after Circumduction of the said Terms and that such Certifications are not only the great Surety of these who obtain the same but of these who obtain Right from them conceiving themselves to be secured with such Certifications Yet the President and others of the Lords enclined to repone Alexander against the Certification the Writes being produced tho it was urged that beside the Security and Interest of People as said is it was to be considered that in this Case there were Advantages pretended to on both hands viz. by Alexander of an expired Comprysing and by the Doctor of the said Certification and that Alexander and his Authors by vertue of their Comprysing had been many years in Possession tho there was probability the Comprysing was satisfyed and it seemed to be equitable that the Doctor should have a Decreet of Removing and should give a Reversion to Alexander limited to such a time as the Lords should find just upon payment of what should be resting and unsatisfied by his and his Authors Intromission if there there were any part of the Debt yet resting But this Point was not decided the Lords having recommended to some of their Number to endeavour an Accommodation betwixt the Parties D. 340. Abercrombie contra Acheson and Livington eod die A Taverner after she had removed from her Masters Service and was Marryed was pursued to Compt and Reckon for Ale and Wine which the Pursuer offered to prove was layed in in his Cellars The Lords Found That the Pursuer ought to Lybel and prove that the Debt was yet Resting Seing it was to be presumed that Servants of that quality did Compt Weekly with their Masters and the Pursuer would not have suffered the Defender to go out from his Service before she had Compted and made payment And it appeared that there had been former Decisions to that purpose Lord Justice Clerk Reporter D. 341. Dundass contra Turnbul and other Creditors to Whitehead of Park eod die IN a Competition betwixt an Infeftment of Annualrent and a posterior Infeftment upon a Comprysing the Lords enclined to find that the Infeftment of Annualrent was made publick by a pursute of poinding the Ground before the Infeftment upon the Comprysing But some of the Lords not being clear the case was not decided Gosford Reporter D. 342. Wauch contra Jamison eod die DOctor Bonar being to go out of the Country did Dispone a Right of Lands and of an Annualrent to Mr. John Smith his near Relation upon a Backbond granted by the said Mr. John bearing that the said Right was granted partly in Trust and partly for surety to the said Mr. John for Sums due for the time to him by Bonar and of such Sums as Smith should advance to Bonar or his Creditors And that the said Right should be Redeemable by Bonar or his Sister if she should survive him by payment of the foresaid Sums Thereafter the Doctor did grant a Bond of 5000 Merks to the said Mr. John Smith bearing no Relation as to the said surety And bearing as to the conception a simple Moveable Bond to the said Mr. John his Heirs and Executors And after the said Mr. John Smiths decease there being a Competition betwixt Doctor Jamison his Heir and the Executor as to the said Sum of 5000. Merks And the question being whether it should be thought to be Heretable in respect of the said surety or Moveable In respect of the conception of the said Bond. The Lords did consider the case as of great moment as to the consequence and Interest of the People and upon debate at the Barr in praesentia and among themselves they came to these Resolutions viz. That it was consistent that a Sum should be Moveable and yet that it should be secured by an Heretable Suretie as in the case of bygone Annualrents due upon Infeftments of Annualrent and of bygone Feu-duties or Taxations the same being unquestionably Moveable ex sua natura And yet there being a real surety for the same and a real Action for poinding the Ground even competent to Executors And likewayes in the case of Wadsets loosed by Requisition and bearing a provision that notwithstanding of Requisition the real Right should stand unprejudged until payment in which case the Sum would be Movable tho still secured by Infeftment 2. That as to these qualities of Moveable or Heretable in relation to the Interest of Succession and Question betwixt Heirs and Executors the design of the Creditor animus was to be considered principally And if Debts either by the conception were Heretable ab initio or an Heretable surety taken thereafter for Moveable Debts as a Wadset or Comprysing It was to be presumed that the Creditor intended to alter the quality of the Sums and that they should belong to his Heirs but if Creditors should take an Heretable surety without any intention to alter the quality of the Debt or that the same should ly as bonum stabile and fixt the Debt continues still Moveable As v. g. If a Creditor having done exact Diligence should take a Gift of Liferent Escheat or Recognition upon a Back-bond that he should be satisfied in the first place of his Debt Or if in a Suspension a Disposition of the Debitors Estate should be consigned because he cannot find Caution Or in the case of Bonorums a Disposition of an Heretable Estate should be made in favours of his Creditors Or if a Debitor should Dispone his Estate in favours of a confident person with the burden of his Debts In these and the like Cases Because the Creditor does not intend that his Money should ly as an Heretable Debt but upon the contrary has done and is about to doe all possible Diligence for recovery of the same the Debt continues still Movable notwithstanding of the said accessory and extrinsick surety 3. Bonds being taken after a general Surety in the Terms foresaid for Debts to be advanced may be Moveable notwithstanding of such Surety if it appear that the Creditor intended it should be such As if such supervenient Bonds should be taken to Executors Excluding Heirs Especially when such general Sureties for Sums as are to be afteradvanced are not dispositive but by way of Provision containing Back-bonds and not of the Right it self viz. That the Receiver of the Right should not be lyable to denude until he get payment of the Sums that should be due to him at any time thereafter In which case it appears that he has not a positive Right and Surety for the said Sum but an Interest and exception of Retention The Lords in end In the foresaid Cause Found that the said Bond of 5000 M. In sua far as it should be made appear to be made up of the Sum mentioned in the Back-bond that was due to Smith at that time should belong to the Heir an as Heretable Sum In respect ab initio the said Surety was granted for the same But as to the residue of the
