to his Children and
Procurator that might infer his being informed or having Warrand but only his taking a day to produce they would not sustain the Decreet unless the Charger instructed the same by proving the quantities White contra Horn. Novemb. 25. 1665. IN a Competition between White and Horn the one having Right by progresse to the Property of a piece Land and the other to an Annualrent forth thereof It was alleadged for the Proprietar First That the Annualrent was prescribed no Possession being had thereupon above fourty years 2ly The Original Right produced to constitute the Annualrent is but a Seasine without a Warrant and albeit the Common Author have given Charter of Ratification thereof yet it is after the Proprietars Seasine given by the Common Author to his Daughter propriis manibus It was answered for the Annualrenter to the first That the Prescription was interrupted by Citations produced used upon a Summons of Poinding of the Ground before the Baillies of the Regality of Dumfermling where the Lands ly As to the second that the Confirmation granted to the Annualrenter is prior to any Charter Precept or other Warrant granted to the Proprietar for as for the Seasine propriis manibus that has no Warrant produced The Proprietar answered that the Interruption was not Relevant because the Executions were null in so far as the Warrant of the Summons bears to Cite the Defender Personally Or otherwise upon the Ground of the Land or at the Mercat Cross or Shore of Dumfermâ—ing whereupon such as were out of the Countrey were Citedâ— and not upon 60. dayes but 25. which Reasons would have excluded that Decreet and therefore cannot be a legal Interruption As to the other albeit the Pursuers first Seasine want a Warrant yet it hath been cled with natural Possession and the Annualrentars hath not The Lords Repelled both these alleadgences for the Proprietar and found the Executions sufficient to interrupt albeit there were defects in them that might have hindred Sentence thereupon especially in re antiquâ the Lands being in Regality where the custome might have been even to Cite Parties absent out of the Countrey at the head Burgh of the Regality and the Shore next thereto and as the Proprietars Right was not Established by Prescription so they found that Possession could not give a possessory Iudgement to the Proprietar against an Annualâ—entar which is debitum fundi Mr. Iames Peter contra Iohn Mitchelson Eodem die MR. Iames Peter Minister of Terregh pursues Mitchelson for a part of his Stipend due out of the Defenders Lands who alleadged no Process till the Pursuer produced a Title to the Defenders Teinds seing he brooked them by a Tack It was Replyed he offered him to prove seven years Possession as a part of the Stipend of Terreghs Which the Lords sustained without any Title of Possession Bruce contra Earl of Mortoun Novemb. 28. 1665. IN an Action for making arrested Sums forthcoming between Brucâ— and the Earl of Mortoun The Lords found that the Summons behoved to be continued seing they were not past by a special priviledge of the Lords to be without continuation albeit they were accessory to the Lords Anterior Decreet against the principal Dâ—bitor which they found to be a ground to have granted the priviledge of not Continuation if it had been desired by a Bill at the raising of the Summons but not being demanded They found quod non in erat de jure Younger contra Iohnstouns Eodem die PAtrick Porteous having a Tenement of Land in Edinburgh provided his Wife thereto in Liferent and dyed before the year 1608. his Wife lives and Possesses as Liferenter Yet in Anno 1608. one Porteous his Brother Son was Served and Retoured Heir to him and Infeft as Heir and Disponed the Land which is come through three several singular Successors to Iohnstouns who are Infeft therein as Heirs to their Father in Anno 1655. Youngâ—r having acquired aâ— Disposition from Stephanlaw Porteus Residenter in Polland causes Serve the said Stephenlaw as nearest Heir to the said Patrick whereupon Stephenlaw is Infeft and Younger is Infeft There are now mutual Reductions raised by either Parties of others Retours and Rights wherein Younger alleadging that his Author Stephenlaw Porteous was the nearest of Kin in so far as Patrick the Defunct had four Brethren and Stephen Law Porteous was Oye to the eldest Brother whereas the other pretended Heir was Son to the youngest Brother which he offered him to prove It was answered for Iohnstouns Absolvitor from that Reason of Reduction because they had Established their Right by Prescription in so far as they had a progress of Infeftments far beyond the space of fourty years cled with Possession by the Liferenter whose Possession behoved to be accounted their Possession because the Act of Paâ—liament anent Prescription bears that the Person Infeft being in Possession by himself or by his Tennents or others deriving Right from him and therefore the Liferenters Possession is alwise the Fiars 2ly By the first Act of Parliament anent Prescriptions of Retours they prescrive if they be not quarrelled within three years And by the last Act of Parliament 1617. anent the Prescription of Retours they are declared to be prescrived if they be not pursued within twenty years And by the general Act of Prescription 1617. There is a general Clause that all Reversions Heretable Bonds and all Actions whatsomever shall prescrive if they be not followed within fourty years By all which Stephenlaw Porteous not being Retoured till the year 1655. nor having moved any Action against the first Retour This Action of Reduction and all other Actions competent are prescribed It was answered for Younger that he being Heir to maintain the right of Blood which is the most important Right competent by the Law of Nations no Statute nor positive Law can take it away unless it be express and evident for the right of Blood can never prescrive seing it is certain that a man may serve himself Heir to his Predecessor though he died a 1000. years since if he can instruct his Service And as for the Acts of Parliament alleadged upon they cannot take away any Right of Blood for the first Act of Prescription on three years expresly bears to extend to these within the Countrey as Stephenlaw was not and the last Act is expresly only in relation to Retoures to be deduced thereafter but this first Retour quarrelled was deduced long before viz. in Anno. 1608. As for the general Act of Prescription seing it mentions not Retoures but only Infeftmentsâ— Reversions and Heretable Bonds The general Clause of all Actions whatsomever ought not to be extended to Retoures especially seing the meaning of the Parliament appears not to have been extended by them to Retoures because the very next Act doth specially Order the prescription of Retoures As to the Iohnstouns Infeftments they have not the benefit of Prescriptions never being cled with Possession For the Liferenters
jus mariti could not carry her Liferent seing immediatly after the marriage he went out of the Countrey and was never heard of since and she had obtained Decreet of Adherence against him and was going on in a Divorce for malitious deserting The Lords Repelled the Alleadgance seing the Divorce was not compleat and this was four years anterior The said Isobel further alleadged absolvitor for the Rents of her Dwelling-house for bygones and for what she had uplifted because she had done it bona fide cum titulo viz. her Husbands obliegement to aliment her as his Wife bona fide possessor facit fructus consumptos suos Which the Lords found Relevant and that albeit her Husband would be lyable for these Rents which alimented his Wife yet not she David Veatch contra Iohn Duncan Eodem die DAvid Veatch as heritor of the Miln of Dersie pursues Iohn Duncan for abstracted Multures and obtains Decreet He Charges and Iohn Suspends both parties being ordained to produce their Rights the Heritor of the Miln instructs that his Author was first Infeft in the Miln before the Defenders Author was Infeft in the Land and produces a Decreet of the Lords in Anno 1575. declaring the Thirlage wherein it was alleadged that the Heretor of the Miln being first Infeft of the Common-author and producing a Precept from Cardinal Beaton then Bishop of St. Andrews Common-author ordaining the Tennents of the Defenders Land to pay the Multure to the Miln of Dersie It was alleadged this was not sufficient seing the Charter did not Thirle the Defenders Lands but was only of the Miln and Multure thereof generally as for the Cardinals Precept it was not with consent of the Chapter and so could not extend beyond the Bishops Life yet the Lords declared the Astriction notwithstanding it was now alleadged that the Defender was Infeft cum molendinis muliuris by vertue whereof he had prescribed his freedom by 40. years time It being answered that once being Thirled by the Common-author no Charter granted by him thereafter could prejudge the Feuar of the Miln And as for Prescription offered to prove Interruption by paying of Insucken-multures within the space of 40. years William Cranstoun contra Walter Pringle Decemb. 12. 1665. WIlliam Cranstoun being Vassal to Greenknow he was amerciat in his Court for a Blood committed upon Walter Pringle and being charged Suspends upon this Reason that Greenknow not being a Baron or the Kings immediat Tennent had no power of Blood-waits unless he had had an express Deputation from his Superiour the Marquess of Huntly who is Baron only having the Jurisdiction It was answered that Greenknow was Infeft cum curiis bloodwitis Which the Lords found sufficient Mr. John Pearson contra Martin and his Son Eodem die MR. Iohn Pearson by his Contract with Eupham Martin did conceive the Clause of his Tochar in thir Terms that it should be payable to him and her the longest liver of them two in Conjunct-fee and Liferent and to the Heirs of the Marriage in Fee which failzing to return to the Wifes Heirs By a second Contract betwixt the Husband and his Wife it was agreed that that Clause should be altered and that failzing the Heirs of the Marriage it should return to the mans Heirs who thereupon pursue Declarator of Right by vertue of the second Contract The Defender being absent The Lords advised the Cause wherein the difficulty appeared to be that the Tochar was provided to the Bairns in Fee So that the Husband and Wife could not alter the Succession being both Liferenters because that the Clause bears to them in Liferent and to the Bairns in Fee yet the Lords sustained the Declaratâ—r seing the Husband and Wife were named Conjunctfeers so that either of them behoved to be Fear and the adjection of and Liferent could only be understood of the Person that were Liferentar and albeit it was exprest to be the Bairns in Fee yet that could be but of a substitution seing there were no Bairns then existent Christian Barns contra Hellen Young and her Spouse Eodem die HEllen Young being provided to the Annualrent of 800 merks and to the Conquest obtained Decreet thereupon against Christian Barns the Executrix who Suspends on this Reason that the Pursuer was Infeft by the Defunct her Father in a Tenement in full satisfaction of these provisions It was answered nonrelevat unless it were alleadged that the Charger had accepted Whereupon it was alleadged Accepted in so far as she had uplifted the Mails and Duties after her Fathers death and had no other Title ascribe it to It was answered that she had another Title viz. her Goodsir had Disponed this Tenement to her Father and Mother the longest liver of them two and the Bairns of the Marriage be vertue whereof as Heir Appearand of the Marriage she might contiue and uplift and miskene the new infeftment given by her Father Which the Lords founds relvant unless the other Partie Insist on that alleadgeance proponed that the Pursuer had pursued and obtained payment upon the Title bearing in satisfaction John Ramsay contra James Wilson and others Eodem die COlonel Cunningham having impignorat a number of Jewels of great Value and immediately thereafter went out of the Countrey and never returned These Jewels were in the Custody of Iohn Ramsay who and Mr. Robert Byres had given Bond to make them furthcoming to the Colonel and now Iohn Ramsay having been Confirmed Executor to the Colonel pursues Iames Wilson and others for Exhibition and Delivery of the Jewels The Defenders alleadged absolvitor because the Jewels were Impignorat by Mr. Robert Byres for a considerable Sum of Money who having them in his Possession it was a sufficient ground for the Defenders to Contract with him because property of Moveables is presumed by Possession and therefore it is not relevant to lybel that once the Jewels were Colonel Cunninghams and therefore they must be restored to his Executors unless it were also lybeled quomodo desijt possidere so that the Jewels behoved to have past from him without his own Consent or Alienation otherwise it is alwayes presumed that he sold or gifted them and needs not be proven else no man could be secure of any Moveable if he who could instruct that he bought it could recover it from all possessors unlesse they could instruct all the wayes the same past from the first Owner The Pursuer replyed that the Case is not here as to Moveables that are ordinarily sold in Mercat but in relation to Jewels of great Value which cannot be presumed to have been Mr. Robert Byres because they were never worn by him as being his proper Good nor were they Competent to any of his quality and therefore the Defenders were in mala fide to acquire them from him without knowing his Right 2ly It is instructed by Mr. Robert Byres Letter produced that he acknowledged them to be Colonels before the Impignoration and it s
offered to be proven that he broke up Iohn Ramsays Celler and took them out 3dly The Colonel Impignorat them by Writ and so the Presumption of allienating them ceased because he went immediately out of the Countrey and never returned It was answered that there is no difference of Jewels more than any other Moveables which use to passe without Writ from Jewellers that sell them and the Pursuer having possest them these 10. or 12. Years without question has right thereto by usucapion The Lords found the alleadgeances joyntly relevant to elied the presumption and that there is no usucapion in Moveables in Scotland by Possession in less then 40 years but only a presumptive Title which is altogether eleided by the Answers Duke of Hamiltoun contra Laird of Clackmanan December 14. 1665. THe Duke of Hamiltoun as Collector of the Taxations 1633. charges the Laird of Clackmannan who Suspends and produces Discharges of the first three Terms It was alleadged these discharges could not liberat because they were granted by Iohn Scobie who was neither Sheriff Baillie nor Clerk nor does it appear that he had any Warrand or Commission nor does his Discharges mention any Commission or Warrand It was answered that by the Discharges produced it appears that Ormistoun and Humbie deputed for the Duke had granted Discharges to this Iohn Scobie and offer to prove that he was in use of uplifting the Taxations during the Terms themselves and was commonly repute as Collector thereof which must be sufficient post tantum tempus It was answered that that ground would not oblidge the Sheriff and so both the Heretor and Sheriff being free the King looseth his Right Yet the Lords sustained the Reason Monteith contra Mr. John Anderson December 15. 1665. IN a Reduction at the instance of Monteith against Anderson a Reason of payment being found relevant Mr. Iohn produced an Incident at the first Terme and a Diligence against Witnesses for proving the having of the Writs at the second Term. Which Incident the Lords sustained and would not restrict the Terms of probation in the Incident to Horning against the Witnesses and Caption but allowed four Terms and ordained the same to be shorter Mr. John Elies contra Keith Eodem Die THere was a Bond of 6000 merks granted by Wiseheart Parson of Leith and Keith his Spouse to Mr. Iohn Elies containing an oblidgement to Infeft him in an Annualrent out of any of their Lands with a Procuratorie The Wife had then the Lands of Benholm belonging to her Heretablie lying in the Mairns Mr. Iohn having Inhibite her Husband and her she sold the the Lands before the Inhibition was published at the head Burgh of the Mairns and having thereafter right to a Sum of 10000 merks for which she was Infeft under Reversion in other Lands an order of Redemption was used and the Money consigned Mr. Iohn Elies pursues a Declataror to hear and see it Found and Declared that the said Keith was oblidged to infeft him in an Annualrent out of her Lands which she had fraudulently Disponed contraire her obligation and therefore was now oblidged to Infeft him in other her Lands or to pay the Sum as damnage and interest and that therefore any other Lands or Rights belonging to her might be affected for his payment and particularly the Wodset now in question Compearance was made for the Defenders Grand-child who had a Right from her Grand-mother to the Wodset who alleadged First That the Bond bearing an oblidgement for Debt granted by the Wife stante matrimonio was null It was answered that albeit the Personal oblidgment were null yet the oblidgment to Infeft in an Annualrent granted by a Wife is valid either against her Heretage or Liferent and alleadged several Dicisions therefore It was answered that the Wife might do so if she had borrowed money for her own use or were principally bound to Infeft in an Annualrent but this oblidgment being in security of her Personal obligatigation with her Husband the principal obligation being null the accessory is also null The Lords repelled the alleadgeance and found the oblidgement to Infeft valid albeit accessory because Deeds and Obligations of Wyfes not to affect their Persons but Estates are valid and albeit she had not been bound for the principal Debt she might either have effectually disponed an Annualrent or which is all one oblidged her self to Infeft in an Annualrent out of her Heretage utile per inutile non vitiatur It was further alleadged that this Wodset or Sum disponed to her Oy could not be affected because her Oy was the youngest of many Oyes and did no wayes represent her The Lords sustained this Member of the Declarator also upon the Act of Parliament 1621. against Dispositions between Conjunct Persons without a cause onerous which they found might either be a ground to reduce the same or to declare the same to be affected as if the Right were in the Disponers Person Herein it was also lybelled That this Wodset albeit acquired after the Inhibition yet seing it lay in the same Shire where the Inhibition was published the Grand-child's Right were Reduceable upon the Inhibition The Lords thought so because Inhibitions being Personal Prohibitions reach both acquisita and acquirenda by the Person Inhibit in the Shires where it is published Laird Kilbocho contra Lady Kilbocho December 20. 1665. THE Lady Kilbocho by her Contract of Marriage being provided to certain Lands with this provision further that she should have the Liferent of all Lands Conquest during the Marriage whereupon she obtained a Decreet in the English time which being now under Reduction It was alleadged the Clause of Conquest could only give her the Lands Conquest with the Burden of the Annualrent of a Sum due by the Defunct to a Person from whom he bought the Land as being a part of the Price of the Land especially seing by a writ under the Defuncts hand he acknowledged that this Bond was granted for a part of the Price It was answered First That a Personal oblidgement cannot affect the Land neither can it affect the Ladies Person but if the Defunct had pleased he might have granted an Annualrent out of the Lands Conquest which then would have affected it which not being done his declaring that this Sum was a part of the price cannot be effectual nor can infer a Probation against his Wife in prejudice of her anterior Right Secondly This alleadgeance might be proponed as well against the Heir of Conquest as Liferenter thereof and yet it was never found that the Heir of Conquest behoved to accept the Land with the Burden of the Sums borrowed to buy it nor yet to relieve the Heir of Lyne thereof but on the contrair the Heir of Conquest has relief against the Heir of Lyne for Personal Debt though borrowed for acquiring the Right The Lords found that the Case was not alike with the Heirs of Conquest whom Defuncts do Infeft without
because she is then in potestate viri sub ejus tutelà So that she is truely Wife after the Contract of Marriage becoming publick by Proclamation and it occurring as a doubt amongst the Lords whether the Reduction ought to be sustained at the instance of the Husband only in so far as concerned his interest jure mariti so that the Right might be valid against the Ladie if she survived The Lords sustained the Reason simply at the instance of both and found it null as to both as being done without her Husbands consent Sir Laurence Oliphant contra Sir James Drummond Ianuary 6. 1666. THE Lord Rollâ— his Liferent Escheat being Gifted in Anno 1658. to Walter Stewart He Assigned the Gift and his own Debt the Ground hereof and the General Declarator obtained thereupon to Sir Iames Drumâ—â—mond in Anno 1665. A second Donatar now insists for special Declarator wherein compearance is made for Sir Iames Drummond who craved preference upon his first Gift and on his General Declarator It was answered for the Second Donatar that the first Gift was simulat and null by the Act of Parliament 1592. In so far as the Donatar suffered the Rebel to continue in Possession untill this day and never attained Possession of any part of the Lands nor did any furder diligence but only the General Declarator in Anno 1658. So that the Rebel having now possest by the space of 6 or 7. Years The presumption contained in the Act of Parliament that upon the said Possession the Gift is simulat and null takes place It was answered that there is no definit time in the Act of Parliament by which the Rebels Possession shall presume simulation and in this caâ—e there was but few Anni utilesâ— in so far as the Gift being in Anno 1658. Declarator was obtained that same year and in Anno 1659. Judicatures ceased and began not again till 1661. The Lords found that the Donatar suffering the Rebell to possesse 4 or 5. Years was sufficient to infer the presumption of simulation by the said Act of Parliament and therefore preferred the second Donatar Inter Eosdem Ianuary â— AT pronouncing of the former Interlocutor the first Donatar furder alleadged that the Presumption of Simulation by suffering the Rebel to possesse could not take place in this case First because the Donatar himself was a lawful Creditor of the Rebells whereupon there is a stronger Presumption that the Gift was to his behoove for his own satisfaction And the Act of Parliament can be only meant of Donatars who have no Interest but their Gift and are not Creditors Secondly The Lands were Apprized and the Donatar knew he would be excluded by the Appryzers The Lords repelled the first alleadgeance and found the presumptio juris in the Act of Parliament was stronger then the contrair presumption that the Donatar was Creditor because it might be his purpose to apply the Gift to the Rebells behove and not to take that way having other wayes of payment competent and also repelled the second alleadgeance unlesse it were alleadged that the Apprizer had been in possession so that there had not been 3 or 4. Years in which the Rebel had possest and that if the Appryzing had attained Possession at that time it would have excluded the Donatar but seing it was offered to be proven that the Rebel possest for 3 or 4. Years which was contrair to the alleadgeance of the Apprizers possession of the hail They adhered to their former Interlocutor Elizabeth Broun contra John Scot. Eodem die THere being an Infeftment feu granted of the Lands of Inglistoun as Principal and of the Lands of Fingland in warrandice thereof long agoe and Infeftment taken of both Principal and Warrandice Lands in on Seasine Registrat in the Registers Seasines Since the Year 1617. Thereafter the Warrandice Lands were disponed to the Earl of Traquair and he being publickly Infeft gave a subaltern Infeftment to his Vassal who assigned Iohn Scot to the Mails and Duties who having Arrested insisted to make forthcoming And likewise Elizabeth Broun having after the eviction of the Principal Lands arrested the Rents of the Warrandice Lands insists to make the same furthcoming to her It was alleadged that the Original Infeftment whereupon the said Elizabeth Brouns right is founded is a base Infeftment and as to the Warrandice Lands never cled with Possession and the Earl of Traquairs Right whereon Iohn Scots Right is founded is a publick Infeftment holden of the King which is alwayes preferred to a base Infeftment without consideration whether the publick Infeftment has attained Possession or no or how long but much more in this case where the publick Infeftment has attained Possession not only by year and day but many years And therefore is directly in the Case of the Act of Parliament 1540. cap. 105. Preferring publick Infeftments to prior base Infeftments not cled with Possession It was answered that base Infeftments are of themselves valid and before the said Act of Parliament the first Infeftment made always the best Right whether it was holden of the Disponer or of his Superiour but that Act of Parliament is correctory of the Common-Law and Feudal Custom which by the Act it self appears then to have been constant and is only altered by the Statute upon the presumption of Fraud which is clear both by the Title against double Fraudful alienations and by the Narrative that diverse persons after they have given privat State and Seasine to their Bairns or Friends do thereafter give for Causes onerous Infeftment to other persons and therefore such onerous posterior Infeftments if they attain Possession year and day are preferred to the said privat Infeftments but in this Case there is no Presumption of Simulation 2dly By several Decisions alleadged and produced it is clear that the Lords did prefer base Infeftment of Annualrent to posterior publick Infeftments of Propertie which interveened before the next Term so that the Infeftment of Annualrent could not attain Possession but if base Infeftments without Possession were unvalid Rights The Lords could not have found so 3dly The Lords have allowed Indirect and Interpretative Possession to be sufficient not only in the Case when Liferents are reserved that thereby the Liferenters Possession is the Feears though he never possest himself but even when Liferents are not reserved but that the base Infeftment is thereby excluded from Possession so base Infeftments granted to wyfes are preferred to posterior publick Infeftments though the Wyfes do not nor cannot possesse during the Husbands Life yet the Husbands possession is counted the Wifes possession and if a Person Infeft by a base Infeftment should pursue for Mails or Duties or Removing and were excluded by a prior Liferent constitute by the Pursuers Authorâ— though not reserved in his Right that very Action would be sufficient to validat the base Infeftment without Possession 4thly Whatever might have been alleadged before the Act of Parliament 1617. For
obtained that that Decreet should be transferred against him and it should be declared that the Adjudication should proceed against the next Appearand Heir It was alleadged for the Defender that the former Appearand Heir having dyed before Adjudication and so the Diligence being incompleat there could be no Process thereon till this Defender were again charged to enter Heir to the first Defunct especially seing he had Annum deliberandi competent to him of the Law which would be taken from him if this order were sustained and as an Appearand Heir charged though the dayes of the Charge were run before his death the same would be void if no Decreet had followed thereupon And the obtainer behoved to obtain his Diligence thereupon renewed so it ought to be in this Case It was answered the Case was not alike for here there is a Decreet obtained upon the Heirs Renounciation and there is no reason to put the Creditor to do diligence again especially now since the late Act of Parliament whereby if he get not Adjudication within a year he will be excluded and there are other Appryzings already deduced The Lords Sustained the Process hoc ordine with this provision that if this appear and Heir entred and Infeft himself within year and day the Adjudication should be redeemable to him within the Legal Reversion of 10. years by which neither the Creditor was prejudged of his diligence nor the Heir of his Priviledge Lord Rentoun Justice Clerk contra Fewars of Coldinghame Eodem die MY Lord Rentoun as being Infeft in the Office of Forrestrie by the Abbot of Coldinghame containing many special servitudes upon the whole Inhabitants of the Abbacie as such a dutie out of Waith Goods and out of all Timber cutted in the Woods of the Abbacie with so many Woods Hâ—ns and a Threave of Oats out of every husband Land yearly pursues Declarator of his Right and payment of the bygones since the year 1621. And in time coming both Parties being formerly ordained before answer to produce such Writs and Rights as they would make use of and these being now produced The Pursuer insisted primâ— Loco for Declaring his Right as to the Threave of Oats It was alleadged for the Defenders absolvitor because they had produced their Fews granted by the Abbots of Coldinghame prior to the Pursuers Infeftment free of any such burden It was answered The Defense ought to be Repelled because the Pursuer has not only produced his own Infeftment but his Predecessors and Authors Infeftments and his progresse to them viz. The Infeftment granted to David Evin of the Forrestrie containing all the Duties a foresaid which is before any of the Defenders Infeftments produced It was duplyed for the Defender that the Infeftment granted to the said David Evin is no original Infeftment but bears to be granted on his Mothers Resignation and has no special reddendo but only relative to the former Infeftments And therefore unless the former Infeftments were produced or it were instructed that the Resigner had Right the Infeftment upon Resignation can operat nothing especially never being cled with Possession as to the Threaves of Oats in questionâ— for there is great odds betwixt Infeftments granted by Kirkmen who are but administrators of the benefices and others who have plenum dominium so that Infeftments upon Resignation of Kirkmen are to be understood to confer no more Right than the Resigner had and not to constitute any original Right where there was none before in the same way as Infeftments granted by the King upon Resignation are but periculo petentis and give no Right further then the Resigner had even against the King It was answered for the Pursuer that his Reply stands relevant and he produces sufficiently to instruct his predecessors Right for there is no Law nor Reason to compell Parties to produce the old Original Feus granted by Kirkmen but Infeftments upon Resignation are sufficient neither is the Case alike as to the King and Kirkmen because things passe not by the King ex certa scientia which no other can pretend but in this Case declaring a Right granted by an Abbot with consent of the Convent it must be considered what made a Right the time that it was granted when there was no more required then his Concession with consent foresaid which is sufficient against him and his successors neither can they pretend that such grants are salvo jure suo And if in matters so Ancient Original Infeftments from Kirkmen behoved to be produced that neither Precepts of clare constat nor Infeftments upon Resignation were sufficient Few rights of Kirk-lands in Scotland would be found valid The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and found this Infeftment upon Resignation sufficient Iohn and Ioseph Heriots contra James Fleming Messenger and Cautioners January 19. 1666. JOhn and Joseph Heriots having obtained Decreet before the Lyon against James Fleming Messenger and his Cautioners depryving the Messenger upon Malversation in so far as being imployed to execute a Caption he had taken the Debitor and had Denounced and Appryzed his Lands and suffered the Debitor to escape and would not subscribe the Decreet of Appryzing whereupon he was depryved and decerned to pay 500. merks conform to the Act of Parliament 1587. cap. 46. And both he and his Cautioners were decerned to pay the Sum as Damnage and Interest to the Pursuer They Suspend and alleadge that the Decreet is null in so far as it was pronounced by the Lord Lyon without the concourse of the Heraulds which is required by the said Act. 2dly Albeit the Lyon be impowred to deprive Messengers by the said Act yet their Cautioners are not under his jurisdiction nor the damnage and interest of Parties by Messengers malversation which is only competent to the Judge ordinary It was answered to the first oppons the Decreet wherein the Cautioners compeared and so acknowledged the Lyons Jurisdiction as he then sat likeas the Decreet it self bears to be by the Lyon with the Heraulds To the Second The Cautioners having enacted themselves in the Lyons Books they have made themselves lyable and for the damnages they are consequent to every Jurisdiction and the Lyons have been constantly in use to determine the same as to this Point The Lords were of different judgements for they thought that by the Act of Parliament the Lyon had no such power but as to long Custom some thought it was sufficient to give that power and there was no inconveniencie seing his Decreets might be Suspended Others thought that Custome being clandestine and without the contradiction of Parties who might voluntarly submit themselves to any Authority could not be sufficient The Lords Ordained before answer the Lyons Books to be produced to see if there were such a Custome before it were decided and how far that Custome would work Christian Braidie contra Laird of Fairney January 20. 1666. CHristian Braidie having pursued a Reduction of a
Disposition ex capute inhibitionis against the Laird of Fairney of all Dispositions made by John Glasfoord to him after her Inhibition he produced a Disposition Holograph wanting Witnesses of a Date anterior It was alleadged that the Holograph writ could not prove its own Date contra tertium The Lords before answer ordained Fairney to adduce Witness and adminacles for astructing the Date he adduced foâ—â— the Town Clerk who deponed he dyted the Disposition and a Town Officer who saw it subscribed of the Date it bears and a third who deponed he saw it subscribed on a Mercat day at Coupar which as he remembred was in March or Apryl 1652. Whereas the Date bears the first of August 1652. But that Glasfoord when he wrot it layed it down upon the Table beside himself and saw it not delivered and it being alleadged that the first of August 1652. fell upon a Sunday The Lords considering that Infeftment was not taken upon the Disposition for three years and that there was no Witnesses deponed upon the delivery found the Witnesses adduced not to astruct the Date of the Disposition and therefore reduced the same Clappertoun contra Laird Tarsonce Eodem die CLappertoun raises a Declarator against Tarsonce for declaring an Appryzing at his Instance against the Pursuer to have been satisfied within the legal by payment of the sums by the Debitor or by Intromission with the Mails and Duties either within the seven years of the first legal or within the three years thereafter during which by the late Act of Parliament Appryzings not expired in Anno 1652. were declared Redeemable or by Sums received from such as bought from the Appryzer a part of the appryzed Lands It was alleadged absolvitor from that member of satisfaction by the intromission during these three last years because the Act of Parliament does not expresly prorogat the Reversion but declares the Lands Redeemable within three years but does express nothing to whom the Mails and Duties shall belong which cannot be imputed against the Appryzer to satisfie the Appryzing because he enjoyed them as his own the Apprizing by the Law then standing being expyred bona fide possessor facit fructus consumptos suos and therefore a subsequent Law cannot be drawn back to make him compt for that which he might have consumed the more lavishly thinking it his own It was answered that Appryzings were odious being the taking away the whole Right of Lands for a sum without proportion to the true value and therefore all Acts retrenching them ought to be favourably interpret especially where the Appryzer gets all his own and therefore the Act declaring them Redeemable must be understood in the same case as they were before and that was either by payment or intromission The Lords Repelled the Defense and sustained the Declarator both as to payment and intromission and as to the sum the Appryzer got for a part of the Land sold by him Irredeemably after the seven years legal was expyred And seing the Acquirer of that Right was called they found it also Redeemable from him upon payment of the pryce payed for it cum omni causa and he to be comptable for the Rents unless the Pursuer would ratifie his Right as an irredeemable Right in which case the price should be accounted as a part of the sums appryzed for Lord Rentoun contra Feuars of Coldinghame Eodem die THe Lord Rentoun insisting in the Declarator of his Right of the Office of Forrestry and of a Threave of Corn with the Fodder whereof mention is made Ianuary 17. The Defenders proponed a second Defense viz. That the Pursuer shewed no sufficient progress from David Ellen but only an Infeftment granted by Ianet Ellen Davids Daughter and so the Pursuers Goodsir upon Ianets own Resignation and albeit there was a Precept of clare constat produced by the Abbot in favours of Ianet yet no Seasine followed thereupon so that Davids Infeftment was not established in the Person of Ianet and consequently could not belong to this Pursuer and the Defenders having gotten their Fews immediatly after Davids Right free of this Burden the Right could not be declared till it were established in the Pursuers Person and if he should now infeft himself the Interruption on the Act of Prescription upon the Summons lybelling upon Davids Right and the progress produced from David would fall It was answered that the Abbot having granted the Infeftment to Ianet upon her own Resignation yet bearing to be expresly to her as heir to David It was equivalent to a Precept of clare constat which does not necessarly require the ordinar form but a Charter infeâ—ting such a Person as heir to such another who was before infeft would be as valide so that in this infeftment of Ianets all being materially included to establish Davids Right in her Person she being acknowledged heir to David albeit it be upon her own Resignation utile per inutile non vitiatur The Defenders further alleadged absolvitor because by several Acts of Parliament infeftments of Kirk-lands before the Reformation are required to be Confirmed by the Pope or the King thereafter Ita est this is Confirmed by neither before the Feuers Right And by another Act of Parliament it is declared that the first Confirmation with the last Feu shall be preferred Ita est the Defenders has the first Confirmation It was answered that no Law nor Act of Parliament required Confirmation of an Office neither was any Confirmation absolutely necessar before that Act of Parliament but the Kirk-men might always have Feued without diminution of the Rental of the Lands as they were the time of the feu but that Act was made in regard that at the time of Reformation the Kirk-men being out of hopes of preserving of Monasteries and Kirk-lands did Feu them to their nearest Friends and therefore the foresaid Act as being correctory of the common Law ought not to be extended to any thing but what is exprest in the Act which is only Feues of Kirk-lands and so would neither extend to an Office as a Baillirie Forrestrie c. nor yet to a Pension or Annualrent neither would it extend to Infeftments by Kirk-men Ward such as most of the Infeftments of this Abbacy and many others are And seing Confirmation was not requisit but the Feu it self was sufficient alone the last Act preferring the first Confirmation takes no place which can only be understood where Confirmations are necessar It was answered for the Defenders that albeit an Office requires no Confirmation where there is nothing given but the Office and Casualities thereof Yet where there is a burden upon Lands given therewith such as this Threave of Oats out of every Husband-land being far above the proportion of a suitable Fee for the Office there being above 111. Husband-lands in the Abbacie and some Forrester-lands following the Office besides other Casualities Confirmation is necessar or else the Abbots might have eluded the
1666. SIr Mungo Murray having by the Earl of Crawfords means obtained from the King a Gift of the Ward and Marriage of Frazer of Streichen his Nephew he did assign the Gift to Mr. Iames Kennedy and he to Heugh Dollas before it past the Scals and at the time that the Gift was past in Exchequer the same was stopt until Sir Mungo gave a Back-bond bearing that he had promised at the obtaining of the Gift to be ruled therein at the Earl of Crawfords discretion who by a Declaration under his hand declared that the Gift was purchast from the King for the Minors behove and that only a gratuity for Sir Mungo's pains was to be payed to him and that the Earl Declared he allowed Sir Mungo 5000. merks There was a second Gift taken in the name of Sir William Purves of the same Ward and Marriage Heugh Dollas pursuing Declarator of the double avail of the Marriage because there was a suitable Match offered and refused Compearance was made for Sir William Purves and the Lord Frazer his Assigney who declared that their Gift was to Streichans behove and alleadged that the first Gift could only be declared as to 5000. merks contained in the Earl of Crawfords Declaration because of Sir Mungoes Back-bond the time of passing of the Gift It was answered First That Sir Mungoes Back-bond and the Earl of Crawfords Declaration could not prejudge the Pursuer who was a singular Successor to Sir Mungo especially seing it is offered to be proven that the Gift was assigned and intimate before the Back-bond after which no Writ subscribed by the Cedent could prejudge the Assigney It was answered that the said Assignation being of the Gift when it was an incompleat Right and only a Mandat granted by the King could not prejudge the Back-bond granted at the time the Gift past the Exchequer and Seals for then only it became a compleat Right and notwithstanding of the Assignation behoved to pass in the Donatars Cedent his Name so that his Back-bond then granted and Registrat in Exchequer behoved to affect and restrict the Gift otherways all Back-bonds granted to the Thesaurer and Exchequer might be Evacuat by anterior Assignations It was answered that this Back-bond was granted to the Earl of Crawford then but a private Person and hath not the same effect aâ— a Bond granted to the Thesaurer The Lords found this Back-bond granted at the passing of the Gift and Registrat in the Books of Exchequer to affect the said Gift and therefore restricted the Declarator thereto In this Process it was also alleadged that the first Gift was null bearing the Gift of the Ward and Marriage to be given upon the Minority of Streichen and the Decease of his Father and the second Gift buire to be upon the Minority of Streichen and the Decease of his Goodsire who dyed last Infeft his Father never being Infeft It was answered that the Designation was not to be respected seing the thing it self was constant and that the Fathers Decease albeit not Infeft was the immediate cause of the Vaccation seing the Oye could have no interest until the Father though not Infeft were dead The Lords forbore to decide in this seing both Parties agreed that the 5000. merks should be effectual so that it was needless to decide in this which if found Relevant would have taken away the first Gift wholly Colonel Cuninghamâ— contra Lyll Feb. 1. 1666. IN a Competition between Colonel Cuninghame and Lyll both being Arresters and having obtained Decreets to make forthcoming in one day and Colonel Cuninghams Arrestment being a day prior he alleadged he ought to be preferred because his Diligence was anterior and his Decreet behoved to be drawn back to his Arrestment It was answered for Lyll that it was only the Decreet to make forthcoming that constitute the Right and the Arrestment was but a Judicial Prohibition hindering the Debitor to Dispone like an Inhibition or a Denunciation of Lands to be appryzed and that the last Denunciation and first Appryzing would be preferred So the Decreet to make forthcoming is the judicial Assignation of the Debt and both being in one day ought to come in together It was answered that in legal Diligences prior tempore est pâ—tior jure and the Decreet to make forthcoming is Declaratory finding the sum arrested to belong to the Arrester by vertue of the Arrestment and as for the Instance of Appryzings the first Denunciation can never be postponed unless the Diligence be defective for if the first Denuncer take as few days to the time of the Appryzing as the other he will still be preferred The Lords preferred the first Arrester being equal in Diligence with the second contra Mr. John and Henry Rollocks Eodem die IN an Exhibition of Writs it was alleadged that Mr. Iohn and Henry Rollocks being Advocat and Agent in the Cause was not oblieged to Depone in prejudice of their Clients or to reveal their secrets but they ought to pursue their Clients for a Servant Factor or Person intrusted with the custody of Writs ought not to be Examined in prejudice of their Constituent unless it were as a Witness It was answered that their Client was called In respect whereof the Lords ordained the Defenders to Depone concerning the having of the Writs Fodem die AN Executor Dative ad omissa mala appretiata pursuing the principal Executrix and referring the Goods omitted and Prices to her Oath She alleadged that she had already Deponed at the giving up of the Inventar and could not be oblieged to Depone again The Lords ordained her to Depone seing she might have intrometted after and more might have come to her knowledge of the worth of the Goods or a greater price gotten therefore Arch-bishop of Glasgow contra Mr. James Logan Eeb. 6. 1666. THe Arch-bishop of Glasgow pursues a Declarator against Mr. Iames Logan for declaring he had lost his place as Commissar Clerk of Drumfreis because he had deserted his place and gone out of the Countrey and because he was a Person insolvent and denunced Rebel and had lifted a considerable Sum for the Quots of Testaments which he had taken with him and not payed It was answered that the Defender had his Gift from the former Arch-bishop with a power of Deputation and that his place is and hath always been served by a Depute and therefore neither his absence nor his being Denunced for Debt can annul his Gift or hinder him to Serve by his Deput It was answered that the principal Clerk not having personam standi in judicio his Depute cannot sit for him who could not sit himself and that he being absent out of the Countrey for a considerable space must be esteemed to have Relinquished his Place The Lords found the Defense Relevant upon the pâ—wer of Deputation which they found not to be annulâ—eâ— by his absence or denunciation sine crimine Livingstoun contra Begg Eodem die THomas Begg having
granted a Bond to Livingstouns his Wife bearing that in respect he thought it convenient that they should live a part he oblieged him to pay her a certain Sum of Money yearly for her aliment and oblieged him never to quarrel or recal that Obligation being charged thereupon he Suspends on this Reason that it was donatio inter virum uxorem and so he might recal the same and now offered to Cohabite with his Wife and aliment her according to his Means It was answered that he had Renunced that priviledge in so far as he had oblieged himself never to Recal or come against this obliegment It was answered that though he had expresly Renunced that priviledge yet the Renunciation was donatio inter virum uxorem and he might therefore Recal and come against both The Lords found the Reason of Suspension and Reply relevant in time coming but not for the bygone time during which the Wife had actually lived a part and alimented her self Laird of Dury contra The Relict and Daughter of umquhil Dury his Brother Eodem die DVry being Served Tutor of Law to his Brothers only Daughter pursues her Mother for delivery of her to be Educat by her Tutors It was alleadged that he was to succeed her and so could not have the Custody of her Person 2. That she was but nine years old and her Mother unmarried and so she was the fittest person to Educate her especially seing she was the only living Child of many and so not likely to be lively It was answered that the Tutor insisted not for the custody of his Pupil himself but condescended on several Persons with whom she might be Educate and alleadged that she having 40000. pounds of Provision out of the Family there was no Reason she should be keeped by her Mother and Disposed of at the pleasure of her Mothers Friends The Lords Decerned the Child to be delivered to Mr. Alexander Gibson one of the Clerks to be Educate with him but superceeded Execution of the Sentence till Whitsonday come a year that she might be delivered to her Fathers Friends before she was eleven years old and could have any thoughts of Marriage Watson contra Fleming Eodem die THere being an Infeftment of Annualrent granted out of Lands and Teinds and an Assignation to the Teind Duties in so far as extended to the Annualrent The Teinds and Lands were thereafter appryzed from the common Author before the Annualrenter had obtained Possession by his Real Right of the Annualrent but only by his Assignation to the Teind Duties It was alleadged by the Appryzer that the Assignation to the Teind Duties could give no longer Right then the property thereof remained in the Cedents Person which Ceasing by the Appryzing the Assignation ceased therewith as is ordinarly and unquestionably sustained in Assignations to Mails and Duties of Land It was answered that there was great difference betwixt Lands which require Infeftment to transmit the same and Teinds which require none but are conveyable by an Assignation for if this had been by an Assignation to the Tack of Teinds protanto it would have been unquestionably valid and therefore being an Assignation to the Teind Duties it is equivalent as a Disposition to Lands which would carry the Right of a Reversion though not exprest and though there were no more to Dispone but the Reversion only It was answered that if the Assignation had been to the Teinds That is to the Right or if it had been to the full Teind Duty in the Tack or of certain Lands then the case might have been dubious but being not of the Teind Duties of any particular Lands but out of the first and readiest of the Teinds of several Lands it was not habilis modus Which the Lords found Relevant Town of Glasgow contra Town of Dumbarton Eodem die THere being mutual Declarators one at the Instance of the Town of Dumbarton for Declaring that they had Right by their Infeftments that all ships coming within Clyde should make their Entries at Dumbarton and that they should pay Anchorage for all Ships Anchoring in the River of Clyde being within their Infeftment even from the Water of Leven to the head of Lochluny within which bounds is the ordinar station of New-wark Potterig and Inchgrein and above which no Vessel above 24. Tuns goes up Clyde and likewise for the Measurage whereby all Ships casting Anchor there took the Firlots of Dumbarton and measured with payed 8. pennies of the boll therefore and Weightage which is a Duty for their Weights and also Tunage being so much out of every Tun of the Burden of each Ship And on the other part Glasgow pursues Declarator of their Liberty to Traffick freely in the River of Clyde and to make Entry at their Burgh and to be free of any such burden at Dumbarton The Lords before answer having ordained either Party to adduce such Writs and Witnesses as they will make use of in the Cause for instructing these Burdens the Possession thereof Interruptions of the same and Liberty therefrom which all being adduced Dumbarton produced their original Charter Erecting them in a free Burgh by King Alexander in Anno 1221. and another Charter also by King Alexander repeating their Priviledges of Burgh as free as Edinburgh or any other Burgh within the Kingdom cum custumiis teloniis and also a Charter in Anno 1609. Ratifying the former Charter and particularly expressing all these Burdens in question in the novodamus thereof and also produced their Entry Books bearing the Merchants of Glasgow to have Entred their Ships at Dumbarton and to have taken the measures of Dumbarton for measuring their Salt and to have payed the Duties thereof and obliging themselves to make use of no others these Voyages begining at the year 1616. and continuing till the year 1657. in the beginning whereof there was ordinarly one Ship every year and thereafter several Ships every year Glasgow did also produce their ancient Infeftments by King Alexander mentioning a prior Infeftment by King William Erecting them into a free Burgh with their Books of Entries of several Ships for divers years with an Interlocutor of the Lords in Anno 1609. wherein Dumbarton having charged for all the Duties now in question Glasgow Suspended and Dumton insisted for none of these in question but only for Entries and the Lords found that the Merchants of Glasgow might either Enter at Glasgow Dumbarton or any other free Burgh where the Kings Customers were and might break bulk there with a Contract between Dumbarton and Glasgow in Anno 1590. oblieging them to concur against unfree-men and not to break bulk upon the River but in their Towns and in case of any difference six of each Town to meet at Ranfrew and decide the same and thereupon alleadged that they being a free Burgh and having the precedence of Dumbarton both in Parliament and so acknowledged by the said Contract and enjoying equal and free
Trade in the River of Clyde without any such Burden whereof no mention is made in the foresaid Contract and being charged for in Anno 1611. there was not so much as an alleadgence of any Possession of Dumbartons of these Dues at that time and the Entry decerned to be free at either Town and therefore they alleadged that their Priviledge of Trading as a free Burgh ought to be declared and they assoilzied It was answered for the Town of Dumbarton that they had good Right to these Duties by His Majesties several Infeftments granted to them for the King having power to impose petty Customs not only in Ports built and preserved by Industry but in Stations and Rivers Creiks and Bays as is the Custom of all Kings and Princes such are the Customes upon the Rivers of Rhyne Garonnie Thaimes and others to all Ships that anchor there or pass that way and whereof there are severals in Scotland as the Tunnage due to Edinburgh of all the Ships breaking bulk at Leith and the petty Customs of Alloway Cockenie and other places 2ly Albeit the Kings grant were not sufficient alone yet being cled with immemorial or 40. years Possession instructed by Witnesses and the Books of Entry it is more then sufficient It was answered for Glasgow to the first That petty Duties imposed for Ports having a mutual Cause may be appointed at any time by Kings and Princes it being free to these who are burdened therewith to come in to that Port or not they also appoint petty Customs to be payed to any City for Goods Imported and sold there in consideration of the upholding of their Harbours and Mercats as the Tunage of the Harbour of Leith or anchorage at any Shore where anchorage is casten upon the Land or any Goods laid out upon the Land or where Imposition for anchorage or other Dues in a River or Station hath been approven by long Custom and acquiescence but where Burghs Royal have not only by their priviledge of Trading but by immemorial Possession prescribed a liberty of making use of Stations without burding no Right granted or Impetrat by any Party in prejudice thereof if it be quarrelled before Prescription can take away the liberty of Trading Nor is the Kings Gift any way to be understood but periculo petentis and Dumbartons second Charter did expresly bear that these petty Customs were due and accustomed before so that the Kings express meaning is not to Gift them de nova or to impose a servitude in their favours upon a far more eminent City then themselves And as to the Point of Possession nothing is proven thereanent till the year 1616. and then it is neither universal seing more Entered at Glasgow then at Dumbarton nor is it peaceable nor voluntar nor is it continual but interrupted and albeit it were uninterrupted yet it is but by single Persons which cannot infer a Servitude upon the Burgh and if the Kings Gift be periculo petentis and be surrepticiously impetrat upon a false Narrative no Possession can validat it as no Possession of it self without a Title could infer such a Servitude The Lords having considered the Depositions of the Witnesses Books of Entry and the hail Writs produced they found that the alleadgence against Dumbartons Declarator as founded upon their Charters without Relation to Possession was not Relevant and that the first Charter could not extend to these particulars not being exprest unless it had appeared that they had been in immemorial Possession before the second Charter and the interruption by the Suspension raised by Glasgow and the Lords Interlocutor thereuponâ— in Anno 1611. for albeit Immemorial or 40. years Possession immediatly preceeding might have presumed Possession continually before since the first Charter yet they found that Interruption or Suspending that particular in question and no alleadging of Possession by Dumbarton then but on the contrair an Interlocutor as to the liberty of Entry at Glasgow takes off that Prescription And likewise they found that there was nothing proven as to 40. years Possession save only 13. sh. 4. d. for the Anchorage of each Ship and 8. d. for the use of Dumbartons Measures of Salt for each Boll and seing that Possession was also proven to be Interrupted in that several Ships of Glasgow Resisted and came away free and that they had several Salt Measures of their own there Therefore they found the Charter not validat by 40. years Possession uninterrupted and Assoilzie from Dumbartons Declarator and Declared upon Glasgows Declarator of Liberty Earl of Panmuire contra Parochiners Feb. 7. 1666. THe Earl of Panmuire having Right to the Abbacy of Aberbrothick pursues for a part of the Teinds thereof It was alleadged absolvitor because they had possest their Land 40. years free of Teind to any body and by the general Act of Prescription all Right prescribes not pursued within 40. years and so doth the Right of this Teind It is answered that the Right of Teind is founded on Law and not upon any particular or privat Right and therefore albeit in the case of Competition of private Parties pretending Right to Teinds One Right may be excluded by another yet the Teinds themselves must always be due except where the Lands are decimis inclusis and did belong to priviledged Church-men of old such as the Cistertian Order or Templars Manse or Gleibs The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Answer for they thought albeit the bygones of the Teind preceeding the 40. years might prescribe yet the Right of Teind could not more then Customs could prescribe if they were neglected to be Exacted for fourty years or a Feu-duty Ker contra Hunter and Tennents of Cambo Feb. 8. 1666. THe Tennents of Cambo raise a Double-poinding against Ker and Hunter both being Infeft in Annualrents base where the last base Infeftment within a month of the former being cled with Possession by a Decreet of poynding the Ground a year after both and no Diligence on the first The Lords preferred the last Infeftment as first cled with Possession It was further alleadged that this Annualrenter had accepted a part of the Land in satisfaction of his Annualrent It was answered that there was Write there required viz. a Renunciation of the rest and till that was done est locus penitentiae The Lords considering the Case found that if the Promise were only to restrict the Annualrent to a part of the Land burdened therewith it was pactum liberatorium and there was not locus penitentiae but if it was a Promise to accept other Lands or the Property of a part of the Lands burdened there was locus penitentiae till the mutual Rights were subscribed whereby the one Party disponed the Property and the other the Annualrent The Heretors of Johns Miln contra The Feuars Feb. 9. 1666. THere being an old Thirlage of a Paroch which was a part of the Barony of Dumfermling to Iohns Miln the Feu of the Miln being
first granted by the Abbot of Dumfermling and the Feu of the Land thereafter there is a Decreet in Anno 1610. pronounced by the Chancellor as Lord of the Regality decerning all the Feuars to pay the five and twenty Curn of all Grains that they brought to the Miln and a greater of that they Abstracted The Feuar of the Miln pursuing for Abstracted Multures and for instructing the Quota producing this Decreet It was alleadged for the Defenders that they offered them to prove that past memory of man at least 40. years bygone they have been constantly in use to pay five Bolls of Bear in satisfaction of all Multure and so can be lyable for no further they having prescribed their liberty from any further 2ly That no respect ought to be had to the Decreet in so far as it Decerns a greater quantity for the Corns Abstracted then for these grinded which is without all Reason especially seing this is but a Burn Miln and not sufficient for the Thirle 3ly They offer them to prove that the Miln was insufficient the years pursued for and no ways able to serve them and the rest of the Thirle as being but a Burn-miln dry in Summer and not having Water enough in Winter It was answered for the Pursuer to the first that they offered them to prove they were in Possession of the Multure Lybelled within these 40. years at least that any lesser Duty was accepted by a particular Paction for a time only To the second opponed the Decreet standing against which there has neither been Suspension nor Reduction nor any ground for the same for its like the coming to the Miln frees them from a greater quantity for abstraction And seing the Quota is but the five and twenty Curn far below the ordinar Thirle Multures it was very reasonable that the samine being abaited to a less quantity they should pay a greater if they came not As to the insufficiency of the Miln it was answered non Relevat unless it were through the default of the Pursuer or his Millers for they being astricted to a Burn Miln what defect is therein without the Pursuers fault cannot louse the Restriction The Lords found the Replys Relevant unless the Defenders condescended upon an insufficiency through the Pursuers fault Here occurred to the Lords whether the Feuars could by Possession prescrive their liberty as to a lesser Multure seing the Possession of a part of the Multure was sufficient to exclude Prescription as to the whole some thought if the Multure had been a certain Quota in the Infeftment of the Miln Possession also not of the hail would hindred Prescription of any part but if the Infeftment of the Miln was only with the Multures used and wont and that the speciality was but by a Decreet as the use and wont that in that case use and wont might change Others thought not but in respect the Pursuer insisted not on that Point but offered to prove Possession conform to the Decâ—eet within these 40. years The Lords decided not that Point Here also it was alleadged that by an Act of the Court of Dumfermling the Defender consenting at least present it was Enacted that such of the Defenders as could not be served might go to other Milns The Lords found this alleadgence only Relevant that it was by consent of the Pursuer or his Authors but left it to be the Defendersâ— after production to qualifie what way the consent was given but that his presence and silence was not enough The Collector of the Vaccand Stipends contra Parochioners of Mayboll and Girvane Feb. 10. 1666. THe Collector of the Vaccand Stipend having charged the Heretors of Mayboll and Girvane for the Stipend due by them the year 1663. They Suspend and produce the Ministers Discharges who served these years and alleadged they made payment bona fide before this Charge It was answered they were in mala fide by the Act of Parliament of the last Session of Parliament declaring the places of Ministers Entred since 1649. to be Vacant if they had not obtained Presentation and Collation conform to the Act. It was answered that the foresaid Act was not simple but conditional if they had not obtained Presentation and Collation and there was nothing oblieging the Parochioners to enquire whether they had done that which by the Law they were oblieged to do but seing there was no Charge against them by the Collector of the Vaccand Stipends and that the Patron or Ordinar did not present another but suffered the then Incumbents to preach all that year they were in bona fide to think that they might pay them for the time they Served It was answered there was a Decreet produced against the same Ministers for the year 1662. and therefore they could have no Right to the year 1663. The Lords found the Reason of Suspension Relevant and proven notwithstanding of the Answer because the Decreet was not against the Heretors and was but obtained in 1664. after they had made payment of the year 1663. The Minister of North-Leith contra Merchants of Edinburgh Eodem die THe Minister of North-leith having pursued some Merchants of Edinburgh Importers of Herring of dry Fish Killing and Ling at Leith and New-haven to pay twenty shilling of the Last of Herring and the twentieth part of the Killing and Ling. It being alleadged that such a burthen could not be allowable because the Teinds was taken where the Fish was taken 2ly That it could only reach the Parochioners of North-leith not the Merchants of Edinburgh And 3ly That they had frequently Traded free of such a Burden The Lords having ordained the Pursuer to adduce Evidences by Writ or Witnesses what Possession they had and the Defenders what liberty they had and having heard the Testimonies of the Witnesses with an old Decreet for the same particulars but not against the Merchants of Edinbâ—rgh nor for dry Fish they found 40. years Possession proven of the said Burthen and therefore Decerned The Laird of Wedderburn contra Wardlaw Feb. 13. 1666. WEdderburn pursues a Reduction of a Feu granted to Wardlaw ob non solutum canonem by vertue of a Clause irritant in the Infeftment The Defender offered to purge by payment at the Bar and alleadged several Decisions that it hath been so allowed It was answered that was only the case of a Reduction upon the Act of Parliament declaring Feus null for not payment of the Feu Dutie but where there is an express Clause irritant in an Infeftment that cannot be purgeable at the Bar else such Clauses should be useless seing without these de jure the Feu Duties behoved to be payed at the Bar or otherwise the Feu annulled The Lords found that there was a difference betwixt a Clause irritant and upon the Act of Parliament and so would not admit of purging at the Bar simply unless the Defender condescended upon a Reasonable Cause ad purgà ndam moram and
therefore ordained them to Condescend Archbishop of Glasgow contra Commissar of Glasgow Feb. 14. 1666. THe Archbishop of Glasgow pursues a Declarator or to hear and see it found and Declared that Commissars ought to be persons qualified and able to judge according to Law and that if they be not they might be deprived by the Act 1609. empowering the Bishops then restored to appoint able and sufficient men Commissars in all time coming and by the Act of Restitution 1661. whereby the like power is granted excepting Commissars nominat by the King unless he be insufficient or malversant and subsumes that Mr. William Fleming is not sufficient nor qualified for that Place and also that by the injunctions given to Commissars mentioned in the Act 1609. there is no place for Deputs unless it were by special consent of the Bishops and craves that it may be declared that the said Mr. William may not Serve by a Depute The Pursuer insisted on the first member It was alleadged for the Defender that he had his Place both from the King and Bishop Fairfoul confirming the same with a Novo damus and therefore though he might have been questioned before the said Ratification and new Gift yet now he cannot be questioned upon insufficiency but only on Malversation whereof there is no point alleadged nor condescended on nor is his insufficiency qualified by any Act of inorderly Process or injustice committed by him now these five years and as Bishop Fairfoul who acknowledged him to be a fit and qualified Person by his Ratification could never quarrel him upon insufficiency neither can this Bishop 2ly The Defender has his Place with power of Deputation and therefore having given eight thousand merks to the former Bishop for his Ratification with power of Deputation he cannot be questioned on his sufficiency being able per se aut per deputatum and no Act alleadged of injustice It was answered by the Pursuer to the first Defense that albeit this same Bishop had admitted this Commissar upon hopes of his Qualifications yet if contrair to his expectation it appears he is not qualified for so eminent a Judicature He may justly quarrel him of insufficiency as well as a Minister whom he ordained 2ly Though the same Person might not yet his Successor in Office might and is not bound to acknowledge what his Predecessor did by mistake or otherwayes to the detriment of the Sea which were in his option without a Rule or requiring Qualifications as the naming of Commissars To the Second albeit Deputs were allowable as they are not by the Injunctions yet the principal Commissar who must Regulat and answer for them must also be qualified both by the Act 1609. and the exception 1661. which enervats both the Defenders Gifts The Lords found that Member of the Lybel on the Qualifications and sufficiency Relevant My Lord Ley contra Porteous Feb. 15. 1666. MY Lord Ley having Right by progress to the Reversion of an old Wodset uses an Order and pursues Declarator thereupon The Defender alleadged no Declarator because by the Reversion there is a Tack to be granted to begin after Redemption and to continue for so many years It was answered that Tack was null and invalide not only by Common law as an usurary Paction giving the Wodsetter more then his ordinary Annualrent but by a special Act of Parliament Ia. 2. Par. 1449. cap. 19. whereby such Tacks taken in Wodsets to endure long time after the Redemption for the half mail or near thereby shall not be keeped and as by the late Act of Parliament between Debitor and Creditor it is provided that where old Wodsets were granted before 1650. when annual was at ten for ilk hundreth the Wodsetter may upon offer of Caution for the annualrent take Possession unless the Wodsetter offered himself to be comptable for what exceeds his annualrent It was answered for the Defender that his Defense stands yet Relevant notwithstanding the answer for as to the old Act of Parliament it is in desuetude and it hath been the common custom to grant such Tacks in Reversions which have still been observed and were never quarrelled neither are they usurary seing the Tacksman has the hazard of the Fruits and all burdens so his Tack-Duty how small soever unless it were elusory can be no usurary paction more then taking Lands in a proper Wodset which pay more then the true annualrent which was never found usurary 2ly This Wodset is granted since that old Act whereby the benefit thereof is totally past from As to the new Act the Clause bears expresly that during the none Redemption or none Requisition the conditions therein shall take place which cannot be extended to a Tack to be granted after Redemption It was answered that the first Act bears not only a Regulation of Wodsets already then granted but to be granted bearing expresly who takes or has taken Lands in Wodsets c. and there is nothing in the Wodset to renunce the benefit thereof As for the custom Acts of Parliament are not derogat by custom of privat parties aâ—quiescing in their agreements But the custom of the Lords by current Decisions As to the last Act it ought to be drawn ad pares casus and the Lands are not effectually Redeemed till the Tack be ended The Lords found the last Act no ground for annulling such Tacks but found the first Act a good ground if it were subsumed according to it that the â—ands were set for half Mail or thereby Lyon of Muiresk contra Gordon and others Eodem die JOhn Lyon of Muiresk having obtained Decreet of Spuilzie of certain Goods against Gordon and others they suspend and alleadge the Act of Indemnity that they took these Goods being under the Command of the Marquess of Hunlly It was answered that the Charger was in friendship with the Marquels and on his side and so they cannot Cloath themselves with the Act of Indemnity as done upon hostility 2ly The Act Indemnifies only Deeds done by Command and Warrant of any pretended Authority but here no such Order is alleadged It was answered that Orders were not given in Writ and if none get the benefit of the Indemnity but these can shewâ— or prove Orders few or none will enjoy it nor need the Suspenders to Dispute whose side the Charger was on seing they acted by Order The Lords found that it was sufficient to alleadge that the Charger was the time of the Intromission actually in Arms and acted it with a Party being then in Arms but needed not prove their Order or the application of the Goods to publick use but found it Relevant if it were offered to be proven by the Suspenders Oath that they had no Warrant or Order or pro ut de jure that they applyed them to their own privat use not for any publick use Iames Borthwick contra Ianet Skeen Feb. 16. 1666. JAmes Borthwick having obtained Reduction of Ianet Skeens Liferent-right as a
non habente potestatem obtained payment of a Terms Rent before the Decreet of Reduction Ianet pursues for that Term and alleadges that the Decreet of Reduction could not be effectual till it were pronunced albeit it bear her Right to be null ab initio yet that is but stylus curiae It was answered that the Tennent payed bona fide after Reduction obtained and intimat to him and that the Lords may ex arbitrio find the effect of the Reduction either to be asententia Litiscontestation or a Citation In this Reduction the Lords Assoilzied the Tennent for this Term though before Sentence Earl of Winton contra Countess of Winton Eodem die THe Earl of Winton pursues a Reduction of an agreement made by his Tutors and Curators with my Lady giving her a certain Duty for her Interest in his Coal as being minor and laesed in so far as by her Contract she had only Right to the fourth part of the Coal in his Property now his Coal for several years has been in his Feuars Lands by Reservation in their Rights And also craved the bygons It was answered that bona fide possessor facit fructus consumptos suos the Lady by the Agreement could not compt for the years Duty she had gotten It was answered that this holds not in the case of Minority and Laesion It was answered that albeit Minority Repones as to any principal Right yet not as to the Fruits and accrescences medio tempore The Lords Reduced but Assoilzied the Lady from Repetition Sharp of Houstoun contra Glen Eodem die GLen Pursues for Mails and Duties of some Lands Houstoun compears and alleadgesthat he has Right to these Lands by an Apprizing expired It was answered his apprizing was null because it proceeded on four Bonds the Term of payment of one whereof was not come the time of the Appryzing and so not being due the Apprizing was void quoad totum It was answered the sum was due albeit the day was not come and so being but plus petitum tempore he was willing to admit the apprizing to be longer time by the double redeemable after the legal were expired then all the time he apprized before the hand The Lords found the Appryzing void as to that sum Whereupon occurred to them to consider whether the appryzing should fall in totum or stand for the other 3 Bonds And if it stood for these whether a proportionable part of the Lands appryzed effirand to the Bond whereof the Term was not come should be found free or if the rest should affect the whole Lands as if for these only the appryzing had been led wherein the Lords were of different opinions and recommended to the Reporter to agree the Parties Lady Otter contra Laird of Otter Eodem die LAird of Otter having Infeft his Wife in Conjunct-fee or Liferent in certain Lands cum molendinis did thereafter build a Miln thereupon and the question arising betwixt the Liferenter and the Heir who should have Right to the Miln The Liferenter alleadged aedificium solo cedit The Heir alleadged that a Miln is distinctum tenementum that cannot pass without Infeftment aud the Clause in the tenendo cum molendinis is not sufficient not being in the Dispositive Clause nor any Miln built then and he offered to make up all the Liferenters damnage by Building on her Ground The Lords found that the benefit of the Miln belonged to the Liferenter as to the Multures of all that was ground without the Thirlage but found it not to extend to Lands of the Defuncts which he had Thirled to the Miln John Hay of Knokondie contra Litlejohn Eodem die JOHN Hay pursues Litlejohn for the damnage sustained by a House belonging to Litlejohn falling on the Pursuers House It was alleadged the Defender was only Apprizer of a Liferenters Right and this behoved to lye upon the Fiar who was oblieged to uphold the Liferenters House The Lords found the Defender lyable seing he possest as Apprizer sixteen years and also intrometters with the profits of the House are liable for the damnage sustained thereby seing both Fiar and Liferenter were oblieged to uphold it and are liable de damno Lord Salton contra Laird of Park and Rothemay Feb. 20. 1666. THe Lord Ochiltry having a Disposition of the Estate of Salton from the umquhil Lord Salton in anno 1612. Disponed the same to Park Gordon Rothemay and others This Lord Salton having granted a Bond to Sir Archibald Stewart of Blackhall he thereupon apprized all Right that could be competent to the Lord Salton of that Estate which Right being now retrocessed to the Lord Salton he pursues Reduction of the Lord Ochiltries Disposition and of all these Rights founded thereupon in consequence The reason of Reduction is founded upon an Interdiction against the Lord Salton Disponer before his Disposition and there having been a Process formerly depending at the instance of umquhil Sir Archibald Stewart and being Transferred after his Death the Lords allowed the Process to proceed upon the Minute of Transferrence without Extracting the Decreet of Transferrence which behoved to include the Process and hail minuts which could not be done for a long time whereupon the Lord Salton now insisting in the principal Cause It was alleadged first No Process till the Principal Cause were wakened For albeit the principal Cause be Transferred yet it is but instatu quo and therefore being sleeping there can be no Process till after the Transferrence there be a wakening The Lords Repelled this Alleadgence and found the Transferrence sufficient without any wakening It was further alleadged Absolvitor because the Pursuers Title being an Apprizing the Defender has an anterior Apprizing which does exclude the Pursuer◠ay and while it be Reduced or Redeemed It was answered that the ground of this Pursute being a Reduction upon Interdiction the Interdiction cannot be directly apprized but only the Lands belonging to the Person Interdicted being Apprized all Apprizers or other singular Successors coming in the place of the Heirs of the Person Interdicted may pursue on their Rights and thereupon Reduce voluntar Dispositions made contrair the Interdiction which Interdiction is not a Right it self but medium impedimentum exclusivè of another Right as an Inhibition and as a first Appryzer cannot hinder a second Appryzer to make use of his Right except in prejudice of the first Appryzer so he cannot hinder him to make use of the Interdiction to take away a voluntar Disposition◠but prejudice of the first Appryzers appryzing as accords And in the same way a second Appryzer or any Creditor might pursue upon an Interdiction or Inhibition against a Creditor Which the Lords found Relevant and declared the Pursuer might Reduce this voluntar Disposition upon the Interdiction but prejudice of the Defenders appryzing contra Hugh Mcculloch Eodem die THe Laird of Balnigoun being arrested in Edinburgh for a Debt due to a Burges Heugh Mcculloch became Caution for him
in these Termes that he should present him to the Diets of Process and should make payment of what should be Decerned against him if he did not produce him within Termes of Law pendente lite Balnigoun raises Advocation and at the same Diet that the Advocation was produced Judicially before the Bailzies Heugh Mcculloch also produced Balnigoun and Protested to be free of his Bond as Cautioner the Bailzies did not Incarcerat Balnigoun but refused to Liberat Heugh Mccullochâ— till they saw the Event of the Advocation The Cause bâ—ing Advocat and Decerned against Balnigoun who succumbed in an alleadgence of payment The Pursuer craved Sentence against him and Heugh Mcculloch his Cautioner It was answered for Heugh Mcculloch that he was free because he had fulfilled his Bond in presenting Ballangoun and Protestâ—ng to be free albeit the Bailzies did not free him that was their fault It was answered that the Advocation being raised hindred the Bailzies to Incarcerat because they might not proceed after the Advocation and therefore the Cautionrie behoved to stand otherwise all Acts of Caution to answer as Law will might be so elided The Lords found the Cautioner free and found that the Bailzies notwithstanding of the Advocation might Incarcerat the principal Party unless he had found new Caution for seing if he had found no Caution a principio but had been Incarcerat till the Cause had been Discust the Advocation would not have liberat him and whensoever the Cautioner produced him Iudicially and protested to be free he was in the same case as if he had been Incarcerat and therefore the Bailzies might have detained him in Prison notwithstanding of the Advocation which did sist the Cause Mcbrair contra Sir Robert Crichtoun alias Murray Eodem die DAvid Mcbrair pursues a Removing against Sir Robert Crichtoun who alleadged absolvitor because the warning was null in so far as he being notourly out of the Countrey The Warning proceeded on 40 days not only at the Ground and Paroch-kirk but also at his Dwelling-house whereas it ought to have been on Letters of Supplement on 60 days at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh Peer and Shore of Leith It was answered that the Act of Parliament anent Warning was only on 40 days without distinction being out of the Countrey or in the Countreyâ— and it was sufficient that the Summons of Removing upon the Warning was upon 60 days because the Warning at the House was rather an Intimation then a Citation which was sufficient seing the Defender had been butshort while out of the Conntrey not animo remanendi and so had still a Domicile where he was Cited The Lords sustained the Warning but in Respect the Defender had probabilem causam dubitandi They superceeded the Execution to the next Whitsonday without any violent profits Lord Borthwick contra his Wodsetters Feb. 21. 1666. THe Lord Borthwick pursues an Accompt and Reckoning against several Wodsetters who had Wodsets from him in the year 1660. to Count and Reckon for the Superplus of the Wodset more then their annualrent since the Act of Parliament between Debitor and Creditor upon that Clause thereof appointing Wodseters who have proper Wodsets before the year 1650. or since before the Act to Compt and be lyable for the superplus more than their due annualrent It was alleadged for the Defenders That the Pursuers had in the Wodsets expresly Renunced the Usurpers Act in favours of Debitors and all such Acts made or to be made and by the said Act between Debitor and Creditor there is an Exceptionâ— where Persons have renunced such Acts. It was answered that that Exception is insert in the Act before this Clause in Relation to Wodsets and does not relate to it but unto the former Provisions of Suspending the Sums which was also the Tenor of the Usurpers Act and therefore the Exception of the Renuncing such Acts cannot extend to the Case of accounting for Wodsets which could not be thought upon the time of the Wodset and of the Renunciation this Clause being according to common Law to hinder Usury which might have been indirectly taken by proper Wodsets though these by the Custom use not to be quarâ—elled The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and found the Exception not to extend to the Case of Wodsets It was further alleadged for the Defenders that they were not lyable to to compt for the Superplus for all years bygone since the Act of Parliament nor at all except in the Case that they had been required to quite the Possession of the Wodset and Security had been offered them for their Money and they had chosen rather to retain the Wodset and to compt for the Superplus for as to all years preceeding they were bona fide Possessors and had ground to presume that the Pursuer did acquiesce in the Wodset as only proportionable to the annualrent and it were unjust and of evil consequence that if the granter of the Wodset should forbear to offer Security for 20 years upon his offer then the Wodsetter should be oblieged to Compt from the Act of Parliament It was answered that there was no inconveniency seing the Wodsetter might if he pleased quite the Possession and then was not comptable at all But if he would retain the Possession he could not refuse to compt for all bygones since the Act of Parliament The Lords having considered the Clause of the Act of Parliament found the Defenders only lyable from the time of the offer of Caution and Requiring the Possession and not from the date of the Act of Parliament seing the Clause bears they shall have by the Wodset which looks to be future only and seing the Wodsetters might have Builded or Planted for their own accommodation and therefore might rather reain the Possession then other Security Ogilby contra Eodem die THe like case was decided betwixt Ogilby and where this was further Represented that the Summonds could not be Sustained unless the offer had been made by way of Instrument before the Summons yet the Lords Sustained the offer instantly made to have effect ab hoc tempore but not from the Citation It was also further alleadged for the Defender that there was now no Caution offered It was answered for the Pursuer that there needed no Caution if the Wodsetter choised to retain the Possession because the Wodset it self was sufficient Security It was answered that they were not obliged to declare their option till Caution were first offered by the granter of the VVodset and the Statute behoved to be strictly Observed It was answered that there was here no detriment to the VVodsetter and the granter of the VVodset might be so poor as not to be able to find Caution The Lords found in respect of the Act of Parliament that Caution behoved to be offered and would not exceed the Terms thereof contra The Sheriff of Inverness Eodem die 〈…〉 being pursued for Theft-boot before the Sheriff of Inverness upon the
old Act of Parliament Iames 2. bearing that whosoever should compone with a Thief for stollen Goods should be lyable in Theft-boot and punishable as the Thief or Robber He raises Advocation on this Reason that the Act was in desuetude and the matter was of great moment and intricacy what Deeds should be compted Theft-boot whereinto no inferiour Judge ought to decide because of the intricacy It was answered that the Lords were not Competent Judges in Crimes and therefore could not Advocat Criminal Causes from inferiour Courts and the Earl of Murray being Sheriff and having sufficient Deputs both should concur in the careful Decyding of the Cause It was answered that albeit the Lords did not Judge Crimes yet it was competent to them to Advocat Criminal Causes ad hunc effectum to remit them to other more competent unsuspect Judges The Lords Advocat the Cause from the Sheriff and Remitted the same to the Iusticeâ— because of the antiquity of the Statute and intricacy of the Case Lockhart contra Lord Bargany Feb. 22. 1666. THe umquhil Lord Bargany being adebted in a sum of Money to Sir William Dick he appryzed but no Infeftment nor Charge followed Thereafter a Creditor of umquhil Sir William Dicks appryzes but before the appryzing Lockhart upon a Debt due by Sir William Dick arrests all sums in my Lord Bargany's hand and pursues to make forth-coming This Lord Bargany takes a Right from the appryzer for whom it was alleadged that he ought to be preferred to the Arrester because the arrestment was not habilis moduâ— in so far as Sir William Dick having apprized for the sum in question the apprizing is a judicial Disposition in satisfaction of the sum and so it could not be arrested unless it had been moveable by a Requisition or Charge It was answered that the Act of Parliament Declaring Arrestment to be valid upon sums whereon Infeftment did not actually follow made the Arrestment habile and the Apprizing can be in no better case then an heretable Bond Disponing an annualrent It was answered that the Act of Parliament was only in the case of Bonds whereupon no Infeftment followed but cannot be extended beyond that case either to a Wodset granted for the sum where the Property is Disponed where no Infeftment had followed or to an Apprizing which is a judicial Wodset pignus pretorium It was answered that the Reason of the Law was alike in both cases to abbrige the Lieges unnecessar Expences by apprizing The Lords preferred the Apprizer Bishop of Glasgow contra Commissar of Glasgow Eodem die THe Bishop of Glasgow insisted in his Declarator against the Commissar of Glasgow and alleadged first that by injunctions related to in the Act of Restitution 1609. It was provided that all Commissars should Reside at the place where the Commissariot Sat and should not be absent but upon necessity and with leave of the Bishop under the pain of Deposition and that in case of the absence of the Commissar through sickness or other necessity or through being declined in these Causes the Bishop should name a Deput From whence it was alleadged first That the Commissar had already Transgressed the Injunctions and deserved Deposition for none Residence and for appointing Deputs himself not appointed by the Bishop yea for continuing to make use of these Deputs albeit the Bishop did intimat the Injunctions to him and did Judicially require the Deput not to sit and took Instruments thereupon 2ly That in time coming it ought to be Deâ—lared that the Commissar ought to Reside under the pain of Deprivation and to Act by no Deput but such as were authorized by the Bishop It was alleadged for the Defender Absolvitor from this Member of the Declarator because the Defender had his Office from the King and the late Bishop of Glasgow with power of Deputation And as to the Injunctions first They had no authority of Law for albeit the Act of Parliament 1609. related to Injunctions to be made yet it did not authorise any Persons to make the same nor is it constant that these are the Injunctions that is alleadged to be made by the Bishops in anno 1610. 2ly Albeit they had been then so made they are in deâ—uetude because ever since all Commissars have enjoyed their place with power of Deputation and exercised the same accordingly 3ly There is no Injunction against the Bishops giving power to the Commissars to Deput for albeit the Injunctions bear that in such cases he could not give Deputation and therefore the Commissar did not wrong to continue his Deput And it is most necssar that the Commissar should have a Power of Deputation or otherwise their Office is elusory seing the Bishop may be absent or refuse to Depute any Person in case of the Commissars necessary absence and so both delay Justice to the Leidges and Evacuat the Gift It was answered for the Pursuer that first the Injunctions were commonly received and known through all the Kingdom and are Registrat in the Commissars Books of Edinburgh being the Supream Commissariot and according thereto the Lords have decided in Advocations and Reductions and albeit they have not been observed seing there is no contrair Decision they cannot go in desuetude by meer none observance 2ly That the Injunctions do import that no Deputation can be granted by Commissars but only by the Bishops in casibus expressis It is clear from the foresaid two Injunctions for to what effect should the Commissars Residence be required if he might at his pleasure act by Deputs and why were these cases exprest if Deputation were competent in all Cases 3ly Albeit the power of Deputation granted by Bishop Fairfowl be sufficient during his life and seclude him from quarrelling the same personali objectione yet that Exception is not competent against this Arch-bishop 4ly The Injunctions being sent up to the King His Majesty has Signed and Approven the same which therefore Revived them and for the inconveniency upon the Bishops absence or refusal is not to be supposed but that the Bishops concerned in the Commissariots would provide remeid in such Cases The Defender answered that Acts of Parliament were not drawn ad pares casus consequentias much less their Injunctions and though they were now Revived yet that cannot be drawn back to the power of Deputation granted before Neither can this Bishop be in better condition then his Prececessor or quarrel his Predecessors Deed which he had power to do The Defender did also resume the Defense as to sufficiency and tryal that seing he had power of Deputation he was not lyable to Tryal nor to Reside if his Deput were sufficient The Lords found that albeit the power of Deputation should absolutely stand yet the principal Commissar behoved to be be sufficient and ordinarly Resident seing his sufficiency was both requisit by the Act of Restitution 1609. and by Exception in the Act of Restitution 1661. and that he ought to direct and
is preferable to the Rebels base Infeftment It was answered that the King or his Donatar needed no possession nor can be prejudged for want of Diligence The Lords found the Creditors alleadgeance relevant Iack contra Mowat Eodem die THE Lords found that Iack having obtained Decreet as Assigney by his Father it was relevant for the Debitor to alleadge and prove by the Assigneys Oath that the Assignation was without a cause onerous and by the Cedents Oath that the Debt was payed before Intimation Sir Henrie Hoom contra Sir Alexander Hoom. Iune 14. 1666. IN the Cause debated yesterday betwixt Sir Henrie Hoom and Sir Alexander Hoom. It was further alleadged for Sir Alexander Hoom that the Rebel had not only five years possession but was Infeft by an Infeftment holden of his Father which was cled with Possession before the Appryzers charge against the Superior in so far as the Infeftment bore a reservation of the Fathers Liferent and so the Fathers Possession was the Rebells Possession and was sufficient to validat the base Infeftment seing there could be no other Possession attained during his Fathers lifetime or at least there was reserved to the Father a yearly Rent and the Rebel gave his Father a Warrand in Writ to continue his Possession of such of the Lands for the same The Lords ordained the Donatar to condescend whether the Rebells Infeftment proceeded upon his Contract of Marriage And he declaring that it was by a distinct Right thereafter The Lords found the Possession of the Father not relevant it being betwixt Conjunct Persons privat and suspect For they thought if possession by such Reservation betwixt Father and Son were sufficient the Creditors would hardly be secure Dumbar contra Lord Duffus Eodem die THE Lord Duffus having obtained a Decreet of removing against Dumbar his Tennent and having execute the same by Letters of Possession The Tennents raises Suspension and Reduction of the Decreet and a Summons of Ejection the Reason of Reduction was that the Sheriff had done wrong in repelling and not expressing in the Decreet a relevant Defense 2dly That the Tennent could not be decerned to remove because he was already removed irregularly by Ejection and ought not to be put to defend in the removing till he were repossest spoliatus ante omnia est restituendus which he instructed by an Instrument taken in the hand of the Clerk of Court and where it was replyed before the Sheriff that he had not found Caution for the violent Profits He answered that he needed not seing the Pursuer himself was in possession by the Ejection It was answered that the Lord Duffus offered him to prove that all he did was to put in some Corns and Plenishing in an ouâ— house long after the warning of the Tennent that had taken the Roum and that he continued to possesse all the rest of the house and the whole Land by his Cattel till he was Legally removed and neither the Family nor Goods of the new Tennent came in till then It was answered that the alleadgeance was contrair to the Tennents Lybel of Ejection bearing that he was dispossest both from the house and Lands The Lords considering that the Tennents was only positive in Ejection from the House and had once acknowledged that he was not Ejected from the Land they Assoâ—lzed from the Reduction of the Decreet of Removing but they sustained the Action of Ejection and Repelled the Defenses as contrair to the Lybell Reserving to themselves the modification of the violent profits and the other party to debate whether after the Decreet of Removing the Tennent should have re-possession or only the profits or damnages George Tailzor contra Iames Kniter Junâ— 15. 1666. GEorge Tailzor having Appryzed some Lands in Perth set a Tack of a part of it to Iames Kniter who thereafter Appryzed the same Tailzor now pursues a Removing against Kniter who alleadged absolvitor because he had Appryzed the Tenement within year and day of the Pursuer and so had Conjunct Right with him It was answered that he could not invert his Masters Possession having taken Tack from him The Defender answered it was no inversion seing the Pursuer by Act of Parliament had Right to a part but not to the whole and the Defender did not take Assignation to any new Debt but to an old Debt due to his Father The Lords sustained the Defense he offering the expenses of the Composition and Appryzing to the first Appryzer conform to the Act of Parliament Alexander Stevinson contra Laird of Hermishills Eodem die ALexander Stevinson as Assigney by his Father pursues Hermishills for payment of a Bond who alleadged absolvitor because the Defender as Heir to his Father had right to a Bond due by the Pursuers Father before the Assignation after which the Assignation was a Deed infraudem Creditorum and so null It was answered non relevat unless the Cedent had been Bankrupt or at least insolvendâ— The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Answer The Defender furder alleadged Compensation upon the said Bond which was relevantâ— against the Pursuer both as Heir to and as Assigney by his Father It was answered non relevat against the Pursuer as Executor but for his fourth part being one of four Executors 2dly The Defenders Father was Tutor to the Pursuer nondum reddidit rationes The Lords found that Compensation being equivalent to a discharge taking away the Debt ipso facto it might be proponed against any of the Executors in solidum but in regard the Tutors accompts were depending the Lords sisted his Process till he Tutors Compts proceeded Sir Robert Sinclar contra Laird of Houstoun Eodem die SIr Robert Sinclar pursues a Poynding of the Ground of the Lands of Leni upon an old Annualrent of 20. merks Constitute above a 100. years agoe Houstoun alleadged absolvitor First Because he brooked these Lands past Prescription peaceably without any pursuit upon this Annualrent 2dly Because this Annualrent was base and never yet cled with Possession and his Infeftment was publick It was answered to both that the Pursuer produced a Decreet of Poynding the Ground in Anno 1608. Since which the Pursuers Minority being deduced it is not 40. years Likeas there is produced a Precept of Poynding for the said Annualrent It was answered that the Decreet in Anno 1608. was only against the Tennents and Possessors and so is null the â—eretor not being called It was answered First That albeit the Decreet had been defective for not calling the Master yet it was sufficient to interrupt Prescription 2dly It was sufficient to give possession and to validat a base Infeftment by a civil possession for as natural possession by the Tennents payment would have been sufficient though without their Masters knowledge or consent So a Decreet yea a citation against them is sufficient for a possession as being equivalent to a natural possession and albeit the Proprietar could not be
prejudged as to the constituting an Annualrent in the point of Right not being called yet as to the Point of Possession the Right being constitute he might 3dly Albeit the Heretor must be called when his Ground is first affected with an Annualrent in attinenda possessione yet if the Annualrenter be in possession he may continue the same without calling the Master as well as in Tyends Thirlage c. And here the old Precept of Poynding was evidence sufficient of a prior Possession in re tam antiqua The Lords found that the Decreet was Possession sufficient to interrupt Prescription Minister of contra Lord Elphinstoun Iune 16. 1666. MInister of pursues the Lord Elphinstoun for the Viccarage Teinds of his Lands in his Paroch It was alleadged absolvitor because he brooked these Lands by immemorial possession without paying any Viccarage and so had prescribed Exemption and Liberty It was answered that the Viccarage being due de jure cummuni desuetude cannot take them away nor can any Prescription give Right to them unless it were by a Title as if the Lands had been Templar Lands or belonging to these Orders which payed no Teynds but were exempted by the Cannon Law and therefore in the last Session it was found in the Case of the Earl of Panmoor that 40. Years did not prescribe the Right of Parsonage except for the Years preceeding the 40. It was answered that there was a great difference betwixt Parsonage and Viccarage which is Local and Consuetudinary which is therefore only found due according to what has been accustomed to be payed so that the Teynd of Lint Hemp Geess Stags Swine Fruits Fishes are only due in these parts where they have been so accustomed and therefore as custome may take away a part so it may extinguish the whole The Lords found the Defender could be no furder lyable then for that Viccarage which was commonly payed throughout all the Kingdom viz. Stirk Lamb and Wool and sustained not the same for Milk or any other particular But the Defender upon the twenty one of Iune having Supplicat to be further heard alleadging that it was a common Case that when the Lands were most in Labourage and the Viccarage small and not considerable that through the whole Country Viccarage was never craved time out of minde The Lords stopped Interlocuquutor till they were further heard Thomas Begg contra Patrick Nicoll Iune 22. 1666. THomas Begg gave Commission bearing that he had delivered a certain Sum of Money to Patrick Nicoll to buy Wair for him in England whereunto there is subjoyned the said Patrick his acceptance bearing Sea hazard excepted Thomas Begg now pursues for the Money or Wairâ— Patrick Nicoll alleadged absolvitor because he offers him to prove that shortly after the said Commission he went upon the Voyage and that the Ship was taken and the whole Goods there wherein it must be presumed the Pursuers Money was It being impossible for the Defender to prove that that individual Money was there and yet he is willing to make faith that it was there It was answered that the Defender had Factor-fee and should have transmitted the Money by Bill as he did some of his own and at least he might prove that he had a considerable Sum of Money in the Ship The Lords sustained the Defense and Repelled the Reply and that the Defender being trusted by the Pursuer he could not refuse his Oath in Supplement that his very Money was taken seing he neither might nor could show what money he had when he entrèd to his voyage unless the Pursuer alleadged that he gave the Defender allowance for the Exchange Earl of Eglingtoun contra Laird of Cunninghamhead Iune 23. 1666. THE Earl of Eglingtoun pursues the Laird of Cunninghamhead for the Teynds of Peastoun who alleadged absolvitor for 60. libâ— Yearly which by Decreet of the Plat he payed to the Minister of Irving and produces the Decreet It was alleadged that where the Decreet bore out of the Teinds it was meer Error of the Clerk and disconform to the ground of the Decreet which was a tripartite Contract whereby the Earl of Eglingtoun agreed for so much Victual out of his Teynd beside what was to be payed by the Town of Irving and Heretors and the Heretors oblidged them and their Heirs and Successors of these Lands to pay so much Money which cannot be understood out of their Teynd they being oblidged as Heretors and the Teynd not being theirs but the Earl of Eglintouns who was oblidged so much out of his Teynds besides these oblidgments It was answered that this being to lay a burden of Stipend upon the Stock is most unfavourable and the meaning thereof cannot be inferred unless it had born expresly out of the Stock especially seing the Teynd was under Tack and it was ex gratia for them to pay any more then their Tack-duty but now when the Tacks are expired the Earl cannot crave the whole Teynd and lay this burden upon the Stock 2dly The Lords cannot alter the express tenor of the Decreet of Plat which was a Commission of Parliament The Lords found that the tripartite Contract as to this did not burden the Teynds and therefore seing the Plat could only decern out of Teynds they found that by this Contract the Heretors behoved to relieve the Teynds of this burden out of their Stock Arbuthnet contra Mary Keith Eodem die Andrew Arbuthnet having gotten a Gift to the behove of the Viscount of Arbuthnet of the Marriage of the Heirs of Iohn Keith of Pâ—tten did thereupon pursue the two Heirs Portioners one of them being dead he insists now against the other for her part who alleadged no Process because none was called to represent the other who is thus far interessed that the Probation of the avail of the Marriage against the one will prejudge the other The Lords Repelled the Defense and found it would not prejudge the other against whom new Probation behoved to be used Patoun and Mercer contra Patoun Eodem die JOhn Patoun as Heretor of the Miln of Mukart pursues for the abstracted Multures and alleadges that the Miln is the Miln of the Barony and the Lands a part of the Barony and that they being in immemorial Possession of Intoun Multures of one peck of the Boll and that above thirty years ago there was a Decreet arbitral by the Marquess of Argyle Decerning these Multures The Defenders alleadged Absolvitor because they were Infeft before the Pursuers Right produced cum molindinis and as to the Act of Court the whole Tennents were not present and the Decreet Arbitral it is under Reduction The Lords sustained the Pursuers Condescendence reserving the Reduction as accords Masson contra Iune 27. 1666. MAsson pursuing a Declarator of Escheat It was answered that all Parties having Interest were not Cited at the Mercat Cross conform to the Warrand of the Letters It was answered that was but stilus curiae long indesuetude and it
is enough that the Rebel is Cited and none would be prejudged who were not Cited and any may compear that pleases for their Entress The Lords Repelled the Defense and Forefault the amand given thereupon as being contrair to the common Custom Laird of Philorth contra Lord Fraser Iune 28. 1666. THe Laird of Philorth pursues a Declarator of Property of Lands lying about the Kirk-yard of Rathan and particularly that a part of the Land within the Kirk-yard-dyke is his Property and that therefore the Dyke ought to be Demolished and specially the Lord Fraser's Arms upon the common Entry of the Kirk-yard-dyke It was alleadged for the Defenders first absolvitor because the Pursuer had homologat the Right of the Kâ—rk as to the Kirk-yard-dyke and all within it in so far as he had buried the Dead of his own Family in the bounds in question and likewise his Tennents The Lords found the former part Relevant but not the latter unless he had been present at his Tennents Burials or otherwise had consented The Defenders further alleadged Absolvitor because the Minister and Parochioners of Rathan had possest the Kirk-yard and Dyke peaceably by the space of 30 years which is sufficient to give them a Right upon this Point There occurred to the Lords these Points first Whether less Possession then 40 years could Constitute the full Right of a Kirk-yard 2ly VVhether less Possession by burying of the Dead could take away anothers Property And whether simply or so as to give him Damnage and Interest 3ly VVhether an Interruption made after the Building of this Dyke by the Pursuers raising Summons shortly thereafter could operate any thing if the Defenders had bruiked since the Interruption by that space that would have been sufficient to Constitute a full Right before Interruption Many were of the opinion that Kirk-yards have as great priviledge as any Kirklands and that in Kirk-lands 10. years Possession before the Reformation or 30. years after according to the old Act of Sederunt of the Lords did Constitute a full Right as well as the long Prescription in other Cases and likewise that in Ecclesiasticis 13. years Possession did Constitute a Right decennalis triennalis possessor non tenetur docere de titulo and that accordingly the Lords were in use to decide in all such Rights But the Point to be decided was Whether Interruption once used endured for 40. years so that albeit 13. years would suffice yet the Interruption long before these 13. would alwyse be sufficient till the Interruption did prescrive by 40. years wherein many were in the Negative that as in a possessoy Judgement on 7. years if Interruption were alleadged it was always a relevant Reply that since the Interruption the Defender has Possest 7. years without Interruption so if 10. or 13. years be sufficient to the Kirk no Interruption preceeding but only such as are done during these years can be sufficient for if 13. years will take away the Solemnest Rights and Writs much more may it a Citation Others were for the Affirmative on this ground that in the short Prescription of 3. years in Spuilzies c. Interruption once used serves for 40. years so it must in this case for he that once Interrupts is alwise holden as continuing in that Interruption until it Prescrive or be otherwise past from But it was answered that it did Prescrive by Possessing 13. or 30. years in rebus ecclesiae Church-men seldom have or keep Evidents albeit in other Cases Interruption would only prescrive in 40 years Yet the plurality found that after Interruption no less then 40. years Possession was sufficient but reserved to the Lords the Question anent the ground in so far as dead were buried therein after Probation Iohn Mcmorlan contra William Melvil Eodem die WIlliam Melvil and one Hatter an Englishman both Residing in England gave Bond to Gawin Lourie Residing there after the English Form who Assigns it to Iohn Mcmorlan Melvil Suspends upon this Reason that he had made payment to Gawin Lourie the Cedent which he offered to prove by Gawins Oath and which could not be refused because he offered to prove that it was the Custom of England that the Cedents Oath can never be taken away by Assignation as it is in Scotland but that Assignations are only as Procuratories and that payment might be proven there by Witnesses to take away Writ It was answered that the Law of Scotland must regulate the case because the Assignation is according to the Scots stile and the Debitor albeit Residing in England was a Scots man and knew the Custom of Scotland The Lords found that the manner of Probation behoved to be Regulate according to the Custom of England and so that payment might be proven by witnesses or by the Cedents Oath yet so as the Cedent could not be holden as confest but the Debitor or Suspender behoved to produce him and move him to Depone Wherein the Lords so Declared because they were informed that the Suspender proponed the Alleadgeance because the Cedent was Quaker and would not swear at all Duke of Hamiltoun contra Duke of Buckcleugh Eodem die THe Duke of Hamiltoun as Collector of the Taxation having Charged the Duke of Buckcleugh for the Taxation of the Lordship of Dalkeith He Suspended upon this Reason that the King Possest these Lands Himself the years of the Taxation and so cannot demand them from the Suspender who is a Singular Successor The Charger answered that he had the Taxation from the King for a Cause Onerous viz. a Debt The Lords found the Reason of Suspension Relevant Dougal Mcpherson contra Sir Rory Mcclaud Iune 29. 1666. DOwgal Mcpherson pursues Sir Rory Mcclaud for payment of a Sum upon his promise and the Summons bears a Warrand to Cite him at the Mercat Cross nearest the place of his Residence being in the lsles whereupon the Pursuer craved him to be holden as confest The Defender alleadged that he was not Personally apprehended and so could not be holden as consest and that this Citation at the Mercat Cross was periculo petentis and not to be Sustained in the time of Peace when there was no Trouble in the Countrey The Lords found that Warrands for such Citations ought not to be granted by common Bills of course but only by the Lords upon special Bills in presentia but seing the Defender compeared they allowed his Procurator a long time to produce him Ianet Kid contra Dickson Eodem die JAnet Kid pursues Reduction of a Disposition of some Tenements in Forfar made by her Father on this Ground that the Disposition is subscribed but by one Nottar and one Witness and the Charter by one Nottar and two VVitnesses and so is null by the Act of Parliament requiring two Nottars and four VVitnesses in VVrits of importance It was answered that the Tenements being small the price of one exprest being 200. merks and the other 300. merks the foresaids two
VVrits were sufficient cled with many years Possession in the Defuncts time who never challenged the same 2ly They are Established by the Seasine given propriis manibus conform to the Obligement of the Disposition and Charterby a Town-clerk Registrat in the Town Books The Lords having Ordained the Defenders to condescend upon any Adminicles they had for astructing the verity of the Subscription they condescended only on seven years Possession which the Lords found was not sufficient to Establish the Right without Reduction but if the Defender had condescended on 40. years Possession The Lords Declared they would hear them Dispute whether that could be sufficient or not Chalmers contra Bassily Iune 30. 1666. MR. William Chalmers being to go abroad grants a Factory to Bassily bearing to endure untill he returned and after Discharged the same in VVrit he now writes a Letter to his Father bearing That he would do any thing he could to recal and reduce that Factory whereon a Reduction was raised on this Reason That all Factories of their Nature are Revockable at the pleasure of the Constituent albeit they contain a Term of endurance It was answered that this Factory containing such an endurance cannot be Revocked till the Term come 2ly Albeit Factories be Revockable yet it must be re integra but here the Factor hath advanced considerable sums of Money upon consideration of the Factory The Lords found the Factory Revockable the Factor being always refounded of what he profitably Expended upon consideration thereof before he quite Possession Martin Stevinson contra Dobbie Eodem die DObby being Tennent to Iames Stevinson of certain Lands he gets an Infeftment of Annualrent out of the same Lands before Whitsonday but the first Terms payment of the Annualrent was Martinmas thereafter after Whitsonday and before Martinmas Martin Stevenson apprizes the Land and Charges the Superiour and thereupon pursues for Mails and Duties Dobby excepts upon his Infeftment of Annualrent The Pursuer answered that the Infeftment was base and before it was or could be cled with Possession he had Charged the Superiour which was equivalent to a publick Infeftment The Defender answered that a publick Infeftment interveening before the first term of payment of the Annualrent did not prejudge the base Infeftment which could not be presumed to be privat or simulat for want of Possession till the Term came at which Possession might be attained or pursued for 2ly The Defender being in Natural Possession from the very Date of his Seasine intus habet and he may retain his own Annualrent which begins to become due from the Date of his Seasine de momento in momentum albeit there be a Term appointed to pay accumulative so that as the getting payment from the Possessor of any part of the Annualrent or his Obligement for the same would be a Possession sufficient so the Defender having the same in his own hand as Possessor it is equivalent The Lords found this Member of the Defense Relevant and had no necessity to decyde the other Point whether the interveening publict Infeftment before the first Term would exclude the base Infeftment without Possession wherein they thought that there was great odds if the Appryzers Infeftment or Diligence had been before Whitsonday in respect the first Term of the Annualreni was not the next Term after the Seasine and so if it might pass one Term by the same Reason it might pass ten Terms and be valid because in neither Case could Possession or Action proceed thereon and therefore might be suspected of Simulation so that if the Appryzers Diligence had been before Whitsonday the Annualrenter could have no Right to that Term and so the Appryzer would attain to the Possession and could hardly be excluded thereafter Stevin contra Boyd Eodem die STevin pursues his Mother as his Tutrix and Iohn Boyd as Husband and Factor for an Accompt of his Fathers means In which Accompt these Points were reported First There was some old unfashionable Ware in the Defuncts Inventar not Sold whereof the Tutrix offered to the Pursuer his two third parts in specie The Pursuer answered that the Tutrix had priced the same and behoved to accept them at that price and that she ought to have done Diligence to have Sold them and Executors are never liberat but upon payment of the price The Lords found that albeit Executors are comptable to Creditors always for the price yet not so to the Children and therefore if it was visible that the Ware was old and could not be Sold wherein the Tutrix was at the loss of her Third They found the same should be accepted but in that Case they found the Tutrix lyable for any greater price she got then that contained in the Testament The second point was what Diligence the Tutrix should be lyable for whether Registrat Horning were sufficient or if Poinding and Apprizing behoved to be used The Lords found that Horning would not be sufficient in all Cases but according to ehe Condition of the Debitors and therefore ordained the Parties to condescend thereon Fleming contra Fleming Iuly 3. 1666. DAm Elizabeth Fleming being Executrix to her Husband and Tutrix to her Children gave out the sum of 6000. merks to the Lord Cardross and took a Bondâ— bearing the same payable to her self in Liserent and to Malcolm and Andrew Flemings and failzing the one by Decease to the other This Bond by a former Interlocutor was found not to be altogether a Donation but it satisfied the two Bairns Portions pro tanto Malcolm being now dead Andrew the surviver claimed the sum by the Substitution Thereafter the Children as Executors to Malcolm claimed the same on this ground that this sum not being found a Donation but to be given in satisfaction of of Andro's Portion the Tutor could not Substitute any Heir to Malcolm but behoved to remain as it had been lent as Malcoms own means in which case it would belong to his whole Brethren and Sisters and not to Andrew only Andrew all eadged that he being Substitute by his Mother who had now Right from the remanent Children she who had Constitute this Substitution could never quarrel the same It was answered for the Mother that she did not quarrel the Substitution but that albeit the Substitution took place Andrew was her Substitute and so was in the same condition as Malcolm so that Malcolms half behoved still to be taken away by Compensation in so far as she was Creditor to Malcolm as if Malcolm were alive It was furder alleadged for Andrew that in such a Clause as this there was no Fiar and Heir but two conditional or alternative Fiars viz. either of the Children that Survived and therefore such Clauses would never make the Substitute Heir to represent the Defunct and be lyable to his Debts The Lords found that by the Clause of Substitution the Person Substitute was Heir of Provision yet not so as to be lyable to the
Person Substitute his whole Debt but quoad valorem of what the Substitute had obtained by the Substitution And therefore found the Sums to belong to Andrew as Heir Substitute and yet with the Burden of the Compensation in the same Case as was Competent against Malcolm himself By which Decision it follows that the Mothers Substitution to Malcolm was Effectual for which there is no reason but the Error was in the first Concoction for this Sum should have been found a pure Donation by the Mother not only in respect of her Liferent reserved which she past from but in respect of the Substitution which she could not pass from being jus tertij Earl of Kinghorn contra Laird of Udney Eodem die THe umquhil Earl of Kinghorn having granted a Wodset to the umLaird of Vdney he by his Missiveâ— acknowledged the Sums to be satisfied and obliged him to grant a Renunciation whereupon the Earl of Kinghorn pursues this Vdney as representing his Father to grant Renunciation and Procuratory of Resignation and condescended upon the passive Titles thus that umquhil Vdney after the Receipt of the Sums contained in the Wodset had Infeft the Defender in the Estate of Vdney reserving to himself a power to alienat and Dispone after which Infeftment this Missive is subscribed acknowledging the Receipt of the Sums of before and thereupon alleadged first That the Father was oblieged by the Contract of Wodset upon payment of the Sums to Renunce and Resign in prejudice of which Obliegements he had Disponed his Estate to the Defender who was alioqui successurus and so as lucrative Successor is oblieged to grant the Resignation 2ly The Letter obliging the Father to grant Resignation albeit it be after the Infeftment yet seing there is a power reserved to the Father to Dispone his Obligement must oblige the Son It was answered that there was nothing before the Defenders Infeftment to instruct payment the Letter being after and no Obligement therein could burden him thereafter unless his Father had Disponed or had given a Security out of the Estate conform to the Reservation The Lords found this passive Title new and extraordinary therefore moved to the Pursuer to alter this Libel and Libel therein a Declarator of Redemption and to conclude the same either with a Reduction or Declarator for declaring that the Wodset Right being acknowledged by the Wodsetter to be satisfied might be declared Extinct in which case there needed no Resignation or otherwise might conclude the Defender to grant Resignation and the Defender thereupon Renuncing to be Heir the Pursuer might adjudge and thereupon be Infeft But others thought that hardly could a Right be adjudged which was satisfied and extinct The Lords referred to the Pursuers choise vvhich of the vvayes he thought fit Iean Cuningham contra Laird of Robertland Iuly 4. 1666. JEan Cuningham as Donatrix to the Escheat of umquhil Sir David Cuningham of Robertland pursued general Declarator against his Son who alleadged Absolvitor because the Horning was null seing the Charge and Denunciation was only at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh whereas by the Act of Parliament 1597. c. 294. all Hornings Execute against Persons within the Realm dwelling within Bailleries or Stewartries should be Execute at the head Burgh thereof Ita est umquhil Robertland had his Dwelling-house at Robertland within the Baillerie of Cuningham albeit for a time he was out of the Countrey and was a Prisoner of War for the King The Lords Repelled the Defense and sustained the Horning and found that the Act of Parliament met it not seing neither the Person Denunced was within the Realm nor dwelt within the Baillerie at that time but had remained several years in England Hallyburton contra Hallyburton Eodem die HALLYBURTON pursues a Reduction of an Infeftment granted by by his Father upon his Death-bed to his Sisters who alleadged absolvitor because he had consented to the Disposition in so far as he had Subscribed Witness thereto and if need beis offered to prove that he had read the same It was answered non relevat because the Subscribing as Witness relates only to the verity of the Parties Subscription and nothing to the matter therein contained so that whether the same was Read or not it can import no Probation The Lords found the Defense Relevant reserving to themselves to consider what the naked Subscription without the Reading of the Writ should work in case the Reading thereof were not proven Earl of Hume contra His Wodsetters July 5. 1666. THE Earl of Hume pursues certain Wodsetters to Compt and Reckon for the Superplus more then their Annualrents conform to the late Act between Debitor and Creditor Who alleadged first Absolvitor because the Reversion produced is null not being Registrat conform to the Act of Parliament 1555. c. 29. Ordaining all Reversions to be Sealed and Subscribed by the Parties own hand or a Notar which shall make no Faith if it be not Registrat It was answered that that Act of Parliament was in desuetude not only upon the Point of not Registration but want of Seasine otherwise the Act of Parliament 1617. Anent the Registration of Seasines had dot been necessar The Lords Repelled the Defense and found the said old Act of Parliament to be in desuetude One of the Defenders further alleadged that the Rights of these Reversions are prescribed because they were not pursued within the 13 years appointed by the Par. 1617. c. 12. It was answered that the Pursuer or his Predecessor were Minors during the space of 4 or 5 years of the said 13 prescriptio non curit contra minorem It was answered for the Defenders that in this part of the Act there is no exception of Minors albeit in the former part of the Act anent the 40 years Minority be expresly excepted exceptio firmat regulam in casibus non exceptis especially seing Reversions being but pacta de retro vendendo and so Bonds were prescribed by the old Act of Parliament so the addition of 13 years was ex mera gratia and ought to be strictly interpret The Lords did also Repel this Defense and found that the 13 years run not against Minors It was further alleadged for one of the Defenders that the Reversion made use of against him was since the Act of Parliament 1617. and not Registrat and so could not operat against him who is singular Successor to the Granter thereof The Pursuer Replyed that before the Defenders Right he had used an Order of Redemption and had Execute a Summons of Declarator whereby res fuit litigiosa and no Right granted thereafter can prejudge the Pursuer The Lords found the Reply Relevant to elide the Defense Laurence Scot contra The Heirs of Line of Auchinleck Eodem die LAurence Scot pursues the Daughters of umquhil David Boswel of Auchinleck and the Lord Cathcart and the Lairds of Adamton and Sornbeg for a thousand merks adebted by him to the Defunct The Defenders
offered to Renunce The Pursuer Replyed they could not Renunce because they had behaved themselves as Heirs in so far as by agreement betwixt them and the Heir-male they had Renunced their Interest of the Heretage in his favours and had gotten sums of money therefore It was answered non relevat unless they had so Renunced as to prejudge the Creditors or to Assign Dispone or Discharge any thing they might succeed to but if they only got Sums of Money from the Heir-male in way of gratuity for their kindliness to the Estate and to grant a Renunciation voluntarly as Law would compel them it would not make them lyable and the truth is that by the Defuncts Contract of Marriage the Estate is provided only to the Heirs-male and only 10000 merks to the Daughters Likeas the Defunct Disponed the Estate to his Brothers Son who adjudged both upon the Clause of the Contract and Disposition and the Defenders Renunced to him as a Creditor in common form The Lords found that the geting of Sums of Money for such a Renunciation by which the Creditors were not prejudged did not infer behaving as Heir Collin Hay contra Magistrats of Elgin Eodem die COllin Hay insists in his pursuit against the Magistrats of Elgin for payment of a Debt due to him by a Debitor who escaped out of their Prison It was alleadged by the Defenders that the Prisoner escapt vimajori without their fault in so far as on a Sabbath when the People were all at Preaching the Officer Keeper of the Prison opening the Door a Woman did cast a Plaid over the Officers head and pull'd him at unawars to the ground in the mean time the Rebel escap't whom the Officer followed and was wounded by several persons whom he had lying darn't in the Town to assist him The Lords found the Condescendence not Relevant and that the Magistrats should have had their Tolbooth better Secured then the same could be forc'd by one Woman for there was no other alleadged present before the Prisoner got out neither was it a competent time to open the Tolbooth upon the Sabbath when the People could not concur in case of Force Parson of Morum contra Laird of Beirford and Beinstoun Iuly 6. 1666. THe Parson of Morum pursues Reduction of a Tack set by the former Parson to Beirford and Beinstoun as being granted without consent of the Patron The Defenders alleadged absolvitor because the Tacks were set by the Parson who had Commission from the Earl of Buckcleugh Patron to Set Tacks 2ly The Tacks were Set with consent of Francis Steuart Lord Bothwel expresly as Patron which Francis Steuart had Right to the Patronage in so far as this Patronage with the rest of the Estate of Bathwel being Forefault the Earls of Buckcleugh and Roxburgh got Gifts thereof but by the Kings Decreet Arbitral betwixt Francis Steuart and them Buckcleugh was ordained to denude himself of this Patronage and others in favours of this Francis The Pursuer answered first That no Commission granted by the Patron to the Parson himself could be sufficient because the intent of the Act of Parliament requiring the consent of Patrons was not for any advantage or Interest of the Patron to his own behove but to the behove of the Benefice that the Incumbent might meliorat the same and so the Patron was by his Right of Patronage as Curator Ecclesiae but Curators cannot authorize their Minors by Commission at least the Patron cannot give commission to the Beneficed Parson himself no more then he could Renunce the benefit of the Act of Parliament and leave the Parson to himself 2. Before the Tack was Set the Earl of Buckcleugh Granter of the Commission was dead morte mandatoris perimitur mandatum As for Francis Steuarts consent he was not Patron not being Infeft but the Kings Decreet Arbitral imported only a Personal obligement for Buckcleugh to denude so that if Buckcleugh thereafter should have consented to another Tack that would have been preferred The Lords found that Member of the Alleadgence of Buckcleughs being dead before the Tack not Relevant to annul the same as depending on his Commission but decided not the first Point whether Commission could be granted by the Patron to the Parson himself but found the last Member Relevant to defend the Tack for the Right of Patronage being jus incorporale might be Transmitted by Disposition without Infeftment and albeit Buckcleugh was not formerly denuded even by Disposition so that if he had consented to another Right that as more formal would have been preferred yet there being no competition the Parson cannot quarrel the want of the Patrons consent upon that ground Isobel Tosh contra David Crookshank Eodem die ISobel Tosh pursuing Reduction of a Decreet pronunced in foro contradictorio and in presentia on this ground that it was Extracted by the Clerks unwarrantably contrair to what was done by the Lords which they offered to prove by the Oaths of the Advocats on the other side It was answered this were a ground to Reduce all the Lords Decreets in foro Yet the Lords sustained the reason to be proven as said is Corbet contra Sterling Eodem die COrbet of Concorse pursues a Spuilzie of certain Goods out of his House at Glasgow against William Stirling who alleadged Absolvitor because he had lawfully poinded them from his Debitor in whose Possession they were The Pursuer answered that he offered him to prove that he had Disposition of these Goods from that Partie from whom the Defender alleadged to have poinded them and an Instrument of Possession thereupon and that he had payed Mail for the House where they were several years and still when he came to Glasgow he did Reside in the House and made use of the Goods The Defender answered that his Defense did yet stand Relevant because the Condescendence makes it appear that the Pursuers Right was from the Defenders Debitor and any Possession he alleadges might be simulat and the Defender in Fortification of his Legal Execution offered him to prove that his Debitor remained in the natural Possession of the House and made use of the Goods as his own Goods and so was in natural Possession thereof whereby he might lawfully poynd from him The Pursuer Repeated his Reply and further alleadged that one of the Baillies of Glasgow alleadged that they were his Goods at the time of the poinding and offered his Oath The Defender answered that that Baillie was neither the Pursuers Servant neither had Commission The Lords found the Defense for the Poynder Relevant and more pregnant then the condescenders alleadgence and Repelled that Member of the Duply anent the Baillies offering of his Oath Cranstoun contra Wilkison Iuly 10. 1666. IN a Pursuit betwixt Cranstoun and Wilkison The Defender being conveened as Heir to his Father who was Vitious Intrometter with the Pursuers Debitors Goods and Geir The Lords having of their own proper motion taken this passive
Title to Consideration as to this Point whether Vitious Intromission as it is an universal passive Title died with the Intromettor or if it might be pursued against his Representatives they ordained the Parties to be heard thereupon which being Reported this day The Lords found that no personâ— as representing a Defunct could be lyable universaliter upon that Defuncts Vitious Intromission but only for the true value of his Intromission and that either by Action or Exception upon this Consideration that albeit â—uch Titles have been oft times Libelled and sometimes Sentence thereupon when none opposed yet there had never been a Decision nor Interlocutor for it and that the passive Title being poenal sapiens naturam delicti non transit in haeredes delinquentis in quantum penale for they thought it were of dangerous consequence if Persons might be lyable not only to their immediat Predecessor but to their Goodsire Grandsire or Fore-grandsires vitious Intromission but if the vitious Intromission had been Established against the Defunct in his own time it would be sufficient against all his Successors Otherways after his death they could not be put to purge the Vitiosity or to shew the manner or the Warrand of his Possession But it was not determined if Action had been intented against the Defunct and he dyed before Sentence whether his Heir would be lyable there being different Cases as to that Point which required different Considerationsâ— as if the Defunct dyed after Probation or if after Litiscontestation when at least the particulars were condescended on and the Defunct compearing alleadged nothing to purge or if the Pursuit were de recenti and not long delayed but the Defunct dyed the Pursuer doing all Diligence or if Diligence were not used but the matter lay over in which case it seems litle respect could be had to the intenting the Action only and it would be as litle questionable that if Probation were led the Defunct compearing it would be as valid against him as if Sentence were obtained the midle Cases are more dark But none of them were comprehended in this Decision Iames Thomson contra Binnie Eodem die THere being a Decreet obtained against Binnie his Creditors finding him at Linlithgow secured him and he found two Burgesses Caution as Law will who being conveened for payment of the Debt alleadged absolvitor because they were only in common Form Obliged as Cautioners as Law will which doth not import judicio sisti judicatum solvi but judicio sisti aut judicatum solvi Ita est They sisted the Party for whom they were Cautioners and put him in the Provosts hands who put him in Ward and Protested to be free conform to an Instrument produced It was answered non relevat because they only sisted him judici but not judicio they ought to have presented him in the Court when that Cause was called and the Pursuer was not obliged to know or take notice what they did otherways which might be by way of Collusion The Lords found the alleadgence Relevant for there was no Collusion condescended on providing the Defenders prove by the Witnesses insert iâ— the Instrument that it was so Acted For they thought that if the Cautioners put the Debitor in Ward at any time during the Process the Pursuer was not prejudged For if he insisted in his Process and upon not presenting of the Defender Protested the Cautioners would either then alleadge that he was in Prison or otherwayes it would import Collusion Mr. Iohn Hay contra Sir Iames Dowglas Eodem die MR. Iohn Hay of Haistoun and Sir Iames Dowglas having both Rights of Appryzing of the Estate of Smithfield did agree that Sir Iames should have three parts and Mr. Iohn one and did obtain a Decreet at both their Instances for removing a Tennent from some Aikers but Sir Iames Laboured and did Sow the whole Mr. Iohn did thereafter Sow as much Corn upon the Sown Land as would have sown his quarter and now pursues an Intrusion against Sir Iames who alleadged absolvitor because Mr. Iohn was never in natural possession and offered to give the 4. part of the Rent the Aikers payed before The Pursuer answered that the removing of the natural Possessor was equivalent as if Mr. Iohn had been in natural Possession of his Quarter and therefore the offering to him the Rent was not sufficient yet he was willing to accept the Rent for this year so as Sir Iames would devide for time coming The Lords found that in this Process they could not compel Sir Iames to devide but sustained the Process ad hunc effectum that Mr. Iohn should have the 4. part of the Cropt paying Sir Iames the Expences of Labourage Dam Margaret Hume contra Crawford of Kerse Eodim die DAM Margaret Hume having charged the Laird of Kerse who was Cautioner for the Earl of Lowdoun for her Liferent that she had out of the Estate of Lowdoun He Suspends and alleadges that the Charger ought to assign him seing the Bond wants a Clause of Relief whereby he will have difficulty to have Relief of the other Cautioners bound The Lords found that they could not compel the Charger to assign but in so far as of her own consent she would Canna contra Eodem die THere was a Disposition of some Tenements in Dumbar containing this provision that the Buyer should pay such a sum of Moneyâ— to a Creditor of the Sellers under the pain and penalty that the said Disposition should be null Infeftment followed upon the Disposition and the Land is now Transmitted to singular Successors who pursuing for Mails and Duties It was alleadged for the Creditor by the Reservation that this Reservation being a real Provision the Creditor must be preferred to the Mails and Duties ay and while the Sum be payed It was answered first That this provision was neither in the Charter nor Seasine and any Provision in the Disposition could only be Personal and could not affect the Ground nor singular Successors seing no Inhibition nor other Diligence was used on it before their Right 2ly Albeit it had been a Provision in the Investiture yet it could have no Effect against the Ground which canâ—not be affected but by an Infeftment and upon a Provision neither Action nor Poynding of Annualrents nor Mails and Duties could proceed It was answered that real Provisions must necessarly affect the Ground and there can none be more real than this not only being a condition of the Disposition but also containing a Clause Irritant The Lords having first ordained the Infeftment to be produced and finding that the Seasine proceeded upon the Precept in the Disposition without Charter being within burgh the Lords found that the Provision could give no present access to the Mails and Duties until the Clause Irritant were declared or that it were declared that they should have like Execution by vertue thereof against the Lands as if it were in the hands of the first Buyer which