And it was carryed by plurality that the Adjudication should be reduced Newtoun Reporter Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 388. Sheill Minister of Prestounkirk contra His Parishoners 28. November 1676. THE Lords Found That Viccarage Teinds are ruled by Custom and Local as to the Quota and Kinds and manner of payment of such Teinds as are truely Viccarage So far that in a pursute for Viccarage Teinds The Defenders Alledging that some of them had been in use of paying only some certain Kinds by the space of 20. Years The Lord Found the said Alledgance Relevant to free them of other Kinds Albeit they d d Reply that the Pursuer was in possession of the Kinds in question within the Parish some others of the Parish having been in use to pay the same And that Viccarage is nomen universitatis ut Baronia and possession of a part interrupts Prescription and is in Law Possession of the whole Newtoun Reporter D. 389. John Ker contra Jean Ker. eod die IN a pursute at the instance of a Donator It was Alledged That the Debt pursued for was Heretable quoad fiscum And it being Replyed That the Pursuer had Right thereto as Executor Creditor The Lords Found Process upon that Title tho supervenient The Testament being confirmed after the intenting of the Cause In the same Cause It was Found That a Testament being confirmed the nearest of Kin ipso momento has Jus quaesitum to that part of the Goods which belong to them and do transmit the same to their Executors and these who represent them tho the Testament was not Execute before the decease of the nearest of Kin And that the said Interest and Action being in effect a Legitima and competent to them by the Law and Act of Parliament is settled in their person and doth transmit tho the same be not recovered in their own time D. 390. Scot contra Toish eod die AN Assignation being made in Holland according to the custom there by way of Instrument under the Hand of a Notar a Tabellion having retained the Warrand in his Hands Signed by the Parties was sustained in respect of the custom and consuetudo loci Justice-Clerk Reporter D. 391. Drumellier contra E. Tweeddale 30. Novem. 1676. IT was objected against a Witness That he was Testis Domesticus being Servant to the Defender at least having been his Servant the time of the Citation Whereunto It was Answered That he was not presently his Servant and tho he was his Servant the time of the Citation he might now be a habile Witness The Reason why Servants cannot be Witnesses in behalf of their Masters ceasing in this Case viz. That their Masters might have influence upon them and that they may declare in their Favours out of fear to be put out of their Service And as to the pretence that it is presumed that the Defender put the Witness out of his Service of purpose that he might used as a Witness the same doth amount only to praesumptio hominis which cedit veritati And animus and design not being probable but by the Oath of the Party the Defender and the Witness were free to declare that he was not removed out of the Defenders Service upon the design foresaid And it was more strongly to be presumed that neither the Defender being a Person of Quality nor the Witness would perjure themselves It was farder urged That the witness was to be used upon a paper that had been produced after the intention of the Cause and for improving the Date of the same And that he was removed out of the Defenders Service befor the production of the said paper So that he could not have that prospect and design to use him as a witness and that he was removed upon the account foresaid The Lords before Answer Ordained that the Time of the production of the said paper might be tryed Redford Reporter Gibson Clerk D. 392. Grierson contra The Laird of Lagg 1. December 1676. A Superior having obtained the Gift of his own Ward did pursue his Subvassal at the instance of a Donator in Trust and to his behoof for Maills and Duties dureing the Ward And the Defender having Alledged That the Pursute was to the behoof of the Superior himself and that he or his Predecessor had Disponed to the Defender his Lands with absolute warrandice The Lords Found That the Gift of Ward being given to the Vassal did accresce to the Subvassal paying his proportion of the Composition Albeit it was urged that as the King might have given the said Gift to another he might have given it to the Vassal himself and he could not be in a worse case than another Donator And that the Subvassal knowing the nature of the Right that the Superior held Lands ward was Lyable to all Casualities arising ex natura rei to what Donator soever the same be given It was controverted amongst the Lords What should be the Ground of the Decision in point of Law And some were of the Opinion that it was upon that Ground that Jus superveniens accrescit the Lands being disponed to the Subvassal ut optima maxima But it was the Opinion of others That Jus superveniens accrescit when it is either of the Property or of any Servitude or of Casualities that had fallen before the Right granted to the Vassal but not of Casualities arising thereafter ex natura rei And therefore they thought that the Right should be found to accresce to the Vassal upon that Ground that the Relation betwixt a Superior and his Vassal and the mutual obligation fides betwixt them is such and so exuberant that the Superior should not take advantage of a Casuality fallen upon account of his own person and by his Minority And that a Right of Ward granted to the Vassal himself or to any other to his behoof is upon the matter a Discharge of the Casuality both as to himself and as to the Subvassal that is concerned in consequence Newtoun Reporter Haystoun Clerk D. 393. Home contra Scot. eod die IN a Process for Mails and Duties It was Alledged That one of the Defenders was in possession by the space of 7. Years by vertue of a Tack and had the benefite of a possessory Judgement And it being Replyed That he ought to say that he had a Tack from a person having Right And neverthess The Lords Found That is was sufficient to Alledge that he had a Tack and by vertue thereof in so long possession This Decision seemed to some of the Lords to be hard in respect a Tennent is not properly in possession but detinet to the behoof the Setter So that he could be in no better case than his Master who notwithstanding of his possession either in his own person or in the person of his Tennent cannot plead the benefite of a Possessory Judgement unless he had or should alledge upon some Right And if the Master were called as de facto
sequitur invalidam esse superius enim dictum est in contractibus obligationibus de successione Talliata de rebus immobilibus praediis nos quotidie disponere eas autem donationes esse mortis causa patet ex praedicta Definitione mortis causa donationis quod omnes de successione contractus mortis contemplatione plerumque non sine mortis commemoratione fiant effectum post mortem sortiantur in iis ambulatoria sit voluntas nisi accedat pactum de non revocando Ad Tertium Respondetur falsam esse Propositionem nec enim cessante causâ impulsiva cessat effectus nec qui periculo imminente mortalitatis admonitus Testamentum condidit si periculum effugerit aut eluctatus fuerit eo minus in voluntate eadem perseverasse censebitur testatus discedit nisi revocasse constiterit Ad Quartum Respondetur Dispositionem reditu eveniente haud nullam aut irritam esse sed revocabilem id ex eo demonstrari Quod sibi soli tantummodo reservarit si domum rediret potestatem revocandi si enim inanis caduca fieret Donatio in casu reditus quorsum ista potestas sibi soli reservata revocandi donationem quoad omnes ipso conditionis eventu extinctam revocatam Ad Quintum Sextum Respondetur Negatur instrumentum post Donatoris reditum penes eum esse penitus supervacuum disceptare an penes eum fuerit cum nunc penes actorem sit sibi a donatore traditum nec necesse est docere quomodo quando ad se pervenerit Senatus Interlocutus est Donationem istam Testamenti naturam haud sapere sed validam efficacem esse Sed si constiterit probatum fuerit penes donantem instrumentum post ejus reditum fuisse tuno revocatum irritum esse An autem eo quod penes actorem nunc sit a revocatione discessum sit reviviscat Donatio interloqui sustinuit ulterius inquirendum censuit quando quomodo ad actorem pervenerit D. 124. Whitehead contra Straiton 14. Novemb. 