Pursuer after the Crime and he having pursued Argyl for compt and reckoning in anno 1655. does not constitute any new voluntarâ— Right nor can it be any way collusive being for an anterior cause and after a pursuit and therefore it must work this much to show that the 5 years was interrupted and in the Course thereof both the Pursuer and Forefaulted Person acknowledged this Right in question The Lords found the Reply relevant upon the Deeds of Interruption alleadged by the Pursuer joyntly to elid the Act of Parliament Mr. Iohn Harper contra his Vassall Iuly 25. 1666. MR. Iohn Harper pursues a Declarator of Non-entry against his Vassall who alleadged that he was only lyable for theretour Maills till the Decreet of general Declarator was obtained It was answered the common custome was that from the Citation in the general Declarator Mails and Duties were due in the special because the general Declarator declares the Non-entry since the date of the Summons and so the Mails and Duties are not due from the date of obtaining the Decreet but from the years decerned therein which is from the date of the Summons The Lords found the Mails and Duties due since the time of the Citation and not only since the time of the Sentence Earl of Southesk contra Marquess of Huntly Iuly last 1666. EArl of Southesks cause mentioned 23 Iuly last was this day advised as to another Defense viz. That my Lord Argyl had right to Beatouns Appryzing of the Estate of Huntly which was long anterior to the Pursuers Infeftment and whereunto Huntly hath right as Donatar to Argyl's Forefaulture This Coutract of the Cumulative Wodset being granted in Anno 1656. It was answered that Beatoun before he was Infeft upon that Appryzing had renunced all benefit of the Appryzing and discharged the same in so far as it might be prejudicial to the Pursuers Right which is presently instructed It was answered that Renunciation was but personal and was never Registrat and so could not be effectuall against any singular Successor much less against the Kings Donatar having a real Right It was answered that Appryzings are not of the nature of other real Rights but they may be taken away by Intromission Payment or Discharge of the Appryzer and there needs no Resignation nor Infeftment It was answered that albeit by the Act of Parliament 1621. Appryzings may be taken away by Intromission and that it hath been extended to payment yet never to such personal Back-Bonds The Lords found the Appryzing to be taken away by Beatons Back Bond renuncing the same in so far as concerns this Pursuer and found the same relevant against the Donatar Thomas Crawfoord contra Town of Edinburgh Eodem die THomas Crawfoord having Gift of ultimus haeres of a person to whom the Town of Edinburgh was Debitor pursues for payment thereof The Defender alleadged no Process till the Gift were declared The Pursuer answered no necessity of a Declarator in this case more then in a Gift of Recognition and Waird and that there was no person that could be particularly cited The Lords found the Defense relevant that this Gift behoved to â—e declared albeit it were but upon a Citation generally against all and sundry at the Mercat Cross. Sir Lodovick Gordon contra Sir Iohn Keith Eodem die SIr Lodovick Gordon being Assigned to a Sum due to Sir Robert Farquhar by Sir Iohn Keith pursues Sir John for payment who alleadged absolvitor because he had Right to the Sum himself as Donatar to Sir Roberts Escheat and that the Sum was Moveable albeit it bare Annualrent in so far as the Term of payment was not come It was answered that Sums were Heretable as to the Fisk by the Clause of Annualrent and the only exception was that if the Term of payment of the Annualrent was not come the Same was Moveable and nothing in relation to the Term of payment if the Annualrent was come due before the Rebellion The Lords found that the coming of the Term of payment of the Annualrents made the Sum to become heretable as to the Fisk and therefore repelled the Donatars defense Merchants in Dundee contra Spruce Englishman November 3. 1666. SOme Merchants of Dundee having sold a considerable quantity of Winesto one Spruce an Englishman they pursue him for the price and because he disappeared and no body came to receive the Wines they supplicat the Lords that they would give warrand to them to sell the Wines least they should perish and to be lyable only for the best price they could get for them they did also represent that Spruce had a Factor in Edinburgh who being cited by a Macer did not appear The Lords refused the Supplication and found that the day of the appearance of the Summons not being come and the Englishman neither being present nor oblidged to be present they could do nothing against him more then if he had not be in cited and so could not sequestrat nor appoint the Wines to be sold but they lowed the Partie to protest that they had done all diligenceâ— that the Wines might not perish whereof the Lords would take consideration in any Process that should occure Thomas Canham contra Iames Adamson November 7. 1666. JAmes Adamson having disponed a Tenement to Ioseph Iohnstoun who married his Daughter in Conjunct-fee and the Heirs betwixt them which failzing to devide between their other Heirs in the Disposition there was expresly this Clause providing that the said Joseph and his foresaids make payment to the said James Adamson or any he shall name the Sum of six hundred pounds wherein if he failzie the said Right and Disposition shall expire ipso facto In the Infeftment the former Clause was repeated but not the Clause Irritant This Canham appryses the Land from Joseph Johnstoun upon Joseph's debt and being Infeft did pursue James Adamson for removing who objecting the proviso was notwithstanding decerned to remove Now he pursues for the Maills and Duties during his occupation James Adamson alleadges that he ought to have the 600 lib. because he had disponed with that provision It was answered this was but personal to pay and could never oblidge a singular Successor and all the Pursuer could do was to proceed upon the Clause irritant by way of Declarator The Lords in the end of the last Session having only seen the Disposition containing the said Clause but not the Infeftment repelled the Defense but reserved the Declarator but now having seen that the proviso of payment was in the Infeftment the cause being so favourable a person disponing to his own Daughter and good Son and the Disponer yet in possession they did without multiplying furder Process sustaine it by exception George Shein contra James Chrystie November 15. 1666. GEorge Shein having pursued umquhil David Chrystie as charged to enter Heir to James Chrystie his Father for payment of a Debt of his Fathers David renunces to be Heir whereupon George
obtained Decreet cognitionis causa and David being now dead he pursues James Chrystie as now appearand Heir to his Debitor for Adjudication of an Annualrent as belonging to the Defunct Debitor out of the Lands of Bassilie It was alleadged for the Defender absolvitor because that Annualrent was but base never cled with possession and the Defender stands validly Infeft singulari titulo The Pursuer answered that the Defense is not competent hoc loco when the Pursuer is but suo periculo craving Adjudication of his Debitors Right and cannot be forced to dispute the same till after Adjudication he use diligence for getting of the same but this Defense will be Competent whensoever upon his Adjudication he shall pursue The Defender alleadged a Pratique betwixt Sâ—haw of Sornbeg and the Lord Forrester wherein Forresters publick Infeftment was excepted in the Adjudication Yet the Lords shewed no Inclination to follow that Pratique and therefore Repelled the Defense and Adjudged Mr. Iohn Abercromie contra Anderson Eodem die MR. Iohn Abercromie as Assigney having pursued Anderson as Debitor for the Debt Assigned he alleadged no Process because the Assignation was posterior to the date of the Summons and Executions so that the Assignation being his sole Title the Process could not be sustained It was answered that the Defender had no prejudice and that the Cedent concurred It was answered that the Summons was not in the Cedents name and so his Concourse could operat nothing so that the Decreet thereupon would be null For in the like case the Lords last Week in the Cause betwixt David Hamiltoun and Iohn Kennedy and Symintoun Reduced an Appryzing led tvventy years since because the Appryzing proceeded upon a Charge to Enter Heir and some of the Debts vvere Assigned to the Appryzer after the date of the Charge As to which the Lords found the Appryzing null The Lords sustained the Defense and found no Process and had respect to the said Decision of Reduction of the Appryzing which they found to be as is râ—aâ—ed though it was alleadged that after so long time an Appryzer was not oblieged to produce the Letters of Appryzing or Charge to Enter Heir or Executions yet seing de facto these were produced and deduced in the Appryzing and mentioning the dates as aforesaid the same was Reduced pro tanto but there was no debate reported whether it should stand pro reliquo or how far it should extend seing the Appryzer as to the rest offered to prove it satisfied by Intromission Alexander Downy contra Robert Young Nov. 17. 1666. UMquhil Alexander Downy granted an Assignation to his Oye Alexander Downy of tvvo Bonds vvho finding that after his Goodsires Decease Mr. Iohn Hay vvas Confirmed Executor to his Goodsire and had given up these bonds in his Inventar but had not recovered payment He Confirms himself Executor ad non Executa to his Goodsire and pursues the Debitors for payment of the Bonds Compearance is made for Robert Young who alleadges that he is Executor Daâ—ive to Mr. John Hay vvho Execute Downies Testament by obtaining Sentence for payment of their Bonds so that the Bonds vvere no more in bonis of Alexander Downie but of Mr. John Hay and that the Testament being Execute by Decreet there could be no Executor ad non executa to Downie the first Defunct It was answered that the Testament was not Execute by a Decreet unless the Executor had obtained payment especially where the Executor was a meer stranger and was neither nearest of Kin Creditor nor Legatar The Lords found the Testament of Downie Execute by Hay by the Sentence obtained in Hayes Name and therefore found that Alexander Downie the Oye his Confirmation as Executor ad non executa null It was further alleadged that Downie being not only Executor but Assigney by his Goodsire the Assignation though it had been but a Legacy would have been sufficient against Mr. Iohn Hay who is the Cedents Executor and therefore is also sufficient against Young who is the Executors Executor and so represents the first Defunct Downie the Cedent It was answered that Young was not only legitimo modo the Executor but he is also Creditor of the first Defunct Downie in so far as he is Donatar of the Escheat of Iohn Hilstoun and thereupon has obtained Declarator and so is in the place of Iohn Hilstoun to whom umquhil Alexander Downie was Debitor by his Ticket produced whereby Downie acknowledges that he had in his hands Goods worth 6000 pounds belonging to him and Hilstoun in Copartinary and obliged him to be comptable therefore which is anterior to the Assignation granted to Downies own Oye for Love and Favour whereupon he hath Reduction depending against the Assignation as in fraudem Creditorum It was answered that the Ticket in relation to the Copartinary was not liquid bearing only an Obligment to be comptable with express Exception of desperat Debts and others The Lords found that in respect the Debt was not liquid Downie the Assigney ought to be preferr'd and get payment but Ordained him to find Caution that in case Young prevailed he should refound William Blackwood contra Adam Purves Nov. 20. 1666. ADam Purves pursues Reduction and Improbation of two Bonds alleadged granted by him to Ianet Baxter and of an Appryzing led thereon against certain Tenements in Edinburgh belonging to him and craved Certification contra non producta William Blackwood to whom by progress the Right is now come produces the Appryzing and the Extract of one of the Bonds whereupon it proceeded and alleadges no Certification against the Letters and Executions of the Appryzing after so long time the Appryzing being led in Anno 1621. and no Process of Reduction Rais'd till after the year 1650. Which the Lords found Relevant Likeas he further alleadged no Certification for not production of any of the principal Bonds because they were Registrat in the Registers of Session and the Principals were lost The Pursuer answered that there were pregnant Points of Falshood viz. Purves having gone and left the Kingdom in Anno 1618. And having been a Souldier Abroad till the year 1630. and these Bonds and the Appryzing thereon both in one Month and the Bonds granted to a Woman who had no such Estate but the Servant of a Waiter of an evil Fame and one Blair a Witness who was hang'd for Falshood The Lords refused Certification for not production of the principal Bonds but prejudice to the Pursuer to insist in his Improbation by these or other Evidences by the direct manner but they admitted Certification against that Bond the Extract whereof was not produced yet conditionally to a time that the Defender might upon the Adminicle of the Appryzing Insist to prove the Tenor. The Parochioners of Port Supplicant Decem 4 1666 THe Parochioners of Port having built a Manse upon the Gleib to their Minister where there was no Manse before and having valued the same according to the late Act
far as his Fathers Liferent was reserved thereby and his Father Possessing by vertue of the Reservation did validat his Infeftment 2ly Albert the Fathers own Possession could not be sufficient yet the Father having Transmitted his Right to Watson and Watson Possessing the Suspicion of â—â—mulation ceased and there is a Disposition produced by the Father to Watson which though it bear to be of the Fee yet can import no more but to be of the Liferent seing the Father had no more neither needs it have an Infeftment seing it hath but the effect of an Assignation to a Liferent It was answered that if the Father had expresly assigned his Liferent reserved in the base Infeftment it might have been the ground of a question whether the Assigneys Possessing so would have validat the base Infeftment But since the Father has not taken notice of the Reservation but Dispones as Heretor it clears that he did not Possess by the Reservation but by his own prior Right The Lords found the Reason of Reduction and Reply Relevant and that the Fathers Possessing by himself or Watsons Possessing by himself could not validat the base Infeftment Charles Cass contra Mr. Iohn Wat. Eodem die DOctor Cass having taken Infeftment of an annualrent out of the Lands of Robertland in name of Cockpen and Adam Wat Charles Cass as Heir to the Doctor pursues Mr. Iohn Wat as Heir to his Father for Compt and Reckoning of the Mails and Duties and Charges him with the hail Rental being intrometted or ought to have been intrometted with by him and his Father by vertue of the Trust in their Person and also Adam Wat took a gift of Tutory to the Pursuer and so is lyable as his Tutor The Defender answered that his Fathers Name being borrowed on Trust could lay no Obligation on him to do any Diligence but what he thought fit seing by his Back-bond he was obliged to denude himself whenever the Doctor pleased and the Pursuer has reason to thank him for what he did and not burden him with what he omitted seing he had no allowance therefore and as for the Tutory there was a multiple Poinding all the time thereof depending among five or six Parties pretending Right by the dependence whereby the Tutor was excluded The Pursuer answered that the Defenders Name was not borrowed without his knowledge but that he accepted thereof and entred to Possession and as an Appryzer is not obliged to Possess but if he Possess must be answerable for the Rents of the Lands conform to the Rental so must the Defender The Lords found the Defender not lyable to Diligence by vertue of the Trust albeit he did Possess but Ordained him to Compt for his intromission and to condescend what Diligence his Father did as Tutor that if he be found deficient therein there might be an additional Accompt to what he intrometted with Mr. Iames Cheap contra Mr. Iohn Philip. Decem. 19. 1666. MR. Iames Cheap charges Mr. Iohn Philip to fulfil a Minute of Alienanation of the Lands of Ormestoun sold by Mr. Iames to Mr. Iohn whereby Mr. Iohn was obliged to pay 25500 merks as the price or to assign sufficient Bonds therefore He Suspends and offers to Consign Bonds and amongst the rest a Bond of 8000 merks due by the Town of Edinburgh The Charger alleadged that he was not obliged to accept that Bond because at the time of the agreement and Subscription of the Minut the Charger particularly excepted the Town of Edinburghs Debt and the Suspender declared that it should be no part of the price which he offered to prove by the Writer and Witnesses insert in the Minute The Suspender answered that Witnesses were not competent in this Case where the words of the Minute are not dubious but clear and general of any sufficient Debt for if this were sustained the alteration of the price as well as the manner of payment might be proven by Witnesses It was answered that it was no way alike nothing being here in question but the manner of payment and not the quantity of the price The Lords Ordained the Writer and Witnesses to be Examined before answer Ianet Thomson contra Stevinson Eodem die IN the Reduction on Minority at the Instance of Ianet Thomson contra Stevinson The Lords Ordained the Pursuers Mother to be received Witness of her Age cum nota there being a Testificat already produced and there being 30 or 40 years since the Pursuers Birth after which time it was not likely that others would remember but she was ordained to Deponâ— who were Witnesses at the Birth and Baptism and these to be Examined Corstorphin contra Martines Decem. 21. 1666. JAmes Corstorphin pursues a Reduction of a Disposition made by his Fathers Sister in lecto It was alleadged by Martines to whom the Disposition was made that he could not quarrel the same because his Father to whom he is Heir and the other Brethren and Sisters of the Defunct had approven whatsoever Testament Legacy or Disposition made or to be made by the Defunct of her Goods and Gear Debts and sums of Money and others whatsoever that she had or should have the time of her Decease so that she having made this Disposition he cannot quarrel the same The Pursuer answered First That the Ratification in the Terms foresaid could not be extended to Lands or Annualrents Constitute by Infeftment there being no mention of Lands Annualrents or Heretage therein 2ly It could not be extended to any Disposition but Legally made and therefore not to Dispositions on Death-bed The Defender answered that the Ratification bearing expresly sums of Money did comprehend all sums although Infeftment of Annualrent were granted for security thereof which being but accessory to the sum follows the same 2ly There could be no other effect of the Ratification if it were not to exclude the Heir from quarreling thereof as being in lecto for if the same was made by the Defunct in her leige poustie it were valide and unquarrelable in it self and albeit it bear not mention of Death-bed yet it expresses Disposition of all Goods she should happen to have the time of her Death so that if she had acquired Rights after her sickness contracted she might Dispone the same validly by this Ratification and yet behoved to be on Death-bed The Lords found this Ratificatiou not to extend to sums whereupon Infeftment of Annualrent followed which was carried but by one Vote and so they came not to the second Point William Yeoman contra Mr. Patrick Oliphant Eodem die WIlliam Yeoman having apprized the Lands of Iames Oliphant Son to Sir Iames Oliphant and Mr. Patrick Oliphant having also appryzed the same William insists on this reason that Mr. Patricks appryzing was satisfied by Intromission within the legal Mr. Patrick alleadged that his whole Intromission could not be countable to satisfie his Appryzing because the two part thereof did only belong to his Debitor and the third
Dispute whether his Fathers Authors were Infeft or whether his Father had disponed or not until his Majority that he might seek out his Evidences and defend himself Reid contra Ianu. 19. 1667. IN a Process betwixt Reid and whereof the Title was a Service of the Pursuer as Heir deduced before the Bailzie of Regality of Spenzie It was alleadged by the Defender that this Title was not sufficient seing the Service was not retoured It was answered that the Service being within the Regality and of a Person dwelling there neither needed nor used to be Retoured in respect the Service it self was in Record in the Bailzies Books It was answered that albeit a special Service of Lands within the Regality needed not be Retoured in the Kings Chancellary because there was no Precept thence to issue but the Service within the Regality was sufficient that thereupon the Precepts of the Lord of the Regality might proceed against the Superiour within the Regality who was Infeft but in a general Service which may be before any Judge whether the Heir Reside in his Jurisdiction or not there is no difference betwixt a Regality and any other Court but all must be Retoured in the Chancellary It was answered that the Regality having their own Chapel and Chancellary were not oblieged to Retour it in the Kings Chancellary Which the Lords found Relevant and sustained the Service Isobel Findlason contra Lord Cowper Ianu. 22. 1667. ELphingstoun of Selmes having given a Precept to Isobel Findlason and direct to the Lord Cowper that he should pay to the said Isobel a Sum owing by Selmes to her and receive Selmes Bond from her upon the foot of which Precept the Lord Cowper directs another Precept to Iames Gilmore to pay the said sum the VVoman not being payed pursues both the Lord Cowper and Iames Gilmore for payment It was alleadged for Iames Gilmore absolvitor because he had not accepted the Precept neither was there any ground alleadged for which he was oblieged to accept or pay the Lord Cowpers Precept Which the Lords found Relevant It was alleadged for the Lord Cowper that the giving of the Precept should not obliege him seing it mentioned not value received or any other Cause and therefore resolved into a meer desire It was answered that the giving of the Precept was an acceptance of Selmes Precept and behoved at least to import a Donation to be made effectual by the Drawer of the Precept or otherwise an Intercession or Expromission for Selmes The Lords sustained the Process and found the Lord Cowper lyable by the Precept to pay in case of none acceptance especially seing it was consequent to Selmes Precept direct to Cowper Mr. Iohn Mair contra Steuart of Shambelly Eodem die MR. Iohn Mair Minister of Traquair having obtained Decreet against Shambellie and the Parochioners to pay him 545. merks Expended for Reparation of the Manse and to meet and Stent themselves for that Effect upon which Decreet he took Shambellie with Caption whereupon he gave him a Bond of fourscore pounds for his part Shambellie now Suspends the Bond on this Reason that albeit it bear borrowed Money he offers to prove by the Chargers Oath that it was granted for his part of that Stent and that his proportion thereof casting the Sum according to the Valuation of the Paroch would not exceed fourty merks and that he granted this Bond for fear of Imprisonment It was answered the Reason was not Relevant to take away the Suspenders Bond being major sciens prudens and there was here no justus metus because the Caption was a lawful Diligence so that the giving of the Bond was a Transaction of the Parties which is a strong Obligation It was answered that the Suspender when he was taken at his House was sick and unable to travel yet the Messenger would carry him away and being at the Tolbooth gave the Bond rather than in that Case to go to Prison which was an irregular force and a just cause of fear but this addition was not proponed peremptory The Lords Repelled the Reason of suspension unless the said addition were also instructed instanter otherways it could only be reserved by Reduction ex metus causa Sir Henry Hoom. contra Tennents of Kello and Sir Alexander Hoom. Janu. 24. 1667. SIR Henry Hoom having Appryzed the Lands of Kello from Henry and Iohn Hooms and being Infeft pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for Sir Alexander Hoom Donatar to the Forefaultor of the said Iohn Hoom of Kello who alleadged that the Forefault Person the time of the Doom of Forefaultor was in Possession of the Lands in question in whose place the Donatar now succeeds and by the Act of Parliament 1584. It is Statuted that where the forefault Person was in Possession the time of the Forefaulture albeit not by the space of five years which would Constitute a Right to him that the Donatar must be put in Possession and continue five years in Possession that in the mean time he may search and seek after the Rebels Rights It was answered First That this part of the Statute is only in case the Rebel had Tacks or Temporary Rights which neither is nor can be alleadged in this Case Secondly The five years Possession must be reckoned from the Doom of Forefaulture after which the Kings Officers or Donatar might have attained Possession and if they did not their neglect cannot prejudge others Ita est there are five years since the Forefaulture and the Rents are Extant being sequestred It was answered that the Act Expresses not only in Case of Tacks but also in Possession and that the five years must be after the Possession began and not the Forefaulture The Lords found the alleadgance Relevant that the Rebel was in Possession and preferred the Donatar to the five years Rent after the date of the Forefaulture It was further alleadged that the Pursuers Right being but an Appryzing the Donatar would instantly satisfie the same at the Bar. It was answered non Relevat to retain by way of Exception but the Donatar behoved to use an Order and pursue a Declarator It was answered that in Appryzings an Order upon 24 hours Requisition was sufficient there being no further Solemnity required then that the Appryzer might come to receive his Money The Lords found that the Appryzing might be summarly satisfied hoc ordine Earl of Argile contra George Campbel Eodem die THE Earl of Argile pursues George Campbel to remove from certrin Lands who alleadged absolvitor because the Warning was null not being used at the right Paroch Kirk where Divine Service at that time was accustomed It was answered non Relevat unless it were alleadged that the other Kirk were Erected by Parliament or Commission thereof and that thereby the Old Paroch was supprest and divided 2ly Though that were alleadged it ought to be Repelled because it is offered to be proven that all VVarnings and Inhibitions
is here nothing but the very instancing of the Practiques without deducing the Case dispute and Reason of Decision neither can Skâ—ens conclusion take place in all the largeness he sets it down or else there shall need no more to infer a Marriage but that the Vassal was in lecto egritudinis albeit he had so continued of a Lent Disease above a year nothing should Capacitat him to Marry his Heir although he used all the Solemnities of Treaty Contract and Proclamation so that the Law de lecto â—gritudinis which is only introduced in favours of Heirs that their Predecessors shall not prejudge them shall now be made use of against the Heir that his Predecessor can do nothing to his benefite on Death-bed The Pursuer answered that the feudal Contract being of its own Nature Gratuitous and most favourable on the Part of the Superior that which he hath for his Fee being ordinarly the Service of the Vassal and the profit of the Fee when the Vassal is unserviceable through Minority reserving the Vassals own Aliment and the profit of the Vassals Tocher the Vassal ought not to defraud or prejudge him therein And albeit custom hath introduced an exception that the Tocher is not due to the Superior which was gotten during the Predecessors Life it being ordinarly consumed and applyed to the Predecessors use yet that by precipitation the appearand Heir should enjoy the same and not the Superior is against the Gratitude Amity and Obliegement of the Vassal neither is there any Parity in the Case of a Resignation to which the Superior consents or in the Case of an Appryzing wherein the Superior must Receive by the force of Law nor can the forbearance of sixty years infer a contrary Custome because this is a Case rarely contingent and oft times not known to the Kings Officers and though it were their negligence prejudges not the King by an express Act of Parliament neither is that a Custome which People use to do but Customes here are only such as are Judicial by the Kings Ministers of Justice whereanent Skeen expresly saith that this is praxis forensis and albeit the Decisions Adduced by him be not at large yet the circumstances of fraud here are so pregnant that they cannot be thought to have been more pregnant in any other Case where there was no Proclamation and where the Defunct was not only in lecto but was moribundus Physicians having so declared the common Reputation being that he would not Live and Dâ—ing de facto within a few dayes after and there being no singularity in the Match nor any pressing necessity of the Marriage for any other Effect The Lords found the Lybel and Reply relevant viz. That the Marriage was done when the Predecessors Father was moribundus and done wîthout Proclamation and that he Died within eight dayes after there being nothing alleadged to take off the Presumption of fraud upon these Circumstances Robert Miln contra Clarkson February 21. 1667. RObert Miln as Donatar to a Liferent Escheat having obtained a general Declarator insists now in a special Declarator for Mails and Duties It is alleadged for Clarkson that the Pursuer has no right to the Mails and Duties because he stands Infeft before the Rebellion It was answered any Infefetment Clarkson has is but a base Infeftment never clede with Possession till the Rebellion and year and day was run and so is null as to the Superiour or his Donatar It was answered that the base Infeftment is valide in it self and albeit by the Act of Parliament 1540. A Posterior publick Infeftment for Causes Onerous be preferable yet that cannot be extended to the Right of a Liferent Escheat or to a Donatar It was answered that by the course of Rebellion year and day the Superiors Infeftment Revives as to the Property during the Rebels Liferent and cannot but be in as good condition as any Posterior publick Infeftment and it was so decided March 19. 1633. Lady Rentoun contra Blackader The Lords found that the base Infeftment though Prior to the Denunciation not having attained Possession within year and day could not exclude the Liferent Escheat Helen Iohnstoun contra Robert Iohnstoun Eodem die IN the Cause betwixt Helen Iohnstoun and Robert Iohnstoun her Brother It was further alleadged for her that the Pursuit being a matter of breach of Trust and Fraud betwixt Parties so nigh as Brother and Sister the same ought to be Probable by Witnesses above exception and ought not to be referred to the Defenders Oath because it s offered to be proven that he did Depone before the Justices of Peace in Fife that he had never had the Bond in question and yet in this Process it is Judicially acknowledged in the Dispute that he hath the Bond and that he received it blank from the Pursuers Husband and it s now offered to be proven by his own Brother and other Witnesses above exception that the Pursuer delivered the Bond to him blank after her Husbands death which being a matter of Fact and Probable by Witnesses necessarly infers that the Bond was not redelivered to her Umquhil Husband The Lords before answer ordained the Witnesses ex officio to be examined upon the Pursuers delivery of the Bond after her Husbands Death Earl of Errol contra Hay of Crimunmogat February 23. 1667. THe Earl of Errol Pursues a Declarator of Redemption against Hay of Crimunmogot It was alledged Absolvitor because the Defender stands Infeft upon a Charter granted by Barcklay with the consent of the Earl of Errol proomni suo jure long after the reversion granted be Barcklay whereupon this Redemption proceeds It was answered for the Pursuer 1. That the Earl only consents and the Charter bears that the Sums were payed to Barcklay whose Right produced is a Wodset granted by the Earl of Errol and Hay of Vrie bearing an Expresse Reversion to any lawful Eldest Son of Hay of Vrie which failzieing to the Earl of Errol Ita est that the time the Earl Subscrived this Charter Hay of Vrie was alive and had Sons at least in spe so that the Earl of Errol had not thereby the Right of the Reversion and therefore his consent without any Sums received or any absolute Warrandice cannot extend to any superveening Right which he then had not actually but in spe et in apparentia 2ly The Earls consent to Barcklayes Disposition who had only the Right of Wodset not bearing irredeemable or absque reversione cannot take away the expresse Reversion of Barcklayes Right for albeit an Heritable Right be presumed Irredeemable presumptio cedit veritati and it cannot take away a Reversion where it is The Lords found that the Reversion granted in Barcklayes Right was not taken away by this Posterior Right and Charter but that the Earls consent imported only his Favour and Goodwil to transmit the Right to the Defender in respect of the alledgeances aforesaid Laird of May contra John Rosse Eodem
in before but superceeded Execution in the Removing as to the House and Mains Possest be Milntoun till Martimass that in the mean time he might Insist in his Reprobators as he would be Served Countesse of Carnwath contra Earl of Carnwath February 22. 1667. THe Countess of Carnwath Insists in her Action of Poinding the ground It was alleadged for the Defender that the Countess Seasing was null not being Registrate conform to the Act of Parliament It was answered that nullity cannot be proponed either be the Granter of the Infeftment or any Representing him or by any person who is obliged to acknowledge the Infeftments but the Earl is such a Person that albeit he Brooks by a Disposition from his Father yet his Infeftment containes this Express Provision that his Father at any time during his Life may Dispone the Lands or any Part thereof and grant Infeftments Tacks or Annualrents thereof so that this being unquestionably an Infeftment he cannot quarrel the same upon the not Registration but if his Father had granted an Obliegment to Infeft the Defender could not have opposed the same much more the Infeftment being Expede It was answered that the Provision did not contain an Obligation upon the Defender to Dispone Ratifie or do any Deed but left only a Power to his Father to Burden the Lands which can only be understood being done legitimo modo and therefore the Infeftment wanting the solemnity of Registration is in the same Case as if there were no Infeftment and so is null The Lords Repelled the Defense and found the Seasine valide as to the Defender in respect of the foresaid Provision in his Infeftment Earl of Southesk contra Lady Earls-hall Eodem die THe Earl of Southesk being Infeft in certain Lands upon the Water of Eden and the Salmond Fishing peruse Declarator that Earls-hall hath no Right thereto The Pursuer produces an Infeftment in Anno 1558. in which after the Land is Disponed there followes a Clause una cum Salmonum in piscationibus in aquâ de Eden with a novo damus it was alleadged for the Defender that he hath the â—like Declarator against the Pursuer which he repeats by way of Defense and produces an infeftment of the same year of God bearing in the dispositive Clause una cum Privilegio piscandi in aqua de Eden solito consuet and alleadges that by vertue thereof he hath good Right to Fish in the Water and that he had been in Immemorial Possession by vertue thereof It was answered First That this Clause cannot carry Salmond Fishing which is inter Regalia and must be specially Disponed 2ly The Defenders Right though in the same year of God is yet some Moneths Posterior to the Pursuers and as to the Defenders Immemorial Possession it cannot consist nor give Prescription without a sufficient Title by Infeftment and it hath been frequently Interrupted by the Pursuer It was answered by the Defender that he and the Pursuer and the Laird of Reiris having three Thirds of one Barony all lying Rin-ridge the Kings granting the Pursuer his Third cum Salmonum piscationibus added to the Lands as a Pendicle thereof it cannot be understood exclusive of the other two Third Parts of the same Barony likeas Reiris hath the same Clause in his Infeftment and albeit Earls-halls Clause be not so express yet it not being the common Clause in the Tenendas cum piscationibus but in the Dispositive Clause of this special Tenor it must needs comprehend Salmond Fishing or otherwise it would have no Effect verba autem interpretanda sunt cum effectu and albeit the Clause were dubious yet it hath been in long possession Immemorial which sufficiently Instructs the Accustomed Fishing to have been before the same 2ly As to the Anteriority of the Pursuers Infeftment the Defenders offers to prove that his Predecessor was Infeft before him with this Clause that is in his own Infeftment produced 3ly Albeit the Defenders Right were Posterior yet it is sufficient to give him a Joint Right to the Salmond Fishing with the Pursuer because he offers him to prove that he hath fourty years peaceably Possest the Salmond Fishing as the Pursuer hath when ever they were in the River The Lords found that the Clause in the Defenders Infeftment albeit it had been prior to the Pursuers could not give Right to the Salmond Fishing in prejudice of the Pursuers expresse Infeftment of Salmond Fishing unlesse the Defenders Infeftment had been clede with Immemorial and fourty years peaceable Possession which being so alleadged by the Defender the Pursuer offered to prove Interruption and therefore a Term was granted to either Party to prove Mr. Iohn Elies contra Wishart and Keith Eodem die MAster Iohn Elies having Inhibit Elizabeth Keith his Debitor she did thereafter acquire a VVodset of certain Lands within the Shire where the Inhibition was published and thereafter upon payment of part of the Sums the VVodset Right was Renunced pro tanto and the rest being Consigned there is now a Process of Declarator of Redemption wherein Mr. Iohn Elies Compears and produces a Declarator at his Instance for declaring the Sums of the VVodset to belong to him and alleadges no Declarator of Redemption till the whole Sums contained in the VVodset Consigned be given up to him without respect of the payment or Renunciation of a part because it being done after his Inhibition it was null and so is craved to be declared by his Declarator It was answered First That Inhibitions can reach no further then to the Lands the Person Inhibit had the time of the Inhibition but not unto Lands he should happen to acquire after the Inhibition because the Inhibition bearing that the person Inhibit should not Sell or Alienat to the prejudice of the User of the Inhibition albeit she should Sell what thereafter he acquired the User of the Inhibition were in no other case then when the same was published the Land being both gotten and gone thereafter and if that were the effect of Inhibitions every provident person would Publish and Registrat them in all the shires of the Kingdom because they can only reach Lands lying in the shire where they are Registrated which was never done neither was it ever Decided that Inhibitions reached Lands acquired thereafter 2ly Inhibitions can never hinder persons having Right of Reversion to pay the Sums and the Wodsetter to Renunce because Inhibitions only Restrain Debar and Inhibit to Sell c. But doth not hinder him to pay his Debt or upon payment of the Wodset Sums to Discharge the Sums and Renunce the Lands these being Deeds necessar to which he might be compelled and if this hold no man might saflie pay an Heretable Band having Infeftment of Annualrent without searching the Registes which the most cautious man never did and for this alleadged the expresse Opinion of Craig that Inhibitions hinder not Discharges of Heretable Sums or Renunciations of VVodsets It was
the annus deliberandi be most ordinary in such Cases yet it is not limited thereto but must take place also in all Cases where the reason of the Law holds viz. where the Defender must be either absent and suffer Sentence or if he compear must found himself upon the Defuncts Right and so behave himself as Heir as in this case the Defender cannot alleadge Articles of Deduction or Discharge but upon the Defuncts Right for finding out of which Right the Law giveth him a year to inquire and use Exhibitions ad deliberandum ne incidat in damnosam haereditatem and therefore during that year he cannot be prest contestare litem The Lords sustained the Defense It was further alleadged by the Pursuer that now the annus deliberandi was past It was Duplyed for the Defender that albeit it was now past the Citation was used within the year so that that Citation cannot be sustained The Lords refused to sustain the Citation and found no Process till a new Citation but here the day of compearance filled in the Sâ—mmons was also within the year which if it had been after the year us like the Summons would have been sustained especially seing the Decision of this case extending the year of Deliberation to Declaratorie Actions in Custom had not occurred nor been decided Minister of Dalrymple contra Earl of Cassils Iune 27. 1667. THe Minister of Dalrymple having Charged the Earl of Cassils for his Stipend he Suspends on this Reason that he offered payment of the Bolls in the Ministers Decreet conform to Linlithgow Measure which was the common Measure of Scotland by the Act of Parliament and is by Act of Parliament the measure of Ministers Stipends It was answered that the Ministers Decreet of Locality was indefinit and mentioned no measure the meaning thereof was sufficiently cleared because it was offered to be proven by the Earls Oath that he payed ever since the Decreet of Locality being 15 years conform to the measure of Air and that he knew it was the common Custom of that Countrey to pay all Ministers with that measure The Suspender answered that his use of payment either by mistake or benevolence of more then what he was due could not oblige him to the future especially where the Minister did not found upon his decennalis triennalis possessio but upon a Decreet of Locality wherein though the measure be indefinit it cannot be understood to be any other measure then the common measure of Scotland seeing the Act of Parliament anent Ministers Provisions bears expresly that they shall have eight Chalders of Victual Linlithgow measure The Lords having considered the Decreet of Locality and that it did not extend to eight Chalders of Victual but to three Chalders of Victual and 400 pounds which is the rate of four Chalders of Victual at 100 pounds the Chalder as is ordinarly Rated by the Commission in that place of the Countrey they found the use of payment and common Custom of the Countrey sufficient to declare it to be the measure of Air seing by that measure it would not come up to eight Chalders of Victual Mr. Iames Dowglas contra William Leisk Iune 28. 1667. MR. Iames Dowglas as Donatar to the Liferent Escheat of William Leisk pursues a special Declarator against the Tennents for Mails and Duties It was alleadged for William Leisk that the Lands in question were Appryzed from William Leisk the Rebel and the Superiour granter of this Gift Charged to Infeft the Appryzer long before the Rebellion to which appryzing William Leisk has Right during his Life so that the Charge being equivalent to an Infeftment as to the time and to the anteriority of the Infeftment and by drawing it back to the Charge doth prefer the Appryzer from the time of the Charge It was alleadged for the Donatar that albeit a Charge against the Superiour be equivalent to an Infeftment in some cases Yet in other things it is not equivalent as it is not a Right sufficient for the Appryzer to Remove Tennents and therefore the Vassal is not denuded thereby otherwise the Superiour could have no Casuality after such a Charge because the Appryzer not being Infeft his Liferent could not fall It was answered for the Defender that albeit this consequence should follow it is the Superiours own fault that did not receive the Appryzer It was answered non constat it was his fault for he might have just reason to Suspend and albeit it were his fault the Law hath not determined this to be his Penalty to lose his Casualities The Lords Repelled the Defense and found the charge on the Appryzing did not denude the former Vassal but his Liferent fell and affected the Ground Sir Alexander Hume contra Creditors of Kello Eodem die SIr Alexander Hume being Donator to the Forefaulture of Iohn Hume of Kello did obtain a Warrand for Retouring the said Iohn five years in Possession of certain Lands before the Forefaulture but the Inquest served Negativeâ— and now he pursues a Reduction of the Retour on this Reason that it is contrary the Testimonies of the Witnesses adduced It was alleadged no Process because the Reduction of Retours is only competent by a Summons of Error in Latin under the quarter Seal It was answered that is only in the Case where the Assizers are insisted against for their Error and the constant Custome of the Lords has been to sustain a Summons of Reduction before themselves of this method The Lords sustained the Defense and refused Process albeit it was known to them that the Custom has been contrary of a long time before Sir Iohn St. clair contra Iohn Cowper Iuly 2. 1667. UMquhil Mr. Iohn Rae having two sisters and Heirs portioners the one married to Robert St clair and the other to umquhil Alexander Cowper the said Alexander and his Spouse as Heir portioner assigns to Robert St. clair a number of her Brothers Bands And likewise as Heir assigns him to the Maills and Duties of a Tenement of Mr. Iohn's for such Terms and in time coming Sir Iohn St. clair having appryzed Robert St. clairs Right pursues Iohn Cowper as Representing his Father to hear it declared that this perpetual assignation to the Mails and Duties did import an absolute Disposition of the Lands and did carry in consequence an obligment and all things to make the Disposition effectual and so to renew it into a legal Form containing a Procuratory and Precept The Defender alleadged absolvitor because his Father had granted no Disposition but only an Assignation and so the Defender could be obliged to do no further The Pursuer answered that this assignation behoved to be understood cum effectu and to be done to denude the Granter and to settle the Right of the Duties in the Purchaser and therefore whosoever gives the Right gives all necessaries in his power to accomplish it and the Informality of a Clerk ought not to Evacuat the Pursuers Right The
Lords sustained the Process and found this Right to import a perpetual Disposition George Allan contra Fairie Eodem die GEorge Allan pursues Reduction of a Disposition granted by him to Fairie upon the Reason of Circumvention in so far as the Disposition though it was conceived absolute Yet it was expresly Communed that it should contain a Reversion and was Read as containing a Reversion at the Subscribing thereof which was offered to be proven by the Wryter and VVitnesses insert The Defender answered that the Reason was only probable Scripto vel juramento and so solemn a Writ could not be taken away by Witnesses The Pursuer answered that the Writer and Witnesses insert were most competent to prove a Point in facto viz. the fraudulent Reading of that which was not contained and there is here also produced an antecedent Adminicle in Writ to grant a Right Redeemable The Lords before answer ordained the Writer and Witnesses insert to be examined anent the Terms of the Treaty and whether the Disposition was Read at the Subscrybing as an absolute or redeemable Disposition William Litster contra Aitoun and Sleichâ— Eodem die WIlliam Litster having Arrested his Debitors Rent on the fifth of Aprile 1665 he thereupon obtained Decreet for making forthcoming in Iuly 1666. which being Suspended conpearance is made for Sleich who had Right to several Appryzings of the Lands which were deduced befoâ—e the Terms of payment of the Rent and craved preference to the Arresterâ— because his Arrestment was before the Term and the time of the Arrestment there was nothing due and also before the Term the Debitor was denuded by an Appryzing whereupon Infeftment followed in Decemb. thereafter and must be drawn back ad suam â—ausam to the Appryzing The Arrester answered that his Arrestment was valid being laid on câ—rrente termino for the next ensuing Term at least as hath been oft times decided by the Lords and is now their constant practice And as for the Appryzing before Infeftment albeit it will carry the Mails and Duties yet it is an incompleat Right and hath only the effect of a Judicial Assignation or Disposition so that the Competition being betwixt an Assigney viz. an Appryzer and the Arrester the Arrestment being prior is preferable to any Assignation Neither can the Infeftment on the Appryzing after the Term give any Right to the Rent prior to the Infeftment but the Right thereto is by the Appryzing which is but an naked Assignation The Lords preferred the Arrester Lord Blantyre contra Wakinshaw Eodem die THe Lord Blantire pursues a Reduction of a Bond as being granted in his Minority It was alleadged for Wakinshaw assigney to the Bond absolvitor because there was no Process intented against him intra annos utiles till the Pursuer was past twenty five years It was answered that the Defenders Cedent was Cited to whom the Bond was granted and this Defenders Right will fall in consequence and there was no necessity to Cite him in the same way that the Service of an heir may be reduced without Calling of his Creditors or these that are Infeft by him The Defender answered that his Assignation was Intimat before the Citation against his Cedent which cannot be miskenned by the Pursuer to whom the Intimation was made after which the Cedent had no Right and any Citation against him was of no moment neither is the Case alike to the Reduction of a Retour wherein the Reducer doth neither know nor is obliged to know the Creditors Rights The Lords found that the Assigney after the Intimation behoved to be Cited intra annos utiles but they sustained Improvation against the Citation made against the Assigney by way of Defense In this case it was not urged whether the Intimation was personal to the Pursuer or only at his dwelling House Or whether it was Recent before the Citation for if it were not Personal or Recent it were hard to oblige the Pursuer to remember so transcient an Act as an Intimation It was furder alleadged by the Defender that there was no Lesion because he offered him to prove that the sum was delivered to the Minors Curators at least to the Minor and his Curators joyntly who being persons abundantly solvendo and very provident the Minor could have no Lesion seing they were comptable It was answered non Relevat unless it were alleadged positive that the sum were utiliser impensum for the Minors profit for the Minor has his option either to pursue the Curators as intrometting or to Reduce hiâ— Obligation and the Curators not being in this Process no Probation of the delivery of Money to them will bind them but there were necessity that they were both Cited and it instructed by Writ The Lords Repelled this Defense but severals inclined not to sustain Processe till the Curaâ—ors were first Discust And whether the Minor was laesed or not Mr. Roger Hogg and other Creditors of Wauchtoun contra Countess of Hume Iuly 3. 1667. IN an Incident pursued by the Creditors of Wauchtoun against the Countess of Hume It was alleadged for the Countess that the Incident as to several of the Creditors could not be sustained and likewise could not be sustained against several of the Havers because as to these the Incident was without Warrand their Names not being contained in the Bill at the Signet It was answered the Bill contained several Names and a blank for others which is a sufficient Warrand for the Raisers of the Incident to insert whom they please It was answered that Incidents being odious strict form should be observed in relation to them so that a new Pursuer cannot be supplyed by the blank who did not supplicat by the Bill and alleadged a Decision the last Session where it was so found in an Incident at the Instance of the Feuers of Coldinghame against the Lord Justice Clerk The Lords sustained not the Incident as to any of the Pursuers thereof whose Names were not in the Bill but sustained the same against any of the Havers albeit their Names was not contained in the Bill it being ordinar to get Summons upon Bills upon such persons named and others wherein the persons Names insert are alwayes sustained but it is not so in the Pursuers and yet this would hardly been sustained in another Case then an Incident which is unfavourable Cumming of Alter contra Lumsden Iuly 4. 1667. CVmming of Alter having set a Salmond Fishing to Alexander Lumsden for payment of 60 pounds Scots of Tack-duty he pursues Matthew Lumsden as intrometter with the Fish taken for the Tack duty as having an Hypotheck upon the Profits for the Rent It was alleadged for the Defender Absolvitor because he intrometted with these Fish as Donatar to Alexander Lumsden's Escheat at least having now the Right of the Escheat he was not lyable for that priviledge preferring Masters of the Ground for the Rent cannot take place against the King and his Donatar who is more
priviledged The Lords Repelled the Defense and found the Donatar lyable for the Rent in so far as ilk years intromission would extend to the Rent of that year George Schine contra Iames Christie Eodem die GEorge Schine having Adjudged an Annualrent and having Charged Iames Christie his Superiour to receive him He Suspends and alleadges he had Appryzed the same Lands before and that his Author was only Infeft base never cled with Possession The Lords Repelled the Defense hoc loco and ordained him to Infeft Reserving his own Right as accords Schaw contra Tennents Eodem die SChaw pursues certain Tennents for their Duties who produced several Discharges against which it was alleadged that the Discharges were null wanting Witnesses and were not Written with the Dischargers own hand and so were null by the Act of Parliament It was answered that Custome had introduced several exceptions from that Act as Bills of Exchange of the greatest importance which are valid being Subscribed without Witnesses albeit not holograph And in like manner the Discharges granted to Tennents which by long Custom through all the Kingdom use only to be subscribed by the Landlords without Witnesses and writen with another hand The Lords sustained the Discharges and would not put the Tennents to prove that they were truely subscribed unless they were offered to be improven in which case though the indirect manner was wanting they might be improven by comparison of Subscriptions and other Adminicles wherein less would serve then in other Improbations Sir Henry Hume and other the Creditors of Kello contra Sir Alexander Hume Iuly 6. 1667. SIr Henry Hume and others being both Creditors to Alexander Hume of Kello And Iohn Hume his Son Appryzed the Lands of Kello in anno 1649. And in anno 1653. Charged the Superior in anno 1661. Iohn Hume is Forefault upon the Treasonable Crimes committed in anno 1651. Sir Alexander Hume is Donatar to the Foresaulture the case of Alexander Humes Right before the Appryzing was that by Contract of Marriage Alexander Hume had Disponed several Husband Lands to Iohn reserving his own Liferent of certain Husband Lands The Father continued to possesse the Lands Reserved and the Son of the rest The Question is now concerning the Lands Reserved whereanent the Competition is betwixt the Creditors Appryzers and the Donatar It was alleadged for the Donatar that he ought to be preferred because any Right the Creditors had is but an Appryzing and a Charge without Infeftment which Charge albeit it be equivalent to an Infeftment in the Competition betwixt Con-compryzers yet it is no way equivalent as to the King for after the Charge all Casualities of the Superiority would fall to the Superior and so must the Casuality of Forefaulture fall to the King 2ly Though the Appryzers had been Infeft when they Charged their Infeftment would have been long after the committing of the Crime and there was nothing before the Crime but the naked Appryzing which was no real Right so that the Forefaulture devolving the Fee to the King with the burden only of such real Rights as the Superiour had consented to before the Cryme which cannot extend to this Appryzing which is no real Right or to the Charge and Infeftment thereon because after the Crime 3ly Albeit the Infeftment of the Son who was Forefault was base holden of the Father yet it coming in the Person of the King or his Donatar can no more be a base Right but becomes publick so soon as it is devolved to the King which was at the committing of the Crime before the Appryzers Infeftment or Charge It was answered for the Creditors that they ought to be preferred upon their legal Diligence for satisfaction of the lawful Debt contracted before the Crime because they had Appryzed before the Crime and had Charged the Superiour before the Sentence of Forefaulture Which Charge is equivalent to an Infeftment and the King succeeding in the place of the Forefault Person utiâ—ur jure privato and albeit noâ— voluntar Deed after the Committing of the Crime would be effectual against the King or his Donatar Yet an Appryzing before the Crime and a Charge before the Sentence or Process of Forefaulture is sufficient in favours of the Creditors especially seing the Superiority being unquestionably in their Father they might Charge him when they pleased and having Charged him they become in his place and cannot Charge themselves as Superiours of the Forefault Person The Lords preferred the Appryzers in respect of their Appryzing before the Crime and the Charge after before the Forefaulture It was further alleadged for the Appryzers that the forefault Persons Right being only base never cled with Possession their Appryzing against the Father who was not forefault was preferable It was answered for the Donatar that the Forefault Persons Right was cled with Possession in so far as the Forefault Person possest a great part of the Lands Disponed lying all together and of the rest the Fathers liferent being reserved the Fathers Possession was the Sons Possession It was answered that Possession of a part cannot be sufficient for the whole where there is an express Reservation hindering the Natural Possession of the rest and where the rest are actually possest by another Party neither can the Fathers Possession be the Sons because it is ordinarly found that Dispositions by a Father to his eldest Son and Infeftments thereon reserving the Fathers Liferent are not thereby cled with Possession And albeit in Reservations in favours of Wives the Husbands Possession be the Wifes Possession yet that is a special priviledge favore matrimonij dotis and is not competent to any other It was answered for the Donatar that a Reservation in favours of a Father in any gratuitous and clandestine Infeftment granted to the Son does not validate the same yet the Infeftment being for a Cause onerous viz. a Marriage which is a solemn and publick Act the Infeftment following thereupon is void of all suspition of Simulation and as an Infeftment to a Stranger reserving the Disponers Liferent would be valid by the Disponers Possession So must a Sons upon a Contract of Marriage otherwise great prejudice will follow Sons being frequently Infeft in their Fathers whole Estate reserving their Liferent of a part and ordinarly but basely Infeft to secure the Property being more desirous to Enter themselves as Heirs to their Fathers after their death if no posterior prejudicial deeds be done which is more honourable for the Family all the Infeftments would be overthrown being upon Debts contracted after the Infeftment The Lords being of different Iudgements in this Point were loath to decide them because the Case was decided by the former Vote Stevin contra Iohn Boid Iuly 9. 1667. IN a Tutor Compt at the Instance of Stevin against Iohn Boid these Queries were Reported by the Auditor and determined by the Lords 1. How soon a Tutor was obliged for Annualrent of the Defuncts Bonds that
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
and preferred the Pursuer in probation thereof and in respect of so unwarrantable a way of Disposing they would neither allow Retention nor Compensation but left the Defender to make his Application to the Exchequher for his payment Margaret Pringle and her Spouse contra Robert Pringle of Stichel November 29. 1667. MArgaret Pringle pursues an Exhibition of all Writs granted by or to her Umquhil Brother ad deliberandum It was alleadged no Process for Writs granted by him to Strangers except such as were in his Family conform to the late Decision Schaw of Sornbeg contra Tailzifare which they declared they would follow as a Rule The Pursuer answered that he Insisted for Exhibition of such Writs as were granted by the Defunct to any person which were in his possession or Charter Chist the time of his Death Which the Lords Sustained Duke Hamiltoun contra the Laird of Allardine December 6. 1667. THe Duke of Hamiltoun having Charged the Laird of Allardine for the six Terms Taxation Imposed anno 1633. He Suspends on this Reason that four Terms were payed by the Earl of Marishal Sheriff which must Exoner him and all other persons of the Shire and is instructed by the Books of the Clerk to the Taxations It was answered that the Reason is not relevant because the Sheriffs did ordinarly Lift a part of all the six Terms and albeit the Sheriff compleated the first four yet he might have done it out of his own Money or out of the other two and so when the King Charges for the other two the Sheriffs Discharges will Exclude him so that he shall not want the first four but so much of the other two and therefore unless the Suspender can produce a Discharge of the first four the general Discharge granted to the Sheriff cannot Liberat him It was answered that when the King or his Collector Charges the Collectors general Discharges cannot but meet himself and whether the Suspender had payed or not the general Collector cannot seek these Terms twice It is true â—f the Sheriff were Charged the Suspender behoved to show to him his Discharge but the Earl of Marishal Sheriff could not Charge the Suspender for the Taxation of these Lands because the Earl of Marishal was both Sheriff and Heretor at that time and Sold the Lands to the Suspender with Warrandice The Lords found the general Discharge sufficient to the Suspender against the general Collector or any authorised by him Earl of Lauderdale and Iohn Wachop contra Major Biggar December 7. 1661. THe Earl of Lauderdale and Iohn Wachop Macer pursue a Reduction and Improbation of the Rights of the Lands of Hill against Major Biggar and craved Certification contra non producta The Defender alleadged no Certification because he had produced sufficient Rights to exclude the Pursuers Title viz. Infeftments long prior to the Pursuers Right It was answered that this could not stop the Certification unless the Defender would declare he would make use of no other Rights in this Instance otherwise the Pursuers behoved to Dispute with him upon every single Writ he produced and behoved to Dispute the Reasons of Reduction with him before the Production were closed The Pursuer answered that his alleadgeance as it is proponed was alwise Sustained without declaring that he woâ—ld make use of no more The Lords found the Defenses as proponed relevant and ordained the ordinar to hear the Parties Debate upon the Rights produced and if these should not prove sufficient the Lords thought that the Defender might be forced at the next time to produce all he would make use of in this Cause that so the Pursuers were not delayed upon Disputing upon every single Writ Earl of Cassils contra Sheriff of Galloway December 10. 1667. THe Earl of Cassils pursues the Sheriff of Galloway and the Tennents of Achnotorâ—ch for abstracted Multures and Insists on this ground against the Sheriff that he being Heretor of the Lands and Vassal to the Pursuer did command them to leave the Pursuers Miln and come to his own Miln and so was Liable The Defender alleadged that this Member of the Summons is not relevant because any man may desire any persons he pleases to come to his Miln and there was never a pursute Sustained against any others then the Abstracters and not against these to whose Miln they came 2dly It is not Libelled that the Defender got a greater Duty upon the Tennents coming to his Miln and although he had it were not relevant 3dly By the Defenders Rights he is Liberat of all Multures except Knavship and Bannock which is only the Hire due to the Millers for their Service and there is no obligement upon him to cause his Tennents come to the Miln It was answered the Pursuer offered to prove the Defender had gotten a greater Duty upon the Tennents coming to his miln and albeit the Astriction be only of Knavship and Bannock that is not alone due for the Millers service but there is a profit thence arising to the Master that the Sheriff being Heretor and Vassal albeit he be not personally obliged to cause the Tennents come to his Miln yet the Lands being Astricted by his Infeftment it was his fault to remove them The Lords Assoilzied from that Member of the Lybel and found it not relevant against the Heretor but only against the Tennents Mr. Rodger Hog contra the Countess of Home Eodem die MAster Rodger Hog having Appryzed certain Lands from the Laird of Wauchtoun in Alcambus which were Sold to Wauchtoun by the Earl of Home with absolute Warrandice Upon which Warrandice there was Inhibition used whereupon Mr. Rodger pursues Reduction of an Infeftment of Warrandice of these Lands granted by the Earl of Home to my Lady in Warrandice of the Lands of Hirsil and that because the said Infeftment of Warrandice is posterior to the Inhibition The Defender alleadged that there could be no Reduction upon the Inhibition because therewas yet no Distress which with a Decreet of the Liquidation of the Distress behoved to preceed any Reduction and albeit there might be a Declarator that my Ladies Infeftment should not be prejudicial to the Clause of Warrandice or any Distress following thereupon yet there could be no Reduction till the Distress were Existent and Liquidat The Pursuer answered that a Reduction upon an Inhibition was in effect a Declarator that the posterior Rights should not prejudge the Ground of the Inhibition for no Reduction is absolute but only in so far as the Rights Reduced may be prejudicial to the Rights whereupon the Reduction proceeds The Lords Sustained the Reduction to take effect so soon as any Distresse should occur Mr. Iames Straiton contra the Countess of Home Eodem die MAster Iames Straiton Minister of Gordoun having obtained Decreet conform upon an old Locality Charges my Lady Home for payment who Suspends and alleadges that she must be liberat of a Chalder of Victual contained in the
contra the Magistrats of Queens-ferry Ianuary 2. 1668. ARchibald Wilson being Elected on of the Baillies of the South Queens-ferry and being Charged to Accept and Exerce the Office Suspends on this Reason that by the 29. Act Parliament 5. King Iames the 3. No Magistrate of Burgh is to be continued in Office longer then one year and by a particular Act of that Burgh no Magistrat is to continue above two years and true it is that the Suspender hath served as Baillie two years already It was answered that the Act of Parliament is long since in desuetude and as to the Act of the Burgh the Election of the Suspender being done by them who have power to make that Act is in effect an alterationt hereof and this Burgh being poor and penury of persons to Serve it will dissolve the same and discourage all others to Serve if the Suspender be Liberat. The Lords found the Reasons of Suspension relevantâ—â— and found that the Suspender could not be compelled to serve longer then one year at once in the same Office Dow of Arnho contraâ— Campbel of Calder Ianuary 4. 1668. DOw of Aricho having pursued Campbel of Calder as Heir to his Father for payment of a Bond wherein his Father was Cautioner for the Marquess of Argyl the Bond bore but one Witnesse to Calders subscription and George Campbel one of the Witnesses being Examined if he saw him subscribe Deponed negative but that it was Calders hand Writ to the best of his knowledge there was also other writs produced subscribed by Calder to compare the subscriptions The Lords would not sustain the Bond having but one Witnesse insert to Calders subscrsption upon the foresaid Testimony and Adminicles Mr. Iohn Forbes contra Innis Ianuary 1. 1668 MAster John Forbes as Assigney to Margaret Allerdes having obtained Decreet of Removing against Margaret Innis for Removing from the Lands of Savet wherein the said Margaret Allardes is Infeft in Liferent which being suspended It was alleadged first That this pursuâ—e is to the behove of Margaret Allerdes who could not obtain a Removing against the Defender because the Defenders Husband being Infeft by the said Margaret Allardes Husband and Author of the Lands of Savet principally and of the Lands of Govan and others in Warrandice The said Margaret Allardes did consent to the Disposition of the Warrandice-lands by which she obliged her self to do no Deed in the contrair of that Right and is also bound in Warrandice with her Husband ita est her pursuing this Action is a Deed in prejudice of the Right of Warrandice-lands in so far as thereby the Person having Right to the principal Lands upon Eviction recurrs upon the Warrandice-lands and so the Consenters own Deed prejudges the same It was answered that by Deeds contrair to Warrandice were only understood some Right granted by the Disponer or Consenter in prejudice of the Right consented to but no wayes a pursute upon any other Right of the Consenter for it were against Reason and Justice that a Purchaser to make himself secure requiring a Wifes consent to Lands to which she had no Right either Principal or in Warrandice of other Lands that her Consent should prejudge her as to her Liferent lands of which there was no mention and as to her Personal Obligement to Warrand the Lands wherein she was never Infeft it is null and can never oblige her being a Wife The Lords found that this Warrandice did not oblige the Wife and that her Consent did not hinder her to pursue upon her own Liferent albeit ex consequente her pursute excluded one having a posterior Right to her Liferent-lands who thereupon had recourse to the Warrandice-lands to which she Consented seing she had granted no Right prejudicial to the Right Consented to It was further alleadged that the said Margaret Allardes agreed with the Person having Right to her Liferent-lands principally that she should accept the Warrandice-lands in stead of her Liferent-lands which excambion putting the Right of the Warrandice-lands now in her Person she who consented to the Right thereof can never come in the contrair of her own Consent to prejudge the same It was answered that a Consâ—nt cannot exclude any supervenient Right of the Consenter but only such Rights as the Consenter had the time of the Consent it is true that a Disponer with absolute Warrandice if he acquire a Right it accresces to his Successor but it is not so in a Consenter whose warrandice is not found to be Obligator further then as to the Rights in the Consenters Person at that time Which the Lords Sustained It was further alleadged that the Pursute as to the behove of the Heir of the Disponer of the Lands in question whose Predecessor being bound in absolute Warrandice he can make no use of no Right prejudicial to his Warrandice 2dly Albeit he be not Heir yet he hath behaved himself as Heir and thereby is lyable to fulfil the Defuncts Warrandice and so cannot come against it It was answered that behaving as Heir being a vitious passive Title is not sustainable by way of exception in this case The Lords Sustained the same and found both members of the alleadgeance relevant Margaret Forbes contra 〈…〉 Eodem die MArgaret Forbes having granted a Tack of her Liferent-lands to 〈…〉 bearing expresly for payment of such a Sum of Money and bearing to endure for 19. years she did receive a Back-bond of that same Date bearing that so soon as the Sum was payed the Tack should become void the Tack coming to a singular Successor she pursues him for Compt and Reckoning and Removing and insists upon the Tenor of the Tack and Back-bond It was alleadged for the Defender that the Back-bond did not militat against him being a singular Successor neither being Registrat nor Intimat to him before his Right in respect the Tack is a real Right and no Obligement or Provision of the Tacks-man can prejudge a singular Successor The Lords Repelled the Defense and Sustained Processe against the Defender in respect of the Tack and Back-bond The old Lady Clerkingtoun contra Clerkingtoun and the young Lady Ianuary 9. 1668. THe old Lady Clerkingtoun being Infeft in an Annualrent of seven Chalders of Victual out of the Mains of Clerkingtoun for thirty six years bygone she pursues a Poinding of the ground It was answered for the Laird and his Mother that the Pursuer having been so long out of Possession cannot make use of a Possessory Judgement but must first declare her Right 2dly The young Lady is also Infeft in an Annualrent and hath been by vertue thereof more then seven years in Possession and so hath the benefit of a Possessory Judgement till her Right be reduced and cannot be Dispossest by the old Ladies posterior Infeftment The Lords Repelled both the Defenses and found that an Annualrent is debitum fundi and is not excluded by Possession of a posterior Right and needs no Declarator and