1667. RObert Whitehead of Park pursued John Straiton Tacksman of the Park of Holy-rood-house for the price of a Horse put in the said Park to be pastured for 4. shil per night which after search cannot be found It was Alledged That by a Placad affixed upon the Gate of the Park It was intimated that the Keeper of the Park would not be answerable for any Horses put therein although they should be stolen or break their Neck or any other Mischief or Hazard should overtake them It was Replyed That by the Law Nautae Caupones c. the Keeper ex conducto is lyable unless it were alledged That it had been expresly agreed that he should not be lyable or at the least that it was known to the Pursuer that such a Placad was affixed when he put in his Horse The Lords Before answer ordained the Reporter to enquire and hear the parties upon the terms of the Agreement when the horse was put in whether it was told or known to the pursuer that the keeper would not be answerable Castlehill Reporter D. 105. Gardiner contra Colvil 16. Novemb. 1667. IN an action Gardiner contra Colvil the pursuer being ejected during her Husbands absence out of the countrey and when it was supposed he was dead The Lords sustained the pursuite Though the time of the adviseing the probation It was offered to be proven that he was living and did declare that albeit the Husband were at the Barr they would give the Wife the benefite of Juramentum in litem in respect of the wrong done by the Defender and the particulars and quantities could not otherwise be proven Actor Longformacus alter Wallace Castlehill Reporter D. 106. Trotters contra Lundy 20. Novemb. 1667. THE Children of George Trotter in Fogorig being confirmed Executors to their Sister Isobel Trotter pursued James Lundie Cautioner in a Bond for James Trotter of the East-end of Fogo for the Sum thereinconteined It was Alledged that the said James being Heir to his Grand-father Alexander Trotter in the East-end of Fogo and the said George Son to the said Alexander and Executor to him they did transact together that the Movables belonging to the said George as Executor should remain with the Heir and the said James and the Defender as Cautioner did for the cause foresaid grant the said Bond blank in the Creditors name wherein the said George filled up the name of John Trotter in Chester his Brother and procured from him an Assignation for the said Isobel his Daughter And that thereafter upon a Submission betwixt the said George and Alexander Trotter Son to the said James granter and principal Debitor in the said Bond The Arbiters ordained the said George to give back to the said Alexander the said Bond and Assignation with a Discharge thereof and therefore the said Isobel being in familia paterna and the said Bond and Assignation being taken and procured as said is by the said George the Father in favours of the Daughter who hath no visible Estate or means to acquire any such Right he was still master of the same And it being ordained to be Discharged as said is the said Debt is Extinct It was Answered that the Bond being filled up and Registrat in the name of the said John Trotter and the samen being Assigned and the Assignation in favours of the said Isobel intimat and after her decease her Executors having confirmed the said Debt all before the said Submission her Father could not by the Submission or any other deed of his Evacuat the said Right Established in the person of the said Isobel and her Executors And as to the Practique betwixt Monimusk and Pittarro whereupon the Defenders alledge it doth not quadrate to the Bond in question it being never delivered but depositat in the Uncles hand Mother Brother to the Child and in the same case It was Found That the Father could not retract a reall Right made in favours of his Child and Heir And here there is Eadem Ratio The Lords Found That the Father being Master of a Bond or Right whereupon nothing followed being granted by himself may throw it in the fire and may consequently Discharge it But the said Right being made publick and compleated by the delivery and which is equivalent by some publick deed by Infeftment if it be Heretable or by Assignation intimated or confirmed Testament if it be Movable he could not thereafter Retreat or prejudge the same And repelled the Defence in Respect of the Answer Hackertoun Lord Reporter Mr Thomas Hay Clerk D. 107. Pollock contra Pollock eod die JOhn Pollock having granted a Bond of 5000 Merks to James his second Son of the first Mariage The said James intented and pursued for payment both Robert eldest Son of the same Marriage Heir of Line and John eldest Son of the second Marriage and Heir of
Provision as charged to Enter Heir respective It was alledeged for the Heir of the first marriage that he offered to renunce And for the Heir of Provision that the Heir of Line ought to be first discussed by adjudication and condescended upon movable Heirship which might be adjudged It was Answered for the Heir of Line that his Father having provided him had taken from him a Renunciation of all that could belong to him as Heir So that he could have no Right to the movable Heirship which in respect of his Renunciation would be considered as other movables and fall under Executrie It was Replyed for the Heir of provision that by the Renunciation the Heir of Line had renunced his kindness to the effect his Father might have power to dispose of the Heirship but his Father not having disposed thereof the Right returned to the Heir of Line again the Renounciation being in favours of him and his Heirs as in Renounciations of that nature as to Lands if the Father does not dispose of the same they will notwithstanding belong to the Heir Some of the Lords thought there should be a difference betwixt Lands and Movable Heirship In respect the Right of Lands whereof the Father died infeft cannot be Setled in the person of any other but the Heir who therefore ought to have Right notwithstanding of the Renunciation But the Movables which should fall under Heirship by the Renunciation of the Heir cease to be Heirship and may be confirmed as other Movables Others Thought that the Effect of such Renunciations should be the same as to Movables and Lands the Fathers intention being one and the same for both and therefore as the Right in the construction of the Law returneth to the Heir of the Father who doth not otherwise dispose of his Lands there is the same reason as to movable Heirships And as to the pretence foresaid it is of no weight seing if it were the Intention of the Father that by such Renunciations the Son should be denuded without Return though the Father should not dispose of his Lands the Son may be pursued and forced to denude himself that his Renunciation may be effectual in favours of the nearest of Kin. The Lords before answer ordained the Renunciation to be produced that they might consider the Tenor of it D. 108. Tacksmen of the Custumes contra Greenhead Eod. die THe Custums of the Borders being set in Subtack to Greenhead and others by the Tacksmen of the haill custumes of the Kingdom Greenhead is pursued as representing his Father one of the Subtacksmen for the dutie the year 1650. It was alledged That the Subtack was altogether unprofitable upon the occasion of the English Invasion so that Beasts and other Goods were not imported nor Exported that year as they had been in use formerly It was Answered that albeit in praediis Rusticis in case of Sterilitie Vastation and such other Calamities that cannot be avoided There may be abatement craved Remissio Canonis yet in this case the Subject being conductio rei periculosae Jactus Retis the Subtacksmen ought to have no abatement and are in the same case as Tacksmen of Salmond fishing who will be lyable for the duty albeit no profit arise to them The Lords Found That Subtacksmen should have abatement But the Question being most Quatenus and concerning the proportion because though the Subtacksmen had undoubtedly loss yet it was not Total there being some Commerce betwixt the Kingdoms for that year some Moneths It was Found in end upon hearing of Parties that the half of the Dutie should be abated Actores Lockhart Cuninghame Alteri Sinclair Mr Thomas Hay Clerk The Law is very clear ff Locati and the Doctors upon that Title not only in praediis but in conductione vectigalium and the like in case of an insuperable Calamity remittitur Canon merces but they are not so clear as to the Quatenus and proportion of the abatement when the detriment is not Total But it is just the abatement should be proportionable to the loss And accordingly The Lords decided D. 109. Justice Clerk contra Lambertoun 23. Nov. 1667. IN the case the Justice Clerk contra Lambertoun the probation anent the value and worth of the Woods pertaining to the Justice Clerk and cutt and intrometted with by Lambertoun being advised It was considered and represented by some of the Lords that had been Commissionated to examine the Witnesses adduced by both parties being allowed to have a joynt probation that the probation was dubious the Witnesses for the Pursuer declaring too highly and the Witnesses for the Defender too low as appeared And that the Subject of the Question not being de re which is the proper Object of Sense but de rei valore qui cadit sub Judicium Intellectum The Testimonies of the Witnesses are not de rei veritate but de credulitate opinione and therefore are not numeranda sed ponderanda according to the circumstances both of their oun quality and the quality of the Declaration whether they have declared verisimilia and whether animose and such like and whether they have given a probable reason of their knowledge That in this case the Witnesses that have deponed most to the advantage of the Pursuer are his own Tennants and one of them a Smith his Officer that they give the reason of their Knowledge that they dwelt in the bounds which is not sufficient unless they had been periti and Conversant about the matter of Woods and the Buying and the Selling and the valuing of the same That some Witnesses for the Defender had given their Judgment upon oath as strongly and pregnantly as they though they be not so many So that the probation at best is but dubious and in dubiis minimum sequendum at the least the Lords have a latitude to found their Judgment upon the Testimonies of both cum temperamento and without adhering percisely to either The Lords Found nevertheless by plurality That they should have respect to what had been proven by the most part And accordingly Decerned D. 110. Rankin contra Skelmorlie and Dunlop eod die IN a double poinding at the instance of the Lord Melvil there being a Competition betwixt two Creditors of Antonia Broun Daughter and Heir to Sir John Broun The Lords preferred Skelmorly the first Arrester Though Rankin had obtained a Decreet to make forthcoming and had compleated his Diligence and alledged that an Arrestment is but an inchoate Diligence and doth not hinder any other Creditor to compleat and do more exact diligence by poinding or by a Decreet to make forthcoming which in Debts and in nominibus are equivalent The reason of the Decision was that Skelmorly had not only Arrested but had intented a pursuite before the Lords to make forthcoming before Rankin But Processes before the Lords being more tedious and the Pursuer not Master of Calling Rankin had taken advantage by obtaining a Decreet
be Examined for clearing the Trust They Found That by the Probation the Trust did not appear and that the said Declaration in Lecto could not prejudge his Heir unless there had been some further evidence that the Declaration was emitted by the Doctor of his own accord and upon conviction and for Exonering his Conscience which did not appear by the Probation Lockheart and Falconer alteri Long formacus and Cuninghame Gibson Clerk Concluded Cause D. 187. Lady Spencerfield contra Hamilton 10. June 1674. IN the case of the Lady Spencerfield contra Robert Hamilton of Kilbrakmount The Lords Found that the Alledgeance viz. That the Defender could not be Lyable as Intrometter because there was a Gift given of the Defuncts Escheat being Rebel is not Relevant unless the Gift were either declared or were to the Defender himself or that he had Right from the Donator For in the first case he is in condition parallel with an Intrometter in the case of an Executor confirmed and cannot be said to be intrometter with the Goods of a Defunct and bona vacantia the Right of the same being in a living person per aditionem and by confirmation and a third person Intrometting where there is no Declarator who has not the Gift himself nor a Right from the Donator is not in a better case than an Executor decerned And in the case of a Donator Intrometting or the intromission of any other having Right from him there is the pretence and colour of a Right in the person of the Intrometter which is sufficient to purge vitious Intromission They Found in the same case that a person entering to the possession of the Defuncts House by warrand of the Lords Their possession of the Goods in the House doth not infer Intromission unless they make use of such Goods as usu consumuntur or dispose of such Goods as are not of that nature as Beds Tables and such like Robert Hamilton Clerk D. 188. Freeholders of Linlithgow contra The Commissioners to the Parliament 12. June 1674. IN a Suspension at the instance of the Freeholders of Linlithgow-shire against their Commissioners to the Parliament The Lords Found that if the Prorogationes and Recesses of Parliament be for a considerable time so that the Commissioners do or may go home the Commissioners should not have their Fies or Charges dureing the same 2. That if the prorogation be for a short time and the Commissioners having their Residence at a little distance in Edinburgh or Linlithgow shire do or may go home they ought not to have Fees dureing that time 3. If there be Articles sitting dureing that time and they do not go home tho they be not upon the Articles they should have their Fees Because they are concerned to know and inform themselves what is in Agitation in the Articles Newbyth Reporter Monro Clerk D. 189. Bailly Boid contra Store November 7. 