Teinds were exhausted wherein having failzied and being taxed no other could pay for him neither could the King lose that proportion It was answered that he had no interest to conveen the Ministâ—r having the only Right to his Teinds The Lords Repelled the Reason and adhered to the Stent Roll but prejudice to the Suspender to seek his relief of any Partie he pleaseth as accords Mr. Andrew Brown contra David Henderson and Thomas George Ianuary 18. 1668. MAster Andrew Brown granted a Bond of 700. Merks blank in the Creditors Name to George Short wherein the Name of David Henderson is now filled up Thereon George having Arrested all Sums due to Alexander Short in the hands of Mr. Andrew Brown he raises a double Poynding wherein the Competition arises betwixt the Arrester and the the Person whose Name is filled up in the blank Bond. It was alleadged for the Arrester that he ought to be preferred because he Arrested Shorts Money and at the time of the Arrestment this Bond having been Delivered to Short blank in the Creditors Name Short was Creditor ay and while not only another Name were filled up but also an Instrument of Intimation were taken thereupon for Shorts filling up of the Name of Henderson is no more then an Assignation which requires Intimation and is excluded by an Arrestment before the Intimation albeit after the Assignation It was answered for Henderson that there needed no Intimation to the filling up of a Creditors Name in a blank Bond which was never required by Law nor Custom and his Bond being now in his own Name nothing could prove that it was blank ab initio or that it did belong to Short but Hendersons own Oath in which case it would be sufficient for him to Depone qualificatâ— that the Bond indeed was blank ab initio and delivered by the Debtor to Short and by Short to him and his Name filled up therein before the Arrestment or at least that before the Arrestment he had showen the Bond filled up to the Debtor which is equivalent as if he had given back the first Bond and gotten a new Bond from the Debtor after which no Arrestment upon account of the prior Creditor could be prejudicial to him ita est he hath done more for he hath proven that before the Arrestment the Bond was producedâ— and shown to Birny the Debtor It was answered that in a former case in a Competition of the Creditors of Alexander Vetch the Lords found that the Arrestment laid on before Intimation of the filling up of a blank Bond preferred the Arrester and that otherwise Collusion could not be evited with these blank Bonds to exclude and to save Creditors Arresting The Lords preferred Henderson whose Name was filled up and presented to the Debtor before the Arrestment for in Vetches Case there was nothing to instruct that the Bond was truely filled up and presented to the Debtor before the Arrestment and they found the filling up and presenting thereof sufficiently proven by the Witnesses taken ex officio Pollock contra Pollock and Rutherfoord Eodem die UMquhil Iohn Pollock in the Cannongate having given a Bond to Iames Pollock his Son of 5000. Merks he pursues Robert Pollock the Heir of Line and Pollock Heir of the second Marriage for payment The Heir of Line Compearing Renunced whereupon the Pursuer insisted against the Heir of Provision who alleadged no Process till the Heretage be falling to the Heir of Line were first discust and condescended upon the Heirship Moveable The Pursuer answered there could be no Heirship in this Case because the Heir of Line had Renunced all he might Succeed to by his Father Heretable or Moveable in Favours of his Father his Heirs and Executors bearing expresly that his Wife and his Bairns of the second Marriage should have the whole Right Ita est Rutherfoord the Wife had Confirmed the whole Moveables promisâ—ue without exception of Heirship and therefore the Heir of Line himself if he were Entered could claim none It was answered that the Renunciation of the Heir apparent of Line being in Favours of his Father after his Fathers death it returned back to him from his Father as Heir of Line again and could go to no other Person neither thereby could the Heretable Moveables belong to the Executor The Lords found the Renunciation sufficient to exclude the Heir of Line from the Heirship Moveable and that they did thereby belong to the Fathers Exeâ—utor therefore found no further necessity to discusse the Heir of Line and Decerned against the Heir of Provision Grissel Stuart contra the Laird of Rosyth her Brother Ianuary 21. 1668. UMquhil Rosyth gave a Bond of Provision to his Daughter Grissel Stuart of 10000. pounds payable at her age of 17. years with an Obligement to Entertain her in the mean time but no Obligement of Annualrent she pursues her Brother as representing her Father for Implement and having Lived with her Uncle a part of her Fathers time and alleadging that she was hardly used by her Step-mother she craves Aliment for that time of her Fathers Lifetime and for six or seven years since his Death or craved Annualrent for her Sum. The Defender alleadged Absolvitor as to the Annualrent before her Fathers Death because she ought to have continued in her Fathers Family and there neither is nor can be alleadged any just Cause wherefore she should have deserted the same 2dly Absolvitor from Annualrent or Entertainment since her age of 17. years because the Bond bears Entertainment till that age and no Entertainment or Annualrent thereafter 3dly She does not nor cannot alleadge that she payed out any thing for Entertainment but was Entertained gratis by her Uncle The Lords found this no ground to exclude her from Aliment and found Aliment due after the Term of her Bond as well as before but not Annualrent and modified six hundreth Merkes per annum without allowing any thing for the year her Father Lived but modified the more largely it being unfit to Dispute the necessities of her Removal Ianet Schaw contra Margaret Calderwood Eodem die JAnet Schaw pursues a Reduction of a Liferent Infeftment granted to Margaret Calderwood by the Pursuers Father as being in lecto The Defender alleadged no Processe because the Pursuer was not Heir the time of the Disposition but another Heir appearand who never Entered The Lords Repelled the Defence The Defender alleadged that this being an Liferent Infeftment to her by her Husband and but of a small value it was valide and the Husband might Discharge that natural Debt of providing his Wife on Death-bed she having no Contract of provision before The Pursuer answered that the Defender might take the benefit of her Terce which is her legal Provision beyond which a Deed on Death-bed in prejudice of the Heir is null and this Liferent is of the Husbands whole Estate and yet the Pursuer is willing it should stand it being restricted to a third
and the Inhibition and Reduction thereon in so far as it might be prejudicial to his prior Rights and not to bruik by it The Pursuer answered that albeit Biggar might have acquired this Right to evacuat and purge the same if that had been declared in his acquisition thereof or otherwise legally yet not having done it he must be understood to bruik only by that Right that was standing 2dly If he should declare that he did acquire it to purge it then as his own Right revives which was Reduced so must this Pursuers Right which was also Reduced in that same Reduction revive especially in casu tam favorabili that the Pursuer may not be excluded from her Liferent which is her Aliment and seing the Decreet of Reduction was obtained by meer Collusion and is offered to be disclaimed upon Oath by the Advocats marked Compearing therein The Lords found that Major Biggar behoved to ascribe his Possession to Todrigs Right and to none of the Reduced Rights all being joyntly in his Person and not having declared quo titulo possidebat and that he cannot now declare that he makes no use of Todrigs Right in so far as may be prejudicial to his own prior Rights and makes use of it as it is prejudicial to the Pursuers Rights which were reduced together seing the Pursuers Rights would have excluded the Majors other Rights to which he would now ascribe his Pessession Magistrats of contra the Earl of Findlator Eodem die THere was a Bond granted by one Iackson Principal and a Cautioner which is also alleadged to have been Subscribed by Umquhil Inch-Martin as an other Cautioner which Bond being Registrat at the Creditors Instance he did thereupon Incarcerat the principal Debtor whom the Magistrats having suffered unwarrantably to escape the Creditor obtained Decreet against the Magistrats for payment of the Debt The Magistrats payes the Debt but takes Assignation from the Creditor and now as Assigney pursues the Earl of Findlator as Representing Inchmartin one of the Cautioners for payment who alleadged Absolvitor first Because the Bond is null as to Inchmartin wanting both Date and Witnesses for it bears to have been Subscribed by the Principal and the other Cautioner at such a place such a day before these Witnesses who are subjoyned and designed and after the Names of these Witnesses sayes and subscribed by Inchmartin at after which there nothing follows in the Bond but the Subscriptions of Parties none of which subscribe as Witness to Inchmartin yet his Subscription is amongst the Subscriptions of the other Parties but as to him it hath neither place day nor Witnesses The Pursuer offered to condescend that the day and place of the Subscription of the Witnesses were the same to Inchmartin as to the Principal and other Cautioner which they alleadged to be sufficient to make up this nullity as is ordinar where the Writer and Witnesses are not Designed for thereupon the Defender may improve the Bond by the Witnesses insert The Defender answered that albeit the Lords supply the want of Designation of Writer or Witnesses by condescending on their Designation that means of Improbation may be afforded which is not the question here yet the Lords did never suffer Parties to fill up Witnesses where no Witnesses were insert nor no Date either as to Year or Moneth The Lords would not Sustain the Bond upon this condescendence but ex officio ordained the Witnesses if they were alive to be Examined whether they were Witnesses to Inchmartins Subscription that same day and place with the rest reserving to themselves what their Testimonies should â—perat The Defender further alleadged Absolvitor because he offers him to prove that theâ—e was a Decreet against the Magistrats now pursuing at the Instance of the Creditor for payment of the Debt because they suffered the Principal Creditor Incarcerat to escape so that the Debt being payed by the Magistrats coming in the place of the Principal Debtor ex delicto it is in the same case as if the Principal Debtor himself had payed which necessarly liberats his Cautioners It was answered that the Magistrats are only lyable to the User of the Diligence pro damno interesse and to no other for the Creditor User of the Diligence might have consented to the escape of the Rebel or might discharged the subsidiarie Obligation or Action competent against the Magistrats for suffering him to escape whether the Cautioners would or not and therefore the Magistrats might as well take an Assignation from the Creditor for payment of the Debt which implies the Creditor his passing from them as bound ex delicto in which case he would only have given them a Discharge but here the Magistrats Contracts with the Creditor and acquires the Assignation ut quilibet upon an equivalent Cause It was answered for the Defender that this Assignation is evidently simulat in place of a Discharge there having preceeded a Decreet against the Magistrats ita est that Assignations granted to persons obliged for a Debt doth operat alwise as to the Matter only as a Discharge though more summarly as when Cautioners pay and are Assigned they must allow their own part but much more these who are lyable ex delicto having payed upon a Decreet cannot seek relief whether they have Assingation or Discharge especially against Cautioners and if this were Sustained all Rebels who had Cautioners might be suffered to escape where there is any Cautioners for Messengers might be Deforced taking Assignation to the Debt and proceeding against the Cautioners and albeit the user of the Diligence might consent to the Liberation yet he could not pass from the Obligation ex delicto which accresceth to all Parties having Interest and if the Cautioners had been distâ—est by the Creditor they might pursue the Magistrats suffering the Principal to escape ex delicto damno for if he had not been suffered to escape they would have been payed The Lords found this Defence relevant that the Magistrats pursuers having suffered the Rebel to escape and Decreet against them and having satisfied the Debt to the Creditor that they could not have recourse against the Cautioners either by vertue of a Discharge or Assignation Here it was not Debated whether or not they might have recourse against the principal Debtor escaping who was principaliter in delicto and the Magistrats but accessory Mr. William Mushate Minister of Hassenden contra the Duke and Dutches of Buccleugh Ianuary 28. 1668. THe Minister of Hassenden having obtained Designation of a Gleib out of the Duke of Buccleughs Lands pursues Removing The Duke Suspends on this Reason that the Designation is null not bearing Citation nor â—numation to the Parochiners neither is the Duke Cited to the Designation upon 60. dayes as being out of the Countrey It was answered that by the constant Custom in such Cases there is only Intimation given at the Kirk Door or out of the Pulpit of the day of Designation which the
Lords found the alleadgeance relevant that at Land and about the time of their Testimony the Witnesses were so threatned but would not sustain that they were so threatned at Sea when they were taken unlesse it were alleadged that at Sea they were forced to Swear or Depoâ—e upon Oath whereupon it might have been presumed that by Reason thereof they would adhere to it when they came to Land George Graham contra Grissel Tours and the Laird of Kilhead her Husband February 26. 1668. GEorge Graham having obtained a Decreet before the Baillie against Grissel Tours and her Husband for Furnishing to her first Husbands Funerals her Husband Suspends and raises Reduction on these Reasons that albeit he stayed sometimes in a Chamber in Edinburgh he was not in this Jurisdiction and that his Wifes Oath could infer no burden upon him and that the Baillies did unwarrantably hold him as Confest for not giving his Oath of Calumny whether he had reason to distrust his Wifes Oath The Lords found this unwarrantable and therefore Reduced the Decreet as to the Husband but Decerned against the Wife ad hunc effectum to affect her if she survive or her Executors after her Death or otherwise to affect any other Goods she had excepted from her Husbands jus mariti The Laird of Milntoun contra the Lady of Milntoun Eodem die THe Lady Milntoun having obtained Decreet of Divorce against Iohn Maxwel her Husband the Laird of Milntoun having Right from her Husband to her Liferent which Right fell by the Divorce pursued a Reduction of the Decreet of Divorce wherein the Witnesses being Examined and Re-examined The Lords adheres to the Decreet of Divorce and Assoilzies from the Reduction at which time the Lords having allowed him to insist as in Reprobators he now pursues the same for Convelling the Testimonies of the Witnesses because they were corrupted and suborned both by promises and getting of good Deed and being prompted how to swear as their Oath on Re-examination bears And because their Oath is not only suspicious but impossible because it is offered to be proven that the Parties were alibi at a great distance from the place where the Witnesses Deponed that they committed Adultery and that for several dayes and nights thereafter and before The Defender alleadged that the Lybel was no wayes relevant First In so far as it would Convel the Testimonies as to the principal points referred to Probation against which no contrair Testimonies either of the same or other Witnesses can be admitted by the Law of all Nations otherwise Plea's should be infinit for if the second Witnesses might improve the Testimonies of the first third Witnesses might improve their's and so without end and the alleadgeances that the Parties were alibi are most irrelevant and is ordinarly rejected as being a contrair and incompatible Probation for this being a Crime unlawful at all times and places albeit the Witnesses should have forgotten or mistaken the time if they be positive in the Act non obest and so proving alibi at that time which is not essential is of no moment 3dly The Reprobators in so far as they would improve and convel the extrinsick points of the Testimonies ad hunc effectum to render the Witnesses infamous and their Testimonie invalide as to the whole which is the proper and only subject of Reprobators the famine is not now competent unless first at the time of the taking of the Testimonies the Pursuer had protested for Reprobators and had not referred his objections against the habilitie of the Witnesses to their own Oaths but had only interrogat them of their Age Marriage Residence freedom of partial Counsel or Corruption c. And upon the reason of their Knowledge in that case Reprobators might have been competent to prove the contrair of these extrinsick points and so infirm the Testimony but here the Witnesses being Examined especially as to the Interrogators of partial Counsel and as to the reason of their Knowledge and no protestation taken at that time for Reprobators he cannot now make use thereof and albeit that Reprobators were reserved by the Lords yet that was not at the taking but at the advising of the Testimonies when all that is now alleadged as to their corruption arising from the Re-examination did appear to the Lords and yet the Lords adhered to the Decreet of Divorce and first Testimonies The Pursuer answered that he did not intend to Convel principally the intrinsick points of the Testmonies but mainly to prove their partiality and corruption and therewith also to prove their Testimonies were false and impossible neither is it essential to protest at the taking of the Testimonies nor is there any necessity that the Witnesses Oathes should not be taken on the extrinsick points but on the contrair the intent of Reprobators being that their Oaths as to these extrinsicks being false they should be found perjured and infamous and the whole Testimonies to fall There was no Interloqutor at this time upon this Debate Reoch contra Cowan Eodem die REoch pursues Cowan as representing a Defunct to pay a Debt due by the Defunct to the Pursuer who alleadged Absolvitor because Reoâ—h was vitious Intrometter with the Defuncts Goods in so far as he lifted 50. Pound belonging to the Defunct and gave his Discharge produced and albeit thereafter he Confirmed himself Executor Dative yet he wilfully omited that Sum out of the Confirmation and so as vitious Intrometter is both Debitor and Creditor and cannot pursue the Heir It was answered that this was res modica and could not infer the passive Title The Lords found that this Sum inferred not a general passive Title but only that is made him comptabâ—e for the Sum. Maitland contra Lesly February 27. 1668. IN a concluded Cause of abstracted Multers betwixt Maitland and Lesly The Pursuer being â—nfeft in the Miln with the Multers and Sequels and having proven the astriction of Intown Multers and Witnesses being adduced concerning the Services for upholding the Miln and Dam and bringing home Milnstones who proved that some of the Lands were not in use of these Services but by two or three several Acts as once laying in the Dam at which the Heretor was offended and brake the Tennents Head and twice going to help home the Milnstones whether these Lands were lyable to the Services Whereupon the Lords considered whether the constitution of a Thirlage with Multers and Sequels did by the nature of the Right give the ordinary Miln service without relation to Possession so that immediatly after the constitution thes might be demanded Which the Lords decided affirmative and then found that these Lands were lyable to the service unlesse they had either by Paction or Prescriptioâ— attained freedom from the service and found that the Testimonies did not prove freedom for fourty years and that these Acts were enough to interrupt and so Decerned for the ordinary services David Henderson contra Mr. Andrew Birny
to the Tolbooth there to remain during their pleasure and Fined him in 500. Merks Earl of Wintoun contra Gordoun of Letterfary Iuly 15. 1668. THe Earl of Wintoun having Appryzed certain Lands in the North pursues for Mails and Duties It was alleadged for Gordoun of Letterfary that he stands Infeft in these Lands and by vertue of that Infeftment is seven years in Possession and thereby has the benefit of a possessory Judgement and must enjoy the Mails and Duties till his Right be Reduced The Pursuer answered that he had Intented Process upon his Right for Mails and Duties Anno 1658. whereby the matter became litigious and which stops the course of any possessory Judgement till that Citation expyre by the course of 40. years in the same way as it is in Removings or Ejections where Summons once Intented does not Prescribe by three years thereafter but lasts for 40. years The Defender answered that the case is not alike for the benefit of a possâ—ssory Judgement is introduced for the Security of Persons Infeft that they be not summarly put to Dispute their Authors Rights which are oftimes not in their hands but in the hands of their Authors or Superiours and there was never any Reply Sustained against the same unless it were Vitious or Violent or Interrupted but here the last seven years Possession after that Citation is neither Interrupted nor Vitious and these being no stop to take away the Effect of that Citation it were of bad consequence if Persons Infeft 39. years after a Citation behoved Summarly to Dispute their Rights The Lords Sustained the Defense of the Possessory Judgement upon seven years peaceable Possession before the Citation and Repelled the Reply The Pursuer further Replyed that in the seven years after the Citation there were some years wherein there was a surcease of Justice and no Courts in Scotland 2dly The Citation was by his Tutors and Curators and he was minor during the seven years It was answered that a possessory Judgement was competent against minors and there was no respect of minority therein which is only excepted in the great Prescription extinguishing the Right but in the possessory Judgement in Relation to the way of Process and the Fruits in the mean time as in all Prescriptions tempus continâ—um and not tempus utile is respected The Lords also Repelled both these Replyes and notwithstanding thereof Sustained the Exception on the possessory Iudgement Sir William Steuart contra Murrays Iuly 17. 1668. SIr Iames Murray his Estate being Appryzed by many of his Creditors Sir William Steuart one of the Appryzers pursues the rest for Compt and Reckoning of a proportionable part of the Rents in respect that his Appryzing is within a year of the first effectual Appryzing and comes in therewith pari passu by the late Act of Parliament betwixt Dâ—bitor and Creditor It was alleadged Absolvitor First Because the Pursuers Appryzing is incompleat nothing having followed thereupon now these 16. or 18. years and by the Act of the late Parliament anent the Registration of the allowance of Appryzings that is declared to be a necessar Solemnity for all Appryzings led since Iune 1652. and this Appryzing is not yet allowed It was answered that by the late Act of Parliament the Certification of the want of allowance is not that the Appryzing shall be null but that posterior Appryzings first allowed shall be preferred but the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor brings in Appryzings together deduced within a year according to their Dates without mention of allowance and is posterior to the said other Act and cannot be Derogat from thereby nor does the Act require Infeftment or any thing else but takes away the preference of Appryzings by the former Act as to such as are led within a year The Lords Repelled this Defense and Ordained the Pursuer now to allow his Appryzing which they found sufficient The Defenders further alleadged Absolvitor because the Pursuer had accepted a Disposition from Sir Iames Murray the common Debitor of a Tenement in Edinburgh bearing expresly in satisfaction of his Debt which is now produced by himself The Pursuer answered First That he was excluded from the benefit of that Disposition by Eviction by the Earl of Panmure who Appryzed before he was Infeft 2dly That whatever it bear it was but truely granted for Security for there is produced an Assignation by Sir Iames of certain sums to the Pursuer for the same Debt which could never have been if the first had been made in satisfaction The Defenders opponed the Disposition bearing expresly in Satisfaction the benefite whereof accrescing to them upon the Pursuers Receiving the Disposition cannot be taken from them by any posterior Writ of the Common Debitor nor are they obliged to Dispute whether it was valid or effectual seing it was accepted and the Eviction doth not annul the Acceptance but giveth place to the Clause of Warrandice contained in the Disposition which is Personal and reacheth only the Common Debitor and not the Defenders 2dly It was the Pursuers own fault that he was excluded in not Infefting himself upon his Disposition which he received before Panmuire's Appryzing It was answered that he could not compel the Superiour to receive him and that the Baillies of Edinburgh required bygone Sess and Feu-duties to be payed before he were Infeft which he was not obliged to pay seing by the Disposition he was to be free of all Incumberances It was answered that the Baillies of Edinburgh refuse no body as is known and these Incumberances were but to be purged by a personal obligement of the common Debitors neither did the Pursuer ever give back the Disposition The Lords Sustained this Defense and found the receiving and retaining the Disposition in Satisfaction sufficient to exclude the Pursuer It was further alleadged for Patrick Murray of Deuchar that he has Right to the Lands of Deuchar not only by Appryzing but by a voluntar Disposition whereupon he was Infeft before the Pursuers Appryzing and hath been by vertue thereof in peaceable Possession these 16. years and so hath the benefit of a possessory Judgement and a prior more valide Right It was answered that this voluntar Disposition was granted after the Denunciation of the Pursuers Appryzing after which the common Debitor could not prefer any other Creditor by his voluntar Deed and so the Denunciation making the matter litigious any posterior Possession is Vitious and cannot give the benefit of a possessory Judgement neither is the Disposition being after the Denunciation a valide Right but especially it being considered that the Act of Parliament brings in this Pursuer with the other prior Appryzers as if they had been in one Appryzing and several of the other Appryzings are led and Infeftment thereon before the Disposition The Lords Sustained this Defense and found that the Denunciation did not take away the benefite of a posterior possessory Iudgement Lord Dumfreis contra Smart Iuly 18.
Appryzing to be led ten years after his Commission and now having taken Right to the Appryzing himself he cannot therewith Exhaust the price especially against this singular Successor having acquired bona fide after a Decreet of Suspension in foro contradictorio when the Defender had Right to the said third Appryzing and alleadged nothing thereupon The Defender answered that he cannot be Excluded from his Defense by the Decreet of Suspension as being competent and omitted the time of that Decreet because Competent is only Relevant against Decreets in ordinary Actions but neither in Reason nor Custom is the same Relevant against Decreets of Suspension there being this evident difference that in Decreets of Suspension the Reasons must be instantly verified but in ordinary Actions there are Terms assigned for proving Defenses and so it hath ever been practised by the Lords The Pursuer answered albeit it was anciently the Custom to admit Competent and omitted only against Decreets upon ordinary Actions Yet by an Act of Sederunt in Anno 1648. or 1649. the same was extended to Decreets of Suspension and albeit through neglect of the Clerks the Act hath not been Booked The Session being interrupted by the War shortly thereafter ensuing yet it is notorly known and was in practice Anno 1653. when the Decreet was obtained against this Defender whereupon the Appryzing proceeds and that practice was both just and necessar for if Decreets might be Suspended as oft as the Suspender can produce another Writ the most solemn Sentences should be made Insignificant for the ground of Excluding things Competent and omitted is not only that publick Sentences upon compearance are as valid as Transactions which upon no pretence can be Rescinded that Pleas be not perpetual but also because they are omitted dolo animo protrahendi litem which is ever presumed unless another Cause be assigned wherefore they were omitted as noviter veniens ad notitiam which is Sustained even as to Decreets in ordinar Actions and if in no case competent and omitted be allowed in Suspensions we shall have no more Decreets in ordinar Actions but the Defenders will still be absent and will Suspend as oft as they can find different Grounds as if of one Sum one have twenty or thirty several Receipts he will raise as many subsequent Suspensions which will at least serve for as many Sessions and though it should be alleadged quod dolo omisit it would not be Relevant so that if the Suspender can purge his Fraud either as not knowing of the Writ whereon he hath again Suspended or as not then having it presently in his power to instruct it would be sufficient which clears the difference betwixt Decreets of Suspension and other Decreets to operat no further than that in Suspensions the Fraud is purged by showing that the Writ was not ad manum which is not so in ordinar Actions where Terms would have been assigned to get the Writ and albeit the Lords might by modifying great Expences bar the multitudes of Suspensions they could hardly do it justly if of the Law it were no fault and it is known the Lords are neither in use of nor have time for such modifications The Lords superceeded to give answer as to this Point till the Compt proceeded as to the Particulars but the Lords had no respect to the alleadgance upon the Inhibition seing no Decreet followed nor upon the Decreet Arbitral which they found not Equivalent to an Assignation or Precept but the Lords found the Commission contained in the minute not to oblige the Defender as to any Diligence and therefore found that as to that Point he might acquire the third Appryzing which would have excluded him albeit he might have prevented it by Diligence Mr. Robert Swintoun contra Iohn Brown December 18. 1668. MArgaret Adinstoun being Infeft in Liferent in certain Roods of Land near Hadingtoun she and her second Husband grants a Tack to Iohn Brown thereof for certain years and thereafter till he were payed of 400. merks owing to him by the Husband after that Husbands Death she being Married to a third Husband there is a Decreet of Removing purchast at her and that Husbands Instance against Iohn Brown but the Husband did not proceed to obtain Possession by vertue thereof but brevi manu Ejected Brown whereupon Brown obtained a Decreet of Re-possession now the said Margaret Adinstoun having assigned the Decreet of Removing to Mr. Robert Swintown he Charges Iohn Brown to Remove who Suspends on this Reason that he having obtained Decreet of Re-possession after the Decreet of Removing upon the Husbands violence cannot now be Removed without a new Warning The Charger answered that the Decreet of Re-possession bearing to be ay and while this Suspender was legally Removed and that in respect he had been put out Summarly and not by the preceeding Decreet of Removing which having now taken effect he being in Possession the Charger may very well Insist that he may now legally Remove by vertue of the Decreet of Removing The Lords Repelled this Reason in respect of the answer and found no need of a new Warning The Suspender further alleadged that he cannot Remove because he bruiks by vertue of a Tack granted by Margaret Adinstoun and her second Husband The Charger answered First That the Tack being only for four years specially and an obligement not to Remove the Tennent while the four hundred Merks were payed which is not a Tack but a personal obligement which cannot defend the Suspender against Mr. Robert Swintoun the singular Successor 2dly The Tack is null being Subscribed but by one Nottar The Suspender answered that a Right of Liferent not being Transmissible by Infeftment but only by Assignation the Assigney is in no better case nor the Cedent except as to the Probation by the Cedents Oath 3dly The Tack is Ratified judicially by the Wife in the Court of Northberwick which is more nor the concourse of any Nottar 4ly If need beis it 's offered to be proven by the Wifes Oath that the Subscription was truly done by the Nottar at her command The Charger answered that the judicial Ratification cannot supply the other Nottar because the same Nottar who is Nottar in the Tack as also Nottar in the judicial Ratification which is but done in a Baron Court So it is but assertio ejusdem notarij no stronger nor it was neither can it be supplyed by Margaret Adâ—â—stouns Oath de veritate facti because her Oath cannot be received in prejudice of her Assigney and though her self were Charger the Law requiring two Notâ—ars till both Subscribe the Writ is an unsubscribed Writ and in all matters of this nature parties may resile before Subscription The Lords found the Tack valid against the Wife Subscriber thereof and her assigney ay and while the sum thereof were payed but found the Tack was null as being but by one Nottar notwithstanding of the judicial Ratification being by the same Nottar
Decreet of modification and locality and albeit the Minister had Discharged his whole Teind yet as to the superplus which is the Tacksmans part the Discharge was meerly gratuitous and was not upon payment made and the Pursuer was willing to allow what he truely payed the Defender answered that in all Benefices and Tacks use of payment importing a verbal Tack is sufficient per tacitam relocationem till it be interrupted so that if the Minister had granted a Tack in Writ but for one year and the Defender had continued in Possession per tacitam relocationem he was bona fide Possessor fâ—cit fructus consumptos suos even albeit the Minister had no Right so his use of payment for so long a time must work the same effect neither can it be made appear that the Defender or his Predecessors payed more then what they now pay The Lords Sustained the Defense and found the Defender only lyable for use of payment until Citation or Inhibition Mr. George Johnstoun contra Sir Charles Erskin Lord Lyon Eodem die UMquhile Richard Irwing having Died Infeft in the ten Merk Land of Knok-hill his Son had a Son and four Daughters his Son being his appearand Heir and being Addebted a Sum to Mr. Iames Alexander he Charged him to enter Heir in special to Richard his Grand-father and Apprized the Lands from him whereunto Sir Charles Erskin has now Right the said Son being now Dead and never Infeft Mr. George Iohnstoun takes Right from the four Female Grand-children and Serves them Heirs to their Grand-father but before they were Infeft there was an Infeftment or Charge upon the Apprizing at the instance of Mr. Iames Alexander and in a former competition Sir Charles was preferred upon Mr. Iames Alexanders Right as denuding the Male Grand-child appearand Heir for the time in the same manner as if he had been Infeft now Mr. George Iohnstoun upon the Femals Right raises a Declarator to hear and see it found and declared that Mr. Iames Alexanders Apprizing was satisfied and extinct by Intromission before the legal was expired It was alleadged that the Pursuers as Heirs Served and entered to Richard their Grand-father had no interest to Redeem the Apprizing led against Robert their Brother unless they were also entered Heirs to their Brother which Robert if he were alive might Redeem the Apprizing against himself so that the legal Reversion being in his Person cannot belong to his Grand-fathers Heirs but to his own Heirs and as he or his Heirs could only Redeem so can they only declare the Apprizing to be satisfied by Intromission neither can the Reversion belong to two both to the Heirs of Robert who was Charged to enter Heir and to the Heirs of the Grand-father who Died last Infeft It was answered that Robert never having in his Person any real Right as never being Infeft albeit fictione juris the Act of Parliament gives the Creditors like Right upon his disobedience to enter being Charged as if he had entered yet that is a meer passive Title and could give no active Title to Robert or any representing him either to Redeem or to call the Apprizer to an accompt till they were entered Heirs to the person last Infeft for albeit the Creditor Apprizer has a real Right yet the disobedient appearand Heir has none and albeit the Lords might suffer the disobedient appearand Heir or his Heirs to Redeem the Apprizing because the Apprizer had no interest to oppose the same being satisfied much less can the Apprizer now oppose the Pursuers who being Infeft as Heirs to Richard have the real Right of Fee in their Person and consequently the Right of the Reversion of the Apprizing led against Richards appearand Heir which being a minor Right is implyed and included in the Property Which the Lords Sustained and found that the Heirs of the person last Infeft being Infeft might Redeem or declare against an Apprizer who Apprized from an appearand Heir lawfully Charged albeit they were not of that appearand Heir The Creditors of James Masson contra Lord Tarphichan Eodem die SEveral English-men Creditors to Iames Masson who lately broke being Infeft in several Annualrents out of Lands of his pursue Poinding of the Ground compearance is made for the Lord Tarphichan Superior and his Donator to the Liferent Escheet of James Masson who alleadged that James Masson being Ribel year and day before these Infeftments of Annualrent the Ground could not be Adjudged but the profits behoved to belong to the Superior and his Donator It was answered that the Superior or Donator had no Interest by the Rebellion of James Masson because before the Rebellion James Masson was Denuded in favours of his Son and he Received as Vassal so that the Vassal for the time not having fallen in Rebellion the Superior can have no Liferent Escheat The Superior answered that the Creditors of Masson having been once Vassal and as Vassal constituting their Annualrents they could not object upon the Right of his Son unless they had derived Right from his Son 2dly The Superior is also Creditor and hath Reduced the Sons Right as fraudulent in prejudice of him a lawful Creditor It was answered that the Superiors Right as a Creditor upon the Reduction doth not simply annul the Sons Fee neither doth it at all restore the Father again because it being but a Reduction to a special effect viz. that the Creditor may affect the Lands by Apprizing upon his Debt anterior to the Sons Infeftment notwithstanding of his Infeftment the Sons Fee stands but burdened with that Apprizing so that upon neither ground the Superior can have the Right of a Liferent Escheat of him who once was his Vassal but was Denuded before Rebellion and which is most competent to the Pursuers as well as if the Superior had been Denuded and another Superior Infeft if he or his Donator had been pursuing for a Liferent any person Infeft in the Land might well alleadge that he had no Interest as Superior being Denuded The Lords found that in neither case the Superior or Donator could have interest in the Liferent Escheat Mr. John Hay contra the Town of Peebles January 20. 1669. MAster John Hay the Clerk having pursued a Reduction and Improbation against the Town of Peebles of all Right of Ascheils belonging to him in Property containing also a Declarator of Property of the saids Lands of Ascheils and that certain Hills lying towards the Town-lands of Peebles are proper Part and Pertinent of Ascheils He insists in his Reduction and Improbation for Certification or at least that the Defenders would take Terms to produce The Defenders alleadged no Certification because they stand Infeft in these Hills in question per expressum and the Pursuer is not Infeft therein The Pursuer answered that he offered to prove that they were proper Part and Pertinent of the Lands of Ascheils whereof he produces his Infeftment The Defenders answered that till the samine were
Article of the Libel whereby Iohn Bosewel craved Repetition of what he was stented for for Charges of Commissions to the Convention of Burrows upon this Ground that the Convention of Burrows was authorized by Acts of Parliament and Commissioners is ordained to meet yearly thereat which being a burden arising from the Authority of Parliament these who have Tenements in the Town or Lands in the Burghs Lands are lyable pro rata and did again resume the Debate anent the second Ministers Stipend and being heard thereupon in presentia The Lords adhered to their former Interlocutor anent the Teinds and found nothing could make Iohn Bosewel lyable for any part of the second Ministers Stipend except what was due by Law out of his Teinds or what was due by his own consent or by custom of 40. years and found him not lyable for Charges of Commissioners of Burrows which though authorized by Parliament yet the intent thereof was Trading and though the Convention might equalise the proportion of Taxations amongst Burghs which did concern all having Land therein Yet that being a case meerly contingent they would not upon consideration thereof put any part of the burden upon these who had no Trade Iohn Boswel contra Lindsay of Wormistoun February 3. 1669. John Bosewel being appointed Commissar of St. Andrews by the King and before the Restitution of Bishops after their Restitution the Arch-bishop named Lindsay of Wormistoun Commissar and agreed him and Iohn Bosewel on these Terms that Iohn should have the half of the profit of the place whereupon Wormistoun grants a Bond to Iohn Bosewel to Compt and Reckon for the Profits of the half and to pay the same to Iohn Bosewel termly and quarterly and if any question should arise betwixt them in the Accompt that he should submit himself to the Arch-bishops determination and acquiesce therein Iohn Bosewel Charges upon his Bond. Wormistoun Suspends It was alleadged for Wormistoun that his Bond did contain a Submission to the Arch-bishop who is thereby the only Judge Constitute in these Accompts It was answered that this Bond was only Subscribed by Wormistoun himself and a Submission must be Subscribed by both Parties and that it behoved to be understood to last but for a year and not to import a Liferent Submission neither could it be exclusive of the Lords to decline their Authority The Suspender answered that this Submission being a provision in the Bond Charged on Which Bond being accepted by the Charger his acceptance makes his consent to the Submission in the same way as if he had Subscribed the same And there is no Law to exclude a Submission for two years or a Lifetime more then for one and it is not a declining of the Lords Jurisdiction it being most ordinarly sustained no Process because there is a Submission standing The Lords found that there is here a Submission not ending by a year and accepted by the Charger and that thereby the Arch-bishop in the first place ought to give his Sentence which if he refused or if it was iniquous the Lords would cognosce thereupon as in the case of other Arbiters and Assigned therefore to the Arch-bishop the first of Iune to determine thereupon Kilburnie contra Heirs of Tailzie of Kilburnie Eodem die THe Laird and Lady Kiburny did insist in the Declarator against the Heirs of Tailzie Dispute the 20. of Ianuary and according to the Interlocutor then given gave in a condescendence of Kilburnies Debt amounting to fifty one thousand pound and that the Rent of the Land did not exceed thirty six hundred merks It was alleadged that the Annualrents were here accumulate for five years after Kilburnies Death which ought not to be the Lady having Possession of the Lands and ought to have payed the Annualrent and the Clause impowering her to Sell is only for satisfying Kilburnies Debt due the time of his Death which cannot extend to Annualrents due after his Death and that these Annualrents were truly payed by the Lady and so could not come in as a Debt upon the Estate 2dly The Moveable Debts ought to be satisfied by the Executory which must first be Exhausted the Lady her self being Executrix and so cannot burden the Heirs of Tailzie or the Estate for if they had been Distrest they could have craved payment from her quoad vires inventarij so that the principal Sums not extending to 40000. Pounds and the Lands being Bought by Greinock at the Rental of 4000. Merks and 20000. Merks being gotten more for the Lands then the Debt the power of Selling granted to the Lady in the Disposition can never extend to so vast a difference albeit a small difference of the price would not be noticed and lastly it was offered to find a Party who would take a Wodset of the Lands in satisfaction of all the Defuncts Debts so that the Lady cannot in prejudice of the Heirs of Tailzie Sell where Wodsetting may do the turn and the Wodset should contain a Reversion and no Requisition and whereas it might be pretended that the matter was not intire because the Lands were actually Sold to Greinock he offered to Consent and Renunce his Bargain It was answered that this Clause de non alienando being against the nature of Property was odious and not to be extended and the faculty of Selling or affecting being suitable to the nature of Property was favourable and not to be restricted further then the Defuncts own Words and Termes who having given full power to his Daughter to Sell or affect the Lands named for payment of his Debts and not having said to Sell or burden so much of the Land as were equivalent to the Debt neither having said so much of the Debt as exceeded his Moveables or his Moveables being first exhausted it is most rational and to be presumed to be his meaning that as to his Moveables he did not burden her at all and that this part of his Lands he set apart for his Debt for he understood his Debt to be about the value of it otherwise he could have set apart less Land or could have more limited the Faculty 〈◊〉 Disposing but the principal Sums of this Debt being 40000. Pounds and the Rental not being pretended to have been above 4000. Merks the principal would amount to the value of the Land at 15. years Purchase and there being unquestionably a latitude to the Feear to Sell at such a Price as in discretion he thought fit though he had sold at twelve years purchase or not under the lowest Rate of Land neither could the Buyer be quarrelled nor the Seller as incurring the Clause irritant and therefore the Lady having Sold at a far greater Rate then the ordinar Greinock and the Town of Glasgow being both dealling for the Land they to make a Harbour there and he not to suffer them in prejudice of his Town and Harbour in Greinock there is no reason to exclude the Lady from the benefit of her
Tennents neither is the Appryzing equivalent to an Resignation accepted albeit it being an incompleat legal Diligence it may be compleated against the Superior after the Vassals Death yet not so as if the Superior had Received a Resignation from the Appryzer which is the Superiors voluntar Deed but there is nothing upon the Appryzing to force him to give Infeftment to the Appryzer until conform to the Act of Parliament a years Rent of the Appryzed Lands be offered to him and therewith a Charter offered to Subscrive which being done upon his Delay Fault or Contumacy he may be excluded from the subsequent Casualties and cannot thereby be gainer in prejudice of the Appryzer but otherwiâ—e without his Fault he cannot loss the Casualties It was answered for the Appryzer that the Appryzing and Charge did state the Appryzer as Vassal and there was no inconvenience thereupon to Creditors more then if they had been actually Infeft 2dly Our Statute hath provided contrair to the Common Feudal Customs that Superiors must Receive Strangers being Creditors Appryzing for payment of a years Rent so that the Superior can have no more but the years Rent and not the subsequent Waird also and there being mutual Obligations between the Superior and the Appryzer introduced by the Statute viz. that the Superior should Receive the Appryzer and that the Appryzer should pay to the Superior a years Rent as in all mutual Obligations so in these the Delay of the one Party in performance of his Obligation doth stop the Execution and Effect of the other Obligation to him ay and while he perform but quando mora purgatur by performance of the one Party both Obligations are effectual as a principio and therefore albeit the Appryzer had been obliged to pay a years Rent when he were Inâ—eft and did it not the time of the Charge yet now he offers to do it at the Bar unde purgatur mora and the Superior must Receive him in obedience to the Charge which must be drawen back to the Charge and the Lords cannot but find the Leâ—â—ers that is to say the Charge orderly proceeded neither can there be any fault in the Appryzer that he did not then offer a years Duty when he Charged because it was not liquid nor constant what the years Duty was and therefore he was only obliged to do it after the liquidation and modification of the Lords and lastly he having proceeded as all other Appyzers have done by perpetual Custom he was in bona fide to acquiesce It was answered for the Donator that this former ground holds still good that the Casualties of his Superiority cannot be lost to him without his Delay or Fault and the Case is no way here as in mutual Obligations but as in a Conditional Obligation for the Statute obliges the Superior to Receive the Appryzer he paying a years Rent which being per ablativum absolute positum is ever interpret as Condition as if it had said the Superior shall Receive him if he pay a years Rent but by the Statue there is no obligation put upon the Appryzer to pay the years Rent for the payment is in Condition and not in Obligation and the Appryzer may ever forbear to seek the Infeftment and yet will obtain Malls and Duties and so will Possess and exclude the Superior both from the Casualities of his Superiority and his years Rent therefore by the Statute there is only a Conditional Obligation upon the Superior to Receive the Appryzer upon payment of a years Rent now the nature of all Conditional Obligations is that pendente conditione ante purificationem nulla obligatio so that till that time whatever occurs is freely the Superiors And albeit the Lords will now upon offer of a Charter and the years Duty give a Sentence the ordinar Stile whereof is finding the Letters orderly proceeded without putting the Appryzer to a new Charge yet they do not thereby find that at the beginning the Charge was orderly without the offer but that now it becomes orderly by the offer and therefore hath only effect from the offer and not from the Charge and prejudges not the Superior of the Waird falling before the offer 2dly The Superior at the time of the Charge offered obedience upon production of a Charter and a years Duty to the Messenger who Charged him conform to an Instrument produced the Appryzer himself not having Appeared The Appryzer answered that the Superior ought to have drawen up a Charter and Suspended Consigning the Charter in the Clerks Hands in obedience to bâ— given up to the Appryzer after payment of the years Rent conform to the Lords modification and it was not enough to offer obedience to a Messenger or to require a years Rent which is not liquid but by the Lords Sentence and further alleadged that it was lately found that a Liferent Escheat falling after a Charge did not exclude the Appryzer and there can be no Reason but the same should be in a Waird It was answered that no such Practique was produced nor acknowledged and that in a Liferent Escheat the Vassal against whom the Appryzing was led might collude and might let himself go year and day at the Horn of purpose to prejudge the Appryzer but the Waird falling by his Deâ—th there is no suspition of collusion and the Waird is due by the reddendo of the Charter but the Liferent is only due by an extrinsick Law and Custom The Lords found that the Charge did noâ— stâ—â—e the Appryzer as Vassal so that the Waird would have fallen by his Death neither did they consider the inconveniency of the Superior as wanting the Superiorities by both Parties if he were Contumacious aut in culpa But they found that the Superior was not in culpa or in mora until the Appryzer presented to him a Charter upon obedience and offered some Money for his Entry and Caution for what further the Lords should Decern and did not find the Superior obliged to require the Vassal so to do and therefore found the Superior here not in mora aut culpa and found the Waird to belong to him and preferred the Donator and declared they would follow it as a Rule in all time coming Thomas Cowan contra Young and Reid Eodem die ADam Young having Married his Daughter by the first Marriage to Thomas Cowan and given him two thousand Merks of Tocher in satisfaction of all she could claim did by a second Contract of Marriage provide a thousand Merks to the Heirs of that Marriage and all his Conquest during the Marriage after which Contract he gave a Bond of 400. Pound to his Daughter of the first Marriage bearing to be payed in parcels as he was able and after the Bond he Disponed his Goods and Gear to his Daughter of the second Marriage Now the Daughter of the first Marriage pursues the Daughter of the second Marriage to pay the Bond as she who Intrometted with the Defuncts Goods
extended the same only to anterior Creditors without mention of posterior Creditors the same might be thought to be of purpose omitted and cannot be extended by the Lords The Lords found the matter of fact and circumstances alleadged Relevant to infer a presumptive fraud and contrivance betwixt the Father and the Son which did insnare the Creditors who continued to Trade and therefore Reduced the same as to the Creditors and preferred them and the Relict in so far as she was a Creditor but not for any posterior or gratuitous Provision to her or to her Children but they did not find the two first grounds Relevant to prefer a posterior onerous obligation to a prior gratuitous or that this Bond was as a â—egitâ—ime Revockable and the Lords were chiefly moved because of the inconvenience to Creditors acting bona fide with a person Trading and repute in a good Condition And where in eventu his Estate is not sufficient both to pay his Creditors and this Bond for if it had been sufficient for both they would have come in paâ—â— passu having both done Diligence within the year Iohn Brown contra Robert Sibbald Eodem die IOhn Brown having taken a Feu of some Aikers of Land at a great Rent in Victual and Money pursue Robert Sibbald now his Superior to hear and see it found and declared that he might Renunce and be free of the Feu Duty The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because this Feu was by a mutual Conâ—ract by which the Vassal had bound him and his Heirs to pay the Feu Duty yearly and which obligation he could not louse at his pleasure for albeit Feues which are proper and gratuirously given without any obligement on the Vassals part but given by a Charter or Disposition as being presumed to be in favorem of the Vassal he might Renunce the same nam cuivis licet favori pro se introducto renunciare but here the Vassal being expresly obliged for the Feu Duty cannot take off his own obligation this case being like unto that of a Tack which being by mutual Contract cannot be Renunced though by a Tack only granted and Subscribed by the Setter it may The Pursuer answered that he opponed the common opinion of all Feudists de feudo refutando wherein there is no exception whether the Feudal Contract be Subscrived by both Parties for every Contract must necessarly import the Consent of both Parties and the acceptance of a Vassal to a Feu by way of Dispoâ—ition is all one with his express obligation in a mutual Contract 2dly Though such a Contract could not be Renunced yet this Pursuer may Renunce because by a Back-bond by the Superior who granted the Feu under his Hand he has liberty to Renunce when he pleaâ—es The Defender answered that this Back-bond not being in corpore juris nor any part of the Investiture it was only personal against that Superior who granted the same but not against the Defender who is a singular Successor It was answered that the mutual Contract not being de natura feudi but at most importing an obligement not to Renunce the Feu any personal Deed before this Superiors Right under the Hand of his Author is Relevant against him as well as his Author The Lords found the alleadgeances upon the Back-bond Relevant against the Supeâ—â—or though singular Successor it being granted of the same Date with the Feudal Contract and relating to a matter extrinsick to the nature of the Feu and so suffered the Pursuer to Renunce the same Gilbert Mcclellan contra Lady Kirkcudbright February 13. 1669. GIlbert Mcclellan being Infeft by the Lord Kirkcudbright in an Annualrent effeirand to four thousand Merks out of the Lands of Auchinâ—lour thereafter my Lady was Infeft in Property or an Annualrent out of the Lands at her pleasure for her Liferent use and after my Ladies Infeftment my Lord gave a Corroborative Security of the Property of Auchinflour and stated the four thousand Merks of principal and the two thousand and five hundreth Merks of Annualrent in one principal and Infeft him thereupon in Property wherein Gilbert was many years in Possession before my Lords Death In the Competition betwixt my Lady and him he craved preference because he was seven years in Possession 2dlie Because his first Right of Annualrent still stands and was Corroborat and therefore as he would undoubtedly have been preferred to my Lady for all his Annualrents for the sum of four thousand merks by his first Infeftment which is prior to my Ladies and as an appryzing by poinding of the Ground for these annualrents though posterior to my Ladies Infeftment would be drawen back ad suam causam to his Infeftment of annualrent and be preferred so my Lord having voluntarly granted-this Corroborative Security to prevent an appryzing it should work the same effect as if an appryzing had been then led and an Infeftment thereupon which would have accumulat the annualrents then past and made them bear annualrent in the same manner as this Corroborative security does The Lords preferred Gilbert for the whole annualrents of his four thousand Merks conform to his first Infeftment but would not Sustain the Corroborative Security being posterior to my Ladies Infeftment as if it had been upon an appryzing to give him annualrent for 2500. merks then accumulate but found no moment in his alleadgance of the Possessory Judgement unless it had been seven years after my Lords death when my Lady might have preferred her Right and not contra non valentem agere The Creditors of Balmerino and Couper contra my Lady Couper Februarie 16. 1669. THe Deceased Lord Cowper having Disponed his Estate to his Lady some of his Creditors and some of Balmerino's Creditors who was his Heir appearand did raise Reduction of the said Disposition as done on Death-bed and before the day of Compearance they give in a Supplication desiring Witnesses to be Examined and to remain in retentis that Cowper had Contracted his Disease whereof he died before the Subscribing of this Disposition and that he never went out thereafter but once to the Kirk and Mercat of Cowper which times he was supported and fell down Dead a Swoon before he was gotten home It was answered for the Lady Cowper First That Witnesses ought not to be Examined until the Relevancy of the Libel were Discust unless they were old or Valetudinary or penury of Witnesses whereas there are here fourty Witnesses ctaved to be Examined and the coming to Kirk and Mercat being publick Deeds there would be no hazard of wanting Witnesses 2dly The Creditors or appearand Heir have no interest unless the Heir were Entered or they had appryzed or had a real Right neither can the Creditors be prejudged by the Disposition as being on Death-bed because they may Reduce the same as being posterior to their Debts upon the Act of Parliament 1621. and the reason of Death-bed is only competent to Heirs and to these having real Rights from
the Heir and not to their personal Creditors The Lords ordained the Witnesses to be Examined to remain in retentis concerning my Lord Cowpers condition the time of Subscribing the Disposition and of his coming abroad and allowed my Lady also Witnesses if she pleased for proving what his condition was at these times reserving all the Defenses and Alleadgances of either Party in the Cause for they found that the Creditors of Balmerino as appearand Heir had interest to Declare that their Debts might by legal Diligences affect the Estate of Cowper unprejudged by this Disposition as being made by Cowper on Death-bed and that the Reduction in so far as might contain such a Declarator would be Sustained for no Party can be hindered to Declare any point of Right competent to them and it was also thought that though there were many Witnesses called to find out who truely knew the Defuncts condition yet there might be few who truly knew the same and these might be removed out of the way either by Death or by Collusion Alexander Hamiltoun contra Harper Eodem die UMquhil Iohn Hamiltoun Apothecarie having purchased a Tenement in Edinburgh to himself in Liferent and his Son Alexander in Fee thereafter he borrowed 1000. merks from Thomas Harper and gave him a Tack of a Shop in the Tenement for the Annualrent of the Money After his Death Alexander his Son used a Warning by Chalking of the Doors by an Officer in the ordinary Form and he being Removed Alexander pursues now for the Mails and Duties of the Shop from his Fathers Death till the Defenders Removal who alleadged Absolviture because he bruiked the Tenement by vertue of his Tack bona fide possessor facit fructus perceptos suos It was answered that the Tack being but granted by a Liferenter could not Defend after the Liferenters Death and could not be so much as a colourable Title of his Possession 2dly That he could not pretend bona fidesâ— because he was Interrupted by the Warning It was answered by the Defender that the Tack was not set to him by Iohn Hamiltoun as Liferenter nor did he know but he was Feear being commonly so repute neither could the Warning put him in mala fideâ— because there was no Intimation made thereof to him either Personally or at his Dwelling-house but only a Chalking of the Shop-door The Lords Sustained the Defense and Duply and found him free of any Mails or Duties till Intimation or Citation upon the Pursuers Right here the Pursuer did not alleadge that the Warning by Chalking of the Shop-door came to the Defenders knowledge as done by the Pursue Sarah Cockburn and Mr. Patrick Gillespie contra Iohn Stewart and the Tennents of Lintone February 18. 1669. SArah Cockbâ—rn being Infeft in Liferent in an Annualrent of 1200. merks yearly out of the Barony of Lintone She and Mr. Patrick Gillespie her Husband insisting for her Annualrent in Anno 1657. obtained payment from Iohn Stewart and gave him a power to uplift the same from the Tennents and delivered to him the Letters of Poinding to be put in Execution Thereafter Mr. Patrick obtained a second Decreet against some Wodsetters whose Rights were posterior to the Annualrent for the years 1658 1659 and 1660. and upon payment of these three years did acknowledge payment made of the saids three years Annualrent and all bygones whereunto he had Right Mr. Patrick having granted Iohn Stewart a Bond to warrand him anent the year 1657. and that he had given no Discharges that might exclude him The Tennents of Lintoun Suspends the Charge for the year 1657. upon that Reason that Mr. Patrick had Discharged the Annualrent for the years 1658 1659 1660. and all preceeding whereunto he had right Whereupon Iohn Stewart Charged M. Patrick upon his Bond of Warrandice who Suspended upon this Reason that the Discharge could not exclude John Stewart albeit it bare all preceedings to which he had Right because when he granted the Discharge he had no right to the year 1657. which he had received from John Stewart and given him Warrand and his Letters to Poind for Mr. Johns Stewarts own use It was answered that unless that Order had been intimat the Right remained with Mr. Patrick and so his general Discharge extended thereto It was answered that albeit Intimation was necessar as to establish the Right in the Assigneys Person yet Mr. Patricks Warrand was sufficient to exclude him at least the matter of his Right being thereby dubious the general Discharge cannot be effectual against him if by the Oaths of the Wodsetters that got the Discharge it appeared that they paid him not the year 1657. and some of their Oaths being taken he who paid the Mony for himself and the rest Dâ—poned that the year 1657. was not paid and that there was no Decreet against the Wodsetters for 1657. but only against the Moveable Tennents to whom the Discharge containing the said general Clause was not granted The Lords found that in respect of the Oath the general Discharge extended not to the year 1657. and therefore Suspended the Letters against the said Mr. Patrick upon his Bond of Warrandice and found the Letters orderly proceeded at Iohn Stewarts Instance against the moveable Tennents of Lintoun for the year 1657. The Tennents further alleadged that since the year 1660. they did produce three Consecutive Discharges from Mr. Patrick which imports a Liberation of all years preceeding specially seing Mr. Patrick was never denuded of the year 1657. nor no Intimation made It was answered that such a Liberation is but presumptive presumptione juris and admits contrary Probation and is sufficiently taken away by the Oath of the Party acknowledging that year unpaidâ— and the Warrand given to Iohn Stewart to lift it for his own use before these Discharges The Lords Repelled also this Defense upon the three Discharges in respect of the Reply Trinch contra Watson Eodem die John Watson being Curator to Margaret Trinch and having Contracted her in Marriage with his own Sister Son there is a Disposition granted by her to the said Iohn Watson of all her Means and in the Contract he Contracts with her 1000. pounds whereunto the Heirs of the Marriage are to succeed and failing these to return to the said Iohn himself she died before the Marriage and David Trinch Stationer being Served Heir to her raises Reduction of the Disposition and Substitution in the Contract of Marriage upon two Reasons First That albeit the Disposition contain Sums of Money yet being of the same date with the Contract of Marriage in which Iohn Watson Contracts 1000. pound with the said Margaret Trinch which unquestionably has been all that has been gotten for the Disposition the said Disposition is a part of the Agreement in relation to the Marriage and must be understood as granted in Contemplation of the Marriage as if it had been Contracted in the Contract of Marriage so that the Marriage not having
Lord Argile not to insist against the Vassals who had been Loyal It was answered for the Earl that he had given no just grounds to his Vassals to expect that though they were in his power that he would destroy them and annul their Rights and seing His Majesty had fully and absolutely entrusted them to him they ought to have rested upon His Kindness and Generosity and not to have made all this Clamour where they have no Legal Defense it being no strange nor new thing for the King to give Gifts of Forefaulture without any Reservation of Vassals who had no Confirmation from the King yea many times without any Reservation of the Forefault Persons Debt and His Majesty has lately so done to the Marquess of Huntly to whom he gave the Estate of Huntly without Reservation either to Vassals or Creditors and that upon the Forfaulture of the Marquess of Argile who had Right to and was in Possession of the Estate of Huntly for vast sums of Mony and the Earl of Argile has the Gift of the remainder of his Fathers Estate with the burden of more Debt then the proper Debt of the House of Argile would have been over and above the Debts undertaken for the House of Huntly 2dly Whatever the Vassals might plead in Point of Favour yet they do not pretend to a Defense in Law And the Lords being Judges of the Law ought not to stop the Course thereof upon the Insinuations of any Party otherwayes they may deny the Course of Law to any of the Leidges when they please upon the account that they think the Law hard or rigorous or the Kings grants made conform thereto and whatsoever the Lords might do in the dubious Interpretation of a Treaty of Peace to know the Kings meaning yet in claris â—on est locus conjecturis nothing can be clearer then the Kings meaning under His Great Seal and all the Defenders can pretend is Favour which is no Point of Right nor legal Defense The Lords granted Certification eâ—nâ—ra non producta conditionally that what the Vassals should produce betwixt and the tenth of November should be received and left it to the Vassals in the mean time if they thought fit to make Address to the King that he might interpose with the Earl in their Favours or to Debate any thing they thought fit when the Earl insisted for Reduction of their Rights for want of Confirmations or for Mails and Duties Agnew contra Tennents of Dronlaw Eodem die AGnem having Appryzed the Lands of Dronlaw from Mr. Robert Hay Advocat as Cautioner for the Earl of Buchan to the behove of the Earl of Kinghorn pursues the Tennents for Removing who alleadged Absolviture because the Tennents were Tennents by payment of Mail and Duty to the Liferenter Mr. Robert Hayes Mother and she is not warned nor called The Pursuer answered that the Liferenter dyed before the Term and that he was content that the Tennents should be Decerned to Remove but at the next Term of Whitsonday Yet the Lords Sustained the Defense seing the Liferenter was living the time of the Warning Farquhar contra Magistrâ—tes of Elgin Iuly 2. 1669. FArquhar having caused a Messenger Charge the Magistrates of Elgin to take my Lord Lovat and the Baillies being together upon the Street about eight or nine a Clock in the Morning the Messenger with several other Persons present Charged them to go into an House near by which they designed to them and to take Lovat being then in Bed and the Messenger offered to go with them and enter first yet the Bailies did not obey but said they would go at their conveniency when they had conveened their Neighbours to assist there is an Execution and Instrument upon the back of the Caption to the effect foresaid produced whereupon Farquhar pursues the Magistrates for Payment of the Debt contained in the Caption The Defenders alleadged Absolviture First Because they were no further obliged but to conveen the Neighbours of the Town and send them with the Messenger to assist which they offered to do 2dly Albeit themselves were obliged to take the Rebel if he were showen to them within their Jurisdiction yet they were not obliged to search every House of the Town for him or to enter within closle Doors 3dly The Lord Lovat being known to be a fierce young Man who ordinarly had a Minzie attending him they were not obliged to adventure upon him without calling the assistance of their Neighbours which they did within an hour or two thereafter and he was gone The Lords Repelled all these Defenses in respect of the Execution and instrument produced and found the Magistrats being Charged obliged to take the Rebel and without delay to search any House within the Town that was particularly shown to them unless they had been Repulsed by Force or the Doors by Violence keeped closse against them by the Master of the House and ordained the Pursuers to adduce the Witnesses in the Instrument and others to prove the particulars foresaid to have been so done as is therein exprest Bow contra Campbel Eodem die BOw Stabler in Edinburgh as Assigney to a Sum of Money due by Glenurchy and also as Donotar to the Escheat of his Cedent being called in a double Poinding and competing the Donator alleadged he ought to be preferred to the Arrefter because the Debt in question falling in his Cedents Escheat he had taken the Gift of the Escheat bearing expresly all Goods the Rebel had or should acquire and this Debt being acquired after the Gift did accresce to him the Rebel not being yet Relaxed It was answered that though the stile of the Gift bear all Goods to be acquired yet that is always interpret such as happen to be acquired within year and day after the Horning It was answered for the Donatar that he oppones the Tenor of his Gift and if any limitation could be thereof it could only be of Sums to be acquired within a year after the Gift and not within a year after the Horning because sometimes Gifts are not taken within a year of the Horning The Lords found the Gift to extend to the Sum in question being acquired by the Rebel within a year after the Gift and that the general Clause of Goods to be acquired did extend no further then to Goods acquired within a year after the Gift Laird of Grubbet contra More Eodem die THe Barony of Lintoun belonging to Sir Iohn Ker of Litledean the Lands of Morbatle and Otterburn are parts thereof there is a piece of Land called Greenlaw lying in the borders of Morbatle and Otterburn and there is an Heretable Right of the Lands of Otterburn granted by Sir Iohn Ker to one Young and by that Young a subaltern Right to another Young bearing the Lands of Greenlaw per expressum both these Young's joyntly Dispone to Grubbet the Lands of Otterburn with the Pertinents comprehending the Lands of Raschbogs in