1674. THE Lords sustained a Discharge granted by a Master to his Tennent upon payment of his Duty tho it was neither Holograph nor Subscribed before Witnesses but pretended to be subscribed by the Granter Which the Lords did in respect of the Custom and that Masters and Tennents are in use to give and take Discharges without Witnesses And that in the case of Writes Letters and Bills betwixt Merchants the Lords are in use to sustain them tho they want Witnesses and there is the same if not more reason in the case of Tennents by reason of the great and exuberant confidence betwixt them and their Masters Some of the Lords thought it hard to recede from the Law there being no limitation or exception in behalf of Tennents ubi Lex non distinguit nec nos And that there is a great disparity betwixt Merchants and Tennents Compts Letters and Bills of Exchange and other Writs of that nature being secret Transactions betwixt Merchants and their correspondents whereunto Witnesses and other persons neither are in use to be nor is fit they should be privy Whereas Discharges by Masters to Tennents are in use to be and there is no inconveniency that they should be subscribed before Witnesses and there is no difficulty to get Witnesses to them and if they want Witnesses and be not Holograph Masters may be prejudged It being easy to imitate and forge a single subscription and there being no means of improbation of the same D. 190. The Town of Innerness contra Forbes of Colloden and Robertson of Inches and others eod die THis case having been Agitated not without some heat amongst the Lords themselves I thought fit to give an account thereof at greater length than I have used in other Cases and Decisions The Town of Inverness having Charged the said _____ Robertson of Inches and Colloden and other Feuars who hold the Forrest of Drakies and other Lands and Milns and Fishings of the said Burgh for payment of their proportions of a Stent imposed upon them for the use of the Town And they having Suspended upon that reason that the said Stent was unequal as to their proportions and that the Town had not an Arbitrary Power to impose Stents upon their Neighbours and Feuars unless there were an unavoidable at least a pressing necessity and occasion relateing to the good and interest of the Burgh and in that case the Neighbours and Feuars were to be Lyable only in subsidium In so far as the Patrimony of the Town and Common Good should be short and not extend to defray the same The Lords Sir John Gilmour being President for the time did by their Decreet of Suspension Find the Letters orderly proceeded But withall did regulate the way of stenting to be according to the method and Rules set down by the Lords as to the future which are contained in the said Decreet and acquiesced to by the Suspenders the Decreet bearing to be of consent and containing only a Protestation that the Suspenders should not be Lyable to any Stent for maintaining and prosecuting Pleas against themselves Thereafter the Feuars being charged upon another Stent did Suspend upon that reason only that the Regulation and Method appointed by the Lords had not been observed and did intent a Declarator that they should not be Lyable to Stents but such as should be imposed in the way and according to the method foresaid Tho there was no other reason in the said Suspension nor conclusion in the said Declarator but as is immediatly related yet another reason was thereafter insisted upon both in the Suspension and Declarator and they did plead that they were exempted and ought not to be Lyable to any Stent upon any account or method whatsomever by reason that their Lands and in special the Forrest of Drakies were Feued to them for a Reddendo and Feu-duty contained in their Infeftments pro omni alio onere The Case not being fully debated at the Bar Some of the Lords conceiving that the Lands of Drakies were not a part of the Original and Ancient
from the Pursuer in the mean time a Piece which the Pursuer was to loose in case the Defender should not be married The Lords sustained the Pursute Tho some of their Number were of the opinion that sponsiones ludicrae of the Nature foresaid ought not to be allowed Strathurd Reporter D. 328. Sir Patrick Nisbet contra Hamilton eod die AFter the Lands of a Debitor were denounced to be comprysed a voluntar Right was granted by him of an Annualrent out of the samen Lands for an Onerous Cause whereupon the Annualrenter was infeft by a publick Infeftment before any Infeftment upon the Comprising and there being upon the foresaid Rights a Competition betwixt the Compriser and the Annualrenter It was Alledged That after the Lands were denounced the Debitor could not give a voluntar Right of the same being litigious and affected with the Denounciation And on the other part it was debated that the Debitor not being inhibite might give a voluntar Right for an Onerous Cause and the first consummate Right ought to be preferred The Lords In respect it was pretended there were contrary Decisions Thought fitt not to give Answer until these should be considered D. 329. Park contra Rysly eod die A Tennent having sold Nine Score of Sheep and the samen being caryed off the Roum where he was Tennent the Master of the Ground by Warrand of the Sheriff as having therein the Right and Interest of a tacite Hypotheck did seise upon the same The Lords Found That neither the Master nor the Sheriff without citing the Partie could seise upon the said Goods not being upon the Masters Ground nor give Warrand to that purpose And yet seing quaevis causa excusat a spolio they restricted the Pursute to wrongous Intromission and allowed to the Master his Defence for Retention of the Goods until he should be payed of his Years Duty Newbyth Reporter Hamilton Clerk D. 330. _____ contra _____ eod die THE Right of a Wadset being comprised the Compriser did require for the Sum due upon the Wadset and pursued the Representatives of the Debitor It was Alledged for the Defender That he could not pay the Money unless the Pursuer should put the Defender in Possession of the Lands It was Answered That the Pursuer not having possession himself and having loosed the Wadset by Requisition he could not put the Defender in possession and the Defender might have taken possession by his own Right and it was enough that he was content to renounce the Wadset especially seing neither the Pursuer nor his Author had done any Deed to put the Defenders in worse case as to Possession and the Possession was apprehended and still continued by an Anterior Compryser and the Pursuer had obtained a Declarator finding the said Comprysing to be satisfyed and extinct so that the Defenders might easily recover Possession The Lords notwithstanding Found the Alledgeance Relevant and that the Pursuers should put the Defenders in possession D. 331. Grant contray Barclay 10. February 1676. IN a pursute upon a Passive Title of Behaving It was Alledged that before intention of the cause the Defender had gotten a Gift of the Defuncts Escheat The Lords Upon Debate amongst themselves Found that albeit the Gift was not declared yet it purged the Defenders vitious Intromission being before the intention of the Cause and that the Defender having the Goods in his hands needed not a Declarator This seemed hard to some of the Lords In respect by our Custom there being two wayes adeundi haereditatem viz. either by a Service or by Intromission was the Defuncts Goods that were in his possession The Appearand Heir by medling with the Goods gerit se pro haerede And so by his Intromission having declared his intention alse fully as if he were served Heir semel haeres cannot cease to be Heir there being Jus quaesitum to the Creditors as to a Passive Title against him 2. The pretence that the Defender is in the same case as if there were an Executor confirmed before the intention of the Cause is of no weight Seing the Defence upon the confirmation is sustained because there is a person against whom the Creditors may have Action which is not in the Case of a Donator 3. A Donator has no Right without a general Declarator And tho when the Donator has the Goods in his hand there needs not a special Declarator yet for declaring his Right there must be a general one 4. As to that pretence that the Defender cannot be Lyable as Intrometter with the Defuncts Goods because they belong to the Fisk and not to him It is Answered That the Goods being in the possession of the Defunct the Appearand Heir thereafter medleing with the same eo ipso adit and the Creditors ought not to be put to debate being he is in Possession And if a person should be served special Heir to the Defunct tho the Defuncts Right were reduced and the Haereditas could be inanis as to the benefite yet the Heir would be still Lyable Mr. Thomas Hay Clerk D. 332. Mcquail contra Mcmillan eod die A Pursute being intented against the Wife as universal Intrometter to a Defunct and her Husband pro interesse and the Wife having deceased It was Found that the Husband should not Lyable unless it were proven that he had Intromission with the same Goods upon the Intromission with which the former pursute was intented against his Wife This was not without difficulty And upon debate amongst the Lords tho it was not the present case yet the Lords enclined to be of the Opinâ—on that the Husband having gotten a Tocher ad sustinenda onera Matrimonij If the Wife had any other Estate whereunto the Husband had Right Jure Mariti he should Lyable in quantum locupletior Nevoy Reporter Robert Hamilton Clerk D. 333. Alexander Abernethie contra Arthur Forbes eod die THE Lord Saltoun having given a Bond of 20000 Merks to Alexander Abernathie upon account of his Service and of the Service done by his Brother James Abernathie Thereafter the said Lord Saltoun did grant a Bond making mention that the Lands of Auchincleuch belonged to him and his Authors and that the said Alexander had been Instrumental to obtain a Reduction of the Rights of the Estate of Salton to the behoof of the said Lord Salton and therefore obligeing my Lord Saltoun to Infeft him in the said Lands The Lords Found That the said Bond being after the former and for the Causes foresaid and having no Relation to the said former Bond of 20000 Merks that it should be in satisfaction of the same Could not be interpret to be in satisfaction thereof And the Brockard Debitor non praesumitur donare does not militate in this Case Seing the Lord Salton was in a capacity to give both the said Bonds by way of Donation and the question was not betwixt the said Alexander and the Creditor but betwixt another person to whom thereafter he had
both upon the said Charter of the Miln and the said Decreet It was Alledged That the Defenders Right bears no Astriction And as to the said Charter it must be understood of the Multures belonging to the Abbot and of the Lands pertaining to or holden of him and that the Lands of Redmyre do not hold of the Abbot but of the Laird of Drum who holds the same of the King and that the Abbot could not astrict any Land but his own and as to the said Decreet that it was a latent Decreet in absence against the Defenders Author and that notwithstanding thereof the defender and his Authors had been in Possession of Liberty in swa far as tho they came sometimes to the Pursuers Miln being nearest and most convenient and the Multure being alse easie as at any other Miln yet the going to a Miln being facultatis wherein Astriction cannot be shown they had used and were in Possession of the said Liberty to go to other Milns It appeared that the same Defence being proponed in the foresaid Decreet 1597. for these who were compearing was Repelled In respect the said Charter was so Ancient and was so expresly of the Multures of the hail Parish And after so long a time it was not necessar to debate the Abbots Power to astrict the said whole Parish And the foresaid Charter does bear that the Abbot did give to the Feuer the said Miln in the same manner and alse freely as one Vmfridus had the said Miln and Multures by a Grant and Right from K. William And it was presumable that the said King who might have thirled the said Lands holden of himself did give the Miln and Multures The said Decreet likewayes 1597. did mention the Production of a Retour before the Sheriff and the verdict of an Inquest concerning the said Multures The Lords having among themselves debated and considered that the said Decreet 1597 tho in absence was a valide Decreet whereby the Defenders Author is decerned in all time coming his Tennents Cottars and Successors to pay the Multure thereinmentioned And that the said Decreet was a standing Decreet by the space of 40 years and never questioned there was no necessity to debate upon any other Grounds than that the Pursuer had thereby a Right to the said Multures Seing the Defenders did not deny that they were in use to come to the Miln but pretend a Liberty and use to go likeways to other Milns And it cannot be said that he had the said Liberty the contrare appearing by the said Decreet which never was questioned and now cannot be questioned being prescrived and yet the Lords AssoilÈied fra Bygones and Services not contained in the said Decreet It being Alledged that the Farm should not be thirled The Lords Found That the growing Corns being Astricted by the said Decreet there ought to be an exception but of Teind and Seed And that the Tennents were Lyable for such Corns as belonged to themselves and the Master for his Farm Actores Sinclair and Lermonth c. for Pittarro alteri for the Defender Lockheart and Falconer Monro Clerk In praesentia D. 352. Stenhouse contra The Heretors of Tweedmoor eod die THE Laird of Stenhouse his Lands being designed for a Gleb pursued some of the Heretors within the Parish for his relief conform to the Act of Parliament In which case in respect the pursute was by the space of 8. or 9. years after the Designation And the Heretors were in bona fide and did possess their own Lands and had made fructus suos The Lords Found That the Defenders were not Lyable to pay the Annualrent for the Sum decerned from the time of the Designation Seing usurae debentur only ex pacto vel mora Albeit it may appear That that Relief that is due ex lege is at least alse effectual as if it were ex pacto And the very Notion of Relief imports that the Party should be relieved of all Damnage sustained by him And the Pursuer was prejudged not only by the want of the value of what he was to be Relieved of but of the Interest of it Gibson Clerk D. 353. Ramsay contra Zeaman 7. June 1676. DOctor Zeaman By Contract of Marriage betwixt him and Margaret Ramsay was obliged to employ 10000 lib. to himself and her in Liferent and the Heirs of the Marriage And was also obliged to employ other 20000 lib. to himself and to the Heirs of the Marriage with a Provision that he should have power to burden the said Heirs of the Marriage with an Additional Joynture to his Wife and the provisions of his other Children at any time etiam in articulo mortis Which Joynture and Provision is accepted by the said Margaret in satisfaction of what else she could claim of Terce or Moveables And thereafter the Doctor in his Testament having named his Son and appearand Heir to be his Executor and universal Legator and having left in Legacy to his Wife the Annualrent of 3000 Merks by and attour her Joynture and diverse Provisions to his other Children