whom he had entrusted them had carried them away but there being produced in the Process attested doubles of the former Dispositions under the hands of Nottars The Pursuer craved that seing the Witnesses alleadged insert might die and the Captain of purpose keeped up the Principals that the Witnesses might be Examined upon what they know of the Truth or Forgery of the saids Dispositions Which the Lords granted the Fame and suspition of the Forgery being so great though ordinarly they do not Examine Witnesses upon the Forgery of a Writ till the principal be produced that the Witnesses may see their Subscriptions whereupon Steel one of the Witnesses compeared and Deponed acknowledging the Forgery and the way of contrivance of it in which the Captain made use of him whereupon the Lords proceeded to Examine the Tutor who stifly stood to the verity of the Dispositions as being truly Subscribed by him but differed in the Date and in the persons who were Witnesses to the Subscription The Captains Son in law being also Examined whether or not the Captain had employed him to corrupt the Witnesses and if he had written any Letter to him to that purpose produced a Letter mentioning some things by word which he should diligently go about and being asked who the Bearer was Deponed that he was Robert Ogilvy the Tutors Servant who being in the House and presently called to the Bar upon Oath being interrogat whether he had brought North any Letter from the Captain to his Good-son Deponed that he had brought no Letter from him to his Good-son or any other and thereafter the Letter being showen him and confronted with the Captains Good-son he Deponed that he did bring that Paper and delivered it to the Captains Wife but he thought it was an order not being Sealed and being interrogat whether he had any Message in word from the Captain to his Good-son Deponed he had none and upon reading of the Letter bearing the contrair and confronting with the Captains Good-son he acknowledged that he had order to cause his Good-son bring over the Witnesses to Edinburgh and the Captains Good-son further acknowledged that Ogilvy had desired him to deall with the Witnesses to stand to the Truth of the Writs he stifly denyed that point The Lords having considered his grosse Prevarication and contradictory Oath ordained him to be put in the Irons and the next day to stand in the Pillary betwixt ten and twelve and a Paper on his Brow to declare the Cause and did declare him infamous and appointed him to continue in Prison till further Order Mr. William Kintor contra the Heirs and Successors of Logan of Coat-field Iuly 9. 1669. LOgan of Coat-field having become Cautioner for the Tutor of Burncastle an Inhibition used upon the act of Caution Mr. William Kintor having Right by Progress from Burncastle obtained Decreet against the Representatives of the Tutor and of Coat-field the Cautioner for payment of the Annualrent of 10000 pounds due to the Pupil by the Marquess of Hamiltoun and the like Sum due by the Earl of Bucclengh in respect that the Tutor was obliged to have uplifted these Annualrents and to have employed them for Annualrent and thereupon pursues a Reduction of the Rights granted by the Tutors Cautioner as being granted after the Cautioner was Inhibited these Acquirers raise a Reduction of Mr. Williams Decreet and repeat the Reasons by way of Defense alleadging that the Tutor nor his Cautioner were not obliged for the Annualrents due by the Marquess of Hamiltoun and Earl of Buccleugh because they were in responsal Hands and the Pupil had no Damnage for it was free for the Tutor to uplift the Annualrents of Pupils Money when secure at any time during the Pupillarity but here they offer to prove the Tutor Died durante tutela and so was not lyable when he Died to uplift these secure Annualrents or to have employed them The Pursuer answered that the Lords had already found at the same Pursuers Instance against Iohn Boyd that the Tutor was lyable for Annualrent not only pro intromissis but pro omissis and for the Annualrent of the Pupils Annuals a finita tutela which is finished either by ending the Pupillarity or the Death or Removal of the Tutor It was answered that the Lords Interlocutor was only in the case that the Tutory had been finished in the ordinar way by the Age of the Pupil for that way of ending thereof could only been foreknowen by the Tutor that within the same he might lift the Pupils Annuals and give them out on Annualrent but he could not foresee his own Death but might justly think he had time before the expiring of his Tutory to lift and employ and so the Tutor not having failed in his Duty his Cautioner is free It was answered First That by the Lords dayly Practique Tutors are lyable for the Annualrents of Rents of and within a year after the Rents are due and there being so much parity of Reason in Annualrents it cannot be thought just that the Tutor was not obliged to lift them till the end of his Tutory for albeit he might have keeped them in his Hands unemployed and only to leave them employed at the ish of his Tutory yet he was obliged to uplift them and if by any accident as being preveened by Death he did not employ them that accident should be on his peril not the innocent Pupils 2dly If need beis the Pursuer offers to prove the Annualrents were uplifted by the Tutor and so these that Represent him and his Cautioners are lyable for Annualrent therefore at least from the Death of the Tutor The Lords found that the Tutor was neither obliged to lift nor give out on Annual the Annualrents of his Pupil if the Debitors were Responsal but only once betwixt and the end of the Pupillarity and if he Died betwixt and the end of the Tutory he was free both of the Annual and Annualrents thereof but if he did actually uplift the Annalrents they found that it was sufficient to employ them any time before the Tutory ended and found that his Heir was lyable for Annualrent not from the Tutors Death but from the end of the Pupillarity and that he could be no further lyable then the Tutor if he had lived in respect that subsequent Tutors were obliged to lift these Annualrents from the former Tutors Heirs and employ them This was stoped to be further heard Garner contra Colvin Iuly 10. 1669. JAmes Colvin having Apprized the Lands of Lady-kirk and some Tenements in Air and being Infeft therein Garners Wife and Bairns raise a Reduction and alleadge that the Apprizers Right is null as to the Tenements in Air because Iohn Garner had never Right thereto but the Right was Originally granted to young Iohn Garner the Pursuer by his Mother Brother The Defender answered that the said Right must be affected with his Apprizing as if it had been in the Fathers Person because
but a verbal Promise not in Writ it can be no more effectual than if it had been a verbal Tack which is only effectual for a year and thereafter the Setter may resile It was answered that here there is a Tack by the Husband for several years and the Wifes promise never to quarrel it needs no Solemnity in Writ but is valid as pactum de non petendo or de non repugnando The Lords found the Wifes Promise effectual and that she might not resile during the years of the Tack Lady Lucia Hamiltoun contra The Lands of Dunlap and Pitcon and the Creditors of Hay of Montcastle Ianuary 15. 1670. LAdy Lucia Hamiltoun being assigned to a Bond of 4400. merks grantted by George Hay of Montcastle to the Earl of Abercorn she Inhibits the said George and Denunces and Apprizes his Lands of Birklands and others and thereupon pursues Reduction against Dunlap and Pitcon and certain other Creditors in favours of whom there is a Disposition granted of the saids Lands by George Hay and insâ—sts on this Reason that albeit the Disposition bear to be for sums of Money and Causes onerous yet by a Clause therein it is expresly declared that it is granted to Dunlap and Pitcon for satisfying of the Debts due to them and to the effect they may sell the Lands for payment and satisfaction of the said Iohn Hay his other Creditors under-written for the sums after-specified after which words there was left a large blank which by ocular inspection is now filled up with another hand than he who Wrote the Body of the Disposition and which Article so filled up is in the same case as if it had been set upon the Margent and subscribed or as if it had been in a several Writ wanting Witnesses and cannot be holden to be of the same date of the Disposition but must be presumed to have been filled up after the Pursuers Inhibition and after she had Denunced and Apprized the Lands and therefore as to these Creditors so filled up their Rights which are granted by Dunlap and Pitâ—on the intrusted Persons long after the Pursuers Inhibition and Appryzing the same ought to be Reduced It was alleadged for the Creditors Defenders that the reason as it is qualified is no ways Relevant against them First Because the Disposition granted to Dunlap and Pitcon being of the whole Lands and they Infest accordingly being long before the Pursuers Inhibition and Appryzing and the said Disposition and Infeftment being to the Creditors behove albeit their Subaltern Rights from Dunlap and Pitcon be posterior nihil referi And whereas it is alleadged that their Names and Sums are filled up in the blank after the Inhibition and Appryzing with another hand and so must be presumed of another date It is answered that the Subscription at the Foot and Body of a Writ did necessarly infer that the whole blanks were then filled up unless the contrary be proven neither uses the Names of fillers up of blanks to be exprest and it cannot be presumed that any man in prudence would subscribe a blank Writ till the blanks were first filled up 2dly Though it could be proven that the blank was filled up after the Inhibition yet the general Terms of the Clause being insert a principio with the same hand viz. for satisfaction of the said George his Creditors it is sufficient although the particulars were insert after 3dly It is offered to be proven if need beis by the Oaths of Dunlap Pitcon and the Witnesses insert that before the subscribing of this Disposition thir Creditors filled up were particularly commâ—ned on to be filled up and no other The Pursuer answered that there being here pregnant Evidences of Fraud by interposing intrusted persons and preferring of some Creditors to others by the Debitor who was Insolvent and had no more Estate in that case the filling up of the blanks must be presumed fraudulent and posterior unless the Creditors prove it was trulyâ— filled up before the Inhibition otherwise it opens a Door to all Insolvent Persons in this manner to exclude any of their Creditors from payment and to have such Clauses ambulatory at their pleasure Neither doth the general part of the Clause suffice unless it had been in favours of the Disponers Creditors generally or indefinitly which would have comprehended the Pursuer but it being only of the Creditors under-written if these were not under-written till after the Inhibition they have no place And as for any verbal Communing or Agreement it cannot be effectual until it be redacted into Write which was not till after the Inhibition The Lords found that the blank being filled up with another hand and so substantial a Clause and the Writer not being exprest at the foot that it was to be presumed to be posterior to the Inhibition unless the Creditors prove by the Witnesses insert or others above exception that it was truly insert before the Inhibition and Apprizing wherein they would not admit the Oaths of the Persons intrusted and they had no respect to the alleadgeance that it was Communed and Agreed upon before the Subscription Doctor Balfour and his Spouse contra Mr. William Wood. Ianuary 18. 1670. UMquhil Mr. Iames Wood having been Tutor to his Wifes Daughter she being now Married to Doctor Balfour they pursue Mr. William Wood as Representing his Father for a Tutor accompt in which Accompt the Auditors reported these Points 1. The Pursuer insisted for the whole sums bearing Annualrent whereof no part belongs to the Wife as Relict she being excluded by the Act of Parliament The Defender answered that he opponed the Testament and Confirmation unreduced whereby there is a Tripartite Division of the whole Sums and the Relict has one Third which belonged to the Defunct Tutor her Husband jure mariti The Lords Repelled this alleadgeance and found that the Errour of the Confirmation was Corrigible without Reduction 2. The Defender alleadged that he was not comptable for the Annualrent of one of the Sums acclaimed because by the Bond it was provided in Liferent to the Relict whereto his Father had right jure mariti It was answered that the Tutor had given several Discharges of that Annualrent as Tutor and not as Husband and so had Homologat and acknowledged the Pupils right to the Annualrent It was answered that the Discharge was so granted by errour and mistake falsa designatio non obest ubi constat dere and offered to prove by the Bond that the Wife was Liferenter Which the Lords found Relevant Andrew Hadden contra Nicol Campbel Ianuary 25. 1670. ANdrew Hadden having Charged Nicol Campbel upon a Bond Subscribed by him as Cautioner for Samuel Meikle Gold-smith Nicol Campbel Suspends and raises Reduction on this Ground that he being an illiterate man and could not subscribe he was induced to be Cautioner for Samuel Meikle but on these express Terms that he should only be Cautioner for 1200. merks and accordingly he gave order
for Debt due to him by Cheisly and he being nowayes particeps fraudis Cheislies Fraud or Circumvention cannot prejudge him for albeit Extortion vi majori be vitium reale that follows the Right to all singular Successors yet fraud is not and reaches none but participes fraudis both by the Act of Parliament 1621. and by the civil Law L. It was answered for Scot that albeit it be true that an Assigney for an Oâ—erous Cause cannot be prejudged by the Oath of his Cedent and consequently by no Circumvention probable by his Oath yet in Personal Rights an Assigney is in no better case then the Cedent nisi quoad modum probandi but what is relevant against the Cedent and competent to be proven either by Writ or Witnesses is competent against the Assigney so that the Circumvention against Cheisly being inferred by pregnant Evidences and Witnesses and not by his Oath it must be effectual against Thomson whose Name being filled up by Cheisly is in effect Cheislies Assigney for so all blank Bonds are commonly found by the Lords to have the same effect with an Assignation 2dly Assignies without an Onerous Cause even as to the Oath of the Cedent or any other consideration are in no better case nor the Cedent but here there is no Onerous Cause appears for which Cheisly transmits this Right to Thomson for the Bond â—ears not that for Sums of Money due by Cheisly to Thomson or any other Cause Onerous on Thomsons part that Scot should be obliged at Cheislies desire to pay Thomson but only that because Cheisly had Assigned a Process to Scot therefore Scot becomes obliged to pay to Thomson 3dly As there is no Cause Onerous instructed on Thomsons part so his own Oath de calumnia being taken renders the matter most suspitious by which he acknowledges he got the Bond from Cheisly and that Cheisly was not then his Debitor for so great a Sum as in the Bond but that by payments made to him and for him thereafter he became his Debitor in an equivalent Sum but Depones that he hath nothing to instruct the Debt nor no Note thereof in his Compt Book though he be an exact Merchant and Factor so that there is no Evidence or Adminicle of an Onerous Cause instructed And lastly Albeit Parties getting blank Bonds bearing borrowed Money from the blank Person whosoevers Name is filled up the Bond then bears the Sums borrowed from him whose Name is filled up and cannot be taken away but by his Writ or his Oath but this Bond bears only a Process Assigned by Cheisly and no borrowed Money or other Cause by Thomson and Thomson living in the same Town with Scot whom he knew and is commonly known to be a simple Person and Cheisly a subdolous he ought before accepting of the Bond to have acquainted Scot of the filling up of his Name and if he had any thing to say and cannot now pretend that he acted bona fide but either must be in dolo or in lata culpa quae dolo aequiparatur The Lords found that having considered the Tenor of the Bond and Thomsons Oath Thomson was in the same condition as to the relevancy and probation of the Reasons of Circumvention against Cheisly and therefore found the Libel Relevant against them both to annul the Bond the Apprizings and Infeftment and all that had followed thereupon Naper contra Gordon of Grange Feb. 12. 1670. IOhn Naper as Representing his Father did Pursue William Gordon of Grange as Representing Hugh his Father for payment of 2000. Merks due by the said Umquhile Hugh his Bond and upon the said Williams Renuncing to be Heir obtaind Adjudication of the Lands of Grange and others in so far as might belong to the said Umquhile Hugh his Debitor his Heirs and thereupon did Pursue the Tennents for Mails and Duties In which Action it was alleadged for William Gordon now of Grange that he stands Infeft by Disposition from the said Umquhile Hugh Gordon of Grange his Father for Onerous Causes and Sums of Money undertaken and payed for his Father which was found Relevant and to evite the same the said Iohn Naper raised Reduction of Grange's Right granted by his Father ex capite Inhibitionis raised against his Father upon the said Bond before the Disposition made to this Grange which Inhibition being produced this day fourtnight it was alleadged for Grange that the samine was null because the Executions buir not a Copy to have been lest at the Mercat Cross at the publication of the Inhibition which the Lords found Relevant and now the Pursuer insisted on this Reason that the Disposition though it buir Onerous Causes yet being after the Contracting of his Debt by a Father to a Son the Narrative bearing the Cause thereof is not Probative against a third Party but the same must yet be instructed Which the Lords Sustained and ordained Grange to produce the Instructions thereof William Lowry contra Sir Iohn Drummond Feb. 18. 1670. UMquhile Sir Robert Drummond of Meidup having Disponed the Lands of Scotstoun to Sir Iohn Drummond of Burnbank Mr. Iohn Drummond Writer in Edinburgh his Grand Nevoy intending to Reduce that Disposition as on Death-bed grants a Bond to William Lowry of 12000. Merks who thereupon having Charged the said Mr. Iohn to enter Heir in special to the Lands of Scotstoun to the said Sir Robert his Grand Uncle Apprizes from him all the Right of the Lands that might be competent to him if he were entered Heir and thereupon raises Reduction of Sir Iohn his Right as being granted by Sir Robert on Death-bed in prejudice of his nearest Heirs in whose place the Pursuer now is by the Apprizing It was alleadged for the Defender no Process upon any Charge to enter Heir against Mr. Iohn Drummond because he is not the nearest appearand Heir but has an elder Brother living The Pursuer answered that the said elder Brother had gone out of the Countrey 18. years agoe and was commonly holden and repute Dead likeas he produced a Missive of one Creiâ—htoun his Commerad in the War abroad bearing the Circumstances of his Sickness Death and Burial Dated Iuly 6. 1667. It was answered that semel vivus semper presumitur vivus nisâ— contrarium probetur and what was alleadged could be no probation but some probabilities of Death The Pursuer answered that the brokard is but presumptio juris and not presumptio juris de jure and therefore only transâ—ert onus probandi which Probation may be valid without Witnesses by such adminicles as the Lords shall find sufficient which are here sufficiently alleadged viz. long Absence common Fame and a Missive Letter The Lords found that eighteen years Absence and being holden and repute Dead was sufficient Probation to take off the presumption of Life unless a stronger Probation for the Parties being on Life were showen then the naked presumption thereof Lauchlen Lesly contra Guthry Feb. 19. 1670. LAuchlen
Artrachy and others proceeding from Con in favours of Iohn Stuart Advocat William Neilson Mr. Iohn Alexander and Marjory Iameson his Relick or Andrew Alexander Brother to Mr. Iohn wherein there was produced an Apprizing against Con at the instance of George Stuartâ— Likewise a Liferent-seising of Helen Kinaird Relick of Con with a Liferent-tack to her of the Lands contained in the Seising and also of other Lands and another Tack of two nineteen years of the same Lands There is also produced a Disposition of the Apprized Lands by George Stuart to William Neilson and because William Neilson failzied in payment of four thousand Merks of the price George Apprized the Lands again from William Neilson and upon all these Rights there is publick Infeftments there is also a second Apprizing at the instance of Andrew Alexander long after George Stuarts Apprizing from Neilson but no Infeftment thereon and there is produced a Disposition by George Stuart as returning to the Right by the second Apprizing made to Mr. Iohn Alexander Advocat and by him to Marjory Iameson his Spouse and publick Infeftments on these and there is a Decreet of Cerification Extracted contra non producta And now the Doctor insists on this Reason of Reduction that George Stuarts first Apprizing against Con the common Debitor was satisâ—ied by Intromission within the Legal and so is extinct and all the subsequent Rights depending thereon fall therewith in consequence It was alleadged for the Defenders that George Stuart having in his Person the Apprizing and finding Helen Kinaird Cons Relick in Possession of a great part of the Lands by Liferent infeftment and a Liferent and two ninteen years Tacks which would have excluded him he purchased Right and Assignation thereto from the Relick and continued her Possession thereby and did ascrive his Possession to the Liferenters Right and not to the Apprizing so that his intromission being by another and more valide Title could not be ascrived to the Apprizing to extinguish it The Pursuer answered that the Defense ought to be Repelled because he had obtained Certification against the Defenders of all Rights not produced and albeit the Liferenters Seising be produced yet the Warrand thereof the Charter or Precept was not produced so that it is now declared as false and feinzied and the Seising being only the Assertion of a Nottar without a Warrand is no Title to which the Intromission can be ascrived and therefore it must be ascrived wholly to the Apprizing The Defenders answered First That albeit the Charter be now improven for not production yet it being a true Evident and now produced the effect of the Certification cannot be drawen back to make George Stuart countable who Possessed bona fide cum titulâ— which though now improven yet the effect of the improbation can only be a sententia lite contestata aut â—â—ta before all which the Liferenter was Dead and the intromission ended unless the Charter being produced had been by Witnesses or otherwayes proven to be false 2dly Albeit Certification be obtained against George Stuart and Marjory Iameson yet the Certification is not against Andrew Alexander from whom Marjory hath purchased Right after the Certification and produced the Appryzing at Andrews instance against Neilson and alleadges that albeit the Certification could take away George Stuarts Right in so far as concerns Marjory Iameson or her Authors yet that being no annulling of their Right by being Transmitted in favours of the Pursuer but only as being void through want of the necessary Evidents it cannot impede Andrew Alexander against whom no Certification is obtained to Defend George Stuart his Authors Right and to ascribe George his Possession to the Liferent Infeftment whereof he now produces the Charter The Pursuer answered that he was not obliged to take notice of Andrew Alexanderâ— Right because it was incompleat no Infeftment following thereon and because it was null being deduced against Neilson after Neilson was Denuded by the Appryzing led against him by George Stuart and Infeftment thereon so that the Pursuer having prevailed against George Stuarts Right which is the only valide Right and did exclude Andrew Alexander by the Rule vinco vincentem c. and if this were otherwise Sustained no Improbation could be effectual unless all the invalid and imperfect Rights were particularly improven which cannot be known and was never done 3dly Certification being Extracted against George Stuart himself all Subaltern Rights flowing from him fall in consequence and so Andrew Alexanders Right which is but incompleat and latent The Defender answered that albeit Andrew Alexander was not called or Certification taken against him as a party necessar yet before Conclusion of the Cause he has a good interest to produce his Appryzing and to alleadge that the Certification against George Stuart his Author who neglected to produce the Liferenters Charter could not prejudge him as deriving Right from George Stuart as a singular Successor much less could the neglect or Collusion of Marjorie Iameson prejudge any other but her self and therefore craved that if the Lords would Sustain the Certification of the Liferent Charter against Marjorie Iameson that it should be without prejudice to Andrew Alexander as to his Right of the said Liferent or to George Stuarts Right of the Liferent in so far as the same is Derived to Andrew Alexander The Lords adhered to the Certification in so far as concerned Marjory Iameson reserving Andrew Alexanders Right and his Authors in so far as concerned Andrew Alexander as accords This Cause being again Called the 9. of Iune the Defenders ascribed their Possession to the Liferent and two nineteen years Tacks against which there was no Certification The Pursuer answered First That the Liferenter having bruiked by a Liferent Infeftment and having ascribed her Possession to it it being improven she could not ascribe her Possession to the Tacks quia ex pluribus titulis ejusdem rei nemo fit Dominus 2dly George Stuart the Appryzer having both the Appryzing and these Liferent Rights in his Person and not having declared his mind by what Title he possessed his Possession must be attribute titulo nobilioti to the Apprizing and his intromission imputed thereto duriori â—orti as the Lords use ordinarly to do in â—dium of Appryzings if the Appryzer adhere to the expyring of the Legal but if the Defender will grant the Lands Redeemable the Pursuer is content that the Intromission be ascribed to the Liferent Right primo loco The Defender answered that though George Stuart Declared not by what Title he Possessed yet his intromission must be ascribed potiorâ— juri to that Right which was preferable and so to the Liferent which would undoubtedly exclude his Appryzing and therefore he acquired Right from the Liferenter being then in Possession and it is unquestionable that any party who hath many Titles though they first make use of one if that be Reduced they may make use of the rest and
a perpetual Friendship In Contemplation of which Marriage the said Iames Raith and Mr. Iames Raith his Son were obliged to pay 10000. pounds of portion to Wolmet himself and to lend another Sum for Redeeming of a Wodset upon the Estate which being done Wolmet was obliged to Infeft his Son and to provide eight hundreth merks of Joynture to his Good-daughter Raiths Eldest Daughter Dies and the said Iames Edmistoun Wolmets Eldest Son Marries Raiths second Daughter but there was no Contract or consent of her Parents and they having lived seven years together James Died without Children and Raiths third Daughter is Married to John Wauchop Niddries Son and Raiths Estate provided to her whereupon they to liberate Raiths Heirs and Estate of the 10000. pounds contained in the Contract raised Declarator that the minute was null and void in two Grounds First Because there was no Marriage following by consent of the Parents conform to the Minute 2dly Because Raiths obligement to pay the Tocher was to Wolmet himself and for his mutual obligement of Infefting his Son and providing a Joynture which neither was nor can be done Major Bigger now standing in the full Right of Wolmets Estate and no Person to Represent Wolmet The Defenders alleadged absolvitor from the first Ground because there was a Marriage conform to the Minute and albeit Raith did not consent yet being obliged he had no just Ground to disassent And to the second Ground seing there was no Clause irritant in the Minute albeit the obligements therein were mutual Causes each of other it might be Declared that neither Party should be obliged to fulfil till the other fulfilled their part but could not annul the Minute The Lords found that seing Wolmet was in no capacity to perform his part that the Heirs and Estate of Raith were free of their part providing that the Pursuer who is Assigney to the Liferent Right of the said Iames Edmonstoun his Wife should Discharge the said Liferent and declare that it should never burden Wolmets Heirs or Estate Beation of Bandoch contra Ogilbie of Martoun Eodem die BEaiton of Bandoch having a Miln upon a Burn running by the Lands of Greendykes and Martoun the Tennents of these Lands did by Sheuchs and Casts divert the Water and therewith watered their Ground which thereafter returned to the Burn before it came to Bandochs Dam. Bandoch pursues a Declarator that he and his Predecessors and Authors having been in immemorial Possession of the Miln and having had the free use of the Burn until of late the Tennents of Greendyke and Martoun have diverted the same to water their Ground whereby so much thereof is drunk up by the Ground that there remains not Water sufficient for his Miln In this Process the Lords having before answer allowed Witnesses to be adduced on either part It was proven that Bandoch was in Possession of the Miln with the free use of the Burn these threescore years and that it was commonly known that he and his Predecessors had been in immemorial Possession thereof till the diversion It was also proven that the Tennents of Greendykes had been fourty years in use to water their Ground as now they do It was also proven that the Tennents of Martoun have been in use to water their Ground this 34 or 35. years whereupon it occurred to the Lords to consider whether the watering of the Ground being the most natural and ordinar effect of Burns and Waters the building of a Miln beneath could hinder that liberty or at least if 34. years Possession were not sufficient to continue the watering The Lords did not consider what effect the building of a Miln with a short possession of the Water free of diversion would hinder the Heretors from diverting the Water from watering their Ground but finding that the ancient and immemorial Possession of this Miln and full injoyment of the Water was as much proven as could be known to preceed the 34. years during which the diversions upon the Lands of Martoun was proven they found that the Miln and her priviledge being once so Constitute no less then 40. years peaceable Possession of diverting the Water for watering was sufficient that being the only legal Term and therefore allowed the Lands of Greendykes to continue the watering but discharged the Lands of Martoun to continue the same Sir Alexander Hume contra The Earl of Hume July 14. 1670. THe Right of the Erected Barony of Coldinghame being derived from John Stuart of Coldinghame and Sir Alexander Hume younger of Rentoun he pursues a Declarator against this Earl of Hume and the Creditors and Appryzers of the Estate of Hume to this effect that there being a Contract betwixt umquhil James Earl of Hume and Stuart and others whereby it was Declared that the Earl being Infeft in an Annualrent of 200. pounds Sterling out of the said Barony there was nineteen thousand pounds of bygons of the said Annualrent at the Date of the Contract in Anno 1631. Therefore it was agreed that the Earl of Hume should be put in Possession of the said Barony for payment of the said Annualrent for Terms subsequent and for the nineteen thousand Pounds made up of the bygone Annualrents fructibus non compurandis in sortem and that the Earl of Hume who last Deceased having Assignation to the said Contract from the Heirs of Line of the said umquhil James Earl of Hume recovered a Decreet of Possession upon the said Contract in Anno 1643. and entered in Possession accordingly and that the said Annualrent of 200. pounds Sterling after the Decease of the said James Earl of Hume did cease being only provided to the Heirs-male of his Body which failzing c. that therefore the 200. pounds Sterling affecting the Barony in the first place and being free did satisfie the nineteen thousand pounds and freed the Barony thereof Compearance being made for the Earl of Hume and the Creditors who had Appryzed the Barony of Coldinghame It was alleadged that the Earls intromission was not to be ascribed to his Decreet of Possession in Anno 1648. because he had another anterior Title in his Person viz. A former Contract betwixt the Deceast James Earl of Hume and the Heretors of Coldinghame by which he was allowed to Possess till he were payed of 4000. pounds Sterling payable at four Terms for which or any of the Terms he was to enjoy without an accompt fructibus non imputandis in sortem of which Contract there was a thousand pound Sterling unpayed and upon which Contract Iames Earl of Hume had obtained Possession in Anno 1630. So that the late Earl having right to both these Contracts and Decreets from the Heirs of Line and having entred to the Possession without any Porcess of Removing or Mails and Duties against the Tennents but the former Possessors leaving the Possession the Earl entered without opposition and might ascribe his Possession to either of these Rights he pleased and does
most rationally ascribe the same to the first especially seing he had both the Rights from the same Party and was not introduced to the Possession by them more upon the one Right than upon the other It was answered for the Pursuer that albeit Parties may make use of any Right they have to Defend their Possession without interverting the same yet that must always be where the posterior Right doth not derogat from the former either as to Right or Possession But here the second Contract and Decreet is inconsistent with and derogatory to the former for the Earl having power to enter by the first till he were payed of one thousand pound Sterling resting of four fructibus non computandis in sortem taking a posterior Right whereby he was to enter for payment of nineteen thousand pounds fructibus non computandis in sortâ—â— he derogat so far from the first that he must Possess primo loco by the last seing the first is not reserved 2dly The late Earl could only be understood to enter in Possession by that Right or the former Heretors to relinquish the Possession to him upon that Right which then had paratam executionem and could then instantly have forced them to quite the Possession but that was only the last Contract and last Decreet whereupon the late Earl had obtained Sentence in his own Person in Anno 1643. when he entered in Possession But as for the first Contract and Decreet of Possession it had not then paratam executionem never being Established in the Persons of the Heirs of Line much less in the Person of the late Earl who had Right from the Heirs of Line by Assignation himself being only Heir-male The Lords found that the Possession was only to be ascribed to the last Decreet which only had paratam executionem primo loco without prejudice to the Earl if that Right were Exhausted to defend himself with the first Right in the next place Major Bigger contra David Cuninghame of Dankeith Iuly 15. 1670. MAjor Bigger having Right to the Teinds of Wolmet from the Earl of Lauderdail pursues David Cunninghame of Dankeith and Iean Dowglas Relict of Wolmet his Spouse for Spuilzie of the Teinds restricted to wrongous Intromission and insists for the fifth of the Rent The Defenders alleadge absolvitor because they produce a Valuation of the Teinds of Wolmet obtained at the instance of umquhil Patrick Edmonstonn of Wolmet before the Commission for Valuation in Anno 1636. The Pursuer answered that the Defense ought to be Repelled First Because Swintoun standing then in the Right of these Teinds had raised Reduction and Improbation of this Decreet of Valuation against Iames Edmonstoun as Heir to Wolmet and thereupon had obtained a Decreet of Certification which is now produced 2ly By Articles betwixt Dankeith and Major Bigger produced Dankeith Compts for a greater Duty than this Valuation and so passes therefrom and Homologats the Majors Right 3dly The Decreet of Valuation took never effect there having never been payment made conform thereto but Tacks accepted by the same Defenders and Duties payed by them of a greater quantity The Defender answered that the Certification could have no effect against the Defenders because it was only obtained against Wolmets appearand Heir who had only the Right of Reversion the Wodsetter who was Proprietar publickly Infeft and the said Iames Dowglas Liferenter by a publick Infeftment never being Called who do now produce the Decreet of Valuation quarrelled And as to the Articles they can import no Homologation because the Article anent the Teind bears only such a sum without relating to the fifth of the Rent or to the price of the valued Bolls The Pursuer answered that the Valuation having been obtained at the Instance of Wolmet and not of his Wife he might Reduce the same by Calling only Wolmets Heir who had not only the Reversion but a Back-tack and he was obliged to Call no other especially seing they had no Right to the Teinds the Defender answered that the Heretor has undoubtedly Interest in the Valuation though they had no Right to the Teind because it Liquidats the Teind and Liberats the Stock of any further and so hath the Liferenter for the Liferent Right especially she being publickly Infeft so that though the Decreet was obtained at umquhil Wolmets Instance yet he being Denuded of the Property by a publick Infeftment of Wodset with his Wifes Liferent reserved therein they could not be miskenned and their Right taken away by a Process against Wolmets appearand Heir who was Denuded of the Property and who did now produce the Decreet of Valuation and abode by it as a true Deed. The Lords Sustained the Defense upon the Decreet of Valuation and found the Certification could not take away the Liferenters Interest in the Valuation she not being Called and found the Articles to infer no Homologation but found the third member of the reply Relevant that Tacks were taken by the Defenders and Duty payed of a greater quantity since the Valuation Lady Lucie Hamiltoun contra Bold of Pitcon Eodem die LAdy Lucie Hamiltoun insists in her Reduction before Debated on the eight of Iuly instant against Pitcon on this Ground that abbeit the Disposition granted to him by George Hay the Common Debitor be anterior to the Pursuers Inhibition yet it must be Reduced on this Ground that it is without any equivalent onerous Cause and that albeit in bear an onerous Cause yet that will not instruct the same but it must be instucted otherwise than by Pitcons own Oath because it is betwixt conjunct Persons two Good-brothers and because it bears not only to be in favours of Pitcon himself but for the use and behave of the Creditors whose Names were then blank and thereupon are now excluded as being filled up after the Pursuers Inhibition so that the Disposition being in so far fraudulent and not totally granted to Pitcon for himself the proportion of his Interest cannot be known but by instructing the Debts due to him and for which he was ingaged the time of the Disposition It was answered for Pitcon that he was ready to instruct the Debts scripto and for some few to whom he had undertaken payment at the time of the Disposition he offered to produce their Bonds and to Depone that he undertook payment of them as said is which is all that is required by the Act of Parliament anent fraudulent Dispositions whereby the defect of an onerous Cause is to be proven by the Parties Oath who gets the Disposition The Lords Repelled the Alleageance and found that Pitcon behoved to instruct the Cause of the Disposition otherwise than by the saids Bonds and his own Oath It was alleadged for Kelburn another of the Creditors that he had Right by an Appryzing proceeding upon sums anterior to the Inhibition It was Replyed that the Appryzing was null First Because the Denunciation whereon it proceeded was not at the Mercat
Cross of the Shire but at the Mercat Cross of the Regality in the English time when Regalities were supprest 2dly That the Appryzing was led at Glasgow and neither within the Shire of Air where the Lands ly nor by Dispensation at Edinburgh And albeit the Letters bear a Dispensation to Appryzâ— at Glasgow and that the Denunciation was made accordingly for the Parties to appear at Glasgow yet there was neither Law nor Custom for such a Dispensation and Parties are not obliged to attend but at the head Burgh of the Shire or in communia patria at Edinburgh 3dly The Pursuer has also an Appryzing though posterior yet preferable because solemn and orderly according to the Custom then being It was answered that albeit the Custom under the Usurper might excuse the want of Denunciations at the head Burghs of Regalities which were then supprest where they were used at the head Burgh of the Shire according to the Custom then and so validats such Appryzings yet this Defender having according to the standing Law of the Land Denunced at the head Burgh of the Regality the contrair unwarrantable Custom cannot annul his Appryzing proceeding according to Law And as to the Dispensation at Glasgow which was nearer the Lands then Edinburgh whatsoever might have been said to the inconveniency of granting such a Dispensation yet being granted it is valide and was then frequent to grant such Dispensations The Lords found that the Pursuers Apprizing being according to the ordinar Custom for the time at the head Burgh of the Shire upon Denunciation that it was more solemn and preferable as to the manner of Denunciation than that which was upon Denunciation at the head Burgh of the Regality at that time But the Lords did not determine whether such an Appryzing would have been valide if there had not been a more formall one Nor whether the Dispensation being granted at Glasgow was valide Margaret Scrimzeor contra Alexander Wedderburn of Kingennie Iuly 19. 1670. UMquhil Major William Scrimzeor having nominat Alexander Wedderburn of Kingennie and two others to be Tutors to his Daughter She now pursues a Tutor Accompt wherein this Question arose and was reported to the Lords by the Auditors viz. The Defunct having Died in September 1650. The Tutor did not accept the Nomination or begin to Act till the end of the year 1653. In which time the Tutor alleadged that a part of the Pupils Means perished and became Insolvent and craved to be liberate thereof on that Ground in his Discharge It was alleadged for the Pupil that the Tutor must be lyable from the time that he knew that he was Nominat Tutor for albeit he might have abstained absolutely yet once accepting the Tutory by Nomination of a Testament wherein a Legacy was left to himself he must compt as if he had accepted it at the first for which there was adduced many Citations of Law It was answered for the Tutor that in the Roman Law Tutors were obliged to accept so soon as they knew their Nomination unless they could free themselves by the excuses allowed in that Law But with us it is absolutely free to accept or refuse without any excuse and it is only the acceptance that obliges and so can have no effect ad preterita as to that which perished before acceptance especially in this case the Defender being but one of three Tutors Nominate he ought to have had a time to endeavour with the rest to accept and his lying out was in such a time in which Judicatures did cease by War and Troubles the English after the Battel of Dumbar in September 1650. being possest of Edinburgh and the publick Records there was no Session keeped till the year 1652 or 1653. The Lords found the Tutor was not lyable for any thing that perished before his acceptance The Executors of Walter Hamiltoun contra The Executors of Andrew Reid Iuly 20. 1670. THe Executors of Walter Hamiltoun pursue the Executors of Andrew Reid for payment of a Bond of 122. pounds Sterling and of a Bond of eighteen pounds Sterling due by the said umquhil Andrew Reid to the said umquhil Walter Hamiltoun The Defenders alleadged that they ought to have allowance of fifty pounds Sterling payed to Walter by Iohn Fleeming by Andrew Reids Order and of Sterling payed to Mckneich upon a Bill drawn by Walter Hamiltoun upon Andrew Reid to be payed to Mckneich and for proving thereof produced missive Letters Written by Walter Hamiltoun to Andrew Reid the one bearing that Fleeming had payed a part of the 50. pound and he doubted not but that he would pay the rest And the other bearing that Mckneich had got payment It was answered for the Pursuers that the Missive Letters could not instruct a Discharge or abate those clear Bonds because they did relate to Bills and Orders upon which payment was made and except those Bills and Orders can be produced the Letters relating thereto can have no effect for it must be presumed that the Bills and Orders have been retired by Walter Hamiltoun as having been allowed in other Bonds which then have been delivered by VValter to Andrew Reid it being the ordinar course amongst Merchants to interchange Bills and Bonds without any other Discharge neither do they take notice of their Missives relating to such Bills or Orders nor can it be supposed they can remember the same The Auditors in this Accompt having taken the opinion of several knowing Merchan's anent their Customs in this point they did all report in Writ and did all agree in this that missive Letters relating to Bills Orders or Discharges had no effect unless the Bills Orders or Discharges were produced and that Merchants neither did nor could have notice of such Missives to retire or interchange the same they did also visit Walter Hamiltouns Compt Book by which there appeared several other Bonds and Accompts betwixt the Parties beside these And in which also the sums contained in these Letters were set down as payment in part of the other Bonds and Compts whereby it appeared that the Bill and Order mentioned in the Letter were interchanged with the former Bonds The Lords found that the missive Letters relating to the Bill and Order had no Effect unless the Bill and Order were produced Hugh Moncrief of Tippermalloch contra Magistrates of Pearth Iuly 26. 1670. HVgh Moncrief of Tippermalloch having Incarcerate Ogilbie of Channaly in the Tolbooth of Pearth from whence he having escaped he pursues the Magistrates of Pearth for payment of the Debt who alleadged absolvitor First Because their Tolbooth was sufficient and the Rebel had escaped vi majori having broken the Stone in which the Bolt of the Tolbooth Door entered and forced the Lock in the time of Sermon and that immediately after the Rebel escaped out of the Town and was met with Friends that were trysted there at the time of his escape 2dly They had laid out all wayes thereafter to search for
would have been before the Bailzies when the Cause was Advocat at which time Cornelius Term of payment was not come The Lords found that the unwarrantable delay by the Advocation should not prejudge Charters and that the case should be considered as it was the time that the Advocation was raised and preferred Charles Charters upon his posterior Arrestment in respect the Term of payment of his Debt was come to the prior Arrestment laid on upon a Debt the Term of payment whereof was not come whereupon Citation was used before the Term came The Advocats having withdrawn from the House upon the Oath prescribed by the Regulation nothing was Called until the midle of December Murray of Achtertire contra Gray December 16. 1670. MVrray of Achtertire having pursued a Contravention against Gray upon several Deeds whereof one was that Achtertire having procured liberty from a Neighbour Heretor to make a Cast upon that Heretors Ground wherein some little Burns were gathered to a Head and thence were conveyed through Achtertires own Ground to his Miln Lade and that Gray had broken down that Cast whereby the Burns were divertedâ— Gray having compeared and proponed nothing the Libel was found Relevant and admitted to Achtertires Probation who by several Witnesses proved that the Defender had broken down that Cast of whom some Deponed simply but two of them Deponed thus that Gray had broken down the new Cast but that the Burns gathered therein in the time of Floods did water Grayâ—s own Lands and that by the new Cast they were keeped in and could not water the same whence it arose to the Lords consideration whether that Deed of Contravention was sufficiently proven or whether the Testimonies of the Witnesses being qualified that the Defender had done the Deed but in continuation of his former Possession of the watering of the Burns whether respect ought to be had to that qualification some thought not because the Fact as it was Libelled was found Relevant and proven and the qualification ought to have been proponed by way of Defense but it was found that the Testimonies being so qualified did not sufficiently prove to infer a Contravention for if the Contravention had been proven by Writ or Oath such a quality either in the Writ or Oath would hinder the same to prove sufficiently the Contravention But because the Testimonies were not to be considered by the Parties the Lords ordained the Sentence to expresse the foresaid Reason of it that the Pursuer before Extract might alleadge any thing thereanent he thought fit Nicol Langtoun contra Robert Scot Decem. 17. 1670. JOhn Graham of Gillesby having Set a Track of his Lands of Graystoneflat to Nicol Langtoun and being at that time at the Horn Robert Scot obtains a Gift of his Escheat and Liferent from Annandale his Superior and thereupon obtains general and special Declarator Decerning Langtoun to pay the Duties to him as Donator Langtoun Suspends and raises Reduction on this Reason that the Gift was simulat to the behove of Graham the Rebel procured by his own Means and Moyen and it being answered by Scot that he being a lawful Creditor of the Rebels might lawfully accept and make use of this Gift for his own security albeit the Rebel had procured the same and Scot the Donator having Deponed anent the simulation of the Gift did acknowledge that the Rebel had procured the Gift and that he had it blank in the Donators Name and that he did fill up Scots Name and delivered it to him The Lords found the Oath to prove the simulation of the Gift and that it having been in the Rebels own hands blank in the Donators Name it was equivalent to an Assignation from the Rebel and that Scot accepting of it so from him could not justly or bona fide make use of it even for security of a just Debt in prejudice of the Tacks-man who had before gotten his Tack from the Rebel Alison Kello contra Kinneir Ianuary 5. 1671. ALison Kello as Heir to her Mother Margaret Nisbet having pursued a Reduction of an Apprizing of the Lands of Paxtoun Led at the Instance of Mr. Samuel Hume against the said Margaret in Anno 1622. and Assigned to Mr. Alexander Kinneir in Anno 1623. upon this Reason that the said Mr. Alexander was satisfied by his Intromission within the Legal this pursuit being against Mr. Alexander Kinneirs Son who is Minor and being stopped upon his Minority quid Minor non tenetur placitare de hereditate paterna The Lords did upon the Pursuers Petition grant Commission to Examine Witnesses upon the Intromssion to remain in retentis till the Cause might be Determined in respect the Witnesses might die in the mean time which being reported the Lords remitted to an Auditor to state the Compt of the Intromission according to the Probation that the stated Accompt might remain in retentis The Defender being heard again before the Lords did alleadge that the Accompt could not be stated upon this Probation but that there being yet no Litiscontestation in the Cause neither can be through the Defenders Minority and this Probation being but before answer to remain in retentis and taken by Commission the Defender not being present at the Examination and the matter being very ancient fifty years agoe the Lords ought to give the Defender the sole or conjunct probation of this alleadgeance viz. That he offered him to prove that during the years of the Legal the Lands were Possest by several Persons by Dispositions or Tacks both under Reversion for certain Sums of Money due by the said Margaret Nisbet which Rights were granted by her and were now produced by the Defender which with the saids Rights produced is much more pregnant nor the Pursuers Probation by some inconsiderable Countrey People without any Adminicle in Writ It was answered for the Pursuer that the alleadgeance was no way Relevant being contrare to her Libel and founded super jure tertij for this Defender hath no interest in the Wodset Rights nor doth any Person appear for them or own them and if this were sustained it would afford a current evasion in all kind of Pursuits upon Intromission by offering still to prove that the Defender did not but that a third Party did Intromet and therefore the Lords have never Sustained such a Defense upon the Defenders sole Probation and in no case have allowed a conjunct probation It was answered that in a matter so old and where the sole probation of a thing of so great Moment was to be by Witnesses the Lords ex officio might Examine Witnesses for either Party and have oft so done especially the same ought to be done here where the probation is by inconsiderable Persons and so suspect and exorbitant proving â—â—nneirs Intromssion to be before he had any Right and the quantities to be much higher then the written Tack of the Lands produced The Lords found that they could not admit a Probation for
the Contract may be yet Examined to clear the meaning of the Clause 2dly Albeit the Clause could not exclude her from a third of Money which is expresse therein yet not from a third of Moveable Goods and Geir which is not exprest and albeit the Clause bears and others it can only be understood of Rights due by a stated Security and the intent of the Clause has only been to substitute the Bairns of this Marriage Heirs of the Conquest and to exclude the Bairns of any other Marriage but did neither exclude the Father but that he might dispone on his Moveables albeit the Clause expresseth him but Liferenter thereof neither does it exclude the Mother from the third thereof And there was adduced a Decision in the Case of the Lady Oxenfoord wherein albeit by her Contract of Marriage she accepted certain Lands in full satisfaction of her Terce and third of all Lands Annualrents and others yet that was not found to exclude her from a third of Moveables but only from a Terce or third of Heretable Rights It was answered for the Children that their Mother having consented by the Contract of Marriage that all Conquest during the Marriage should be provided to their Father in Liferent and to them in Fee she had excluded her self as clearly and effectually as if she had Renunced her third thereof or accepted of her Jointer in full satisfaction neither is there a necessity that these words must always be used nor is this alleadged as a consequential Renunciation but as an expresse Obligation or Destination of the Husband consented to by the Wife which must have its native effect and so the Children must be Feears of the whole Conquest and therefore the Wife cannot be Feear of a third of it and albeit moveable Geir be not exprest the generality others must necessarily comprehend them being of the same nature with Sums which are exprest and may be Moveable and of less importance then they and the case wholly differs from that of the Lady Oxenfoord wherein nothing but Heretable Rights are exprest and it is an unaccustomed Clause amongst Persons of that quality to exclude Ladies from a third of Moveables but here Sums are exprest and it is most ordinar for Merchants to exclude their Wives from their Merchant Goods which is the greatest part of their Estate as to the meaning of the Parties clear Clauses cannot be enervat upon that ground and as for any thing exprest by the Husband It was on Death-bed in a great Fever whereof he Died and no Testament followed The Lords found that the foresaid Clause in the Contract did exclude the Relict from a Terce of Moveable Sums or Moveable Goods during the Marriage which could be understood to be meaned to be put upon Security at any time but that it did not exclude her from a third of the Houshold Plenishing Charles Casse contra Sir Robert Cunningham Ianuary 26. 1671. CHarles Casse having Sold to Sir Robert Cunningham his Right to the Lands of Achinhervy in his Minority pursues a Reduction of the same Disposition upon Lesion and condescends upon his Lesion thus that being Infeft for security of fourty thousand Merks and in an Annualrent effeirrand thereto whereof there were many bygone years Annualrent resting and yet he got only fourty thousand Merks for all The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Pursuer was satisfied of all his bygone Annualrents in so far as he having Apprized for five years Annualrents preceeding the Apprizing which was in Anno 1655. he had entered in Possession by vertue of the said Apprizing of the whole Lands of Achinhervie and so is Comptable therefore according to the Rental untill he cease to Possesse the same which will fully satisfie all his bygones so that he will have no Lesion 2dly He had not only in his Person the said Apprizing but the Infeftment of Annualrent upon which he being preferred in a double Poinding and excluding other Parties having also real Rights he is thereby obliged to do Diligence and be Comptable not only for what he intrometted with but for what he ought to have intrometted with The Pursuer answered that he was content to Compt for what he had Intrometted with but upon neither ground was he obliged to Compt for any further especially as to his Apprizing albeit Law and Custom had oblidged him to Compt for the whole Rental till the Apprizing were satisfied yet he could not be Comptable but for his Intromission after he was satisfiedâ— for then he had no title in his Person and it is clear that any Intrometter without a title is only lyable for his Intromission and all Parties having Interest might have hindred him to have Intrometted after he was satisfied and albeit a Tennent or Factor after the expiring of the Tack or Factory may be Comptable for a full Rental yet that is because they have a title per tacitam relocationem or tacitam commissionem but after the extinction of the Apprizing then no title remains and neither is he lyable as an Annualrenter even though he did exclude others to do any Diligence because all the effect of an Annualrent can only be to distresse the Ground or Poind the Tennents for as much of their Rent as is equivalent to the current Annualrents after which any other Party having Right may liâ—t the superplus and in this case the Annualrenter hath not been preferred as to any bygone Rents but only in timecoming and for his current Annualrents and the bygones are appointed to be brought in Accompt which was never determined The Defender answered that it were against all Reason that an Apprizer after he is satisfied should be in better condition then before he is satisfied and so as long as he meddles he must Compt by the Rental and it is his proper part who knows when he is satisfied to relinquish the Possession which other Parties cannot know till by a long Process of Compt and Reckoning it be determined and it were most absurd that in the mean time he should continue in Possession and though the Rents did in a great part perish he should not be Comptable therefore but only for what he actually lifted The Lords found the Pursuer as Apprizer Comptable according to the Rental not only for Intromission but Omission both till the Apprizing be satisfied and thereafter for all years of which he lifted any part but found not the Annualrenter lyable for Diligence albeit he did exclude others but the Case came not to be Determined if the Annualrenter had by a Personal Action insisted for more years Annualrent past to be preferred to the whole Rents till these bygones were satisfied that not being the case here in question In this Cause it had been formerly alleadged that the Pursuer after his Majority had Received a part of the price of the Lands in so far as having in his Minority granted a Commission to Mr. Iohn Smith one of his Curators
yet if Possession hath been had thereafter for the space of fourty years uninterrupted it becomes an unquestionable Right and all other Rights are excluded But Secondly A greater favour is showen as to the Title of prescription of Lands belonging to any Party titulo universali as Heirs to their Predecessors in which their is no Charter required but Seisings one or moe continued and standing together for the space of fourty years either proceeding upon Retours or upon Precepts of clare constat so that the Seising in question proceeding upon a Precept of clare constat cannot be a sufficient Title for prescription unless the Precept of clare constat â—which is the Warrand thereof were produced 2dly The said provision of the Act requires that the Seising one or moe must stand and be continued for the space of fourty years which cannot be alleadged in this case because by the Defenders production it is clear that the said Alexander Mcnaughtan to whom the Seising was granted Lived not for fourty years after the Seising so that unless his Heir had been entered and had Possest by vertue of the Heirs Seising to perfyt the fourty years the Defense of prescription is not Relevantly alleadged The Defender answered that his Defense of prescription stands Relevant upon this one Seising only and he oppones the foresaid Clause in the Act of Parliament where an Heirs Title of prescription is a Seising proceeding upon a Retour or Precept of clare constat and does not mention that the Seising and Precept shall be a sufficient Title as it does in the case of Lands acquired where it expresly requireth both a Charter and Seising and it had been as easie in this Clause to have required a Seising and Retour or Precept whereas it doth only require a Seising on a Retour or Precept so that the Seising relating the Retour or Precept is sufficient and by long course of time sufficiently instructs the being of the Retour or Precept As to the second answer the meaning of the Act of Parliament by a Seising one or moe standing together is that the said Seising be not Reduced for our Law doth ordinarly oppose standing and falling by Reduction so that albeit the Party Seised Died within fourty years after the Seising his appearand Heir continued his Possession and being one Person in Law with him did Possess by his Seising and if it were otherewise understood many absurdities would follow for if a Person were Infeft as Heir and did Possess thirty nine years thereafter Dying then if his Heir were not Infeft within the year he should have no Title of prescription though within the fourty year six Heirs consequently were Infeft all their six Seisings with thirty nine years Possession though their appearand Heir should continue an hundreth years thereafter in Possession would not induce preâ—cription yea taking the Act Literally it can never have effect unless the Heir Infeft Live and Possess after his Infeftment fourty years which is very rare for if there be more Heirs that Succeed there must be still an intervale betwixt the Death of the one and the Seising of the other and so the Seisings could not be said to be continued but discontinued or interrupted for Possession is not continued if the Possessor cease to Possess one year so that prescription being of common Interest and Advantage to the Leiges the same ought to be ampliate in the interpretation thereof and not straitned The Pursuer answered that he opponed the clear words of the Act of Parliament which does not only require fourty years continual Possession but also that it be by Seisings staâ—ding continuing together fourty years and that upon very solide Reason for if both Charter and Seising be required for a Title to prescription in Rights acquired It cannot be imagined that an single Seising should be sufficient in Rights devolved by Succession without requiring any thing in place of the Charter so that if neither the Precept nor Retour be required nor yet the continuance of the Seising either standing in the Person of the first Heir or renewed in the Persons of the subsequent Heirs which certainly is of purpose put to astruct the Right in place of a Charter or other Adminicle of the Seising and therefore the standing of the Seisings is not here opposed to their being Reduced but their falling by the Death of the Person Infeft whereby according to the ordinar Terms of Law the Fee falleth in Waird or Nonentry in the hands of the Superior neither can a subsequent Heir Possess by the Seising of a prior Heir because Seisings are not given to Heirs but to the individual Person Seised but Charters and other Rights given to Parties and their Heirs may be a Title to their Heirs to Possess but not a naked Seising and as to the inconvenience it would be far greater if one single Seising were sufficient and would open the Door to all Forgery after Parties and Witnesses are Dead but if more Seisings be required if the first Person Die it is much more difficult to Forge diverse Seisings by diverse Nottars and diverse Witnesses which may be redargued by the Hand-writ of some of the Nottars or survivance of some of the Witnesses and what is alleadged upon a Seising continuing thirty nine years or of six subsequent Seisings within that time is easily retorted by consideration of one Seising whereby the Party Infeft Lived and Bruiked but a year whethet that would be a sufficient Title for prescription or if six consequent Seisings proceeding upon Charters and thirty nine years Possession yea or a hundred years Possession all which would make no Title of prescription unless a Charter were also produced as is clear by the Act so we are not to consider equivalencies but in a Statute must take it as it is made and not make it and as for the inconvenience alleadged that there must necessarly be intervales it imports not for the continuance of Seisings is not required to be so exact as the continuance of Possession but subsequent Heirs being Infeft albeit there be an intervale their Seising as in many other cases will be drawn back to the Death of their Predecessor if there be no medium impedimentum by any Process intented in the interim so that at least there must be a Seising standing when the Possession begane and a Seising standing when the first fourty years is compleat but here there was no Seising renewed though there be a hundred years after the first fourty years and a full progress as to all other Lands The Lords found that there was no necessity to produce or instruct that there was a Precept or Retour otherewise then by the relation of the Seising but found that a Seising not having fourty years Possession by the Life and Bruiking of the Person Seised and never being renewed in his Successors is not a suffient Title of prescription and therefore Repelled the Defense in this Process the Defender was