and Legacies to other persons His Relict and her present Husband pursued her own Son as Executor to his Father for payment of the said Legacy left to her And it being Alledged That the Inventar of the Testament would not extend to satisfy all the Legacies and that there ought to be a Defalcation proportionably It was Answered That she was not to be considered as an ordinar Legator but in effect was a Creditor In respect of the said Provision and Power reserved to the Doctor as said is And that he had used the said power and faculty The Lords Found That the said Addition being left to her in Legacy she was in no better case than the other Legators and had no preference before them out of the Executry Yet it is thought That if there be not so much of the Executry as to satisfy the Relict her Legacy the Heir will be lyable for what she wants Seing by the said Provision the Heirs of the Marriage are burdened with what he should add to her Joynture etiam in articulo mortis And albeit nemo potest facere ne leges habeant locum in suo Testamento and no person at any time can reserve a Power to burden his Heirs at such a time as in Law he is not in legitima potestate yet when any person gives any thing or makes a Provision in favours of any other person or of his Heirs of Provision he may give and qualify the same sub modo and with what burden he pleases and therefore the Defender being not only Executor but the only Heir of the Marriage will be Lyable by the said Provision to the said Addition and Provision in favours of his Wife and Children albeit left in Lecto And he cannot frustrate the same upon pretence that he will not serve himself Heir of Provision but Heir of Line seing he is the same person and
the Qualifications libelled were not relevant to import such a force and metus as could be the ground of a Reduction of the said Right ex eo capite tho they were convinced that the practice foresaid is most unwarrantable and dolosa and that thereupon the Right may be questioned as to Sir John himself but not as to a singular Successor and that there is a difference betwixt a Reduction ex capite metus which is competent against singular Successors and a Reduction ex capite doli which is not competent against a singular Successor who bona fide has acquired a Right for an Onerous Cause But diverse of the Lords were of Opinion that the Defence foresaid that there was no damnum was most relevant for these Reasons viz. All Restitutions upon what mediums soever whether metus or dolus or lubricum aetatis are against damnum and prejudice for frustra should Restitution be craved if there be no damnum 2. It is evident by diverse Laws and the Title foresaid quod metus c. That ex edicto quod metus causa c. non datur actio si nihil absit succurritur only captis laesis 3. By the Civil Law there were diverse Remedies competent to these who had been forced to do any deed viz. A Civil action ex Edicto Praetoris and a Criminal Action ex lege Julia and a Penal Remedy ex decreto Divi Marci That a Creditor by force extorting what is truely due amittit Jus Crediti And our Reductions ex capite metus are but Civil Actions as that ex Edicto And the said other Remedies being penal by the Municipal Law of the Romans cannot be introduced by the Lords of Session being Civil Judges without an Act of Parliament 4. All Restitutions should Repone both Parties in integrum and it were unjust that if it were constant and the Lords were convinced upon their own certain knowledge that there had been an antecedent Minute and that the same had been cancelled upon the granting of the said Disposition that Minto should be restored and not the said Sir John that now res non est integra seing the antecedent Minute is not Extant and tho it were Extant it would be ineffectual In respect Minto has Disponed the foresaid Lands to this Pursuer who is Infeft and having the first Infeftment would be preferable whether the Minute were Extant or not 5. As to the pretence that was so much urged that it would be of dangerous consequence that such Deeds extorted by force should be sustained upon the pretext of non damnum and that it would tend to encourage such practices the same is of no weight seing the Deed being just upon the matter may and ought to be sustained and yet the way of procureing the same may be severely punished 6. As to the difficulty of Probation there being no Adminicles in Write that there were such a Minute It is not considerable Seing multa permittuntur causative which cannot be done directly and that tho the Result of Probation by Witnesses may be the making up or taking away of Writes which cannot be done directly but by Write yet when that which is to be proven is in Fact it may be proven by Witnesses as in the same case that the Disposition in question was Extorted it may be proven by Witnesses to take away the said Disposition And if a person should be forced to grant a Disposition of Lands of 20. Chalders of Victual of Rent and in Exchange should get a Disposition at the same time of other Lands of the half value it were a good Defence and probable by Witnesses that the Pursuer did get the time of the granting the Disposition of Lands worth 20 Chalder Victual a Disposition of less value and Contingentia causae and of a Transaction and circumstances of the same ought not to be divided but may and ought to be entirely proven by Witnesses alse well for the Defender as the Pursuer Actor Lockheart and Sinclair alteri Cuningham and MckenÈie Mr. John Hay Clerk In praesentia D. 420. Commissar of St. Andrews contra Watson 11. January 1677. THE Lords sustained a pursute at the instance of the Master of the Ground against these who had bought from his Tennent his Corns and other Goods wherein the Pursuer had a Tacite Hypothâ—â—k Glendoich Reporter Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 421. Viscount of Oxenford contra Mr. John Cockburn eod die MR. John Cockburne having gone Abroad with the Viscount of Oxenford and after his Return having gotten several Bonds from the said Viscount of considerable Sums and also a Pension of 1000 Merks And having charged upon the same the Viscount Suspended upon that Reason that the said Mr. John dureing their being Abroad had received great Sums of Money remitted to him upon the Viscounts account for which he had not Compted and that after Compt and Reckoning he will be found Debitor to the Viscount in more than the Sums charged for And it being Alledged by the said Mr. John that he is only comptable for his Intromission and that his Actual Intromission ought to be Instructed by Write or by his Oath and the Declarations of Merchants and Factors Abroad cannot be Probation to bind upon him so great Intromissions The Lords considered the condition of the Viscount for the time that he could not Intromet himself and that the said Mr. John had such Influence upon him that having been his Governour at Schools and upon the desire of his Friends being put from him by an Act of Council He notwithstanding without and contrare to the Advice of his Friends carryed him Abroad and since his return had gotten from him the Bonds foresaid And therefore thought fit to try the Business to the bottom And to ordain the said Mr. John to give in his Compts of what was received and debursed when the Viscount was Abroad and the Factors and other Witnesses to be Examined concerning his Intromission and whether or not any Moneys that were remitted for the Viscounts use were received by the Viscount himself or by the said Mr. John Redford Reporter Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 422. Laird of Bavilay contra Barbara Dalmahoy eod die A Horning against a Person dwelling within the Shire of Edinburgh upon Lands Annexed to the Barony of Renfrew being denounced at Edinburgh was sustained In respect that the said Lands were Locally within the Shyre of Edinburgh And the Rebel In respect of his Residence there was Lyable to the Jurisdiction of the Sheriff and to all Burdens and had all Capacities competent to the Shire of Edinburgh Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 423. Baillie contra Somervel eod die THERE being a Provision in a Contract of Marriage in these Terms that 5000 Merks of the Tocher should return to the Father in Law in case his Daughter should decease before her Husband within the space of 6 Years after the Marriage there being no Children betwixt them then on life