the whole production is specially insert It was answered that the Requisition was truly produced and that the omission of the Clerk to repeat it in the Production cannot annul the Decreet after so long a time without a Reduction thereof It was answered that albeit in favorabilibus the Lords may supply Defects upon Production ex post facto yet in odiosis such as Clauses irritant of Reversions the Lords ought not to admit the same The Lords found the Decreet of Declarator null Sir David Dumbar of Baldoun contra David Dick and others February 22. 1671. BAldoun pursues â—he Tennents of Bombie for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for David Dick who produced an Apprizing of the saids Lands against the Lord Kirkcudbright within year and day of the Pursuers Appryzing and craves to come in pari passu with the Pursuer conform to the Act 1661. anent Creditor and Debitor It was answered that by the same Act it is provided that where Comprizings are acquired by the appearand Heir or to his behove that the same should be satisfiable for such Sums as the appearand Heir payed and offers to satisfie the same It was answered that albeit the Act doth so provide as to the Estate that might belong to the appearand Heir it can extend no further But this Appryzing is not only of the Estate of Orchartoun but of the Estate of Kirkcudbright wherein Sir Robert Maxwel appearand Heir of Orchartoun hath no interest the Appryzing must be valide as to that It was answered that Kirkcudbright was but Cautioner for Orchartoun and that the Act bears that such Appryzings shall be satisfied by what the appearand Heir payed and such Appryzings being satisfied it is simply extinct and can have no effect Which the Lords found Relevant and seing David Dicks Appryzing is Assigned to Sir Roberts own Brother the Lords allowed Witnesses ex officio to be adduced for proving that it was for Sir Roberts behove William Gordoun contra Sir Alexander Mcculloch Eodem die WIlliam Gordoun pursues Sir Alexander Mcculloch for Spuilzying of certain Corns Who alleadged Absolvitor because the Defender having right by Appryzing to the Lands whereon the Corns grew did warn the Pursuer and obtained Decreet of Removing against him and thereupon dispossessed him and finding the Cropt upon the Ground he might lawfully intromet therewith nam sata cedunt solo especially where the Sower is in mala fide but here he was in Violence after a Warning and did continue to Sow after Decreet of Removing yea a part was Sown after he was Dispossessed by Letters of Ejection The Pursuer answered that by the Law and Custom of Scotland the Cropt of Corns or industrial Fruits are never accounted as pars soli or any accessory but are still moveable even when they are growing so that they belong not to the Heir but to the Executor and in case of a Disposition without mention of the Cropt albeit the Acquirer were Infeft after they were Sown and upon the Ground he would not have Right thereto neither doth mala fides or violent Possession alter the case for which the Law hath provided a special Remeid viz. the violent Profits but it can be no ground to meddle with the Parties Cropt brevi manu as accessory to the Ground for then the Parties should both lose the Cropt as pars soli and be lyable to the violent profits neither is there any Ground from the Warning nor yet from the Decreet of Removing which was Suspended before it attained full effect and the Defender continued in Possession of a House upon the Ground albeit he was put out of the principal House It was answered that the Decreet had attained full effect before the Suspension all the Pursuers Goods being off the Ground and he out of the Mansion-house wherein the Defender entered and brought all his Goods upon the Ground and though the Pursuers Mother being a valitudinary impotent Woman was suffered to remain in a Coat-house and the Pursuer with her upon that account that imports no continuance of Possession of the Land The Lords Repelled the Defense as to that part of the Cropt that was Sowen before the Appryzer entered by the Letters of Possession reserving to him the violent Profits for that time But found the Defense Relevant as to what the Pursuer did after the Defenders Dispossession and found the Defender only lyable for the Expences of the Labouring and the Seed as being eatenus Locupletior factus Lord Iustice Clerk contra Mr. Iohn Fairholm February 23. 1671. THe Earl of Levin being Debitor to Lambertoun in fourty thousand merks and having Infeft him in an Annualrent out of his Lands in security thereof Mr. Iohn Fairholm did upon a Debt due by Lambertoun Appryze the foresaid Heretable Bond and Annualrent which was holden of the Earl of Levin himself who was Charged upon the Appryzing but unwarrantably to Infeft Fairholm in the Lands whereas the Annual rent only was Appryzed and the Charge should have been to Infeft Fairholm in the Annualrent thereafter Fairholm did Arrest the bygone Annualrents in the Earl of Levins hands and after all did upon a Decreet against Lambertoun arrest the bygone Rents in Levins hand and Lambertouns Liferent of the Annualrent having fallen by his being year and day at the Horn the Justice Clerk as Donator to the Liferent and as Arrester competing with Fairholm did alleadge that Fairholms Appryzing being an incompleat Diligence and no Infeftment nor valide Charge thereon and having lyen over so many years the Arrester must be preferred for which he adduced a Practique observed by Dury the 14. of February 1623. Salicots contra Brown where it was so found and albeit Fairholm be the prior Arrester yet he hath done no Diligence upon his Arrestment whereas the Justice Clerk hath obtained Decreet and as Donator to the Liferent Escheat he is preferable for years after the Rebellion because the Liferent Escheat falling before any Infeftment or Charge on the Appryzing which was not used within year and day the Liferent excludes the Appryzer The Lords found the Appryzing preferable to the posterior Arrestment though no legal Diligence was done thereon for the space of nine years thereafter in respect the Appryzing being a Judicial Assignation required no Intimation and being prior it is preferable and they did not respect that single Practique the constant Custom since being contrary But found the Liferent Escheat preferable to the anterior Appryzing being without Infeftment or Charge as to the years after the Rebellion and preferred the Appryzer as to years preceeding Arnold of Barncaple contra Gordoun of Holm Eodem die THere being four Cautioners in a Bond and the principal Debitor having Suspended and found a Cautioner in the Suspension who having been Distressed and payed the Debt and having gotten Assignation from the Creditor Charges one of the Cautioners in the first Bond Gordoun of Holm who Suspends on this Reason that payment being made by the
this Bond as Witness is his Subscription but that he did not see Sir Lewis Subscribe nor any of the other Witnesses and remembers nothing of the matter and that he knows not Iohn Carnagie Serviture to the Earl of Southesk another Witness insert The Pursuer thereupon craved that the Defender would more particularly design the other Witness John Carnagie Serviture to the Earl of Southesk because there were several persons Servants or Attendents upon the Earl at that time of the same name and condescends upon two of them having several Designations beside this common one The Defender alleadged that he was obliged to condescend no further seing the Act of Parliament required no more than the Name Sirname and Designation It was answered that the intent of Designations being to find out the Person of the Witness that he might be adduced in the Improbation a general Designation would not suffice but behoved to be made special or otherways if the Pursuer should Cite any Person of that Designation and that Person should deny the Subscription his Testimony would improve or at the best the Defender behoved then to Design specially another of the same common Designation otherwise it were a compendious way to all Forgery as if Witnesses should be insert of such a Name Indwellers in Edinburgh or any other Town In that case if the Testimonie of none of them should Improve there were no remeed for the Falshood The Lords found that all the persons that were the Earl of Southesks Servants or Attendantsat that time and were called Iohn Carnagie that were alive should be Cited and the Hand-writs of any that wereso Designed that were dead should be produced by either Party to be compared with this Subscription that thereby it might appear if the Subscription could be astructed by the Testimony or hand writ of any other Sir Francis Scot of Thirlstoun contra Lord Drumlanrig Iune 10. 1671. SIr Francis Scot having obtained Decreet of Adjudication of the Lands of Brankinside and others and having Charged the Lord Drumlanrig to receive and Infeft him He Suspends on this Reason that he was willing to satisfie the Sums contained in the Adjudication upon Assignation made to him thereto and so was not obliged to receive the Charger It was answered that albeit King Iames the third his Act of Parliament anent Appryzings doth provide that for a years Rent Superiours shall receive Appryzers or otherways shall take the Land to themselves and pay the Sums yet that gives not the Superiour an option but bears failzying of paying a years Rent the Superiour may satisfie the Sums and take the Land in his own hands but where that was offered it was never by Custom or Practique allowed that the Superiour should exclude an Appryzer but whatever were in the case of Appryzings that power was never granted to Superiours in Adjudications whereupon they were still obliged to receive Adjudgers without a years Rent until the late Act of Parliament and the said old Statute giving an option to the Superiour is not to be extended to Adjudications nor was it ever by any subsequent Law or Consuetude extended thereto It was answered that by the ancient Feudal Law a Superiour could not have been compelled to receive a stranger Vassal albeit a Creditor yet the Statute of King Iames the 3d. did remeid this in favours of Creditors and obliged Superiours either to receive Appryzers for payment of a years Rent or else to pay the Sum Apprysed for but long after that time there was no mention of Adjudications which were a Supplement of the Lords that where the appearand Heir being Charged did renunce the Creditor should not be frustrate but might obtain Adjudication of the Lands contra haereditatem jacentem which except as to that point of Form is the same with an Appryzing under another Title and albeit as to the years Entry the Lords would not extend the same to an Adjudication It was upon this special Reason that in the Act of Parliament 1621. anent Appryzings the same is declared Redeemable upon the Sums Appryzed for and a years Rent for the Entry yet in the very next Act in the same Parliament anent Adjudications the years Entry is left out which was thought by the Lords to be done by the Parliament of purpose and so not to be extended by the Lords But otherways the same Reason was for the Entry in Adjudications as in Appryzings which the Parliament has now found by their late Act and therefore the matter of the Entry is not to be drawn in consequence to the Superiours option The Lords found that the Superiour had his option and might refuse to receive the Adjudger offering to satisfie the Sums in his Adjudication upon Assignation made to him thereof and declared that the same should be Redeemable from the Superiour upon the like Sums without any thing for a years Entry and that in all things else the Superiour and Vassal should be in the same case as if the Adjudger had been Entred to that Effect Town of Breichen contra Town of Dundee Iune 14. 1671. LAurence Dundass having been Debitor to the Earl of Seaforth in 200. pound Sterling was incarcerat in the Tolbooth of Breichen and being suffered to go out of Prison Mr. Rory Mckenzie as Assigney to the Earl obtained Decreet against the Town for payment of the Sum and took Assignation to the Caption and therewith Incarcerat Laurence in the Tolbooth of Dundee and now pursues the Town of Dundee for suffering Laurence to go out of Prison and condescends that they suffered him to go ordinarly to the Kirk on the Sabbath and that once they suffered him to go to the River by Boat and over to Fife another Shire and ordinarly to go to the Street and to Taverns without necessar Affairs The Defenders answered that the Prisoner returned still to the Prison every night and went always abroad with a Guard and his going to the Water was because of his Indisposition and for his Health that if he touched upon the other side in Fife he did return that same night to Prison and that his going to the Kirk with a Keeper can be no Relevant Ground and even the going out upon other occasions with a Keeper though not absolutely necessar cannot make the Magistrates lyable it being the constant Custom of all Burghs so to do and that a Prisoner being under a Guard is in Prison albeit not in the Tolbooth The Pursuers answered that Magistrates of Burghs were but publick Servants in Keeping of Prisoners and were obliged to give punctual Obedience to the Letters of Caption bearing to keep the Rebel in sure Firmance within their Tolbooth which is founded on very good Reason that the Prisoner may be necessitate squalore carceris to do all Deeds in his power to satisfie his Debt which would be eluded if the Magistrates at their pleasure might let them go out with a Guard and would but turn to a Confynement or
Exception by the Act of Parliament 1621. against fradulent Dispositions It was answered that the Disposition behoved at least to purge the vitious Intromission and did stand ay and while it was Redeemed For notwithstanding of the Tenor of the said Act the Lords do not Sustain that Nullity by way of Exception or Reply The Lords found the Nullity competent by way of Exception it being no Heretable Right requiring the production of Authors Rights but in respect of this colourable Title restricted the vitious Intromission to the single value Lord Lovet contra Lord Mcdonald Eodem die THe Lord Lovet pursues the Lord Mcdonald to count for the Superplus of a Wodset from the Date of his Instrument of Requisition in Anno 1663. whereupon he had raised Summons in Anno 1667. It was alleadged that the Instrument was at the Defenders Dwelling-house when he was out of the Countrey and bear no production of the Procutry and only an offer of a Bond with a Clause of Infeftment in all Lovets Land and did not bear an offer of Caution It was answered that the Act did not require Requisition by Instrument but quaevis insinuatio sufficit and the Instrument bear Delivery of a Copy to the Defenders Lady in his House there being no Procutry for the Pursuer offered now to produce the same and a surety by Infeftment was sufficient the Act of Parliament mentioning no Caution The Lords found that the Requisition behoved to be by Letters of Supplement at the Cross of Edinburgh and Pear of Leith seing the Defender was out of the Countrey but Sustained the same as to the Procutry it being now produced and sustained the offer of Surety and Ordained it to be produced Reserving the Objections and Answers of either Party thereanent Iohn Boyd contra Hugh Sinclar Iune 17. 1671. JOhn Boyd having a Right to some Teinds in Orknay pursues Hugh Sinclar as Intrometter therewith who alleadged Absolvitor because he had Right to a Tack set to umquhil Sinclar during his Life and to his first Heir after him during his Life and nineteen years thereafter which is not yet expyred for though the Defuncts eldect Son survived him yet he was never entered Heir to him neither did he possess thir Teinds and Died shortly after his Father but it is not nineteen years since the second Son Died whos 's Retour is produced as Heir to his Father The Lords found that the eldest Son Surviving his Father although he never Possest was the first Heir as to the Tack and that he needed not be served Heir Alexander Alexander contra The Lord Saltoun Iune 20. 1671. THe Earl of Hadingtoun having obtained a Gift of Bastardy and ultimus hares of umquhil William Gray Provost of Aberdere did assign the same to Alexander Alexander with a Process thereupon against the Lord Saltoun for payment of 5000. merks due by him by Bond to the said umquhil William Gray The Defender alleadged that this Bond being granted for the price of Land bought by him from the Bastard and of the same Date with the Contract of Alienation thereof there was a Back-bond also of the same Date by which the said William Gray was not only obliged in Warrandice but also to procure himself Infeft holden of the Earl of Mar to purge an Inhibition at the instance of Ramsay and to procure a Right of an Appryzing at the Instance of the Lord Newbeath The Pursuer answered that the King or his Donator was not obliged to fulfill these Obligements of the Bastard which were not liquide nor special It was answered that the Gift of Bastardy or ultimus haeres not falling to the King by Forefaulture or any Delinquence but by Deficience of the Bastards Heir the Donator was in no better case as to the fulfilling of these Obligements then the Bastard or his Heir would be if they were pursuing upon the Bond who could not seek payment till the Obligements in the Alienation or Back-bond which were the Causes of this Bond were fulfilled Which the Lords found Relevant as to the special Obligements of obtaining Infeftment and purging the Inhibition and Appryzing but not as to the general obligement of Warrandice wherein no Distresse was alleadged Thomas Crawford contra Iames Halliburtoun Eodem die THomas Crawford having Charged Iames Halliburtoun upon a Decreet Arbitral for payment of a sum He Suspends and alleadged that he was Interdicted at that time and that the Interdicters did not consent to the Submission or Decreet Arbitral The Pursuer answered First That the Alleadgeance was not competent by Exception but by Reduction 2dly That Interdictions had only the same Effect as Inhibitions and did operate nothing as to Moveables or personal Execution even by way of Reduction Both which Defenses the Lords found Relevant John Neilson contra Menzies of Enoch Iune 21. 1671. JOhn Neilson as Assigney Constitute by Iohn Creightoun pursues Menzies of Enoch for the Rents of certain Lands in Enoch upon this Ground that there was a Tack set by James Menzies of Enoch of the saids Lands to the said Iohn Creightoun for nineteen years for payment of fourscore pounds Scots yearly of Tack-duty thereafter by a Decreet Arbitral betwixt Enoch and his eldest Son Robert he is Decerned to Denude himself of the saids Lands in favours of Robert reserving his own Liferent After which Decreet Robert grants a second Tack to Creightoun relating and Confirming the first nineteen years Tack and setting the Land of new again for five merk of Tack Duty in stead of the fourscorepounds After which Tack Robert Dispones the Land irredeemably to Birthwood but at that time Robert was not Infeft but upon the very same day that the Disposition was granted to Birthwood Robert Menzies is Infeft and Birthwood is also Infeft Birthwoods Right by progress comes in the Person of Iames Menzies the Defender Roberts Brother The Pursuer insisted for the Duties of the Land over and above the fourscore pounds during the Life of old Iames Menzies and over and above the Tack-duty of five merks after his Death For which the Defender alleadged Absolvitor because he produces a Decreet at his instance against Creightoun the Tacks-man Decerning him to Remove because he was then resting several Terms Rent and failed to pay the same and to find Caution to pay the same in time coming The Pursuer answered that the said Decreet was in absence and was null because the Defender Libelled upon his own Infeftment and upon a Tack set to Creightoun the Tacks-man by himself and there was no such Tack produced by him or could be produced because the Tack albeit it bear to be set by Iames Menzies yet it was only set by James Menzies his Father and not by himself The Lords found the Decreet null by Exception Whereupon the Defender alleadged that the Decreet at least was a colourable Title and he possessed by it bona fide till it was found null bonae fidei possessor facit
Practique produced observed by Dury upon the 1â— of March 1637. betwixt Hume and Hume of Blackadder wherein Compt and Reckoning was Sustained at an appearand Heirs instance the Custom having been ever since contrair upon this Ground that no Party should be troubled to Compt at the Instance of those who when the Compt was closed cannot exoner them and yet may put them to make Litiscontestation and Probation in the Cause Duke of Buccleugh contra Parochioners of Eodem die THe Minister of Hasendein having obtained the Designation of a Gleib out of the Duke Land who alleadged that the Minister having a Gleib before extending at least to two Aikers the Earl upon this Designation had gotten Possession thereof and could only seek Relief for the Superplus It was answered that these two Aikers had never been designed as a Gleib but the Pursuers Predecessors were infeft therein and in Possession thereof before the Ministers and any Possession they had was but by their sufference and conâ—â—vance It was answered that decennalis triennalis possessor non tenesur docere de tâ—â—uâ—o and the Minister was not only in Possession thirteen years but thirty years It was answered that albeit Possession may be a Title yet it may be elided by the Pursuers Right which cannot be taken away but by Prescription whereupon the question arose how the Tollerance or Sufference of the Ministers Possession was probable whether by Witnesses or not seing Tollerances are not ordinarly so proven The Lords found that if the Ministers Possession were alleadged to have been 40. year as belonging to the Kirk that the Dukes Tollerance could only be proven by Writ to elide the same but if for fewer years they found the Tollerance or Sufference probable by Witnesses Mr. Arthur Gordoun contra Laird of Drum Eodem die MR. Arthur Gordoun as Assigney to a Decreet recovered against the Laird of Drum Charges him thereupon He Suspends on this Reason that the Debt being originally due to a Defunct his two Executors nominate recovered the Decreet and the one only assigned the whole to Mr. Arthur whereby he can only have Right to the half It was answered that the other Executor being Dead before the Assignation the Office accresced to the Surviver who might uplift all that was in bonis defuncti not uplifted It was answered that this Debt was no more in bonis defuncti but being established in the Executors Person by Sentence testamentum suit oxecatum and the Deceased Executor's half behoved to belong to their Executors and not to accresce Which the Lords Sustained Lady Ballagan contra Lord Drumlanrig Iune 23. 1671. THe Lady Ballagan being by her Contract of Marriage provided to certain Lands and amongst others to the Lands of Birks the Contract bears that she accepts of the saids Lands in full satisfaction of all further Conjunct-Fee Liferent or Terce she was Infeft in the Lands of Birks by her Husband but was not Confirmed by the Lord Drumlanrig Superiour of whom the Lands held Ward The Lady pursues the Tennents of Birks for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for the Lord Drumlanrig Superiour who craved preference because the Lands are now by Ward in his hands by the Death of the Husband and minority of the Heir And as for the Ladies Infeftment it can have no effect against the Ward because it is not Confirmed It was answered that the Lands being Ward and lesse then the third part of the Ward Lands holden of the Lord Drumlanrig the Lady has Right by Law thereto as her Terce It was answered That by her Contract of Marriage she had accepted the Lands provided therein in satisfaction of her Teroâ— which is the ordinar conception of a Renunciation as when a Sum is accepted in satisfaction of any prior Debt it imports a Renunciation and Discharge of the prior Debt and an Inhibition prior to the last Bond will Reduce any Right thereupon Neither can it be maintained as having an anterior Cause by the former Bonds yea any Appryzing upon them would be void because they are Renunced It was answered for the Lady First That there was here no formal Renunciation or Discharge of the Terce and the acceptance of Lands for it doth very well allow that the Land accepted may be bruiked as Terce at least a Terce of that Land must be due though no Terce of other Lands can be claimed and albeit the Clause in satisfaction in personal Rights is commonly understood to Renunce and extinguish the prior Rights unless they be Reserved Yet it is not so in real Rights for if any person have many Rights to Lands and doth thereafter accept a Disposition of a part of the Lands in satisfaction of all his interest that does not Renunce his former Rights to that Land but he may defend himself with them all So here accepting of Lands in satisfaction of a Terce does not Renunce the Terce as to the Lands accepted 2dly Albeit this Clause could import the Renuncing of all Terce that can never be extended to the benefite of the Superiour nor can it be understood the Contracters mind to exclude the Wife from the Terce to make it accresce to the Superiour in both their prejudices because the Husband by the Warrandice must make out the Joynture 3dly Albeit the Renunciation could be profitable to the Superiour yet it being by this Clause in the Contract the Superiour cannot question the Ladies Infeftment which is the cause of the Renunciation but must adhere to the whole Clause nam qui approbat non reprobat It was answered that the common Sense of this Clause of acceptance does still import a full Renunciation neither can the intention or meaning of the Parties import any thing unlesse they had acted accordingly for it had been easie for them to have said but prejudice of the Terce as to thir Lands so that the Terce being Renunced the Renunciation is profitable to all Parties having Interest because the Right thereby Renunced is simply extinct Neither needs the Superiour approve the Infeftment Un-confirmed by making use of the Renunciation for as there could be no pretence for that upon the naked Clause without any Infeftment so the meaning can only be that if the Clause had been perfected by a valide Infeftment he could not have quarrelled it The Lords preferred the Superiour and found the acceptance a full Renunciation of the Terce both as to the Lands accepted and others Helen Hume contra Lord Iustice Clerk Iune 28. 1671. UMquhile Hume of Rentoun having made several Provisions to his Children and amongst the rest to Helen Hume and having recommended the same to his Son now Justice Clerk he gave a Bond to the said Helen of two thousand Merks payable upon Requisition of fourty days the said Helen pursued Registration of the Bond wherein it being alleadged that any Requisition made was past from by acceptance of Annualrent for Terms after The Lords Assoilzied from that Charge until
the Church by that Disposition and was generally cryed out against by all Persons yet una hirundo c. And as for Pargilleis Case the Lords perused the whole Debate and Testimonies and found that Pergilleis Lived near a Mile from Calder and that being an old Guttish Man he was accustomed to be helped to and from his Horse and that he Rode to the Town but that he Lighted then and walked freely through the Mercat and up a Brae to my Lord Tarphichans House and returned again to his Horse without any help either by the hand or otherwise and regarded not that he was helped up and down Stairs or to and from his Horse which the Law doth not require but only the going freely from the Entry of the Town to the Mercat place and back again unsupported The Lords did also find none of the private acts alleadged upon Relevant to prove Health or equivalent to going to Kirk or Mercat and that there was no necessity to condescend on particular Diseases Ioachim Burnmaster contra Captain Dishingtoun Iune 29. 1671 CAptain Dishingtoun having obtained a Decreet before the Admiral Adjudging a Ship taken by him at Sea the time of the late War with Holland whereof Ioachim Burnmaster was Master the said Ioachim raised Reduction of the said Admirals Decreet on these Reasons that his Ship and whole Goods did belong to the Subjects of Sweden his Majesties Allies and who had a particular Treaty with the King bearing expresly that no Person should be Seised who had a Swedish Pass in the Terms particularly exprest in the Treaty Which Pass the Pursuer had and produced when he was taken and yet he was declared Prize upon pretence that three of his Company were Hollanders albeit the Treaty bears expresly that where such a Pass is found ulterius nihil exigatur in bona aut homines nullo modo inquiratur and upon pretence that the Oaths of the Master and Company were contrare to the Pass and proved that there were other owners then these in the Pass and other Goods viz. 15. Hogs-heads of Wine and a quantity of Wine and Brandy wine and Paper and that the Ship in question was not then Bought by the Swedes nor did not go to or from the parts mentioned in the Pass albeit none of these saids points be Material nor did infer that the Ship or Loading or any part thereof did belong to the Kings Enemies but did belong to the Swedes his Allies and Confederats so that albeit they had had no Pass or an unformal Pass their Goods could not be taken from them there being no Article in the Treaty declaring that the not having a full and formal Pass should make such Ships Prize but only that the having thereof should keep them from all question or inquiry The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Decreet of Adjudication was justly and Warrantably given for Contrivances the time of the War being most ordinar the Dutch did frequently palliat their Trading under the pretence of the Kings Allies and in this Case it is evident that the time of the Pass this Ship was in Holland of a Dutch Build belonging to an Hollander Residing there and no pretence of Buying the same by a Swede for a long time after as appears by the vendition produced which does not bear that the Ship was sold to any Swede or for their use but to a Swedish Factor in Holland without mentioning to whose use and so is justly suspect to have been for an other Dutchmans use especially being found Navigable with three Dutchmen in the Company and no Swede hath ever yet declared upon Oath that this Ship and Goods belonged to them for by a Certificat of the Swedish Chamber of Commerce produced that two Swedes did declare that they intended to Buy a Ship in Holland called the blew Lilly and yet the Pass of the same date bears that they swore that the blew Lilly belongs to themselves and no other and by the vendition the Name of the Ship was not the blew Lilly so that all hath been but a Contrivance and that there is nothing produced that necessarly evinces that the Ship and Goods belonged to the Swedes only and seing the Pass is so palpably false in all the substantial points required by the Treaty and by the Oath of the Pursuer himself he cannot cloath himself with the Treaty which he hath so grossly transgressed nor hath he adduced sufficient proof that the Ship and Goods belonged to the Swedes And whereas it is alleadged that the being Sailed with Hollanders is no ground of Seisure by the Treaty the same is opponed which in the next Article to that alleadged upon for not enquiring in the Men and Goods bears that Seisure shall not be made where such a Pass is nisi gravis suspitio subsit and there could be no better ground of suspition then that the Master when he was taken acknowledged the Contents of the Pass not to be true or conform to the Treaty and that a considerable part of the Company were Dutches and as for any Letters produced they are impetrate since the War upon misinformation The Lords adhered to the Decreet of Adjudication and Assoilzied from the Reduction and found the verity of the Pass canvelled by the Testimonies of the Skipper and Company and the Certificat and that most of the material requisits in the Passe were wanting and no sufficient Evidence that the whole Ship and Loadning did truely belong to the Swedes Beidmen of the Magdalen Chappel contra Gavin Drisdail Iune 30. 1671. IAnet Rud having mortified an yearly Annualrent of a Merk Scots out of a Tenement of hers to the poor Beidmen of the Magdalen Chappel they pursue Gavin Drisdail now Heretor of the Tenement for Poinding of the Ground Who alleadged Absolvitor because he has bruiked the Tenement free of that Annualrent for more then fourty years so that the Right thereof is prescribed It was answered that prescription runs not against the Poor and things mortified for pious uses 2dly They are in the same condition with Minors having Overseers chosen yearly 3dly The years of prescription must be accompted abating the times of Pestilence and War when there was no Session It was answered that prescription was the great security of the Leiges and hath no exception by the Act of of Parliament but only Minority and neither by the Civil Law or our Custom is the time of prescription compted per tempus utile but per tempus continuum in regard of the length of the longest prescription The Lords Sustained the Defense of prescription and Repelled the Replyes Brody of Lethim and the Laird of Riccartoun contra The Lord Kenmure Iuly 1. 1671. BRody of Lethim as having Right from Riccartoun having several years agoe obtained Decreet against the Tennents of the Mains of Kenmure thereafter upon a motion for the Viscount of Kenmure the Decreet was stopped and now the Pursuers desire out their Decreet It
was alleadged that the Cause having lyen over several years must be wakened It was answered that there being a Decreet pronunced there was no more Process depending and so needed not be wakend It was answered that a Decreet though pronunced not being conditional to a day but being absolute and thereafter stopped in respect the stop takes off the Decreet the Process is in statu quo prius It was answered that the stop doth not recal the Decreet but only hinders the Extract thereof till the Supplicant be further heard and it is his part to insist in the Bill and that it would be of very evil consequence if stopped Decreets were recalled for then not only wakening would be necessar but in case the Parties should Die Transferance should be raised and seing wakenings are not requisite in concluded Causes much less after Sentence is pronunced The Lords found no necessity of wakening but allowed the Defender to propone what further he had to alleadge Laird of Balfour contra Mr. William Dowglasse Iuly 4. 1671. THe Earl of Airlies Estate being Apprized by Mr. William Dowglasse since 1652. after the Legal was expired Mr. William was Infeft and after his Infeftment the Laird of Balfour Apprized the same Land and thereupon pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties It was alleadged for the first Apprizer that he must be preferred First Because he has the only Right having an Apprizing expired and Infeftment thereon before the Pursuers Apprizing was Led so that eo momento that he was Infeft upon his expired Apprizing the common Debitor was fully Denuded and there was no Right of Reversion or any other in his Person that could be Apprized thereafter It was answered that by the Act of Parliament 1661. between Debitor and Creditor It is provided that all Apprizings Led within year and day of the first effectual Apprizing shall come in therewith pari passu and therefore the Pursuer having Apprized within year and day after the first Apprizers Apprizing became effectual by Infeftment he must come in with him pari passu by the said Act which makes no difference of expired or unexpired Apprizings and by that same Act the Debitor is not so Denuded by the expiring of the Legal and Infeftment but that year and day is still allowed to subsequent Apprizers which in effect is a prorogation of the Legal as to Concreditors It was answered that the Act of Parliament is opponed bearing that Apprizings before or within year and day after the first effective Apprizing shall come in pari passu as if one Apprizing had been Led for all which necessarly imports the calculation of the year to be from the date of the first effective Comprizing and not from the date of the Infeftment or Diligence for the coming in as if one Apprizing had been for all must relate to the Decreet of Apprizing which as it is clear by the Letter of the Statute so also by the Narrative and Motive thereof bearing that Creditors did not know the condition of their Debitors Estate which might be Apprized before they could do Diligence whereas before they had only the benefit of Reversion for remeed whereof the Parliament brings in all Apprizings that are before or within a year after the first effectual Apprizing which before would have carried the sole Propertâ— and factione juris states all these Apprizings as Led in one day so that the remeed is sufficient by having a full year after the date of the Apprizing and Correctory Statutes are to be strictly Interpret and if the date of the Diligence be the Rule an Apprizing after twenty year might be brought to admit a new one deduced after all that time and not only so but the Mails and Duties would belong proportionally to the last Apprizer for twenty years before it was Led It was answered that the year indulged by this Act of Parliament to Concreditors must be from the time the Apprizing is effectual for the words of the Statute bears all Apprizings before or within a year after the first effectual Comprizing c. so that the year must not run from its being an Apprizing but from its being an effectual Comprizing and so from the Infeftment or Diligence neither is the inconvenience shunned otherwise for the only way then known for publication of real Rights was the Register of Seisings and not the Register of the Allowance of Apprizings which is only made necessar by an Act since and it is very easie to make simulate executions of Apprizings by taking away the Copies of Denunciation of the Ground and Citation at the dwelling House of the Debitor but if once a Seising be in the Register all provident men take notice thereof and albeit a Charge be sufficient in stead of a Seising which is not Registrat yet the ordinar way of compleating Apprizings which the Law notices is Infeftment and seing Apprizings are now rigorous Rights carrying any Estate without consideration of the value Acts Correctory of them ought to be extended ex aequo and the more wayes Concreditors have for getting notice of the Apprizing of their Debitors Estate the better neither are the evil consequences upon the other hand of any moment it being the first Apprizers fault if not his fraud that he obtains not Infeftment or does Diligence therefore for he may of purpose lye dormant not only till year and day run but untill the Legal expire and thereby cut off the Diligences of all other Creditors as in this very case the irredeemable Right of an Earldom shall be carried for 1500. pounds and all the other Creditors excluded so that the Apprizing is so far from making the case better that it makes it much worse as latent and fraudulent for it cannot be imagined that if the second Apprizer had known that the first Apprizing was Led but that he would have used Diligence within the year at least within the Legal for so soon as he saw a Seising in the Register he did immediatly Apprize The Lords preferred the first Apprizer and excluded the second and found that the year is to be reckoned from the date of the first effectual Apprizing and not from the Diligence whereby it becomes effectual In this Process the Lords Sustained this Reply that the first Apprizing was to the behove of the common Debitor or his eldest Son and that they would purge the same by payment of what Sums were truly payed for it to the Apprizer according to the said Act of Parliament 1661. without any Reduction or Declarator Helen Hume contra The Lord Iustice Clerk Eodem die THere being a Bond granted by the Laird of Rentoun to Helen Hume his Daughter obliging him and his Heirs to pay the Sum to her at her Age of ten years compleat with Annualrent so long as she should suffer the same unpayed and then subjoining this Clause that in case she should die unmarried the Bond should be void Whereupon the said Helen pursues the Lord
Justice Clerk her Brother who alleadged upon the foresaid Clause that the effect thereof must necessarly be that the said Helen should make no voluntare gratuitous Right in prejudice of her Father or his Heirs that the Sum should return if she were not Married It was answered that this Clause not being the ordinar Clause of Substitution Provision or Return cannot be understood a Suspensive Clause hindring the lifting of the Money neither yet a resolutive Clause in case the Pursuer Marry not but it can only have the effect of a Clause of Substitution that if the Pursuer died Un-married and the Sum un-uplifted or Disponed her Fathers Heir is preferred to her own Heir or nearest of Kin for the Term of payment being her age of ten years she might then lift the Sum and there is no provision to reimploy it of this Tenor or to find Caution to Restore if she were not Married It was answered that this Clause cannot be interpreted as a naked Substitution but as a condition of the Bond equivalent to that which is frequent in Provisions of Children and Contracts of Marriage that in case the Party had no Children the sum should return which was always interpret more than a single Substitution and to import a Condition or Obligation against any voluntar Deed or Disposition And though the Party be thereby Feear of the Sum yet it imports a limited Fee with a Provision to do no Deed in the contrair without a Cause onerous and albeit Re-imployment of the sum be not exprest in this Bond it is implyed in the nature of it The Lords found that seing the Bond had a particular Term and no Condition to Re-imploy and the question now was only of voluntar Dispositions without Causes onerous whereof there was none at present existent The Lords Decerned the Sum to be payed to the Pursuer reserving to the Defender his Reason of preference against any Disposition or Assignation without a Cause onerous if the same should happen to be made Iohn Mccrae contra Lord Mcdonald Iuly 6. 1671. JOhn Mccrae as Heir to John Mccrae his Goodsire pursues the Lord Mcdonald as Heir to his Goodsire for payment of a Bond of 400. merks in Anno 1629. granted by the Defenders Goodsire to the Pursuers Goodsire The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Bond is prescribed The Pursuer replyed that the Prescription was impeded partly by Minority and was interrupted by a Citation at his Instance against the Lord Mcdonald It was answered that the first Citation made was null being at the Mercat Cross of the Shire by Dispensation upon an unwarrantable suggestion that there was not safe access to him which has been past of Course by the Servants of the Bill-Chamber whereas they ought specially to have represented the same and the consideration thereof to the Lords and so being surreptitiously obtained periculo petentis it can import no interruption 2dly The Execution at the Mercat Cross bears no leaving or affixing of a Copy And as for the second Citation it is but one day before the fourty years be compleat which being so small a time is not to be regarded in Prescription nam Lex non spectat minima and it is also null though it be done personally as falling with the first Execution The Lords found that the first Citation was sufficient to interrupt Prescription although it had not been formal through want of a Copy and declared they would sustain the Process thereupon if the leaving of a Copy were added to the Execution subscribed by the Messenger and abidden by as true They found also that the second Citation was sufficient interruption though within a day of compleating the prescription which was to be reckoned punctually de momento in momentum Strachan contra Gordouns Iuly 7. 1671. STrachan pursues Gordouns for a Spuilzie of four Oxen taken away from them by violence being then in their Plough by George and William Gordouns and others The Defenders alleadged absolvitor because they offered them to prove that the Oxon were their proper Goods and were stollen from them and that thereafter they were found straying upon the Pursuers Ground and that they were proclaimed as Waith-goods by the Sheriff and that by the Sheriffs Order direct to his Majors the Defenders intrometted with them and so did no wrong The Pursuer Replyed that no way granting the verity of the Defense the same ought to be Repelled because they having the Oxen in question in their peaceable Possession four Months they ought not to have been disturbed in their Peaceable Possession in this Order without the Citation or Sentence of a Judge So that the Defenders having unwarrantably and violently Dispossessed them spoliatus ante omnia restituendus and they may pursue for Restitution as accords but the Pursuers are not now obliged to Dispute the Point of Right 2dly If need beis they offer to prove that they acquired the Goods from the Laird of Glenkindy their Master so that being Possessors bona fide cum titulo they could not be summarly Spuilzied or Dispossessed For albeit stollen or strayed Goods may be summarly Recovered de recenti or from the Thieves yet cannot so be taken from a lawful Possessor acquiring bona fide The Lords found the Defense Relevant and admitted the same to the Defenders Probation and found also that part of the Reply Relevant that the Pursuers did Possess bona fide by an onerous Title Relevant to elide the Defense though it were proven as to the Restitution of the Oxen to the Pursuer and the ordinar profits thereof but not the violent profits for they found the Sheriffs Warrand being instructed would excuse from the violent profits but they found that the Defenders naked Possession though for four months by having the Goods in the Plough would not infer Restitution or Spuilzie but that the Goods being stollen or strayed might be recovered Summarly Laird of Polmais contra The Tradsmen of Striveling Eodem die THe Tradsmen of Striveling having Charged and troubled the Laird of Polmais Tennents about St. Ninians Kirk upon the Act of Parliament prohibiting Workmen to exercise their Trades in the Suburbs of Royal Burrows Polmais raised a Declarator for freeing of himself and his Tennents of the saids Charges and that they might freely exercise all their Trades especially about the Kirk of St. Ninians which is about a Mile from Striveling which being Dispute and it condescended upon that St. Ninians being a mile from Striveling could no ways fall under the Act of Parliament and could not be interpret a Suburb being no ways adjacent to the Town The Lords found the Declarator and Condescendence Relevant and Decerned Andrew and Adam Stevins contra Cornelius Neilson Iuly 11. 1671. ANdrew Stevin having made a Disposition of his Lands to Cornelius Neilson his Good-brother and thereafter another Disposition to his Brother Adam Stevin They pursue a Reduction of Cornelius Disposition First As being upon Trust and only for the security
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
raises Reduction on this Reason that the inferiour Judge did wrong in Decerning her being only Executrix Creditrix as being lyable for the whole Inventar because by the Law and Custom of this Kingdom Executors Creditors who Confirm only for obtaining payment of their Debt are lyable for no more but what they intromet with above the Debt due to them and are not lyable for further Diligence as other Executors Yea it was found upon the 11. of Iune 1629. observed by Dury that an Executor having no interest was not lyable for Diligence but only to Assign in the Case betwixt Nivin and Hodge It was answered that Executors Creditors are lyable for intromission and omission as other Executors because they accept an Office and exclude others who would be lyable for Diligence and they have no more advantage but that they are preferred to others as being Creditors and may pay themselves in the first place and it would be of pernicious consequence if their negligence should cause the interest of Children though Orphants as well as Creditors to perish and therefore the Lords did justly in Anno 1667. in the Case betwixt Bisket and Greig find an Executor Creditor lyable for the whole Inventar both for Intromission and Omission It was answered that it hath always been heretofore holden that Executors Creditors were not in the case of other Executors as to Diligence and that the ordinar Remeed was that Creditors might pursue the Executor Creditor and thereupon would obtain Assignations to any Debts in the Inventar they pleased except such as had been uplifted by the Executor for their own payment upon which Assignations they did always pursue for themselves so that there was neither Exclusion nor obstacle to the Creditors but on the contrair they got Assignations without being at the trouble to Confirm So that this Confirmation being many years ago it were against all Reason to make the Executors Creditors further lyable than they were then esteemed to be which might also be drawn back against all Executors Creditors which are very many The Lords having considered the Decision betwixt Bisket and Greig that it was upon a recent Confirmation and in favours of a Wife for her Provision out of whose hands the Executor had recovered the Goods though she was a priviledged Creditor They found that this Executor Creditor being long before Confirmed was not lyable for Diligence but only for Intromission and resolved to take it into consideration whether Executors Confirming in time coming should be lyable for Diligence and to consider the inconvenience on both parts and to make an Act of Sederunt thereanent Countess of Cassils contra Earl of Roxburgh Eodem die THe Countess of Cassils in her Contract of Marriage with the Lord Ker being provided to 5000. pounds he did stante matrimonio provide her to an Annualrent of 10000. merks further during her Lifetime and upon his Death-bed he made two Testaments of one date by the one he nominate his Father Tutor to his Children and left to him the Provisions of his Wife and Children by the other he provided his Lady to 5000. pound more than her Contract and named Provisions for his Children but subjoyned a Clause that if his Father who was then in England returned and made use of the other Testament that this Testament should be null The Earl of Roxâ—urgh his Father did return and was Infeft as Heir to his Son and did Ratifie his Sons Bond of Provision of 10000. merks and by his Testament did expresly mention his Sons former Testament and by vertue thereof named Tutors to his Oyes and by a Bond aâ—part gave different Provisions to them from these appointed by their Fathers Testament and this Earl of Roxburgh being Heir of Tailzie to him did in his Contract of Marriage reserve the Pursuers Infeftment of this Annualrent and did many years satisfie and take Discharges of the same and now she pursues the Earl as contraverting the payment for some years bygone and in time coming during her Life The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Pursuer being competently provided by her Contract of Marriage this additional Provision was a Donation betwixt Man and Wife and so by the Law is Revockable at any time during the Husbands Life even upon Death-bed or by his Testament not only by a direct Revocation but by any thing that might import a change of his mind and accordingly he hath Revocked the same by his Testament produced adding only 5000. pounds to his Ladies Provision by her Contract and albeit thereafter the late Earl did Ratifie and acknowledge this additional Provision yet therein they were errore lapsi not having known of this Testament of the Lord Ker at least not having understood that it imported a Revocation of this Provision and therefore may justly now Reclaim against it The Pursuer answered that this Testament imported no Revocation which it did not mention neither is the addition of 5000. pounds therein an indirect Revocation which must ever be by an inconsistent Deed but both these conditions are consistent albeit that by the Testament it be modo inhabili and it is very like that the Testator being taken with a great Fever did not remember of this Provision or added the other 5000. pounds on this consideration that the former Provision was only to take effect after the Earl of Roxburghs Death so that the Lord Kers meaning might probably be to add 5000. pounds during his Fathers Lifetime 2dly Though the Testament could import a Revocation yet the Testament it self being Conditional only to stand in case his Father returned not to Scotland and made use of the other Testament of the same date all the Tenor of it and this restricting Clause is affected with the same Condition so that if the Testator had said that he had restricted his Ladies additional Provision to 5000. pounds in case his Father returned not but in that case left her to his Fathers provisions it would be truly a conditional Revocation which Condition is purified by the Fathers Return and providing the Lady by his Ratification of this Bond of Provision nor can it be justly alleadged that both this and that Earl were errore lapsi seing the Testament is produced by the Earl himself and was never in the Ladies hands and doubtless it hath been advised by the late Earl ere he Ratified who was a most provident man and his Ratification is dated at the Canongate ubi fuit copia peritorum and if Ratifications should become ineffectual or if errore lapsus should be Relevant upon the ignorance or mistake of the import of a Writ Ratifications should be of no effect but any ground that might defend the Ratifier before the Ratification might annul the same upon pretence that he knew it not and therefore errore lapsus is only understood de invincibili errore facti but never de ignorantia juris quae neminem excusat The Lords found that any Revocation
by the Testament was only Conditional and became void by the Earls Returning and making use of the other Testament and therefore Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and had no necessity to determine anent the Confirmation and Error alleadged Lindsay of Mount contra Maxwel of Kirkonnel Iuly 20. 1671. LIndsay of Mount being Donator to the Waird of the Estate of Kirkonnel by the Death of the late Laird and Minority of this Laird pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for the appearand Heir as having Right by Disposition from his Grand-mother to an Appryzing led at her Instance against her Son and alleadged that there could be no Waird because Kirkonnel the Kings Vassal was Denuded before his Death and his Mother as Appryzer was Infeft It was answered first That this Apprizing was upon a Bond granted by the Defunct to his own Mother for the behove of his Son and appearand Heir without any onerous Cause and so was null and simulat and a fraudful Contrivance in prejudice of the King as Superiour of his Casuality of Waird and that it was found in the Case of the Lord Colvil that a Vassal having married his appearand Heir in lecto It was found a Fraudulent precipitation in defraud of the Waird It was answered that the alleadgeance was not Relevant because there was nothing to hinder the Defunct to have Resigned in favours of his appearand Heir without any Cause onerous or to grant him a Bond that he might be Infeft upon Appryzing or to grant such a Bond to any Person to the Heirs behove he being in leige poustie and there can be no presumption of Fraud seing he might have obtained his Son Infeft directly which the King refuses in no case when the Granter is in leige poustie The Lords Repelled the Alleadgeance for the Donator and Sustained the Appryzing The Donator further alleadged that by the Act of Parliament 1661. betwixt Debitor and Creditor It is provided that the Debitor may cause the Appryzer Restrict himself to as much as will pay his Annualrent and the Debitor may bruik the rest during the Legal and now the Donator is in place of the Debitor so that what superplus there is more than will pay the Appryzers Annualrent must belong to the Donator It was answered that this Clause is peculiar and personal to Debitors and cannot be extended to Donators who are not mentioned therein because Debitors when they crave Restriction they are presumed as provident men to uplift the rest for satisfying the Appryzing or their other Debts or for their Subsistence and so being introduced wholly in their favours it cannot be extended in favours of the Donator to their prejudice For if the Appryzer Possess all the superplus will satisfie the Appryzing whereas if the Donator uplift the Superplus the Debitor will be hudgely prejudged neither the Appryzing nor any other Debt of his being satisfied thereby nor his Heir intertained therewith The Lords found that this Clause could not be extended to a Donator and that there could not be a Waird both by the Decease of the Appryzer and Debitor The Donator further alleadged that the Appryzing was satisfied by Intromission within the Legal which did extinguish the Appryzing as to all Effects and Purposes as if it had never been and all Parties return to their Rights as they were before the Appryzing and so consequently the Superiour and his Donator has the Ward Duties during the appearand Heirs minority after the Appryzing is extinct for the Appryzing being but a Collateral Security like an Infeftment for Relief it is jus resolubile and doth not fully Divest the Debitor who needs not be Re-seased as he would be in the case of a Wodset holden publick but the Debitors own Infeftment Revives and stands valide and the appearand Heir must be Infeft as Heir to the Defunct which cannot be till he be legitimae aetatis after the Ward It was answered that the Alleadgeance is not Relevant unless the Appryzing had been satisfied in the Defuncts Life for then his Infeftment would have Revived But if any thing remained due the appearand Heir hath the Right of Reversion as appearand Heir and Intromission thereafter cannot Revive the Defuncts Infeftment The Lords found that so soon as the Appryzing was extinct whether before the Defuncts Death or after the Ward took effect and the Donator had Right Laird of Birkinbog contra Iohn Grahame of Craigie Eodem die IN a Competition amongst the Creditors of umquhile Sir Robert Dowglass of Tilliquhilly a Disposition granted by Sir Robert to Grahame of Craigie was called for to be Reduced upon this Reason that it was granted by Sir Robert when he was a notorious and known Bankrupt and fled and was latent so that by the Act of Parliament 1621. he could not prefer one Creditor to another being in that Condition for that Act annuls all Dispositions made by Bankrupts without a just and necessary cause and there was no necâ—ssity nor Justice for the Bankrupt to prefer one Creditor to another It was answered that unless there had been legal Diligence at the Pursuers instance or that the Defenders Disposition had been without a cause onerous there is no ground for that Act to hinder any Debitor though Bankrupt to prefer one Creditor to another for if he had had the Money he might have payed any he pleased and the Cause is both just and necessary because he might have been compelled by Law to have done the same and there was nothing to hinder the Creditor but that as he might have first Appryzed so he might have taken the first Disposition from his Debitor 2dly The Pursuers Debt was for a Bargain of Victual Sold and Delivered to the common Debitor but a Month before the Disposition in question when he was alleadged to be Bankrupt The Lords found the last Alleadgeance Relevant and Assoilzied from the Reduction but did not decide upon the former alleadgeance Guthrie contra Mackarstoun Eodem die IN a Competition betwixt an Heir and an Executor anent the Rent of a Miln where the Tacks-mans Entry was at Whitsunday where the first Terms of payment of the Rent was at Candlemas and the second at Whitesunday the Liferenter having survived Candlemas and died before Whitesunday The question arose how far the Executor of the Liferenter had Right it being alleadged that the Executor of the Liferenter could only have Right to the one half the Liferenter having only survived the first Term as in House Mails The Lords found that the legal Terms of a Miln Rent being Whitesunday and Mertinmas the Liferenter having survived both the legal Terms had Right to the whole years Rent in the same way as in Land Rents and not to the one Term as in House Mails Sir George Maxwel of Nether Pollock contra Maxwel of Kirkonnel Iuly 21. 1671. IN this pursuit related the 11th of Iuly instant It was further alleadged for the Defender that the
Annualrents The Pursuer Repâ—yed that the Prescription was interrupted in so far as a part of the Principal Sum was payed within the years of Prescription It was answered for the Defender that the payment being mode to the Daughters of the principal Sum it could have no effect as to the Annualrents preceeding Iean Blairs Death which belonged not to her Daughters as persons Substitute in the Bond but to her Executors so that the Bond might well be preserved as to the principal Sum and yet prescribe as to the Annualrents these being two several Right and stated in several Persons It was answered That the Interruption by payment was sufficient for preserving both Principal and Annual for Prescription being odious any Deed by which the Debitor and Creditor acknowledge the Right within the fourty years is sufficient not only as to the interest of the particular Actors but as to all others who have interest in the same Right as payment of any part of the Annualrent by one Person preserves the whole Right against all the Cautioners and Co-principals though they neither payed nor were pursued within fourty years so payment of any part of the Principal must in the same manner preserve the Right of the Bond as to all Annualrents to whomsoever they belong if they be not fourty years before that Interruption by payment of a part of the principal Which the Lords found Relevant This was stopped on the Lords own consideration without a Bâ—ll from the Parties because by common Custom though Annual had been constantly payed for fourty years yet all preceeding prescribed whereupon it was contrarily Decerned thereafter February 7. 1672. Alice Miller contra Bothwel of Glencorse Eodem die ALice Miller pursues Improbation of a Minute of a Tack betwixt her and Glencorse who compeared and abode by the verity of the Tack and the Writer and Witnesses of the Tack being Examined upon Oath did Depone that they did not see Alice Miller Subscribe and one of them Deponing that he had Subscribed at Glencorses instigation who told him that he had caused set to Alice Millers Name only one Witness who was Writer and was Glencorse his Brother Deponed that he saw the said Alice Miller Subscribe with her own hand The Lords having this Day Advised the Cause found that the Witnesses did not abide by the verity of the Subscription of the said Alice Miller and did therefore improve the Minute but found it not proven who was the Forger of the said Alice Millers Subscription Captain Guthrie contra The Laird of Mccairstoun Iuly 25. 1671. CAptain Guthrie having Married Dame Margaret Scot and she dying in Possession of the Lands of Mannehill Laboured by her Husband and her in the Moneth of April Mccairstoun as Heretor of the Land craves the Rent of the Land for that year in respect the Liferenter neither lived till the first Legal Term which is Whitesunday nor till Martinmasse It was answered that by immemorial Custom Liferenters have Right to the Cropt of Lands Sowed by themselves whether they attain to the Term of Whiâ—esunday or not neither were they ever found lyable for any Duty therefore Which the Lords Sustained Robert Baillie contra Mr. William Baillie Iuly 27. 1671. THe Laird of Lamingtoun having made a Tailzie of his Estate wherein William Baillie eldest Son to his Deceased eldest Son is in the first place and to him is Substitute Robert Baillie Lamingtouns second Son and the Heirs of his Body reserving to the said Robert his Liferent from the Fee of his Heirs in case they succeed and failzying of Roberts Heirs to Master William Baillie Lamingtouns Brother Son after Lamingtouns Death there is a Contract betwixt this Lamingtoun and Mr. William Baillie on the one part and Robert on the other by which Lamingtoun obliges himself to pay to Robert the sum of six hundreth merks during his Life and Robert Renunces and Dispones to Lamingtoun his portion natural and Bairns part of Gear and all Bonds and Provisions made to him by his Father and all Right he has to the Estate of Lamingtoun or any part thereof and that in favours of this Lamingtoun and his Goodsires Heirs males contained in his Procutry of Resignation Robert Baillie raises a Declarator against Lamingtoun and Mr. William Baillie for Declaring that this Contract could not be extended to exclude him or his Heirs from the Right of Tailzie in the Estate of Lamingtoun failzying of this Laird and his Heirs and that it could only be extended to any present Right Robert had to the Estate of Lamingtoun but to no future Right or hope of Succession seing there is no mention either of Tailzie or Succession in the Contract It was alleadged Absolvitor because Robert getting 600. Merks yearly he can instruct no Cause for it but this Renunciation which must necessarly be so interpret as to have effect and so if it extend not to exclude him from the Tailzie it had neither a Cause for granting the six hundreth merks nor any effect thereon It was answered that Robert being a Son of the Family and Renuncing his Portion natural it was a sufficient Cause and though there were no Cause such general Renunciations could never be extended to future Rights or hopes of Succession unless the sum had been exprest Which the Lords found Relevant and Declared accordingly Sir Iohn Keith contra Sir George Iohnstoun Iuly 28. 1671. THe Estate of Caskiben being Appryzed by Doctor Guil Sir George Iohnstoun the appearand Heir acquired Right to the Appryzing in the Person of Phillorth who by a Missive Letter acknowledged the Trust upon which Letter Sir George raised Action against Phillorth to compt for his intromission and Denude himself and upon the Dependence raised Inhibition yet Phillorth sold the Estate to Sir Iohn Keith who to clear himself of the Inhibition raised a Declarator that the Inhibition was null and that his Estate was free of any burden thereof because it wanted this essential Solemnity that the Execution against Phillorth did not bear a Copy to be delivered and that the Executions being so Registrat he being a Purchaser for a just price and seing no valid Inhibition upon Record he ought not to be Burdened therewith The Defender alleadged Absolvitor Because First The delivering of a Copy was no Essential Solemnitie neither does any Law or Statute ordain the same much less any Law declaring Executions void for want thereof and albeit it be the common Stile yet every thing in the Stile is not necessary for if the Messenger should have read the Letters and showen them to the Partie he could not say but that he was both Certiorat and Charged not to Dispone 2dly The Executions bear that Phillorth was Inhibit personally apprehended 3dly The Inhibition comprehends both a Prohibition to the Party Inhibit and to all the Leidges at the Mercat Cross at which the Execution bears a Copy was affixed so that whatever defect might be pretended as to Phillorth this
Pursuer and all the Leidges were Inhibite to block or buy from him so that the Pursuer has acted against the Prohibition of the Letters and cannot pretend that he purchased bona fide being so publickly Inhibit and the Inhibition put in Record he neither should nor did adventure to purchase without special warrandice to which he may recur 4thly Such Solemnities when omitted may be supplied for there is nothing more ordinar than in Summons to add any thing defective in the Executions and abide by the truth thereof and many times these Solemnities are presumed done though not exprest as a Seasing of a Miln was Sustained though it bear not Delivery of Clap and Happer yet bearing a general with all Solemnities requisite it was Sustained and a Seasine of Land though it bear not Delivery of Earth and Stone seing it bear Actual Real and Corporal Possession and the Clause â—acta erant hac super solo c. ut moris est Yea in other Solemnities which the Law expresly requires as three â—lasâ—s in the Executions of Horning and six knocks and the affixing of a Stamp have all been admitted by the Lords to be supplied by proving that they were truely done though not exprest in the Execution Though Horning be odious and penal inferring the loss of Moveables and Liferent therefore it ought much more to be supplied in the case of an Inhibition which is much more favourable to preserve the Croditors Debt and here the Messenger hath added to the Execution that a Copie was Delivered and Subscribed the same on the Margent and it is offered to be proven by the Witnesses in the Execution that it was truely so done The Pursuer answered that there was nothing more essential in an Execution than delivering of a Copy for showing or Reading of Letters was no Charge but the delivering of the Copy was in effect the Charge and albeit Executions which require no Registration and may be perfited by the Executor at any time may be amended as to what was truly done Yet where Executions must necessarlie be Registrate within such a time else they are null after the Registration the Messenger is functus officio and his assertion has no Faith and seing the giving of a Copie is essential and if it be omitted would annul the Execution so after Registration it canâ—ot be supplied because in so far the Execution is null not being Registrate debito tempore for as the whole Execution would be null for want of Registration so is any essential part and whatever the Lords has supplied in Hornings yet they did alwayes bear that the same was lawfullie done according to the Custom in such cases and this Execution does not so much as bear that Phillorth was lawfullie Inhibite but only according to the Command of the Letters which do not express any Solemnitie and it hath been found by the Lords that a Horning being Registrate and not bearing a Copy Delivered it was found null because that part was not in the Register nor was it admitted to be supplied any way but that it were proven by the Oath of the Keeper of the Register that that Clause was upon the Margent of the Execution when it was presented to the Registister and was only neglected to be insert by him which shows how necessarâ— a Solemnity the Lords have accompted the giving of a Copy and Registrating thereof And if Solemnities of this kind be by Sentence passed over it will not only incourage Messengers to neglect all accustomed Solemnities but course of time may incroach on all other Solemnities whereas if this be found necessar none will ever hereafter omit it or any other necessar Solemnity The Lords found the Inhibition null and that the Delivering of a Copy was a necessar Solemnity which not being contained in the Register they would not admit the same to be supplied by Probation in prejudice of a singular Successor Acquiring for a just price Hadden contra The Laird of Glenegies Eodem die HAdden being Donator to the Marriage of the Laird of Glenegies pursues Declarator for the avail thereof The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because by an Act of Parliament 1640. It was Declared That whosoever was killed in the present Service their Waird and Marriage should not fall Ita est Glenegies was killed during the Troubles at the Battel of Dumbar It was Replyed that the present Troubles could not extend further than to the Pacification Anno 1641. After which there was peace till the end of the year 1643. 2dly The Parliament 1640. and all the Acts thereof are Rescinded It was Duplyed That the Troubles were the same being still for the same Cause and that the Rescissory Act contained a salvo of all private Rights Acquired by these Rescinded Acts. It was answered that this was a publick Law and the salvo was only of particular concessions by Parliament to privat Parties The Lords found that the Act 1640. reached no further than the Pacification by which the Troubles then present were Terminate The Lords Demured in this case upon remembrance of a Process before them at the instance of the Heirs of Sir Thomas Nicolson against the Heirs of the Laird of Streichen upon the Gift of Streichens Waird to Sir Thomas who Died the time of the War being Prisoner by occasion of the War and after Pacification that they might have seen what they had done in that Case but did not get the Practicque and the Parties being agreed they Decided in manner foresaid wherein this was not proponed nor considered that the foresaid Act was always esteemed an Exemption after the Pacification during the whole Troubles and no Waird for Marriage was found due that time though many fell during the War and if it had not been so esteemed the same Motives that caused the first Act to be made in Anno 1640. would have moved the renewing thereof after the Pacification and no doubt the King and Parliament Anno 1650. before Dumbar would have renewed the same for incouragement in so dangerous a War if it had not been commonly thought that the first Act stood unexpired Murray contra The Earl of Southesk and other Appryzers of the Estate of Powburn Eodem die JAmes Murray having Right to an Appryzing of the Estate of Sir Iames Keith of Powburn led at the instance of Mr. Thomas Lundie pursues thereupon for Mails and Duties Compearance was made for the Earl of Southesk and posterior Apprizers after Year and Day who alleadged that by the Act of Parliament 1661. betwixt Debitor and Creditor It is provided that the Lords of Session at the desire of the Debitors may ordain Appryzers to restrict their Possession to as much as will pay the Annualrent the Debitor Ratifying their Possession and now the Posterior Appryzers having Appryzed omne jus that was in the Debitor craved that the first Appryzer might Restrict himself to his Annualrent and they preferred to the rest of the Duties It was answered that
the Apprizing but not by the Messenger being produced as a Title in a Process the same was not Sustained without the Messengers Subscription or his Executions but the Party was remitted to prove the Tenor thereof December 1665. Mâ—culloch contra Craig An Apprizing was found to be satisfied by Intromâ—ssion not only within the years but also within the three years added by the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor though the Apprizing was led long before that Act Ianuary 20. 16â—6 Clappertoun contra Laird of Torsonce Here it was also found that a part of the Lands Apprized being sold irredeâ—mably by the Apprizer were Redeemable within thrâ—e years and that the singular Successor was only comptable for the Rents thereof and not the Apprizer who had sold the same before the Act. An Apprizing led upon several Sums of one whereof the Term of payment was not come the Apprizing was â—ound null as to that Sum but whether it would be null in totum or whether it would be valide to carry the whole Right of the Lands as that Sum had never been in or if a proportional part of the Land effeiring to that Sum would be free of the Apprâ—izing the Lords decided not but were of different Iudgements February 16. 1666. Sharp of Houstoun contra Glen An Apprizing was found extinct as being satisfied by the Debitor and retired by him with a blank Assignation thereto lying by him at his death though his Son thereafter filled up his Name therein which was instructed partly by the Sons Oath which was found not sufficient to prove alone and partly by Witnesses ex officio one of which who proved most clearly was his Brother February 27. 1666. Creditors of the Lord Grâ—y contra the Lord Gray An Apprizing on a Bond bearing a Sum to be payable without Requisition was found valide without either Requisition or Charge of Horning Iuly 21. 1666. Thomson contra Mâ—kitrick An Apprizing was found extinct as to a Party in whose favours the Apprizer granted a Back-bond bearing that the Apprizing should not be prejudicial to that Parties Right which was found Relevant against a singular Successor viz. The Kings Donator having right to the Apprizing by Foreâ—aulture Iuly 31. 1666. Earl of Southesk contra Marquess of Huntly An Apprizing was found satisfied within the Legal by Intromission and no part of the Martinmas Rent was ascribed to a Tercers Right not being served though she gave Tack to the Apprizer he having Entered on the Debitors Possession December 21. 1666. Zeaman contra Oâ—â—phant An Apprizing led against an appearand Heir as specially Charged to Enter Heir was preferred to the Infeftment â—f the next apparent Heir after the Heir Charged his death or the Infeâ—tment of their singular Successor granted after the matter became Litigious albeit the Apprizer from the apparent Heir Charged was never Infeft nor Charged the Superiour upon the Appâ—izing neither was the apparent Heir himself Infeft but that the Superiour might be Chaâ—ged at any time after the apparent Heirs death and albeit the next apparent Heirs could not Enter Heirs to the former apparent Heir Charged but to his Predecessor to the effect they might Reduce or Redeem the Apprizing led against the former apparent Heir February 6. 1668. Iohnstoun contra Erskin An Apprizing was found Redeemable from the eldest Son and apparent Heir of the Debitor within ten years for the sums he truly payed out by the Act of Parliament 1661. albeit his Father was living the time of this Process Iune 19. 1668. â—urnet contra Nâ—smith An Apprizer since 1652. pursuing the rest for his part of the Duties as coming in with them pari passu by the Act 1661. betwixt Debitor and Creditor his Apprizing was â—ound not to be effectual till the allowance thereof were Registrate conform to the late Act of the same Parliament anent Registration of allowances but that it required no determinate time to Registrate but whensoever Registrate it would be effectual as to all Rights not compleated before Registration Iuly 17. 1668. Steuart contra Murraâ—â— An Apprizing on an Assignation to a Cautioner or for his behove Apprizing for the whole sum without deduction of that Cautioners part was not found null in totum but Restricted to the Sum truly due being within the Legal Iuly 22. 1668. Iohnstoun of Sheins contra Arnold An Apprizing and Infeftment thereon granted by the Exchequeâ— of course without notice when the King by Forefaulture was imâ—ediate Superiour was found not to supplie a Confirmation or to exclude the Donator of the Forefaulture pursuing a Removing on a posterior Gift December 9. 1668. Earl of Argile contra Stirling Apprizing with a Charge against the Superiour does not exclude the Liferent Escheat of the Vassal against whom the Apprizing was led without consideration whether the Superiour was in culpa by not obeying the Charge Iune 28. 1667. Dowglat contra Lisk An Apprizer having at several times Apprized on several Sums and Entered in possession by the first Apprizing before the secoâ—d was led was found to impute his whole Intromission to the first Apprizing that thereby it might be satisfied within the Legal The Apprizer was also found comptable for what sums he received for a part of the Lands sold by him within the Legal but for no greater price and a joynt probation was refused though it was in the Highlands the Apprizer offering to prove by Witnesses above exception and the Lords ordained both the Feears to be produced and the greatest prices to be proven that they might choose what Rate to â—ollow Ianuary 14. 1669. Mckenzie of Puglasâ— contra Ross of Auchnacloich An Apprizing led against one Charged to Enter Heir who dying un-infeft his Sisters as Heirs to his Grand-Father to whom he was Charged to Enter Heir were â—ound to have the Right of Reversion of the Appriâ—ing albeit they were not Heirs to their Brother who was Charged to Enter Heir but dyed un-infeft Ianuary 1â— 1669. Iohnstoun contra Erskin Lord Lyon An Apprizer having Charged the Superior was found not thereby to become Vassal so as by his death the Lands would â—all Waird but by the Death of the Party against whom the Apprizing was led unless the Apprizer when he Charged the Superior had presented a Chatter with an offer of Money and a Bond for what â—urther the Lords should modifie for the years Rent and had put the Superior in culpa aut mora in not Infefting the Apprizer and that whether the Superior required the same or not February 9. 1669. Black Donator by the Duke of Hamilâ—oun contra French Vide Liferent Dowglas contra Lâ—â—k An Apprizing was found extinct by the Intromission of him to whom the Apprizer granted Back-bond declaring the Apprizing to be to his behove and that against a singular Successor who thereafter obtained Disposition and Inâ—eâ—tment upon the Apprizers Resignation Iuâ—y 12. 1670. Kennedy contra Cuninghame and Wallace An Apprizing posterior was preferred to a prior Appriâ—ing being less
formal and solemn according to the custom then in uâ—e the posterior being upon Denunciation at the Mercat Croâ—s of the Sheriffdom and the other at the Mercat Cross of the Regality when Regalities were supprest by the Vsurpers and was led at Glasgow Iuly 15. 1670. Lady Lucia Hamiltoun contra Boyâ— of Pitcon An Apprizer was â—ound comptable for the whole Rents of the Lands he possest by his Apprizing both for his Ommission and Intromission and that not only till his Apprizing was satisfied but for all years subsequent that he continued to intromet with any part Ianuary 26. 1671. Cass contra Cunninghame An Apprizing coming in the person of the apparent Heir of the principal Debitor was â—ound extinct by satisfaction of the â—ums payed by the apparent Heir therefore summarly without Reduction not only as to the Estate of the apparent Heir but as to the Estate of a Cautioner â—or that Debt which was also Apprized February 22. 1671. Dumbar of Baldoon contra Dick. An Apprizer of an Annualrent was preferred to an Arrester although there was no Diligence upon the Apprizing for nine years before the Arrestment and that there was no Infeftment or lawful Charge on the Apprâ—zing in respect it was a prior judicial Assignation requiring no Intimation February 23. 1671. Lord Iustice Clerk contra Fairholme Apprizings deduced since Ianuary 1652. within year and day of the first effectual Apprizing were found not to be compted by a year from the Infeftment or Charge by which the Apprizing becomes effectual but from the date of the first effectual Decreet of Apprizing by the Act 1661. betwixt Debitor and Creditor Which bears That all such Apprizings shall be as if one Apprizing had been led for the whole Iuly 4. 1671. Laird of Balfoure contra Dowglas An Apprizing was found satisfiable by Exception or Reply as being to the behove of the Debitor or his eldest Son for the sums that were truly payed out by the Act of Parliament 1671. Albeit the Apprizing was Expyâ—ed Ibidem An Apprizing was Sustained though it proceeded on a Bond payable upon Requâ—sition and that the Claim of the Apprizing did make mention of the Requâ—sition seing the Requisition was done and is now produced and though the Messenger having met at the dyet appointed for the Apprizing did adjourn the Court of Apprizing till the next day in respect of a great Rain and that the place designed for the Apprizing was upon the open Field and though the place of the Apprizing was by diâ—pensation neither at Edinburgh nor at the Head Burgh of the Shire and past as a common Bill of course Iuly 12. 1671. Heirs of Lundy contra the Earl of Southesk and others In Apprizings Messengers are prohibite by Act of Sederunt to continue the dyer of Apprizings except upon absolute necessity that Parties interressed be not put to uncertain attendance and likewise diâ—penâ—ations for the place of Apprizings is prohibite to be past of course amongst other common Bills without being Read Ibidem An Apprizing acquired by the appearand Heir of the Debitor was found satisfiable by any other of the Defuncts Creditors by paying what the appearand Heir truly payed therefore albeit the appearand Heirs Disposition was before the Act of Parliament 1661. seing his Infeftment by which the Right real is Established in his Person and his Author was Denuded was after the said Act and albeit the Apprizing was not expired when the appearand Heir acquired Right but that it became to expire continuing in his Person and that it was Redeemable within ten years from the date of the acquiring but not from the expiring of the Legal Iâ—ne 21. 1671. Maxwel of Nether-pollock contra Maxwel of Kirkconnel An Apprizer was found not obliged to restrict his Possession to his Annualrent in favours of posterior Apprizers by the Clause for Restriction in the Act of Parliament 1661. which is personal and peculiar to the Debitor but seing the first Apprizer would not admit the posterior Apprizers to possess he should be comptable for the whole Rental from the time of the Exclusion Iuly 28. 1671. Murray contra Earl of Southesk and others ARBITERS got Warrand on a Supplication to Cite Witnesses before them Ianuary 6. 1670. Ker of Cavers and Scot of Goldenberry Supplicants ARRESTMENT was not elided because the sum arrested was discharged before the arrestment seing it appears the Discharge was not delivered to the Party in whose hands the arrestment was made nor none to his use before the arrestment December 13. 1661. Boyd contra Lairds of Niddrie and Edmonstoun An Arrester and an Assigney competing the Assigney was preferred because the Arrestment was loosed albeit the sum Arrested remained still in the same hands because the Arrestment was on a dependence and no Decreet thereupon against the principal Debitor Iuly 4. 1661. Raith of Edmonstoun contra Laird of Niddrie and Lady VVolmet Arrestment cannot be loosed without Caution super cautione juratoria Iuly 16. 1661. Colledge of St Andrews Supplicant Arrestment was found not to affect the Sallaries of the Lords and the Kings Pensions conform to a Letter and Act of Sederunt February 18. 1662. Sir Robert Murray contra Arrestment Execute on the Sabbath Day was found null by Exception February 3. 1663. Oliphant contra Dowglas of Dorâ—och Arresters Competing the second being on Letters of Supplement against a Party ouâ— of the Countrey was preferred to the first being at his Dwelling Place without Supplement Ianuary 20. 1665. Lord Lowre contra Givon Arrestment on a Bond not Registrate was found looseable as not being on a Dâ—â—reet of Registration or any other and after the loosing the Arrester was found preferable to a posterior Assigney seing the Money was yet in his Hand in whose it was Arrested February 7. 1665. Grahame contra Brown and Doctor Martine Arrestment being laid on in the hands of a Party who Entred in a Minute or Bargain of Land though he passed therefrom yet the price was ordained to be made forth-coming November 23. 1665. Campbel contra Doctor Beatoun Arresters having both obtained Decreet in one day were found not to come in equally but the first Arrester was preferred have done equal diligence February 1. 1666. Collonel Cunninghame contra Lyel An Arrester and Comprizer Competing for a Sâ—m whereupon Apprizing was led at the Instance of the common debitor whereupon no Infeftment followed yet the Arrestment upon the said first Apprizers debt was not â—ound habilis modus to make forthcoming the Sum Appryzed for but the second Appryzer was preferred to the Arrester February 22. 1666. Lockhart contra Lord Bargenzie An Arrestment was found to give Action after the death of the debitor whose Goods were Arrested without a new Decreet against any Repreâ—enting him seing he died at the Horn and so could have none to Represent him in mobilibus February 19. 1667. Givon contra Hume here the Defuncts Donator to his Escheat concurred An Arrestment of Annualrents laid on currâ—nte termiâ—â— was
Appryzing on the Bairns Portion though prior Iuly 22. 1668. Iohnstoun of Shems contra Arnot Vide Children Ianuary 16. 1676. Erskines contra Râ—ynolds A BOND bearing borrowed Money was found not Reduceable upon the Act against Bankrupts but that the Bond it self did sufficiently instruct the borrowing of the Money as the cause onerous Iune 28. 1665. Moâ—teith contra Aâ—derson A Bond was found Heretable as bearing annualrent though it was but 5. per cent in a Bairns Portion Iune 28. 1665. Pâ—tcairn contra Edgar Bonds bearing Annualrent are moveable till the first Term of payment of Annualrent and fall within single Escheat Iune 26. 1668. Dick contra Keir A Bond by a Father to a Son though bearing borrowed Money yet was presumed to be for love and favour and the same with an Appryzing thereupon was Reduced at the instance of anterior Creditors who obtained Decreets after the Bond for Bargains which were proven by Witnesses to have been contracted before the Bond Ianuary 21. 1669. Creditors of Pollock contra Pollock his Son A Bond by a Father to his Son after he was Married and out of his Family payable after the Fathers death was found not Reduceable at the instance of posterior Creditors of the Father by the Act of Parliament 1621. against fraudful Alienations though it were Reduceable upon evidence of Fraud ex jure communi which were appointed to be condescended upon Ibidem A Bond taken by a Father from a Son after Contract of Marriage Vide Contract BARONS Decreets are valide in Vaccance time by their priviledge without dispensation and they are competent to Iudge the Multures due by their Vassals February 14. 1662. Nicolson contra Forbes of Tillicutriâ— A BARONY was found to include a Burgh of Barony as Pâ—rt and Pertinent though not exprest in a donators Infefâ—ment albeit it was exprest in former Infeftments and particulars of less moment were exprest in this Infeftment as comprehended in the Barony Ianuary 15. 1668. Earl of Argile contra Campbel A BASE INFEFTMENT of Annualrent was sound valide against a posterior publick Infeftment because thereupon there was a Decreet of poinding the Ground though it could take no effect for a long time till the entry to the Annualrent which was not till after the Constituents death 26 and 27. of February 1662. Creditors of Kinglass competing A base Infeftment by a Husband to his Wife on her Contract was validate by and preferred upon the Husbands Possession though the Wiâ—es Infeftment was of annualrent and the Husbands of property November 23. 1664. Lady Grangâ— contra Murray where it was found that from the very date it was validate and preferred to any other though prior and base but apprehending Possession upon a Citation before Candlemas it being Ferm Land and a Decreet thereon in March thereafter Two base Infestments of annualrent competing one to a Wiâ—e the other to a Creditor the Wife was preferred being cled with Possession by the Husbands possession which was not found competent to the Creditor though his Infeftment was prior and though he used Inhibition before the next Term after the Wifes Infeftment and alleadged the Husband could have no Possession after the Wifes Infeftment before his diligence which the Lords Repelled because the Husband was in a present current Possession and nor in acquirenda possessione but the Wifes Infeftment was only sustained in prejudice of this Creditor in so far as it had an anterior Cause to his debt The Husbands Possession was also found sufficient to validate the Wifes Infeftment of annualrent though he possessed the property which includes eminenter all other Rights November 23. 1664. inter cosdem An Infeftment of Warrandice Lands being in the same Infeftment with the principal Lands and both holden base was preferred to a posterior publick Infeftment of the same warrandice Lands though cled with long Possession and that upon an action of Mails and Duties upon the Distresse without Reduction Ianuary 9. 1666. Brown contra Scot. A base Infeftment by a Father to a Son reserving the Fathers Liferent was found not validate by the Fathers continuing his Possession but the Fathers Creditors appryzing were preferred to the Donator of the Sons Forefaulture founding upon the Sons Infeftment Iune 14. 1666. Hume contra Hume A base Infeftment of annualrent was preferred to a posterior appryzing and charge before the Term at which the annualrent begane to be payable in respect the annualrenter was in Possession of the Land out of which the annualrent was payable intus habuit viz. his annualrent proportionally from the date of his Right Iune 30. 1666. Stevinson contra Dobbie A base Infeftment by a Father to a Son Reserving the Fathers Liferent was found not validate by the Fathers possession albeit the Father disponed the Lands reserved to a third Party who did possess but the Disposition was of the Fee and no mention of the Liferent reserved December 18. 1666. Lord Newbeath contra Dumbar of Burgy A base Infeftment was excluded by the Liferent Escheat of the granter albeit the base Infeftment was before the Rebellion seing it was not cled with Possession in cursu rebellionis within year and day February 21. 1667. Miln contra Clerkinson A base Infeftment by a man to his Wife was preferred to a posterior publick Infeftment albeit the base Infeftment was not cled with Possession of the Husband himself but by others deriving Right of Wodset or other Temporary Right from the Husband or his authors which was compted as the Husbands Possession to validate the Wifes base Infeftment Iuly 18. 1667. Lady Burgy contra Strachen A base Infeftment of annualrent was found to be validate by receipt of a part though far within a Terms annualrent and not relative to the Infeftment but to the Bond whereupon it followed and though there was no annâ—alrent due before the Infeftment yet seing the Receipt bear in part of payment of bygone annualrents the Annualrenter was allowed to ascribe it to the annualrents due after the Infeftment to exclude an Infeftment on an Appryzing which appryzing was led before the Receipt but the Infeftment thereupon was after and the Receipt was proven by an Apocha under the Debitors hand Iuly 23. 1667. Hume contra Hume and the Tennents of Kello A base Infeftment of annualrent on a Bond bearing 3000. merks of borrowed Money and 3000. merks of Portion the one half of the whole Sum and annualâ—ents thereof was Suspended till the Fathers death Yet payment of the annualrent of the other half not suspended was found sufficient to validate the whole Infeftment and to prefer it to a posterior publick Infeftment February 5. 1668. Keir contra Keir A base Infeftment in warrandice granted by a Husband to his Wife holden of himself ex intervallo after the principal Infeftment was found valide against a posterior publick Infeâ—tment of the â—ame warrandice Lands as being cled with the Husbands Possession in the principal Lands and that these needed no
of Breives to serve Heir wherein no Service followed or by Revocking deeds done by the Defunct in his Minority Iune 28. 1670. Eleis of Southside contra Casse Behaving as Heir was not inferred by the appearand Heirs having right or tollerance from Appâ—yzers and intrometting thereby even within the Legal but was inferred by continuing the Defuncts Possession before obtaining such Warrand and that any Creditor though not Appryzer pursuing the appearand Heir behaving as Heir and he Defending upon the Right of an Appryzing that the Creditor might Summarly by Reply prove satisfaction of what he truly payed out by intromission or present payment and thereupon he was obliged to Assign or Dispone to the Creditor Iuly 11. 1671. Maxwel contra Maxwel Behaving as Heir was not inferred simply where the Defender was Infeft as Heir to her Mother her Father and Mother being Infeft in Conjunct see upon their Contract of Marriage by which there was probable ground to think that her Mother was Feear and not her Father Iuly 12. 1671. Gairns contra Sandilands BILLS OF EXCHANGE being accepted and before the Term of payment the Accepter dying no Exchange or Re-exchange was found due but the obtainer of the Bill might either return upon the drawer for single value or proceed against the Successors of the Accepter This Bill was protested for not payment at the dwelling House of the Defunct Iuly 3. 1664. Kennedy contra Hutcheson A BLANK Bond as to the Creditors Name was found to constitute the Receiver thereof to his own behove Creditor and that it would be affected with his Debâ—s and Deeds and fall under his Eâ—cheat as if his Name had been filled up before and before any other Name was filled up shown or intimat an Arrester being Creditor to the person who got the Bond is preferable to him whose Name is filled up therein November 11. 1665. Telzifer contra Geddies debated again and so decided December 1. 1665. A blank Bond being filled up by him who râ—â—eived it in Name of another and delivered to that other and by him shown to the Debitor these particulars being proven by Witnesses ex officio the â—â—â—ty whose Name was filled up was preferred to a Creditor of him to whom the Bond was first delivered blank arresting all Sums due to him in the Debitors hands but after filling up and shewing of the Bond to the Debitor without necessity of an intimation by Instrument Ianuary 18. 166â— Birnie contra Heâ—drieson and George Vide Compensation inter â—osdem A blank in a Disposition whereby Lands are Disponed to two for themselves and the Creditors of the Disponer afterspecified after which several â—ines were written with another hand inserting the particular Creditors and Sums without mention of the Writer of that part of the Writ whereupon it was presumed that that blank was filled up after the date of the Writ and after another Creditors Inhibition unless the contrary were proven not by the Trusties oath but by the Witnesses insert or other Witnesses above Exception Ianuary 16. 1670. Lady Lucia Hamiltoun contra the Creditors of Monkcastle BLOODWITS were found due to a Superior Infeft cum Bloodwitis albeit not a Baron holding immediatly of the King December 12. 1665. Cranstoun contra Pringle BONAE FIDEI POSSESOR â—acit fructus consumptos suos though he have not possessed so long as to obtain a possessory â—udgement November 18. 1664. Guthrie contra Laird of Sornbeg and though the other Parties Infeftment was Registrate Bonae â—idei possesior c. was found Relevant to defend a Party possessing by a Contract with a minor though Reduced upon minority as to the years uplifted before the Reduction February 16. 1666. Earl of Wintoun contra the Countes of Wintoun Bonae â—idei possessor was found Liberat from the Mails of a Booth whereof he had Tack till a Sum were payed albeit the Setter was but Liâ—erenter and had purchased the Tenement to himself in Liferent and to his Son in Fee but the Father was commonly repute Feear and did not set the Tack as Liferenter yet the same was excluded from the duties before Citation and was not found to have Right from a Warning he had made after his Fathers death by chalking of the door without any other intimation February 16. 1669. Hamiltoun contra Harper Bonaâ— fides of Creditors lending their Money and seing a Wifes Contract Registrate bearing such a sum to be imployed was found not to defend them against the Wife who obtained a Declarator of Vitiation of the principal Contract by her Husband and Fathers diminishing the â—ocher and Ioynture to be extended and amended as it was at first Iune 11. 1670. Hunter contra the Creditors of Peter Bonaâ— fidei possessor c. was found of no effect to one who obtained Decreet of Removing for not payment of the Duties in absence and produced not his Infeftment but an Infeftment of another person of the same Name which being a â—raudulent deed he could not thereby have a Title bonae fidei Iuly 21. 1671. Neilson contra Mâ—nzies of Enoch BVRGHS were found to have no power to stent any part of the Charges of their Commissioners sent to the Convention of Burrows upon these who had no Trade in their Town but only Tenements or for any part of a second Ministers Stipend unless it had been due by Law Sentence consent of party or prescription February 1. 1669. Boswel contra the Town of Kirkaldie The priviledge of Burghs by the Act of Parliament that no Trads-men should exercise their Trade in Suburbs was found only to extend to such Suburbs as had no priviledge but if the Suburbs were erected in a Burgh of Regality or Barony or were within a Barony the Inhabitants might freely use these Trades albeit some of them had given Bond to pay such a Duty for the Liberty thereof The same could only bind themselves and not their neighbours or the Heritors Ground with a Servitude without his consent Iuly 21. 1669. Town of Pearth contra the Weaveâ—s in the Bridgeâ— end of Pearth A BVRGH ROYAL having obtained Decreet against certain persons in a Burgh of Borony to desist from Merchant Trade and impowering the Burgh to sease on the Merchandise and the persons of the contraveeners was found not to militate against others than those individual persons and not against the Lord or Baillies of the Barony and that there was no waâ—rand in Law to inâ—arcerate persons hoc ordine February 13. 1663. Town of Linlithgow contra unfree-men of Borrowstounnâ—sâ— A Burgh Royal pursuing a Burgh of Barony for desisting from Merchant Trade The Lords â—ound the Letters orderly proceeded till the Burgh of Bâ—rony should find Caution to desist from Merchant Trade in general but would not suffer to condescend upon particulars as to the retailing of Wine c. which had been forborn by the Lords these 30 or 40. years Iune 24. 1664. Town of Cowper contra Town of Kâ—oucher A Burgh-Royal having immemorâ—al
of the Commissars of Edinburgh November 23. 1661. Dowglas contra Iohnstoun A Commissar was found obliged by the Injunctions to reside at the place of the Commissariot albeit he had power of deputes that he might direct them being answerable for them and that under the pain of deprivation February 14. 1666. Archâ—bishop of Glasgow contra the Commissar of Glâ—sgow A Commissar was founâ— deposable if he be not found sufficient for discharge of the Office in his own person albeit he have the power of Deputes Ibidem Inter â—osdem A Commissar having power to constitute Deputes by the Kings Gift and the former Arch-bishops was found â—â—ereby not to have power to make use of any Deputes but such as were authorized by the Bishop conform to the injunctions but whether Deputes might be authorized pro re naâ—a only in the cases of Sickness or decâ—arator mentioned in the injunctions or in other cases also so that there might be a constant deputation for things in ordinary course in Process and to advise with the principal Commissaâ— in matteâ—s of importance or not The Lords recommended to the Bishops in common who made the injunctions to clear the parties thereanent But found that the Commissars none-residence or acting by his own deputes albeit he was required in the coâ—trary did not annul his Office iâ— respect of his Gift with power of deputation and of the common custom of Bishops to grant deputations that way but as to the future seing the King had approven their Instructions The Lords ordained them to be insert in the Books of Sederunt and to be observed in all time coming February 22. 1666. Inter eosdem The Commissars of Edinburgh were found to have right to Confirm the Testaments of Scots-men dying abroad aniâ—â— râ—manendi as to their Moveables in Scotland and that they might be confirmed and pay Quot here Iuly 18. 1666. Brown and Duâ—â— contra Bissâ—t A Commissars Decreet was not found null as being of matters exceeding the injunctions the Defender not compearing and the probation being lost by the Suspenders silence ten years yet the Lords allowed the Defender a contrary probation Iune 25. 1668. Black contra 〈◊〉 The Commissars of Edinburgh upon a pursuit for Slander and Defaâ—ation having deceâ—ned the Defender to make an acknowledgement before the congregation and to pay 100. pounds Scots to the party and another to the poor The Lords Sustained the Decreet February 5. 1669. Deans contra Bothwel A COMMISSION or Factory was found Revockable though it had an express Term of endurance the Factor being satisfied of what he profitably debursed in contemplation of the Factory Iune 30. 1660. Chalmers conâ—â—â— Baffilliâ— A Commission in a Minute impowering the buyer of Land to retain the price till he were secured and to Infeft the seller and himself and do all things necessary for his secuâ—â—â—y to be satisfied by a part of the price was found to oblige him to do no diligence December 16. 1668. Frazer contra Keith COMMODATVM or the lending of Canons for defence of a Town in these Terms to restore them without hurt skaith or damnage and in case of damnage to pay â—00 merks for them as the price agreed on was found not to oblige the borrower to pay the price where the Cannon were taken by the Enemy all diligence being done to preserve them and that the peril was the Lenders and that this was not commodatum estimatum giving the borrower his option to restore or pay the price but only a liquidation in case of damnage November 17. 166â— Duncan contra Town of Arâ—roth Commâ—datum or one lending a Watch to one who put forth his hand for it without words was found sufficient to oblige him to restore it though just then lending it to another not to liberate him though in the presence and silence of the first Lender seing it was so sudden an Act as his silence could not be thought nor esteemed a consent Iuly 3. 1662. Lord Cowper contra Lord Pitsligo COMMON PASTVRAGE was found relevant by a clause cum commâ—ni pastura in general and 40. years possession to come in with another having a clause of common pasturage in the Muire in question per expressum November 14. 1662. Nicolson contra Laird of Balbirnie Common pasturage in a Commonty of a Barony of the Kings property was found constitute by a Feâ— cum pertinent â—um pasâ—â—â—s pasturis though not special in this Muire being then a Commonâ—y of the Barony February 15. 1668. Laird of Haming contra Town of Selkirk Commonty was found inferred upon mutual declarators of property of two parts of a piece of Ground upon their Maâ—ch wherein either party proved 40. years possession and mutual interruptions and though the one proved more pregnantly then the other yet it was not sufficient to exclude him neither party having a bounding Charter Iune 13. 1668. Giabsâ—n contra Oswald COMPENSATION was found not competent to the Debitor of a Defunct taking Assignation from the Creditor of the Defunct after the Defuncts death to exclude an Executor Creditor albeit the Assignation was anterior to the Confirmation at least any diligence of the Executor Creditor February 8. 1662. Crawfoord contra the Earl of Murray February 14. 1662. Children of Mouswal contra Lowrie of Maxwâ—lstoun Compensation against an Assignay was sustained on debts due by the cedent to the debitor himself or whereunto he had Assignation intimat before the Assignays intimation but not for debts whereunto he had taken Assignation but had made no Intimation before this other Assignay did intrtimat Ianuary 22. 1663. Wallace contra Edgar Compensation of an illiquid Number of coals was found not receivable to take away a liquid Decreet here they bear a price far above the ordinary rate which behoved to be modified Ianuary 17. 1664. Laird of Tulliallan and Condie contra Crawfoord Compensation was sustained upon Rents liquidat against the principal debitor before the Assignation which was found sufficient against the cautioner whose Right was accessory albeit not called in the Decreet of Liquidation Iune 24. 1665. Irving contra Strachan Compensation against one of four Executors was sustained upon a debt of the Defuncts not only as to that Executors fourth part but in solidum being equivalent to a discharge Iunâ— 15. 1666. Stevinson contra Hermasheills Compensation was found not competent against a Bond delivered being blank in the Creditors Name and by the Receiver for an equivalent cause delivered to a third party who was found not to be compensed by any debt of him who first received the Bond though prior to the filling up of the Name February 27. 1668. Hendrison contra Birnie Compensation was sustained against the bygones of an Annâ—alrent by Infeftment against a singular Successor upon his Authors liquid debt Ianuary 2. 1669. Oliphant contra Hamiltoun Compensation was Sustained against a Donator of Escheat upon a debt due by the Rebel before the Rebellion Ianuary 2â— 1669.
poinding the Ground whereby they would be preferred to the Appryzing Iuly 8. 1671. Margaret Scrymzour contra Earl of Northesk By this Decision the Accumulation of Annualrents by the voluntar Disposition was Evacuate DECLARATOR of the expyring of a Reversion upon a clause irritant was found null summarly without Reduction in respect the Decreet bear not the Production of the Instrument of Requisition whereupon the irritancy fell although the Instrument was now produced and the party long in Possession by vertue of the Decreet and albeit the Requisition was expresly libelled upon and that it seemed to be the Clerks omission in not mentioning of it in the production February 22. 1671. Piâ—cairn contra Tennents DECLARATOR OF ESCHEAT was sustained without calling all parties having interest at the Mercat Cross though it was a part of the Style of the Summons in desuetude Iune 23. 1666. Masson contra DECLARATOR OF WARD AND NONEENTRIE should only be pursued before the Lords of Session not before the Exchequer Iune 14. 1665. His Majesties Letter Recorded in the Books of Sederunt DECLARATOR OF THE NVLLITIE of Bonds and Rights to Creditors by a Feear in a Tailzie with a clause de non aliâ—nando was Sustained without the form of a Reduction or Production of the particular Rights Ianuary 21. 1662. Viscount of Stormount contra creditors of Annandale In a Declarator of Property the Defender was not admitted to propone a Nullity in the Pursuers Right or that certification was granted against his Authors Seasine even at the Defenders instance unless the Defender alleadge a better Right Iuly 10. 1662. Lord Frazer contra Laird of Phillorth A DECREET of Removing for not finding caution in absence was found null by Exception in respect the Title Libelled on was not produced but the Infeftment of another Person of the same name fraudfully mentioned in the production so that it was not Sustained as titulus bonafides to give the Possessor the Fruits Iune 21. 1671. Neilson contra Menzeis of Enoch A Decreet being stopped on a Bill was found not to be recalled but only the Extracting thereof to be forborn till the Party were heard on the Grounds of the Bill and that though it lay over several years it needed not wakening Iuly 1. 1671. Broadie of Lethem and the Laird of Riccartoun contra Lord Kenmure A DECREET ARBITRAL was found null as not being within a year of the Submission though it had no time but a power to the Arbiters to meet at their convenience and prorogat but did not prorogat the same February 24. 1665. Mcgregor contra Menzeis A Decreet Arbitral was sustained without Submission in Writ it being proven by the Parties Oath that he so submitted and by the Arbiters Oath that they so decerned though both the Submission and Decreet were only verbal the matter being but of 200. merks February 7. 1671. Hume contra Scot. Here the matter was a Bond of 550. merks Suspended and determined to 200. merks DECREETS OF INFERIOVR COVRTS were found not to be taken away upon Iniquity though it be instantly verified by the Decreet by way of Suspension without Reduction Ianuary 24. 1662. Ker contra Lord Rentoun A Decreet of an Inferiour Court was not Reduced simply because Advocation was produced before Extracting being after Sentence but was Reduced because the Advocation was produced before eleven hours which was the ordinary hour of beginning to sit but the Sheriff sat that day an hour before ordinary which the Lords found sufficient presumption that it was of purpose to prevent the Advocation Iuly 10. 1662. Laird of Lambertoun contra Hume of Kaimes A Decreâ—et of an inferiour Court was not Sustained as in â—oro where a Term was taken by a Procurator to prove a Defense without a Mandat or Writ produced that might inâ—er the same November 24. 1665. Chalmers contra Lady Tinnel A Decreet of an inferiour Court was found null for want of Probation bearing only that the Defender compeared and conâ—essed the debt without proponing any other alleadgeance or deâ—ense and not Subscribing his acknowledgement Iuly 19. 1665. Guine contra Mcken A Decreet of an inferiour Court upon compearance was not found null by Suspension without Reduction though it had visible Nullities and was a small matter Inter pauperes November 21. 1665. Baxters in the Cannongate contra A DECREET OF SESSION was Reduced as null being ultra petita Iuly 21. 1666. Waison contra Miller A Decreet of Session in foro whereby in a Suspension a sum being alleadged paid not instantly verified the Letters were found orderly proceeded conditionally if any thing were produced by such a time it should be received and was not produced after which the Lords would not admit it being now produced in a Reduction of an Appryzing of the said Decreet now in the hands of a singular Successor Iune 16. 1664. Laird of Tillieallan and Condie contra Crawfoord A DECREET OF PARLIAMENT was taken away by double poynding without a Reduction the same being referred to the Lords by the Parliament upon Supplication on this Reason that it was pronunced against a Forefault person alter his death without calling the Kings Officers Iuly 14. 1665. Earl of Argile contra Mcdâ—wgal of Dinolich and Raca A Decreet of Parliament Rescinding a dishabilitation of the Children of Forefault Persons without Citation was Sustained there being no Citation of the Children to the Dishabilitation nor Restitution by way of Grace but in Iustice the Children being Infants incapable of the Crime February 24. 1665. Sir Robert Sinclar contra the Laird of Wedderbâ—rn DELIVERY Vide Chyrographum December 13. 1666. â—â—net Thomson contra Stevinson Delivery of an Assignation was not found necessary to validate the same being granted by a Defunct to his near Relation though not in his Family though it bear not a Clause to be valide without delivery seing it bear a Reservation of his Liferent and a power to dispose evidencing his purpuse not to deliver the same and so importing the Writ to be valide without delivery Delivery of three Dispositions in Tailzie to a Daughters Son was found to be implyed by a Clause in the first dispensing with delivery and seing the Substantials of the rest were the same with the first and only qualified the same conform to the reserved power in the first they were all Sustained though the other two had no dispensatory Clause but so that what was in the first for the benefite of the Heir should be holden as repeated in the rest that by the rest the Heir might not be in a worse case Iuly 23. 1669. Elleâ—s contra Inglesâ—â—â—n Delivery of Bonds of provision to Children is not presumed to have been at or near the date but must be proven to prefer them to posterior Creditors Iuly 22. 1668. Iohnstoun of Shâ—ins contra Arnot DEPOSITATION of a Writ was found probable by the Notar and Witnesses insert where the Writ was not produced by the Party in whose favours it was
the Liferenter seing the whole Estate was either affected with the Liferent or the remainder thereof was appryzed from the appeared Heir for the Defuncts debts exceeding the value thereof February 13. 1662. Brown contra Liferenters of Rossie An Heir apparent was allowed to have Aliment of his Grand-Father though he had voluntarly infeâ—t his Son the Pursuers Father and though the Pursuer had a stock of Money Liferented by his Mother here the Grand-Father was Iately fallen to a plenteous Estate Iune 17. 1662. Ruthven Feâ—ar of Gairn contra Laird of Gairn An Heir apparent taking Right to Land from his Grand-Father was found not to enjoy the priviledge of a singular Successor and to be in no better case as to that Right than his Grand-Father albeit his Grand-Father was living and the Oye then not immediate Successor Iuly 23. 1662 Lord Frazer contra Laird of Phillorth An Heir Apparent was found to have Right to the Rents of â—is predecessors Lands although he dyed before he was Infeft and that the next Heir intrometting with the Reâ—â—s of the years that the former appearand Heir lived was lyable to pay the said appearand Heirs Aliment in so far as he Intrometted December 20. 1662. Lady Tarsappie contra Laird of Tarsappie An Heir apparent pursuing for Inspection ad deliberandum was found not to have interest to cause a party compt and run Probation that he might know the condition of the Herâ—tage though there was a contrary Decision observed by Dury March 16. 1637. Hume contra Hume of Blacketer seing the ordinary course since hath been contrary Iune 22. 1671. Lâ—sâ—ies contra Iaâ—â—ray HEIRS IN A TACK found not to require service but that such as might be served Heirs might enjoy the benefite thereof Iune 17. 1671. Boyd contra Sinclar HEIRSHIP MOVEABLES was found competent to one who was infeft in Lands and though the same was appryzed and the Appryzer infeft yet the legal was unexpyred and the appryzing stood but as a collateral Security not as a full Right February 26. 1663. Cuthbert of Draikies contra Monroâ— of Foulâ—s Heirship moveable was found to belong to an Heir of person who dyed only infeft in an Annualrent Iuly 19. 1664. Scrymzeour contra Executors of Murray Heirship moveable was not found competent to a person who was only Heir apparent of Tailzie and dyed never Infeâ—t Ianuary 27. 1666. Collonel Montgomerie contra Steuart Heirship moveable being renunced from the Heir of Line in favours of his Father was found not to return to him after his Fathers death but to belong to his Fathers Executors 〈◊〉 18. 1666. Pollock contra Rutherfoord Heirs 〈◊〉 clause AN HERETABLE Obligement quoad creditorem may be moveable quoad debitorem Iuly 25. 1662. Nasmith contra Iaâ—â—ray An Heretable Sum was found so to remain notwithstanding of a Requisition not being made conform to the clause of Requisition and so null as being provided to be required by the Husband with consent of the Wife whose consent was not adhibite nor was the showing the Creditors intention to require his Money enough not being made debiro modo Ianuary 18. 166â— Steuart contra Steuarts An Heretable Bond was found moveable by a charge thogh but against one of the Caâ—tioners Ianuary 24. 1666. Montgomery and his Spouse contra Steuart An Heretable Bond bearing a clause of Annualrent was found not to be moveable though the principal sum was not payable till the debitors death seing the first Term of payment of the Annualrent was past Iuly 31. 1666. Gordoun contra Keith Vide Bond Iune 28. 1665. and Iunâ— 26. 1668. ONE HOLDEN AS CONFEST was reponed against a Decreet of an inferiour Iudge albeit a Procurator compeared and took a day to produce him but without a Procuratory or proponing any Defense that might show any Information of the cause and so no warrand to compear November 24. 1665. Chalmers contra Lady Tinnel Holden as confest was not admitted against a Defender absent where the Messengers Execution did not bear personally apprehended but that the Messenger knew that the Defender was in his House but was forcibly keeped from access by his Wife Iuly 5. 1670. Lindsay and Swintoun contra Inglis AN HOLOGRAPH Discharge was found not to prove its date against an Assigney unless it were astructed by Adminicles or Witnesses that knew it subscribed of that date Ianuary 4. 1662. Dickie contra Montgomery A Holograph Writ proves not quo ad datam yet the date may be astructed by Witnesses above exception but persons of ordinary credite one of two being a Towns Officer were not found such Witnesses albeit no exception was competent against them for being ordinary Witnesses Iune 21. 1665. Bradie contra the Laird of Fairny Holograph was found proven by production of a Transumpt done judicially and the Oaths of the Witnesses and Friends of the Defunct who made the Wriâ— Transumed amongst his Children altering their portions and though a part of it was written by another when the Defunct was so weak that he could not write yet the writ was found holograph as to the rest but not as to this Article albeit the principal writ was lost and not produced but only the judicial Transumpt taken off when it was produced Iuly 30. 1668. Mckenzie contra Ballaâ—dine of Newhall Vide Death-bed November 14. 1668. Calderwood contra Schaw HOMOLOGATION to communicate Appryzings was found not to be inferred by the singular Successors concurring de facto against third parties unless it were proven by the singular Successors Oath that he knew of such a Bond Iuly 6. 1661. Tailzifer contra Maxtoun and Cunninghamâ— Homologation of a Decreet was not inferred by payment thereof without a Charge seing the Givers thereof were Officers having no Commission or any civil Authority Iuly 24. 1661. Iack contra Feddes Homologation of a Decreet Arbitral quoad one of many Articles of different matters was found not sufficient for the whole November 22. 1662. Pringle contra Din. Homologation of a Fathers Legacy to his Children was inferred by his Wife Confirming the Testament without Protestation not to prove that Legacy here the Wife by her Contract was provided to the Liferent of all her Husbands Moveables February 19. 1663. More contra Stirling Homologation of an Infeftment granted to a Wife in satisfaction of her Contract of Marriage was inferred by her continuing six or seven years to possess and setting several Tacks as Liferentrix where the clause in the Contract was only in general to imploy Money on Land or Annualrent and no Infeftment followed thereon nor was the Husband in possession in his Life but the Wise began the Possession albeit the acceptance of the Infeftment was to her prejudice and was not in her hand nor did the Seasine repeat that provision particularly But only according to the conditions contained in the Bond the Seasine being Registrate and the Bond still in the Nottars hand Who took the Seasine in which case the Wife was presumed to know and
not to be ignorant of the Terms of her Infeftment November 14. 1665. Skeen and her Spouse contra Ramsay Homologation of an Infeftment bearing in satisfaction c. was sound not to be inferred by possessing the Lands seing the Possessor had another Title as Heir apparent to persons who dyed Infeft therein unless it were instructed that the possession was attained by Processe upon the Infeftment in satisfaction December 12. 1665. Barns contra Young and her Spouse Homologation of a Feuars Right and passing from a Declarator against the same upon a clause irritant was found not to be inferred by acceptance of two years Feu-duties after the Declarator except as to these two years that more duty could not be demanded therefore Iune 6. 1666 Earl of Cassils contra Agnew Homologation of a Bond granted by a Minor without consent of his Father as lawful Administrator was found not inferred by payment of Annualrent by him after his Majority especially not being of his own Money nor by taking a Discharge of the Annualrent to the Principal and himself as Cautioner February 14. 1668. Mckenzie contra Fairholm Here the Discharge related the Bond both as to Principal and Cautioner Homologation of a Minors Bond was not inferred by pursuing for his relief after his Majority but that in case he were not liberate by that mean he might return to his Reduction upon Minority February 20. 1668. Farquhar of Toâ—ley contra Gordoun Homologation of a Tack of Teinds which was null as wanting the consent of the Patron was not found inferred by the Ministers receiving the duty conform to the Tack before Reduction thereof February 27. 1668. Chalmers contra Wood of Balbegno Homologation of a Decreet was not inferred by giving Bond of borrowed Money for the like sum and taking a Discharge of the Decreet seing it was no voluntary deed but the Debitor was then under Caption in the Messengers hands upon the Decreet neither a Transaction if the Bond contained all the sum in the Decreet unless abatement had been gotten Iuly 3. 1668. Row contra Hoâ—stoun Homologation was not inferred by a Husbands Discharge of Annualrent as Tutor to his Wifes Child to infer the Child had right to the Annualrent whereas by the Bond it self the Wife was Liferenter Ianuary 18. 1670. Doctor Balfour and his Spouse contra Wood. Homologation of a Decreet of consent containing a Transaction of parties at the Bar without any Subscription was inferred by a simple offer of a Disposition conform to the said Transaction be that party who quarrelled the Decreet as without Warrand but was not inferred by consignation of the Disposition for obtaining a Suspension upon obedience to be delivered up if the Lords saw cause February 4. 1671. Lowrie contra Gibson Homologation of a Contract of a Minor having Curators without their consent was not inferred by payment of a years Annualrent of the sum contained in the Contract being made â—o an indigent Sister who had no other provision but homologation was inferred by a Decreet of Registration of the Contract at the instance of the Party none quarrelling the same after his Majority though there was neither Charge nor Execution used thereon and in the Decreet of Registration there was neither Protestation nor Reservation that the same might be quarrelled in any point Iune 2â— 1671 Hume contra Lord Iustice Clerk Homologation of a Testament subscribed by a Wife at the desire of her Husband near his death was not inâ—erred by her Confirming the Testament under Protestation not to prejudge her own Right though she might have attained her interest in the Moveables by Confirming her self Executrix Creditrix Iuly 12. 1671. Murray contra Murray HORNING granted Summarly upon the late Iudges Act at the instance of heirs or Executors confirmed was found to be â—ull upon the late Act of Parliament declaring their ludiâ—â—â—â— proceedings to be quarrellable seing thereâ— was no â—â—justice in the matter but the Lords gave the Suspenders such time for their Defenses as in an ordinary Action Ianuary 1. 1662. Barnes contra Laird of Applegirth Horning doth not affect the Rebels Moveables by the Act 1592 but that the Rebel may effectually deliver them to one who had Disposition of them before the horning Iuly 9. 1662. Bower contra Barclay and Iohnstoun Horning was not found null by payment before denunciation to be proven by the Creditors Oath or holograph Discharges but by the Denuncers Oath of Verity February 10. 1663. Montgomery contra Montgomery and Lawder Horning granted against the Magisâ—rates of a Town upon the Act of their Council obliging to pay a Debt upon a Bill without Signet though there was no Process whereon the Act proceeded or Clause of Registration therein February 19. 1663. Lady Swintoun contra Magistrates oâ— Edinburgh Horning was sustained though on a Charge of six dayes beyond Dee contrary to the Act of Parliament 1580. â—n respecâ— it proceeded on consent of parties upon a clause of Registration and since that Act such hornings had never been quarrelled December 16. 1664. Laird of Phillorth contra Forbâ—s of Asâ—oun and the Lord Frazer A HVSBAND was found lyable to his Wifes debt though not established against him during the Marriage in so far as might be extended to the benefite of her Lifâ—rent Duty resting after the Marriage dissolved which could not belong to the Husband but with the burden of her debt February 1. 1662. Cunninghame contra Dalmahoy A Husband was found lyable for his interest in Moveables intrometted with by his Wife of her first Husbands albeit there was an interveening Husband who was not found to be first discust but reserving to the Defender to pursue his heirs as accords February 18. 1663. Dumbar or Hemprigs contra Lord Frazer Vide interdiction February 27. 1663. Laird of Milntoun contra Lady Milntoun A Husband was assoilzied from his Wifes debt albeit Litiscontestation was past seing she was dead and albeit there was an Interlocutor ordaining him to give Bond to pay what his Lady should be found due Iuly 11. 1664. Inter eosdem A Husband being pursued to remove from a Tenement which he possessed jure marâ—ti no Process was sustained till the Wife was cited Iuly 14. 1665. Iohnstoun of Sheeâ—s contra Brown A Husband Confirming his Wifes Testament by giving up his own Moveables and Debt though he made Faith upon the Inventary yet was not excluded from debarring the Wifes Legatars upon another debt then forgotten though not old December 7. 1665. Anderson contra Cunninghame But he being lately charged on a debt before the confirmation it was not allowed as forgotten Iune 5. 1666. Inter eosdem A Husbane was not found lyable for his Wifes debt jure Mariti after her death though in her life there was Decreet against her and him as Husband seing there was no Execution thereon in her life December 23. 1665. Dam Rachel Burnet contra Lepers A Husband and Wife were not found lyable as lucrative Successors for a competent
being Extracted on the improbation though it be omnium exceptionum ultima Ianuary 23. 1666. contra Earl of Kinghorn In Improbations the Lords declared they would grant three Terms for production of Rights of Lands and appointed the Ordinary to intimate the same November 26. 1667. Hay of Haystoun contra Drummond and Hepburn Improbation upon certification was found null because the Defender was then Prisoner of War in Ireland and his Right was after acknowledged by an agreeement though not perfected Iuly 25. 16â—8 Campbeâ— câ—ntra Laird of Glenâ—rchy In an Improbation the Witnesses insert were examined ex officio what they knew of the Truth or Forgery of the Writs in question though the Writs were not produced there being pregnant presumptions and fragrant fame of Forgery Iuly 6. 1669. Barclay contra Barclay In an Improbation after certification was Extracted The Lords Examined Witnesses as to the Forgery in so far as it might be known without production of the Writs in question and though thâ— Witnesses were accessory to the Forgery November 9. 1669. Inter eosdem In an Improbation where the Writs were once judicially produced in Exchequer and wilfully keeped up certification being Extracted The Lords upon Copies Examined the Witnesses insert and Writer who confessed the Forgery and were moved thereto by the Defender whereupon the Writs were not improven as not being produced but the Writers and Witnesses were found Forgers and the Defender as user and accessory and all were declared infamous and remitted to the Council to use an extraordinary Remedy by Banishment against the Defender Ianuary 26. 1670 Inter eosdem In an Improbation where one of the Witnesses insert had a Designation alleadged competent to more persons all that were alleadged to be so designed that were alive were ordained to be Summoned and the hand writs of those that were dead to be produced Iune 8. 1671. Steuart contra Mckenzie and Kettlestoun In an Improbation of the Minute of a Tack wherein one Deponed that he had subscribed at the Defenders Instigation who told him that he caused the Pursuers Name to be set to the Writ and another that he did not see the Pursuer subscribe and the third who was Writer of the Minute and also Brother to the Defender Deponed that he saw the Pursuer subscribe with her own hand The Writ was found improven and false but there was not two Witnesses instructing who was the Forgeâ— Iuly 22. 1671. Miller contra Bothwel of Glâ—â—corse INCIDENT was not Sustained upon an Act before answer ordaining all Writs to be produced the parties would make use of which was found only to extend to such Writs as they then had Iuly 3. 1662. Kello contra Paâ—toun In an Incident four Terms were allowed for proving the having of the Writs by Witnesses but the Terms were to be short December 15. 1665. Moâ—teith contra Anderson An Incident was Rejected because the Pursuer of the principal Cause was not called thereby and the Executions suspect December 23. 1665. Laird of Câ—â—neck contra Lord Bargeniâ— Incident was not Sustained at the instance of any but these whose Names as Purshers were filled up in the Bill though it contained a blank but it was Sustained against the Defenders havers of the Writs for whom a blank was left though nor at first filled up in respect of the custom for the last and not for the first Iuly 3. 1667. Creditors of Waâ—chtoun contra Counteâ—s of Hume PRO INDIVISO was not sustained to hinder Removing of a Relick from an House as being a Tenement Indivisible though she had a Terce of it but the Heretor was found to have Right to possess yet so that if he dwelt not so himself she should be preferred to all others she giving like Mail as others would pay Ianuary 26. 1665. Logan contra Galbraith INFEFTMENT of Annualrent holden base was found valide against a posterior Publick Infeftment because thereon there was a Decreet of poinding the Ground though it could take no effect for a long time seing the Entry to the Annualrent was not till after the Constituents death February 26 and 27. 1662. Creditors of Kinglassie competing Infeftment past in Exchequer on an appryzing against one who was Infeft by his Authour not Confirmed was found not to supply or comprehend a Confirmation in prejudice of another Creditor who regularly had obtained Confirmation of that null Seasine in so far as might concern his base Right depending thereon Ianuary 16. 1663. Tennents of Kilchattan contra Laird of Kilchattan Major Campbel and Baillie Hamiltoun Infeftments graâ—uitous to a Wife after she was provided by her Contract of Marriage was found not to be taken away at the instance of Creditors upon the Act 1621. by Exception or Reply Iuly 22. 1664. Lord Loure contra Lady Craig An Infeftment to a Wife in Liferent was Sustained by her Seasine adminiculat by her Contract albeit the Seasine was not immediatly upon the Contract but related a Bond granted for the same Cause which was not produced Ianuary 29. 1665. Norvil contra Sunter Infeftment of warrandice Lands being in the same Investiture with the principal Lands and both holden base was preferred to a posterior publick Infeftment of thâ— same Warrandice Lands though cled with long possession and that upon an Action of Mails and Duties upon the Distresse without Reduction Ianuary 9. 1666. Brown contra Scot. An Infeftment of Kirklands was Sustained though it bear to be upon Resignation and had not the râ—ddendoâ—per expressum but relative to the former Infeftment without necessity to produce any original Right seing the Charter was subscribed by the Abbot with consent of the Convent Ianuary 17. 1666. Lord Rentoun contra Feuars of Coldinghame An Infeftment to a person on her own Resignation bearing expresly her to be Heir to her Father who was last Infeft The Charter was found equivalent to a precept of clare constat Ianuâ—ry 20. 1666. Inter eosdem Infeftment of the Office Forrestrie with a Duty out of the whole Lands of an Abbacy was found valide being granted by the Abbot and Convent without Confirmation by the King or Pope Ibidem Infeftment in warrandice granted by a Husband to his Wife though base holden of himself and ex intervallo after the principal Infeftment was found valide against a posterior publick Infeftment of the same warrandice Lands as being cled with the Husbands Possession in the principal Lands and that there needed no Declarator of Distress or Eviction but a pursuit of Removing or Mails and duties upon the Eviction is sufficient which cannot be excluded by a possessory Iudgement upon seven years Possession by the publick Infeftment unless it were seven years after the Eviction February 20. 1668. Forbes contra Innes An Infeftment of Annualrent being before a Liferenters Infeftment after which there followed a corroborative Security accumulating the bygone Annualrents and giving Infeftment for both which posterior Security was not Sustained against the Liferenter nor was it held
was found sufficient by turning off the Parties Cattel without necessity to alleadge an instrument of Interruption or keeping them off for a long time together November 14. 1662. Nicolson contra Laird of Balbirnie Interruption of a possessory judgement hinders the beginning of a new possessory judgement by seven years Possession after interruption until prescription Iuly 22. 1664. Montgomery contra Hume The like of Decennalis Triâ—nnalis Possession Iune 28. 1666. Laird of Phillorth contra Lord Frazer Interruption by a Summonds of Reduction and Citation thereupon was Sustained albeit the Reasons of Reduction were not filled up within the 40. years seing the Reduction was upon Minority and Lesion which was insinuate by the interest libelled ab initio viz. That the Pursuer as Heir to his Sister had good Interest to reduce all deeds done to her enorm lesion Iuly 14. 1669. Earl of Marischal contra Leith of Whiteâ—augh Interruption was Sustained by a Citation only at the Mercat Cross proceeding upon a Warrâ—nd to cite at the Mercat Cross quia non fuit â—utus accessus which was neither true not instructed but pasâ— by Bill of course amongst the common Bills and the Executions did not bear a Copy leâ—t at the Cross the Pursuer adding that to the Execution Iuly 6. 1671. Mcbrae contra Lord Mâ—dâ—nald Interruption was Sustained by a second Summonds though the first Summonds should be found nulâ— and though the Citation was only a day before the fourty years compleat Ibidem INTIMATION of a Right of Reversion was found not necessary where he that had the Right was Infeâ—t therein albeit he used no Diligence and which preferred him to a posterior Assigney although Redeeming first and possessing November 1â— 1664. Guthriâ— contra Laird of Sornbeg INTROMISSION being by many persons promiscuous was found not to oblige them in solidum but equally prorata unless a greater part were proven against them thogh the Intromission was vitious and had been a Spuilzie but not pursued within three years Ianuary 17â— 1667. Captain Strachan contra Morison Intromission being proven by clear and pregnant Testimonies of Witnesses though not in Litisconâ—estaâ—ion but to remain in 〈◊〉 no contrary probation was admitted even ex officio to prove that others did Intromet although Tacks and Wodsets granted to them were produced and the Possession and Intromission conform was offered to be proven and though the Intromission was more then 40. years since in respect the alleadgeance was founded super jure terâ—ij the Alleadger shewing no Right to the Wodsets or how the same were satisfied and the intromission being proven by removing the common Author and entering to the Natural Possession by 〈◊〉 Ianuary â—â— 1671. Kello contra Kinâ—â—â— â—VS MARITI was found to carry the Right of a sum assigned to a Wife while she was cled with â— Husband without necessity to instruct that it was also intimate before his death Ianuary 20. 1663. Scot contra Dickson Ius mariti was found not to carry the Right to a Provision granted by the Father to the Daughter bearing and Annualrent though but five per câ—nt the Term of payment of the Annualrent being past before the Marriage Iune 28. 1665. 〈◊〉 contra Edgar Ius mariti being Renunced was found not to take away the Husbands power of ordering his Family and disposing of duties appointed by the Wife of her former Ioynture for the use of their Families joyntly which was not found to give the Wife a distinct â—â—â—are of it or a power to mannage it but to enjoy her share under the Husbands mannadgement February 1667. Ratho and Coâ—â—ngâ—oun contra Tennents of Inâ—ertile and Lady Câ—llingtoun Ius mariti was found to be a Legal Assignation and being compleat with the Marriage a voluntar Right by the Wife of the same daâ—e with a Tack relating to the Agreement of Marriage granted by the Wife to her second Sonâ— leaving nothing to her Husband was found excluded thereby as not being intimate before the Marriage and being fraudulent in the Wife and null even against her Son though not partaker of the fraud not being an Acquirer for an onerous Cause in so far as might prejudge the Husband December 18. 1667. Auchinâ—eck contra Williamson and Gillespie IVS SVPERVENIENS c. was eâ—tended to any Right real accrescing to the Hereâ—or by one who had Right from the Vsurpers though that Right be fallen seing it was consequent on the true Hereâ—ors Right as obtaining Improbation of other Rights Iuly 13. 1664. Earl of Lawderdaâ—â— contra Wolmet Ius supervenâ—ens authori accrescit successori was found not to hold where there does not appear a full equivalent Cause onerous of the Successors Right or absolute Warrandice here the first Right was Reduced and the new Right but personal to the Mails and Duties till such a sum were satisfied Iuly 19. 1664. Dowglas and Longformacus her Spouse contra Laird of Wedderburn Ius superveniens authori accrescens successori was found to make a giâ—t of Ward to the behove of the Superiour accresce to the Vassal to whom he was bound in absolute Warrandice they paying a part of the expence February 15. 1665. Boyd of Pinkill contra Tennents of Carsâ—leuâ—â— Ius superveniens authori accrescens successori was found to have thir effects that a Tack for a small duty granted for sums of Money with absolute warrandice was not prejudged because the â—etter was not then Infeft nor excluded by a posterior Heretable Disposition of the Lands albeit the Authors supervenient Right was procured by the Acquirer of the said Disposition who infeft his author and himself both of the same date and who alleadged that his Authors Right being procured by him could not accresce to the Tackâ—â—man in his prejudice Iune 21. 1671. Neiâ—son contra Menzeis of Enoch IVS TERTII was found to exclude an exception upon on Assignation intimate to the Debitor and a Decreet thereon seing there was no payment but granâ—ing Suspension without Caution or Consignation that the parties might dispute their Rights Iune 16. 1665. Bruce contra Earl of Morâ—oun â—us tertii was found not to hinder an Appryzer to quarrel another Appryzers Right as wanting an Assignation to the debt on which the Appryzing proceeded albeit he had no Right from that Cedent nor any other interest but to exclude the Appryzing as informal albeit that Cedents Heir had renued the Assignation and deâ—lared that there was a prior Assignation by his Father and that his Right was in Trust Iuly 22. 1668. Iohnstoun of Sheeâ—s contra Arnold THE KINGS PALACE of Hâ—ly-rude-house was found to be exâ—mpted from the Regality of Brughtoun and in the Royalty and Citations against Parties residing there at the Cross of Edinburgh were Sustained Ianuary 11. 1662. Lady Carnagie contra Lord Cranburn KNOWLEDGE though private hinders bonae fidei possessor lucrari fructus November 20. 166â— Children of Wolmet contra Lady Wolmet and Dankeith her Husband LAW of Scotland only Regulates Succession of
Scotsmen as to their Lands and Goods in Scotland though they reside and 〈◊〉 abroad and no nuncupative Testament there can exclude the nearest of kin hâ—re Ianuary 19. 1665. Schaw contra 〈◊〉 The Law of England was found to reach the manner of probation of a Bond made there by an English-man to a Scots-man residing 〈◊〉 after the stâ—le of England and that payment to the Cedent was probable by the Cedents Oath and payment also probable by Witnesses Iune 28. 1666. Momâ—rlane contra Lord Melvil Yet a Bond by a Scots-man to an English-man in England after the stile of Scotland Registrable there was found Regulate by the Law of Scotland and noâ— taken away by Witnesses Ibidem A LEGACY of an Heretable Right was found null though in leâ—ge poâ—stie February 21. 1663. Wardlaw contra Frazer of Kilmundie A Legacy leâ—t of 600. merkâ— and in part thereof the Executors ordained to Discharge or give Back-bond of 200. merks due to the Testaâ—rix which Bond was found to belong â—o the Husband jure mariti and that being Moveable the Wife had but her half of it yet the Lords found that the Executors ought to make it upâ— to the Legataâ— as lâ—gâ—tum rei aliena scienter legatâ— for that being a palpable principle in Law they could not excuse the Wifes ignorance therein Iune 16 1664. Murray contra Executors of Rutherfoord A Legacy being special was found not to be abated proportionally with ordinary Legacies in case they exceed the Deeds part Iuly 21. 1665. Sprâ—â—l contra Murray A Legacy of a Bond in special was sustained though the Executor had an Assignation thereto from the Defunct seing the same Legacy might be made up of the 〈◊〉 Gear as being lâ—gatum rei alienâ— seing it was presumed that the Defunct remembred his own Assignation Iune 24 1664. Falâ—â—nâ—r contra Mcdâ—wgal LICENCE to pursue was sâ—stained without Confirmation though granted after the principal Testament was Confirmed being to a Creditor Iune â—0 1665. Stevinson contra Crawfoord Licence to pursue was sustained after Confirmation of the principal Testament and before Confirmation of Datives ad ommissa February 21. 166â— Scot of Clâ—rkingtoâ—n contra Lady Clâ—rkingtoun AFTER LIâ—ISCONTESTATION Alleadgeances instantly verified are receivable Iune 24. 1663. Bruce contrâ— Laird of Strâ—â—chan Litiscontâ—â—â—ation being made before the Commissars at a parties instance as Factor it was found relevant against that party pursuing as Executor Creditor being instantly verified February 10. 1663. Crawfoord contra Creditors of Inglis LOCVS PENITENTIAE was found to have no place in an agreement to take a lesâ— sum it being as pactâ—â— libâ—ratoriâ—m though writ was not interposed others of the parties Transactors having payed conform December 12. 1661. Hâ—pburn contra Hamiltâ—â—n of Orbiâ—â—â—um The like in restricting an annualrent to a part of the Lands â—ffected February â— 1666. 〈◊〉 contrâ— Hunter and Tennents of Cambâ— Locus 〈◊〉 was found competent to one who had bought Lands though he had written that he thought he could not be able to keep the Bargain and furnish the Money yet subâ—oyned that he would not pass from the communing and albeit he had received the Keyâ— of the House seing there was neither Minute nor other Wâ—â—t drawn up â—hâ—reupon Ianuary 28. 1663. Mâ—ntgomry of Skâ—lmorly contra Brown THE LORDS Sallatles or the Pensions of the King are not arrestable conform to a Letter of the Kings and Act of Sederunt February 8. 1662. contra Murray The Lords found themselveâ— competent to Iudge the Nullities of the Decreets of the Commission for Plantation of Kirkâ— which werâ— visible and instantly vâ—rified and needed no Reduction as that a Decrâ—et against an Heretor not called was null Ianuary 16. 1663. Earl of Roxburgh contra Kinnâ—â—r The Lords found themselves competent to Iudge upon the Iustice Generals Decreet for Assythment which hath but a civil effect for damnage December 16. 1664. Innes contra Forbâ—s of Tolqâ—â—â—nâ— The Lords gave warrant Summarly upon Supplication to take the person of a Bankrupt who was unexpectedly and fraudfully fled Novâ—mbâ—r 30. 1665. Creditors of Masson Supplicants The Lords albeit they are not Iudges in Causes Criminal yet they found themselves coâ—petent to Advocaâ—e a Criminal Cause of Theft but upon the old Act of Parliament of King Iamâ—s the second from â— Sheriff to the Iustice General February 21. 1â—66 contra Sheriâ—â— of Invâ—rnâ—ssâ— The Lords deposed a Writer to 〈◊〉 â—igneâ— for inserting an Article for possessing a party in Letters of Horning having no warrand for the said Article Ianuary â— 1669. Zeaman contra Monreiff The Lords upon a Bill for Horning upon Excommunication allowed the party Excommunicate 〈◊〉 object against the Groâ—nds of Excommunication who having founded upon an appeal to the King and Council The Lordâ— having had an account from the Council that they had Remitted that matter to the â—ishop did pass the Hoâ—â—ing Iuly 6. 1670. Archbishop and Presbytery of St. Andrâ—wâ— contra Pittillâ— LVCRATIVE SVCCESSOR was not inferred by a Disposition and Infeftment to the behove of the appearand Heâ—r but only in so far as was Lucrative 〈◊〉 valorâ—m Ianuary 14. 1662 Harper contra Hume of â—landergast Lucrative Successor was not inferred by a Disposition by an Vncle to his Nephew the Brother being alive who was not found alioqui successurus as in the case of an Oye November 22. 166â— Scâ—â— coâ—tra Bâ—ssâ—wel of Auchinleck Lucrative Successor was inferred by an Assignation of an Heretable Bond by â— Father to his eldest Son who would have succeeded him as Heir therein and that the same was not alike with Bonds of Provision wherein in Father 〈◊〉 only Deâ—itor to the Son Dâ—câ—mbâ—r â— 1665. Edgar contra Colvil Lucrative Successor was not inferred by accepting of a Tocher yet so as if the Tocher were exorbitant both Husband and Wife were found lyable to the Fathers Creditors for what was above a competent Tocher December 23. 1665. Burnet contra Lepers LIFE being presumed was taken off by the Parties being â—â— years out of the Counâ—rey and commoâ—ly â—olden an◠〈…〉 There waâ— also a Letter produced by a 〈◊〉 in the Waâ— bearing that the party was dead February 18. 1670. Lowry contra Drummond LIFERENTERS of an annuaIrent waâ— found Iyable for publick burden with the 〈◊〉 albeit the Act 164â— thereanent was Rescinded as being due in jure Iune 18. 166â— Fleming contra Gillies A Liâ—erenter being Infeft in a Liferent of Lands cum mâ—llâ—ndiniâ— was found to have right to a Miln builded thereafter upon the Land by her Husband but not to the abstracted Multures of his Lands except the Liferent Lands February 16. 1666. Lady Otter contra Laird of Otter A Liferenter being by her Contract â—nfeft in Lands obliged to be worth such a Rent besides Teinds and Feâ—-duties or at her option the heir was obliged to accept a Tack of the Lands for the like sum of free Rent by free Rent was not only understood free of Feu and Teind Duty as is exprest
the Lands and Sums to the Heirs of the marriage which failing the mans Heirs nor yet to make any portion thereof to return to the Wife in that case as not being ordinary but only to rectifie the same as to the Wifes loynture November 22. 1664. Mâ—gil contra Ruthven of Gairn Minority and Lesion was found only competent by Reduction and not by Exâ—eption or Suspensâ—on Iune 28. 1665. Kyâ—e contra seaâ—oun Minority and Lesion was not â—lided because the money was delivered to pretended Curators who were lyable to the minor without diâ—cussing the Curators first seing they were not in this Process and the minor hath his option to Reduce against the Creditor or pursue his Curators and Intrometters Iuly 2. 1667. Lord Blantire contra Walkinshaw Minority and Lesâ—on being insisted in by reduction and majority being alleadged in defense neither party was preferred in probation but Witnesses allowed hinc inde February 20 1668. â—arquâ—ar of Towliâ— contra Gordouâ— Minority and Lesion was sustained to Reduce a Disposition by a Wife to her Husbands Brother though it had been to her Husbands behove in contemplation of the marriage seing there was no remuneratory provision on the Husbands part and that the legal Terce was not enough but that the Husband ought to have acquiesced in his jus mariti as well as the Wife in â—er Terce or both had mutual provisions here the Wife was carried away and married without her Freinds consent Iuly 14. 1669. Earl of Marischal contra Keith of Whitehaugh A MINVTE disponing Lands with part and pertinent was found to be extended â—o as to express common pasturage in a Muire possessed therewith the time of the Bargain February 14. 1668. Borthwick contra Lord Borthwick A Minute was exâ—ended by the Witnesses insert as to the manner of payment which was not so exprest therein Ianuary 15. 1666. Châ—ap contra Philip. A MISSIVE LETTER by a Merchant to a Factor to send home Wine on such another Factors credite with whom the Writer not being acquaint but upon the Factors account was found to oblige the Writer and not that third party unless he had accepted neither then did it liberate the Writer but the third party was expromissor in this the Lords would not take Examination of Merchants what such Letters did import February 7. 1665. Pallat Factor at Burdeux contra Fairholm A Missive Letter was found to instruct an accompt of 100. pound sterling received and Furniture sent albeit it was not holograph nor amongst Merchants but betwixt noble persons being for â—urniture sent from London to the Writer of the Letter by the other noble person being then at London to whom it was written the said receiver of the Letter making Faith that this was the true Letter that he received from the other February 28. 1671. Earl of Northesk â—ntra Viscount of Stormont Missive vide Clause Iuly 15. 1662. Wauchop contra Laird of Niddrie c. A MOTHER was found obliged by the Law to aliment her Children according to her means they having no means of their own or any person representing their Father able to aliment them in their Family but that the Mother was only â—bliged to aliment them in her Family dâ—d not to pay modification for their Education out of her Family albeit they were â—oble persons and the Mother had miscarried February 23. 1666. Children of the Earl of Buchan contra Countess of Buchan A Mother taking a Bond to her self in Liferent and to her Children in Fee was â—ound not to have poweâ— to alter or assign that Bond to another as being presumed to be made by her own means but the same was presumed to be the Childrens meansâ— by their Father though their Mother was not Tuâ—rix or Curatrix to them seing the Bond did not express it to be the Mothers own means noâ— reserved a power to the Moâ—â—er to Dispone February 18. 1671. Dundas contra the Lairds of Ardrosâ— and â—ouch MOVEAâ—â—ES being craved to be restored as being the Pursuers the Libel was not found Relevant unless he condescended quomodo desâ—t â—osildire and instruct the same and he having condescended that it was by Loan it was found probable by Witnesses 〈◊〉 21. 1665. Scot contra Fletcher In Moveables possession presumes a Title without necessâ—ty to instruct the possessors authors Rightâ— without distinction of ordinary moveables or lewels unless the presumpâ—ion be elided by â—â—onger probation that such Iewels could not have belonged to him that impignoâ—ate the same who neither had them as a Merchand nor leweler neither did nor could make use of them for his own wearing Decâ—mber 12. 1665. Ramsay contra Wilson Here the first Author Impignorat them by Writ and immediatly â—ent abroad NEAREST OF KIN surviving the Deâ—unct Transmit their share of the deads part to their â—xecutors and it doth not accresâ—oâ—â—â— the rest of the nearest of kin or to their Executors February 1â— 166â— â—ell contra Wilkie IN NONEâ—TRY the full Rent is due from the citation in the general Deâ—â—arator and not from the time of the Sentence only 〈◊〉 and accordingly the special Declarator was sustained Iuly 25. 1666. Harper contra his Vassals Idem Iune 12. 1673. Faw contra Lord Balmerinâ— and Laird Pourie NOVITER Vâ—NIENS AD NOT ITIAM was sustained to reduce the Circumduction of a Term upon the Suspenders making Faith that the Writs now produced to prove what was then â—o have been proven were found out by her since the Term was Circumduced Iune 29. 1665. Norvil contra Suntar OATH OF A WIFE never to come in the contrary of her Bond granted 〈…〉 was found not to hinder her to alleadge that the Bond was null ipso jure February 18. 1662. contra 〈◊〉 Oath of parties being taken and they deponing upon the Tenor of a Writ and assoilzied thereupon were decerned thereafter upon production of the same Writ as not being contrary to the Oath but being only in so far as the Deponent Remembred the Tenor of the Writ November 23. 1665. Campbel contra Doctor 〈◊〉 The Oaâ—h of an author was found competent against a singular Successor in an Appryzing for proving the â—ame satified by intromission seing before this Defenders Right the matter was Litigious and an Act Extracted referring the intromission to that Authors Oath Iuly 14. 1666. Sharp contra Glen OATH OF CALVMNIE was found Competent as to one point of a Libel where the rest was not to be proven by Oath but in respect there could be no evident difference as to that point betwixt the Oath of Calumny and Verity and that the point was no ways probable but by the Oath of Verity the Oath of Calumny thereanent was refused February 20. 1667. 〈◊〉 contra 〈◊〉 OATH EX OFFICIO â—nent having of Writs was found to be given if at any time the Deponent had them and how he put them away that it might appear if fraudulently but not to depone if he knew who had them as not being proper November 1â—
Hamiltoun contra Harper Payment inferred by consecutive Discharges of all years preceeding was found not effectual where a preceeding year was acknowledged â—esting by these who obtained the discharge and where the Giver thereof had given a Warrand to a third party to liâ—t that year to his own behove albeit that was not intimate to the Tennents February 18. 1669. Cockburn and Gilespie her Husband contra Stâ—uarâ— and the Tennents of Lintoun Payment being proponed by one pursued as Representing if he deny not the passive Titles the Pursuer is liberate from proving thereof November 6. 1669. Scot of Hartwoodmires Supplicant Payment of a Tocher contracted by a Wife for her self was inferred by presumption that she lived twenty two years and that in his Testament he acknowledged his Tocher was payed which was not esteemed as legatum liberatioâ—â—s to affect the Deads part only but with the presumption did import an absolute Discharge February 16. 1671. Scot contra Dods A PENSION secular was â—ound only as an Assignation to Mails and Duties not to affect the Ground against singular Successors albeit it bear to be payed out of the readiest Fruits of such Lands and was cled with possession December 11. 1662. Clappâ—rtoun contra Laird of Edâ—em PERRIL of a Housâ— sold and thereafter burnt was found to â—e the buyers though the Disposition bear an obligement to put the buyer in possession seing he voluntarly took possession and Re-built the House and payed all the price December 13. 1667. Hunter contra Wilson PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS of Appryzers to communicat their appryzings are not effectual against the Appryzers singular Sucâ—essors Iuly 6. 1661. Telzifer contra Maxâ—oun and Cunninghâ—me Personal provision by a Back-bond of the same date with a Feu bearing that the Feuar might Renunce the Feu when he pleased was found valide against the singular Successor of the granter of the Feu seing it did not alter any thing of the real Right of the Feu but only the personal obligation in the Feudal Contract obliging the Feuer and his Heirs to pay the Feu-duty yearly February 12. 1669. Brown contra Sibbald POSSESSION of stollen Goods by using them in the Pleugh four moneths was found not to secure the possessors but that they might be recovered summarly by the Sheriffs warrand without citation but if the Possessors did acquire Right by an onerous Title they were not to be Restored but prejudice to the Owner to recover the same by Process yet so as the Sheriffs warrand did exclude from violent profites Iuly 6. 1671. Strachanâ— contra Gordouns POSSESSOR BONAE FIDEI facit fructus consumptos suos was found not to extend to a Mother who by several presumptions appeared to have known the Right of her Children wherein private knowledge was enough November 20. 1662. Children of Wolmet contra Lady Wolmet and Dankeith her Husband Possessor bonâ— fidei c. albeit his authors Right was Reduced in Parliament whereto he having but a Tack needed not be called and so he had no standing Title his Tack falling in consequence seing nothing was done to interrupt his possession Iuly 19. 1664. Dowglas and Sinclar her Spouse contra Laird of Wedderburn Possessor bonâ— fidei c. was extended to one who had a second Right to a Reversion and had first Redeemed and possessed thereby and was not found lyable to the other pursuing upon his prior Right as to bygones before Citation although he had not acquired the benefite of a possessory judgement by possessing 7. years November 18. 1664. Guthrie contra Laird of Sornbeg Possessor bonâ— fidei c. was found not to take effect to one who had obtained a Decreet to Removing for not payment of â—he duties in absence and produced not his Infeftment but 〈◊〉 infefâ—ment of another person of that same Name which being a fraudulent deed he could not thereby have a Title cum bona fidâ— Iune 21. 1671. Neilson contra Menzies of Knock. A POSSESSORY â—IVDGEMENT was not sustained upon five or six years possession or less then seven years December 13. 1669. Hamiltoun contra Tennents of Vppersheils and Rowan A possessory judgement was found not competent upon seven years after interruption but that the Interruption continued till prescription Iuly 22. 1664. Montgomerie contra Hume Here the interruption was by a Decreet of Removing which gave the other civil possession A possessory judgement was not admitted against an annualrent which is debitum fundi Iune 25. 1662. Adamfâ—nt contra Lord Balmerino A possessory judgement was found not competent to a Wife by her Husbands possession against another deriving Right from him the wifes infeftment not being oneroâ—s or upon her Contract but gratuitous December 7. 1664. Lady Craig and Green-head her Husband contra Lord Loure Possessory judgement is not competent upon Possession of Warrandice Lands against Recourse upon Eviction which may be without Reduction Ianuary 9. 1666. Brown contra Scoâ— A possessory ludgement on 7. years possession was found valide to a party infeft though entering by the Conjunct feâ—ar as Heir to her who was not Fâ—â—ar but Liâ—erenter February 20. 1667. Cranstoun contra Wilkison A possessory judgement was not found competent upon seven years possession by vertue of an Appryzing on which there neither followed Infeftment nor Charge against the Superiour to Infeft February 6. 1668. Iohnstoun contra Erskin A Possessory judgement upon a publick Infeftment and seven years possession was â—ound not Relevant against a Pursuit for Recourse upon Eviction by Infeftment of warrandice unlesse there were seven years Possession after the Eviction February 20. 1668. Forbes contra Iâ—nes A Possessory Iudgement was Sustained upon seven years possession peaceably before intenting of the Cause albeit there was interruption by Citation before these seven years and albeit there was â—urceals of lustice during the last seven years and that the Pursuer was Minor Iuly 15. 166â— Earl of Wintonn contra Gordoun of Letterâ—urry A Possessory Iudgement was sustained on an Infeftment on a voluntary Disposition against an appryzer who had denunced the Lands before that Disposition whoâ—e Denunciation was not found to render the matter so litigious as to exclude a possessory judgement by seven years uninterrupted Possession thereafter Iuly 17. 1668. Steuart contra Murrayes POYNDING OF THE GROVND for an annualrent deâ—â—rned was found to take effect not only against the Master and Tennents therein called but all others coming in after though singular Suncessors and not to be abated by vastation as a Feu-duty and to have access against the whole or any part of the Ground though now belonging to several Heretors but so as the payer should have Assignation to the debt and a time to recover relief oâ—â— the rest neither was the Decreet excluded by 20 or 30. years possession of a singular Successor as a possessory judgement Iune 26. 1662. Adamsons contra Lord Balmerino Poinding of the Ground was found competent against the apparent Heir of the Granter of the Annualrent without
a Charge to enter Heir Ianuary 2. 1667. Olephant contra Hamiltoun Poinding of the Ground was sustained on an annualrent although there was no possession thereon for above seven years without Declarator and though a posterior appryzer was in possession more than seven years which was not found to give a possessory judgement against a prior annualrent Ianuary 1. 1668. Old Lady Clerkingtoun and the young Lady A PRECEPT was â—ound to oblige the Granter thereof it not being answered albeit it did not bear value received seing it was upon an other Precept direct to the Drawer of the last precept and so was an acceptance Ianuary 22. 1667. Findlason contra Lord Cowper A precept of Seasine upon obedience was found not to hinder the Reduction nor improbation nor to import acknowledgement of the Defenders Right February 20 1662. Laird of Mochrome contra Laird of Martoun Ariol and others PREMONITION by a Procurator was sustained though it bear not the Procuratory shown seing it bear not it was called for if it now be shown or proving by the other parties oath that a procuratory was shown Ianuary 18. 1662. Veatch contra Lyel of Bassendoun PRESCRIPTION was found only to run from the Term of payment of Bonds not from the date and that the Interruption by Citation upon the first Summons is sufficient to interrupt though there was no continuation or second summons February 17 1665. Butter contra Gray Prescription on 40. years silence was found not effectual against a Wife pursuing the Cautioner for her â—uâ—band in her Contract of Marriage obliging to imploy a Sum to her in Liferent quia non valâ—bat agere during her Husbands life who would not concur and therefore the prescription was compted from his death and yet the other obligement in the same Contract in favours of the Husband obliging the Wifes Father to pay the Tocher was found to prescribe from the date Iuly 5. 1665. Mckie contra Steuart Prescription was â—ound interrupted by a citation albeit not so legal but that the Defender might have excluded the pursuit upon informality especially being in re antiqua and where the custom of the Regality did not appear Novem. 25. 1665. White contra Horn. Prescription was â—ound neâ—er to extend to exclude any person to serve themselves to any of their predecessors if no other hath been served before in which case the Retoure cannot be quarrelled but within 40. years if deduced after the year 1617. or if before then it must be quarrelled within fourty years or else it must prescribe by the general Act of prescription November 28. 1665. Young contra Iohnstouns Prescription by not paying Teind for fourty years was found not to take away the Right of the Teind totally having been once payed but only as to years precâ—eding the fourty years February 7. 1666. Earl of Paâ—mure contra Parochioners Prescription non câ—rcit contra non valentem agere which is understood of Actions which might have attained possession and not of Declarators or Reductions February last 1666. Earl of Lauderdail contra Viscount of Oxenfoord Prescription was found interrupted by a Decreet of poynding the Ground though therein the Heretor was not Called Iuly 15. 1666. Sinclar contra Laird of Hâ—rdmanstoun Prescription of an oblation of a Cautioner bound conjunctly and severally with the principal was not inferred by the Creditors not getting payment or pursuing the Coutioner for fourty years which did not presume he past from him but his getting annualrent from the principal within the fourty years was â—ound sufficient to preserve the Bond as to both December 18. 1667. Gairns contra Arthure Prescription of a Tack of Teinds not cled with possession for more than 40. years from its date was â—ound not to annul that Tack but as to years before possession and a prorogation of the Tack was sustained as to times coming Ianuary 19. 1669. Earl of Athole contra Laird of Strowan Prescription was not sustained upon 40. years uninterrupted possession and one single Seasine as the Title of prescription unless according to the Terms of the Act of Parliament singular Successors produce as their Title not only a Seasine but a Charter or Precept as the warrand thereof and that universal Successors produce one or more Seasines upon Retoures or Precepts or clare constat continuing and standing together by the space of fourty years which standing together was not understood of standing unreduced but standing not fallen in the hands of the Superior by Noiâ—-entry so that either the obtainer of the Seasine behoved to live after the â—ame and possess 40. years in which case one Seasine were sufficient or if he dyed within the fourty years his Heirs possession were not sufficient by that Seasine bâ—t behoved to be renewed and so to continue Seasines as well as possession for fourty years from the beginning of the first Seasine but no necessity was found to produce the Retour or Precept where Possession was by Seasines one or more the Seasines as well as Possession being continued for fourty years February 15. 1671. Earl of Argile contra Laird of Mâ—naughtoun Prescription of an annualrent constitute indefinitely out of two distinct Tenements was found not incurred as to the one in respect of the annualrenters uplifting the whole annualrent out of the other in the same manner as payment of annualrent by the principal Debitor preserves the obligement of the Cautioners though they payed no annualrent for fourty years and the Heretor distressed was found to have proportionable relief out of the other Tenement though both were now in the hands of different singular Successors and required different Seasines Iuly 22. 1671. Lord Balmerino contra Hamiltoun of Litle-prestoun Prescription of annualrent mortified to an Hospital was sustained by freedom there from fourty years without consideration of the pious use or that the Poor had yearly Overseers chosen and were not esteem'd as Minors or without any abatement of the time of the Troubles when there could be no Process Iune 30. 1671. Bead-men of the Magdalen Chapel contra Drysdail Prescription of the annualrent of a Bond was elided because the principal sum was payed to the Feear and it was sufficient that the annualrent was due within fourty years preceeding that payment which annualrent was due to the Executors of a Liferenter this was stopped and altered as to this that it was not found relevant to preserve the annualrents that were within fourty years before the last payment but that they were within fourty years before the intention of the Cause all annualrents or actual prestations preceding that fourty years prescribe because every years payment is a several obligation and that hath no effect as to the rest the first interlocutor was Iuly 22. 1671. And the second February 7. 1672. Blair of Balhead contra Blair of Denhead PRESVMPTION of allowance was sustained to take away publick burdens payed by a Tennent though his Tack bear to be relieved thereof and he produce
Discharges of his Rent and also Discharges of publick burdens unless by writ or his Masters Oath he prove they were not allowed December 2. 1664. Veatch contra Paterson Presumption that Tickets of publick burdens were allowed to Tennents in their Rent was sustained to elide the Tennents pursuit thereon for payment thereof albeit his Tack bear a clause to relieve him of all publick burdens Here the Tennent left the Land several years before the pursuit and never did any diligence to get these allowed but it was sustained by the Masters Oath that these were not allowed December 20. â—664 Paterson contra Veatch Presumption of a Wifes Warrand to borrow a smal sum and impignorat a Bond therefore was sustained she having the Bond in her custody February 4. 1665. Paterson contra Pringle PRIVILEDGE of Burghs to arrest persons of find Caution of answer as Law will was found to extend to the Pear of Leith as a part of the Burgh Royal of Edinburgh its priviledge and if done by the Water Baillie but not if in the Burgh of Batony of Leith or by the Baron Baillie Ianuary 18. 1663. Hamiltoun contra Mitchel and Keith Priviledge of Burgh was â—ound not to extend to Incarcerat unfreemen found within their Burgh till they find Caution as Law will albeit by a former Decreet they were Decerned to desist from Merchandice competent to free Burrows and that thereby they might only seize upon these Goods by the Act of Parliament Ianuary 30. 1663. Town of Linâ—â—thgow contra Borrowstounness PROBATION of immemorial possession or Custom was not found instructed by a Decreet mentioning a former Decreet wherein the same was proven unless the Testimonies were extant or produced December 13 1664. Bishop of the Isles contra Hamiltoun Probation of a Disposition being onerous to exclude â—ucrative Succession and absolvitor thereon in a Process was not found sufficient as repeated from another Decreet not being de recentâ— except it had been after a long time when Witnesses were dead and in that case their Testimonies if extant behoved to be seen again Ianuary 6. 1665. contra Edmonstoun of Carden Probation of a Defense was admitted partly by Oath what was the Cause of the Bond and partly by Witnesses that the condition thereof was contraveened Iune 15. 1665. Aikman contra Probation of the Delivery of a great bargain of Victual was not inferred from the Declaration of a person intrusted by the Debitor to receive it seing there was a time limited to obtain his Declaration after which his condition and trustinesse might change and could not perpetually oblige the Intruster Iuly 18. 1667. Executors of the Earl of Dirletoun contra Duke of Hamiltoun Earl of Crawfoord and others Probation was found to be according to the most pregnant Testimonies though others Witnessed a greater quantity this was in a matter old and in the estimation of â—osse November 23. 1667. Lord Iustice Clerk contra Laird of Lambertoun Probation by one Witness and the Oath of the Pursuer in supplement in favours of a party who had been absent â—ut of the Countrey in the Kings Service pursuing for his share of a Ship and Goods against the remnant Owners medled with by them in Anno 1638. was sustained by the Admiral but Reduced by the Lords and the Pursuer ordained to adduce farther probation February 12. 1668. Captain Strachan contra Morison PROCESSES being Dispute to the full in presentâ—a The Lords by Act of Sederunt ordained the Clerks not to give up the same or any Process Dispute at full though there were no Interlocutor thereon But ordained it to be keeped till the Dispute were advised and Interlocutor pronunced Iune 6. 1665. Town of Edinburgh contra Thomson PROMISE to relieve a Cautioner who relieved the promisers Goods of poinding was found not probable by Witnesses though within an hundred pounds where the promiser was dead Iuly 3. 1668. Donâ—ldson contra Harrower A Promise by a Wife after her Husbands death never to quarrel a Tack of Liferent Lands which was in Writ for several years was found to exclude her and not to be as a verbal Tack valide only for a year but as pactum de non repugnando Ianuary 8. 1670. Scot contra Murray A PRO-TVTOR being an Overseer intrometting with the Pupils Bondâ— was found only lyable for the whole Bonds received by him though he uplifted the annualrent of a part of them only and for the annualrent thereof but not for any other means or Estate of the Defunct because there was no antecedent Law or Rule to oblige him but an Act to Sederunt was ordained to be made and published that all persons â—edling so in the future should be lyable both for intromission and omission as Tutors Iune 10. 1665. Swinâ—oun contra A PRYZE Ship was found not justly taken belonging to a Prince holding of the Kings Enemies unless he contribuâ—e to the War Ianuary 4. 1667. Harison contra Laird of Ludâ—uhurn A Prize Ship was liberate belonging to Neuters not the Kings Enemies nor Alies albeit carrying Counterband-Goods unless it were proven that the War was known at the place they â—oâ—sed from when they loused and that Acts of Hostility and declaring Prizes in Neighbouring places was not sufficient without publication of the War or knowledge thereof Iuly 23. 1667. Iurgan contra Captain Logan A â—rize Ship was found justly adjudged as carrying Counterband-Goods albeit a Swedish Shâ—p and by the Swedish Treaty such Counterband-Goods were allowed to the Sweds which was only understood they being the gâ—owth of their own Countrey Iuly 27 and 31. 1667. and November 6. 1667. Packman contra Captain Allan A Prize being taken pursued by two Privateers was â—ound equally to be divided betwixt both and not according to the proportion of their Guns seing the least and lightest of the Frigots did Seaze when the other was at a considerable distance and his concoâ—rse and conâ—ortship though made without consent or special Commission from the Owners being both in precinctâ— belli and profitable for the security of either party February 7. 1668. Cuningskie contra Captain Mastertoun Prize Ships being Questioned as having in them the product of Coâ—nterband-Goods carried in to the Kings Enemies in the same Voyage from which the Ship was returning was found not sufficient by the Tenor of the Admiral of Scotlands Commission bearing Warrant to seaze if the product of Counterband-Goods in that Voyage were found but by the Law and Custome of Nations and therefore the Lords granted Commission to â—ry the Custome of Holland France England and Spain February 21. 1668. Packman contra Allan A Prize being taken upon probable grounds and adjudged by the Admiral the Kings tenth part and Admirals fifteenth part being payed and the Goods sold the Decreet of Adjudication being Reduced the privateer was found lyable but for the value that the Goods might have given by rouping if they had been preserved and sold when and where they were adjudged February 24. 1668. Captain Mastertoun
Inquest who behoved to serve to the last they saw infeft and therefore the Lords reduced Iuly 7. 1663 Mow contra Dutches of Balcleugh A Retour being called for to be reduced as proceeding without warrand or probation and nothing being produced but the Brieve Executions and Service but no Witnesses having deponed on the propinquity of Blood and none of the Inquest having declared so on proper knowledge The Lords would not therefore annul the Service but ordained the Inquest to be cited to give their oaths on what ground they served February 24. 1665. Mercer of Aldie contra Cowan Retoures of Heirs are not reduceable unless they be quarrelled within 20. years by the special Act Parl. 1617. thereanent which was only found to relate to Retoures deduced since that Act but by the general Act of Prescription 1617. the action of Reduction of Retoures quando ecunque deduced prescribes if not quarrelled within 40. years November 28. 1665. Young contra Iohnstouns Vide Heir A Retour of five years possession of a Foâ—efaulted person was not sustained to be Reduced by way of ordinary Action but by a Summons of Error in Latine under the Quarter-Seal though such Reduction were oft timeâ— allowed before Iune 28. 1667. Hume contra Creditors of Kellâ— A REVERSION granted by a person obliging a buyer to dispone to the Seller was found to extend to the Disponers Heirs though not exprest seing the ordinary Clause of paying the sum in the Disponers own time was not adâ—ected and it was held but as an omission non dedita opera that Heirs were not exprest Ianuary 9. 1662. Earl of Murray contra Laird of Grant A Reversion was not â—ound null not being Registrate before 1617. by the Act 1555. which was found in deâ—uetude Iuly 5. 1666. Earl of Hume contra his Wodsetters A Reversion bearing payment at the Wodseâ—â—ers House at London was â—ound satisfied by Consignation at Edinburgh where his Successor dwelt February 1. 1667. Creditors of Murray contra Murray A Reversion to a person and the Heirs of his Body was found â—ufficient to redeem by that person albeit he had before asâ—igned the Reversion and disponed the Land to another February 1. 1667. Earl of Tillibardin and Sir Iohn Drummoâ—d contra Murray of Ochterâ—yre A RIGHT REAL of Lands was found not burdened with a provision in the Disposition that the Lands should be affected with such a sum against an Appryzer or singular Successor Ianuary 25. 1664. Colquhoun contra Adamson But thereafter this case being considered and the Clause for payment in the Infeftment the Father who granted it being in possession it was â—ound relevant against the singular successor till it were performed November 7. 1606. Inter eosdem SALMOND FISHING in a River was found not to impede the letting out of a Loch into that River though hurtful to the fishing as was the Lords opinion but because it was a reference from the Parliament who might make a Law thereanent The Lords granted Commission to visite before answer Iuly 1. 1661. Mayor of Bervick contra Laird of Hayning Salmond fishing by Câ—uives was found valide by an Infeftment to a Burgh cum piscationibus piscariis without special mention of Salmond fishing or Cruives cled with immemorial possession and which Cruives the Burgh was suffered to change from one part to another within their own bounds being without preâ—udice of the other fishings above or putting them in worse condition then they were before with the former Cruives and being but one Cruive Dyke whereof the Lords would not determine the height or whether it should be stopped or not but seing they possessed immemorially the former Dike this was to be made conform in all points and found that the Hecks ought to be three inches wide and not five and that the Act of King 〈◊〉 the 4th bearing five was an Error in relating a former Act of King Davids there being no such Act amongst his Acts but there being one Act of King Alexanders amongst his Acts for three inches it was â—ound that that should have been related as the Rule and that Saturndays slop should be keeped of all the Cruives and not of one only in the midle stream by opening an eln in each Cruive pulling up the Hecks thereof and that from Saturnday at six a Clock till Munday at Sun rising and ordained the common custom to be proven the hinc inde concerning a constant open midle stream which was not repeated in King la. 6. his Act nor had the Lords respect â—o the Ratifications of these Acts purchased in the Parliament 1661. being impetrate by private parties not Printed or past the Articles or done in the stile of a general Law Ianuary 26. 1665. Heretors of Don contra the Town of Aberdene SATISFACTION of an Appryzing and of the sums whereupon the same proceeded was admitted by Exception upon what sums the apparent Heir to whose behove the right returned payed out therefore and that by intromission and present offer of what remained after compt and reckoning albeit the pursuit was not upon the Appryzing but a Reduction on an Inhibition upon the Bond whereupon the Appryzing proceeded Iune 28. 1671. Forbes of Watertoun contra Shein Vide Appryzing A SEASINE on an appryzing within Burgh was sustained though not given by the Baillies but by the Provest nor by the Town Clerk but by another Nottar because the Baillies and Clerk were excluded by the English for the Tender Iuly 3. 1663. Thomson contra Mckitrick A Seasine not registrate of a Liferent to a Wife was found valide against the apparent Heir of the Granter though brooking by a prior Disposition seing it contains a power to the Father to dispone and grant annualrents February 27. 1667. Countess of Carnwath contra Earl of Carnwath A Seasine propriis manibus of a Husband to a Wife who had no Contract of Marriage nor other provision and had disponed a former Liferent to the behoof of the Husband was found a sufficient Title without a warrand or Adminicle in writ in respect of the Marriage and Duty of the Husband to provide his Wife Iune 19. 1668. Relict of Garigs contra Wallace of Garigs A Seasine within Burgh under the Clerks hand was sustained without necessity to 〈◊〉 it was regiâ—â—rate in the Town Books in reâ—pect of the Exception in the Act anent Registration of Seasines within Burgh not requiring them to be registâ—ate in the Towns Books Iune 30. 166â— Burâ—et contra Swan The â—ike though the Seasine was by the Sherifâ— Clerk there being no Town Clerk in Office Iuly 21 1666. Thomson contra Mckiâ—rick A Seasine propriâ—s manibus albeit sustained to a Wife without one Adminicle who had no Contract of Marriage and had at that time quite her loynture by a former Husband to the Husbands Creditors yet two of the Witnesses being positive that they were never Witnesses to any Seasine given to her a third deponing he remembred not a â—ourth abiding
by the Seasine but deponed it was in Summer where the Seasine bear in Winter was improven though the Nottar offered to abide by it but the Lords refused to Examine him or any extrinsick Witness in respect the Seasine had no Warrand in writ Ianuary 9. 1669. Wallace of 〈◊〉 contra â—lâ—kerrel A Seasine propriis manibus by a Father to his Son reseving his Fathers Liferent was found valide against a second Wifes Infeftment in the same Lands though granted for a competent Tocher albeit the Seasine had but two Witnesâ—es and had no Disposition or Precept to Warrand it but an Adminicle viz. a Bond by the Father of the same date obliging him to warrand the Seasine and that it was not a fraudulent â—atent deed it being Registrate nor was it alterable by the Father as a Bairns portion February 11. 1669. Buchan contra Taits SERVICE of Harrage and Carriage in a 〈◊〉 was â—ound not due but when demanded within the year Iune 27. 1662. Watson contra Eleis SERVITVDE of Fail and Divot Clay and Stone granted in a Muire definitely where there was no pasâ—urage therewith was found not to hinder the Proprietar of the Muire to Plew and rive out a parâ— where there was more leâ—t then was like to serve the use of the Servitude â—or ever yet so as if it should happen at any time thereafter not to suffice a part of that riven out should be laid â—ee for the same purpose in this respect was had to the publick utility the whole Muire being otherwayes improfiâ—able and the restriction was not allowed till the Muire was actually riven out and plâ—wed Iune 21. 1667. Watson contra Feuers of Dunkeir A Servitude of putting over a Miln Damn upon other mens ground was â—ound not constiâ—ute without his consent though he shew no detriment to him thereby Iune 22. 1667. Hay of Strowiâ— contra Feuers A Servitude of common pasturage though if ordinarly carry Fail and Divot yet if by cuâ—â—ome Fail and Divot be excluded and hindered it is â—ot excluded February 15. 1668. Laird of Haining contra Town of Seâ—kirk SIMVLATION of a Gift of Eâ—cheat was inferred upon the Act of Parliament 1592. because the Rebel was suffered to possess four or five years in which 〈◊〉 were patent albeit the Donatar obtained gâ—neral declarator long before and was himself a lawful Creditor and that the Lands were appryzed before the Rebellion seing the Appryzer possessed not but the Rebel Ianuary 9. 1666. Oliphant contra Drummond Simulation of a gift of Liferent Escheat was â—ound probable by the Superiour and Witnesses insert in the gift their oathes that it was to the Rebels behove Iune 19. 1669. Scot contra Langtoun Simulation of a gift of Liferent taken by a party who had bought Lands for securing himself in respect the Sellers Escheat was â—â—llen was not inferred by allowing the Expenses of the Gift in the price of the Land which the Seller was obliged to warrand seing he did not extend the gift any further than to the Lands bought to himself unless it were proven he knew of the other party competing his Right that it was perfected before he took the other Disposition of the same Lands and thereby was particeps fraudis with the Seller who granted double Dispositions 22. 1669. Hamiltoun of Corsse contra Hamiltoun and Viscount of Frendraught Simulation of a Gift of Escheat and Liferent was not inferred because it was granted to the Rebels Son who was not in his Family but had means of his own nor that the Father continued in possession for sometime after Declarator nor were the members of Exchequer admitted to prove that the Gift was procured by the Fathers means and moyen seing the Son gave Back-bond that being satisfied of the debt in the Horning his own debt and expenses of the gift there should be place to the Rebels Crediâ—ors and did make Faith at the passing of the Gift that it was to his own behove December 4. 1669. â—â—ffrey contra Doctor 〈◊〉 Simulation of a Giâ—t of Liâ—erent was inferred from the Rebels obtaining the gift bâ—ank in the Donatars Name which being in his hand and delivered to a Creditor for security of a just debt the same was found null even as to him December 17. 1670. Langtoun contra Scot A SINGVLAR SVCCESSOR was not found lyable for publick burdens imposed by Committees of Parliament Ratified in Parliament Iuly 13. 1664. Grahame of Hiltoun contra Heretors of Claâ—kmannan Shire SLANDER Vide Commissaries IN A SPECIAL DECLARATOR of Escheaâ— the payment of the debt before denunciation was â—ound relevant upon the Creditors Oath but Nullity of the Horning upon informality of Process was found not relevant seing these purged not the Contempt and Disobedience in not paying or suspending February 10. 1663. Montgomrie contra Montgomrie and Lawder in this case the alleadgeaâ—ce on the Back-bond granted to the Thesaurer by the Donatar in favours of the Creditors was not found relevant without a second gift or warrand from the Thesaurer SP VILZIE was elided by Disposition and Instrument of possession though it was omnium bonorum and no natural possession â—ollowed for two years seing there was no forcible resistance Ianuary 29. 1662 Irwing contra Mâ—kartnay In a spuilzie many persons being called as accessory there being on others whereby the Defender might prove his Defense The Lords declared if the pursuer insisted against them all they would ordain him first to insist against the accessories that such as were assoilzied might be Witnesses February 24. 1662. Inter eosdem Spuilzie of Teinds was not elided by ther 15 and 17. Acts of Parliament 1633. Declaring the Teinds to be the fifth part of the Rents and that every Heretor shall have their own Teind until valuation be intented December 18. 1662. Lord Balmerino contra the Town of Edinburgh Spuilzie noâ— being pursued â—ithin three years can only be pursued thereafter as wrongous intromission and the parties are not lyable in solidum but if all be proven intromettors they are lyable equally as being all presumed to have equally intrometted unless the greater intromission of some of them be prove m Ianuary 17. 1668. Strachan contra Morison A Spuilzie was not elided by a poinding though one offered to make Faith the Goods were anothers then the debitors not being offered by himself his Servant or by his Commission seing that partie had a Disposition with an instrument of possession and several Acts alleadged oâ— his natâ—ral possession from whom the Goods were poinded Iuly 6. 1666. Corbet contra Stirling Spuilzie of Oxen the Pursuers had in the Pleugh four moneths was elided because the Defenders had intrometted with them by an order of the Sheriâ—â— execute by his Officers as being stollen Goods though there was no citation of paâ—â—ies for obtaining the warrand which might be summarly used for recovering of Goods notwithstanding of 4. moneths peaceable possession unless with the possession the pursuer should instruct a lawful and onerous
the exception of the Act Salvo Jure Scot of Thirlston contra Scot of Braidmeadow Eodem die SCot of Thirlston having right to the Teynd of midshef and pursues the possessor for 24. Years bygone and in time coming who alleadged absolvitor because these Teynds are allocal to the Church coâ—â—orâ— to a Decreet of locality produced bearing such a Stipend and locatting so much of it and for the restâ— that the Minister had the Teynds of midshef It was alleadged that this could not instruct that those whole Teynds were allocal but so much as made up that rest and the Teynd is worth twice as much and therefore the Minister had but the twenty Lamb for the Teynd which is but half Teynd and was lyable to the Pursuer for the rest It was answered that Teynds are secundum consuetudinem loci and if Tyends had never been payed none would be due and if the twenty Lambs was all ever payed they could be lyable for no more The Lords found that before the intenting of the cause they would not allow any more nor then what was accustomed to be payed unless the Pursuer offer him to prove that there was a Tack or use of payment of more which they would allow accordingly Sir William Thomson contra Town of Edinburgh February 14. 1665. THe Magistrats of Edinburgh having deposed Sir William Thomson Town Clerk from his Office on this ground That a Tack of the new Imposition and Excise being set to their Tacks-men which was to have been subscribed by him as Clerk for the Deacons of the Crafts he had given it up to the Tacks-man and had not taken their subscription thereto neither to their own double nor taken another double for the Town albeit the Tack duty was fourscore thousand merks yearly for two years and that it being an uncertain casuality the value of it was most difficult to prove and not but by the Tacks-mens own Oath Sir William raised Reduction on several Reasons especially that the sentence was unjust in so far as it was the puting on of an exorbitant and incommensurable punishment of deprivation from an Office of so great Value upon a Fault of meer negligence or escape and that before the Sentence the Tack-dutie was all payed but four monethes and now all is payed and that Sir William was still willing for to have made up the Towns damnage It was answered that here was no Process to put a punishment commensurable on a Fault but Sir William having by the free Gift of the Town had so profitable a place for his life upon consideration of his Fidelity and Diligence there is implyed in it as effectualy as if exprest that it is ad vitam aut ad culpam so that the cognoscing of the Fault is the termination of the Gift freely given so if their be a fault Justly found by the Town they might well take back their Gift they gave upon that condition implyed for it was not the loss in eventu nor dolus in proposito that made such a Fault else all negligences imaginable would not make it up though a Servant should leave his Masters House and Coffers open if nothing happened to follow yet the Fault was the same and could not be taken away by making up the damnage but here was a Fault of knowledge and importance for Sir Wilâ—iam could not by meer negligence nor ommission give away the Tack to the Tacks-men and neither see them subscribe their own double or any other nor subscribe himself this Fault was likeas in his Office he had a particular gratuitie as Clerk to the excise The Lords repelled the Reason of Reduction and found the Sentence not to be unjust upon this ground because they thought that Sir William being a common Servant who by his Act of admission had specially engadged never to quarrel the pleasure of the Magistrats they as all Masters have a latitude in cognoscing their Servants Faults wherein though they might have been wished to forbear rigor yet having done it by their power as Masters over their Servants The Lords could not say they had done unjustly but found that the committing such a Fault terminat their free Gift being of knowledge and importance but found that if it could be proven that the Tack was duelie subscribed and lost thereafter which was not of knowledge but of meer omission incident to any Person of the greatest diligence they would not find that a sufficient ground to depose him Bishop of Dumblain contra Earl of Cassils February 15. 1665. THe Bishop of Dumblain pursues the Earls Tennents for the Teynds of the Abbacy of Corâ—regual as a part of his Patrimony annexed thereto by the Act of Parliament 1617. The Defender alleadged no Process till the Act of Annexation being but an Act unprinted were produced 2ly Absolvitor because the Defender had Tacks from the King in Anno 1641. And by vertue thereof was in possession and could pay no more then the Duties therein contained till they were reduced It was answered to the first it was nottour and if the Defender alleadged any thing in his favour in the Act he might extract it 2ly The Defender could not claim the benefit of his Tack 1641. because the Bishops are restored to all they possessed in Anno 1637. And so not only Right but Possession is restored to them as then which is as sufficient an interruption by publick Law as if it were by Inhibition ot citation Which the Lords found relevant being in recenti after the Act and never acknowledged by the Bishops Boyd of Pinkill contra Tennents of Cairsluth Eodem die PInkill as Donatar to the waird of Cairsluth pursues removing against the Tennents whose Master compears and alleadges that the Gift was to the behove of the Minor his Superiour who as representing his Father and Guidsire was oblidged in absolute warrandice against Wairds per expressum THe Lords considering whether that could be understood of any other Wairds then such as had fallen before the warrandice or if it could extend to all subsequent Wairds of the Superiours Heir and so to non-entries c. which they thought hard seing all holdings were presumed Waird unlesse the contrary appear and the Superiour could not be thought to secure against subsequent Wairds unlesse it were so specially exprest all Wairds past and to come Yet seing it was found formerly that if the Superiour take such a Gift and be bound in warrandice that the same should accresce to the Vassals paying their proportional part of the expense and composition they found the Defense that this Gift was to the behove of the Superiour relevant ad hunc effectum to restrict it to a proportional part of the expense Hellen Hepburn contra Adam Nisbit February 16. 1665. HEllen Hepburn pursues Adam Nisbit to remove from a Tennement in Edinburgh who alleadged absolvitor because he had a Tack standing for Terms to run It was replyed that the Tack bore expresly if two
exclude Reductions and Declarators against appearand Heirs not requiring a Charge to Enter Heir in respect the appearand Heir must therein except upon the Defuncts Rights and so behave as Heir Iune 27 1667. Dewar contra Paterson Annus deliberandi Excludeth Citations given within that year here the day of compearance was within the year Ibidem ANNVALRENT was not found due for sums of Money without paction albeit the Money was lent with this provision that failing Heirs of the Creditors body who was very old the Debitor should succeed December 11. 1662. Logiâ— contra Logiâ— Annualrent was found due after Horning albeit the Decreet being Susâ—ended a part of it was taken away yet Annual was found due for the rest Ianuary 30. 1663. Rigg of Carberry contra his Creditors Annualrent was allowed without paction for a Portâ—on left by Legacy to the Defuncts natural Daughter the time of payment of which Legacy was her Marriage which being in her power The Lords would give no occasion to hasten the same but allowed Annualrent in the mean time Iune 25. 1664. Inglis contra Inglis Annualrent was not found due by a Father to his Son for a Legacy left to his Son by his Mothers Father and uplifted by the Father during the time he alimented his Son in his Family December 15. 1668. Windrham contra Eleis Annualrent promised for a time by a Letter was found due in all time thereafter Ianuary 13. 1669. Hume contra Seaton of Menzies Annual of Annual was not found due though expresly obliged to be payed by a Bond beaâ—ing That after each Term the Annualrent if it were not payed should bear Annualrent with the principal which clause was found null and not in the same case with a Bond of Corroboration granted after Annualrents were due accumulating the same Ianuary 26. 1669. Lady Braid contra Eâ—rl of Kingâ—orn APPRYZINGS were found not to be affected by a Bond or a Contract amongst the Appyzers to concur and communicat their Rights as to singular Successors seing the Contracters were then Infeft Iuly 1661. Taâ—lziâ—er contra Maxtoun An Apprizing led before the year 165â— but no Infeftment thereon till after that year was found not to come in pari passu with posterior Apprizings Infeft or Charging after the Charge or Infeftment on the Appryzing before 1652. but it did exclude them wholly December 12. 1666. Sir Henry Hume contra Creditors of Kello An Apprizer was found Comptable â—or his Intromission with such as he Entered in Possession of according to the Rental the Lands gave at his Entry with power to him to give up all defalcations in his Discharge and instruct the same Ianuary 4. 1662. Seaton contra Rosewall An Apprizer was excluded by a prior Infeftment though granted to the Creditors appearand Heir whereby he became Lucrative Successor after this Debt contracted but prejudice to purâ—ue him personally or to Reduce on that Title Ianuary 6. 1662. Mansoun contra Bannerman of Elsick An Apprizer pursuing for Removing and Mails and Duties his pursuit was Sustained only as â—o so much of the Apprized Lands as he should choose worth 8. per cent and to compt for the superplus more than his Annualrent and publict burdens excepting the Defenders House and Mains by the late Act of Parliament betwixt Debitor and Creditor Iune 27. 1662. Wilson contra Murray Apprizers Competing upon the late Act of Parliament bringing in Apprizings since 1652. pari passu was found not to exclude Apprizings before having obtained Infeftment since but that none could come in with him who was first Infeft and payed the Composition till they refounded their shares thereof Ianuary 24. 1663. Graham contra Ross. But also by the Tenor of the late Act the first Apprizers being Infeft in an Annualrent were found to have access to his Annualrent thogh there was no poinding of the ground February 5. 1663. Inter â—osdem An Apprizer was found comptable for the Rents of the apprized Lands during the Debiâ—ors Minority contrary the Act of Parliament 1621. Which was â—mended in the late Act 1641. But in the late Act Rescâ—ssory that was not Revived seing all private Rights by these Rescinded Acts. mâ—dio tempore were Reserved and this had been the Custom for twenty years February 18. 1663. Rosse contra Mckenzie Apprizers Competing the first Apprizer having given the first Charge on the Letters of â—our Forms and before the dayes thereof were expired the Superiour Infefting a second Apprizer the Infeftment was found Collusive and the first Apprizer giving the â—irst Charge and Infeft within a litle time after the second was preferred and the first Infeftment Reduced was still in Possession till now that the Legal was expired not only the bygone Fruits were his own but that he might Redeem within a year after this Sentence seing by the Taciâ—urnity of the Pursuer he was in bona fide to continue his Possession and not to doubt his own Right or Redeem a second Apprizer December 3. 1664. Laird of Clâ—rkingtoun contra Laird of Corsbie An Apprizing within a year was excluded from coming in pari passu with a prior Apprizing in respect the prior Apprizer had before the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor taken Right to a prior Apprizing without necessity to alleadge that he took the Right to shun the expiring of the Legal of that prior Apprizing or any other necessary Causâ— December 9. 1664. Iohn Veatch younger of Dawick contra Alexander Williamson Apprizers Competing where the first Apprizer being Infeft would possess but a part the Debate being as to the rest betwixt the second Apprizer not Infeâ—t and the third Infeft the Lords preferred the second as needing no Infeftment December 22. 1664. Doctor Ramsay and Hay contra Seatoun Apprizers come in pari passu not before the date of the late Act but from that time both Parties Sums should be accumulate and the Mails liâ—ted proportâ—onally but prâ—ceeding Mails should be imputed in payment of the Expence of the Apprizing Composition to the Superiour and then in payment of the principal Sums Ianuary 7. 1665. Grahame of Blackwood contra Browâ—s An Appriâ—ing being to be led the present Hâ—ritor and Possessors obtained assessors to be joyned to the Messenger that he might stop the Apprizing by production of his Inâ—eâ—tment â—ebruary 3. 1665. Sir Iohn Fletcher Supplicant An Apprizing ordained to be allowed and Registrat after the Debitors death and long after the sixty dayes were past from the Date of the Apprizing and that upon Supplication without Citation in respect it was found that the Apprizing Registrate Quandocuâ—que would be preferred to others not sooner or more orderly Registrate Iune â— 1665. An Apprizer pursuing for Mails and Duties was excluded till he â—atisfied the Superiour for a years Rent he being now ready to Recâ—ive him albeit he â—as Charged before and did not obey Iuly 22. 1665. Iohnstoun contra Tennents of Auchincorse An Apprizing being lost and a new Extract thereof being Subâ—cribed by the Clerk of
possession and free Trading on the River on which it stood was found not to be burdened with Anchorage Measurage Tunnage and Weyage granted by the King thereafter to another Burgh in Stations on that same River though cled with 40. years possession but neither universal nor peaceable but interrupted February 6. 1666. Town of Glasgow contra Town of Dumbartoun A Burgh Royal being pursued by one who had Lands within their Burrow-Lands and Houses within their Town were found not lyable for any Stent out of his personal Estate or Trading or for the Towns debts or second Ministers Stipend unless he had consented or had been in immemorial custom of payment Iuly 22. 1668. Bosewel contra the Town of Kirkaldy A Burgh Royal and their Trads-men were found not to have Right to hinder the exercise of Trads-men no ways adjacent to the Town to exercise their Trade upon pretence of the Act of Parliament Prohibiting Work-men to exercise their Trades in the Suburbs of Royal Burrows Iaâ—uary 7. 1671. Laird of Polmais contra Trads-men of Stirling CAPTION was granted summarly upon supplication against a Bankrupt who had unexpectedly and fraudulently broken and fled though he was not Rebel but the Kings free Leidge November 30. 1665. Creditors of Mason Supplicants CASVS FORTVITVS was found not to Liberate the Grasser of a Horse that broke his Neck where the Owner of the Horse appointed him to be keeped in at hard meat Ianuary 29. 1666. Scot contra Gib A CAVSE ONEROVS of a Disposition by one Brother to another was found not to be instructed by the Narrative thereof but behoved to be instructed aliunde November 19. 1669. Whitehead contra Lidderdail A cause onerous of a Disposition was found not instructed by its own Narrative or the Acquirers Oath though he was not a conjunct person with the Disponer seing the Disposition bear to be to two persons for themselves and to the behove of others whose interest was evacuate as being filled up after an Inhibition and the Disposition did not express what the Acquirers own Interest was Iuly 15. 1670. Lady Lucia Hamiltoun contra Boyd of Piâ—con A CAVTIONER for Executors was found not conveenable till the Executor be discust and that Decreet is not a sufficient discussing without Registrate Horning though the Executor have no Lands and though it was alleadged he was Bankrupt Iuly 24. 1664. Brisbâ—â—e contra Monteith A Cautioner in a Testament was found conveenable and comptable with the Executor before they were discust but superceeded all Execution against the Cautioner till the Executor be first Discust December 2. 1662. Dowglas contra the Lady Edmonstoun A Cautioner for an Apprentice was not liberate from causing the Apprentice serve his time and pay damnage for his absence because the Merchand suffered him to go over Sea and intimate not to the Cautioner to restrain him yet the penalty was modified to 50. pounds Iune 17. 1663. Allan contra Paterson Cautioners conjunct getting Assignation from the Debitor were found to have access to the rest allowing their own part but are not obliged to accept their part of what they truely payed by Composition Iuly 18. 1664. Niâ—bit contra Lesly A Cautioner was not found lyable to pay unless the Debitor Assign him to the debt and all security he had from the principal thereof Ianuary 10. 1665. Lesly contra Gray The contrary was found Iuly 10. 1665. Hume contra Crawford of Kerse So this is arbitrary and according to the favour of the case A Cautioner as Law will being obliged to present a party at all the dyets of Process and pay what should be decerned against him if he did not produce him within Term of Law having produced the Party and taken Instruments protesting to be free he was found liberate albeit at that same time the party produced an Advocation and was not Incarcerate seing the Baillies might have Incarcerate him notwithstanding of the Advocation February 20. 1666. contra Mcculloch A Cautioner as Law will not being both judicio siâ—ti judicatum solvi was liberate by puting the party in prison though not judicially when the cause was called Iuly 10. 1666. Thomson contra Binnie A Cautioner in a Suspension of a Bond wherein there were five Cautioners being distressed having payed and obtained Assignation from the Creditor was found to have accesse against the first four Cautioners as if he had been Cautioner with them allowing his own fifth part February 3. 1671. Arnold of Barnkaple contra Gordoun of Cholme A CEDENTS Oath was found to prove against an Assigney being the Cedents Son in the same Family having no â—eans of his own to acquire and the Assignation being gratuitous November 30. 1665. White contra Brown CERTIFICATION was not sustained against the Writs granted to the Defenders Authours but such as were called for though the Writ were alleadged to be in his own hand and these Authours fully Denuded Ianuary 3. 1662. Hume of St. Bathinâ— contra Orre and Pringle Certification was not admitted against the Letters and Executions of an Appryzing there being no Reduction intented till 30. years thereafter November 20. 1666. Blackwood contra Purves Certification was not admitted against a Writ Registrate in the Register of Session where the Extract was produced albeit the principal was not produced and there were pregnant evidences of Falshood ibidem Certification contra non producta was stopped upon producing and offering to dispute that the Writs produced excluded the Reducer without necessity to the Defender to declare that he would make use of no more and the Ordinary appointed to hear him thereupon but if they sufficed not he behoved with the next to produce all or declare he would make use of no further else Certification to be granted December 7. 1667. Earl of Lauderdale and Wachop contra Major Bigger Certification was refused against a Defender producing an express Infeftment of the Lands in question and the pursuer alleadging that they were part and pertinent of the Lands exprest in his Title he was ordained first to instruct them part and pertinent before the Defender was obliged to take a Term to produce Ianuary 20. 1669. Hay Clerk contra Town of Peebles Certification extracted was found not to terminate the Process of Improbation but that in the same Process the Pursuer obtained Witnesses examined as to the Forgery in so far as it depended not on the inspection of the Subscriptions and that upon production of Copies the Principals having once been judicially produced before by the Defender compearing who now wilfully keepeth them up November 9. 1669. Lady Towie contra Captain Barclay Certification against a Decreet of Valuation was found to have no effect against a Liferenter publickly Infeft not called though she had no right to the Tâ—ind but only to the Benefite of the Valuation to liberate the Stock of any further burden Iuly 15. 1670. Major Bigger contra Cunninghame of Dankeith Certification was found null by Reply being in absence and
till they Redeemed all pestelor Compryzings December 5. 1665. Reg contra â—eg A Wodset containing a Clause of Reversion for granting a Tack for certain years after the Redemption was found not to be derogat from by the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor but that it might be quarrelable by the Act 19. Parliament 1449. If the Tack were set but about the half of the true Rent as it was worth the time of granting the Wodsâ—t and so being Vsuâ—ary â— February 15. 1666. Lord Lâ—y contra Porteoâ—s Wodsetters having Wodset before the Act of Parliament 1661. were found comptable for the superâ—lus more than pays their Annualrent not from the date of the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor but from the oâ—â—er made to give them security upon quiting their Wodsets and that notwithstanding there was in the Wodset a Clause Renuncing the Vsurpets Act suspending the payment of principal sums and ordaining Lands to be taken in satisfaction thereof and all Acts of that nature and albeit there be an exception in the said Act when the benefite of such Acts are Renunced which was not found to relate to the Clause anent Wodsets which is posterior to that exception February 21. 1666. Lord Borthwick contra his Wodseâ—ters Wodsetters before the Act 1661. choosing to retain the possession were found comptable for the superplus not from the Summons but from the date of the offer to find Caution which was admitted after the Citation but it was found that the Wodsetters were not bound to declare their option whether to quite the Wodset or restrict till Caution were offered February 12. 1666. Ogilbie contra A Wodsetter by his Wodset being obliged upon payment to Renunce and by his missive Letter acknowledging payment his Son and apparent Heir having received a disposition of his other Estate without a Cause onâ—rous after the Wodset but before the missive Letter was found lyable as lâ—crative Successor to enter to the Wodset Right and to Renunce Ianuary 15. 1668. Earl of Kinghorn contra Laird of Vdnâ—y A Wodsetter was found comptable for the superplus after oâ—â—er to find Caution though he had a posterior Ratification and â—ik after the Act 1661. Iune 19. 1669. Scot contra Langton A WRIT â—iz a Bill of Exchange by a Drover subâ—cribed only by a mark and another hand writing such a mans mark The Lords did not allow it as probative but before answer ordained the writer and witnesses to be examined ex officio February 26. 1662. Brown contra Iohnstoun of Clacharie A Writ was sustained though subscribed but by one Nottar being a Contract of Marrâ—age whereon Marriage followed Iuly 19. 1662. Breadiâ— contra Breadie and Murie A writ was found not to prove being the Act of a Town Council without Citation or Subscription of the party bearing consent to a penalty imposed upon unfree-men February 13. 1663. Town of Linliâ—hgâ—w contra unfree-men of Borrowstownness A writ was sustained though not delivered being in â—avours of the granters Son though a Bastard February 25. 1663. Aikâ—nhead contra Aikâ—nhead A writ wanting wâ—tnesses designed was not sustained simply on designation being a very old writ without other adminicâ—es to astruct seing the improbation by such witnesses being dead was not competent as in recenti Iuly 15. 1664. Colvil contra Executors of the Lord Colvil A writ viz. a Bond was found not taken away by witnesses offering to prove payment though the Bond was made in England to English-men where that probation is competent being made by Scots-men residing in Scotland and registrate here and so to be regulat by the Law of Scotland December 8. 1664. Scot contra Anderson and Neilson A writ was not found null as wanting Writer and Witnesses insert being made secundum consuetudinem locâ— in Ireland Feâ—uary 1. 1665. Elphing stoun of Sâ—lmes contra Lord Rollo A writ quarreâ—â—ed as null the witnesses not being designed was not sustained unless living witnesses were condescended on or adminicles to astruct the verity of the debt February 3. 1665. Falcoâ—er contra Earl of Kingâ—orn A writ alleadged null because the writer was not designed was sustained upon designing the â—riter albeit the writ was old and appeared to have been blank in the sum Creditor and Debitor Decem. 5. 1665. Cunninghame contra Duke of Hamiltoun A writ viz. a Bond was taken away by this manner of probation by oath that it was for a Prentice-see and by witnesses that the Prentice was put away within a year and an half after the entry as to a proportional part of the Prentice-see to the time thereafter Iune 15. 1665. Aikman contra A writ being no compt Book but some louse Scheduls was found not probable to instruct a debt against the writer of it who deponed that he wrot the same but declared also that he had payed the sum Iuly 1. 1665. Nasmith contra Bower A writ wanting witnesses being offered to be proven holograph albeit it cannot instruct its own date or that it was subscribed before the Defunct was on death-bed yet the alleadgance on death-bed was not sustained by way of exception or duply Ianuary 11. 1666. Seaâ—on and the Laird of Touch contra Dundaâ— A writ being an assignation to an appryzing was taken away partly by the assigneys oath and partly by witnesses ex officio proving that the appryzing with the assignation blank in the assigneys name was retired and lying by the assigneys father who was debitor in the sums and amongst his writs the time of his death February 27. 166â— Creditors of the Lord Gray contra Lord Gray A writ was not sustained as having but one witneâ—s to that subscription though another witness generally designed deponed he saw not that party subscribâ— but that the subscription was his hand-writ to the best of his knowledge and several other subscriptions were adduced to asâ—ruct the same comparatione lâ—terarum seing there were not two witnesses insert to this subscription Ianuary 4. 1667 Dow of Arâ—ho contra Caâ—pbel of Calder A writ being a discharge by a Master to his Tennents was sustained though without witnesses and not holograph and without necessity to prove the truth of the Subscription in respect of the common custom to take such discharges Iuly 4. 1667. Sâ—haw contra Tennents A writ being a bond was found not probative having only the clause of Registration and Subscription on the one side and all the rest on the other side with another hand unless it were astructed with other evidences and adminicles Iuly 16. 1667. Hamilâ—oun contra Symontoun A writ subscribed by Nottars was sound null because the Nottars subscription said that he subscribed for the party but bear not at his command which was not allowed to be astructed by the witnesses insert Iuly 26. 1667. Philip contra Cheap A writ being a Bond subscribed with initial Letters was sustained it being found proven the debitor was accustomed so to subscribe and there being three Witnesses and the Writer examined whether de facto he subscribed