AN Assignation being granted for relief and payment of certain Sums mentioned in the Assignation for which the Assigney was Cautioner for the Cedent the same was questioned upon that head that it was never delivered but was still in the Cedents Hands The Lords Found That the said Assignation was never delivered And yet they Found That it was an effectual Evident in favours of the Assigney In respect the Cedent had made the same publick by a Horning thereupon Sir George Lockheart c. alteri Cuninghame c. In praesentia D. 443. Ker contra Kers 25 January 1677. A Disposition being questioned as being made in lecto at least delivered then It appeared by the Deposition of one of the Witnesses used for proving the Lybel that the said Write was subscribed diverse Years before the Disponer was on death-bed and that the same was delivered before death-bed to the said Witness and that the Defunct having called for it on death-bed for drawing two other Dispositions of the Lands contained therein one in favours of the Pursuer the Disponers Heir and the other in favours of a Son of the Disponer who was Father to the Person in whose favours the Disposition in question was made And upon debate amongst the Lords what should be the import of the said Testimony seing the Depositar did not declare in what Terms the same was given to him by the Disponer whether to the behoof of the said Person in whose favours it was made or not or upon any other account for keeping the same so that the Disponer might call for and alter it It was Found 1. That the Disponer might have revocked the same In respect it did not appear that it was delivered to the behoof of the Person to whom it was made This Decision seems to be hard in respect the Disposition was now in the Hands of the Receiver so that it was to be presumed that it was delivered either to him or to the said other Person to his behoof and the delivery ought to be construed and presumed to have been ut operetur and the nature of the Act it self imports that it should be to the behoof foresaid It not being to be imagined that if the Disponer had intended to have retained the Power in his Hands either to make the said Right effectual or not he would have given it out off his Hands 2. The Lords Found Upon the Testimony foresaid That the Disponer having revocked the said Disposition not simply but to the effect foresaid that the said two Dispositions should be granted The Pursuer therefore had not Right to the whole Lands contained in the said first Disposition but that the same should divide conform to the said two Dispositions Mr. Thomas Hay Clerk In praesentia D. 444. Procurator-Fiscal of Glasgow contra Cowan 26 January 1677. THE Commissar of Glasgow having sustained Process at the Instance of the Procurator-Fiscal for the tryal of a falsehood of Executions whereupon a Decreet had proceeded and having upon Probation of the falsehood decerned the user of the said Executions to pay 300. lib. to the Procurator-Fiscal as a Fine and the said Decreet being suspended The Lords Found That the Commissar was not competent Judge to the improbation of Executions by way of Action seing they cannot reduce their own Decreets and Improbation is a Reduction ex capite falsi Justice-Clerk Reporter Mr. Thomas Hay Clerk It is to be considered that the most part of Decreets befor Inferior Judges are for Null-Defence and upon false Executions and it were hard that there should be no Remedy but by Improbations before the Lords which may depend long and are very chargeable So that Decreets before Inferior Judges being for the most part for inconsiderable Sums the Remedy should be worse than the Mischief It appears indeed that the Commissars have not power to Fyne that being a Criminal Jurisdiction and that they are not Judges to Improbation by the indirect manner The Tryal of Falsehood by circumstances and presumptions being Altioris Indaginis and of that Difficulty that it ought not to be left to an Inferiour Judge Item The Tryal of Falsehood as to that effect that Falsaries may be punished ought not to be by any Inferior Judge But it seems to be just and necessary that Parties grieved by such Decreets should be allowed to pursue the obtainers of the same to hear and see them reponed against the said Decreets upon that Ground that they were not cited to the same to be proven by the Witnesses and Executer himself declaring that they pursue to that effect allanerly And it appears not to be inconsistent with Law and Form that this course should be taken seing the Judge does not reduce his own Decreet ex capite iniquitatis and it may be provided that such Pursutes tho they be upon the matter Improbations are only to the effect foresaid and that no other effect or consequence shall follow upon the same and multa fiunt per indirectum which cannot be directly And if a Party who is holden as confest should raise a lybel before an Inferior Judge that it may be Found that he was not Contumax being out of the Countrey or Sick or detained by Storm or some other insuperable Impediment and that therefore he should be reponed and the Decreet should be holden as a Lybel such a Pursute would not be incompetent tho in effect it would be a Reduction upon the matter D. 445. Donaldson contra Rinne 27 January 1677. IT was moved whether or not a Decreet of an Inferior Judge being questioned upon that Ground of Iniquity that the Lybel was not proven and the Depositions of the Witnesses being produced by the Pursuer ab initio The Lord of the Outer House may advise the Probation Or if it ought to be advised by the whole Lords It was Found That the Depositions being produced as said is the Lord may give his own Interloquitor as upon any other Write produced ab initio to instruct the Lybel Tho some of the Lords were of Opinion that the Probation ought to be considered and advised by the haill Lords And it was hard that the Probation being found sufficient by a competent Judge it should be in the power of one single Lord to review the same and find the contrare Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 446. Murray Pupil contra _____ 31. January 1677. A Pupil of 4. Years of Age being pursued upon the Passive Title of a Charge to enter Heir and the Friends conceiving that it were fit to Renounce none of them being Curators nor being willing to meddle and to authorize the Pupil to renounce The Lords Decerned but superceeded Personal Execution until the Pupil should be past Pupillarity Castlehil Reporter D. 447. Master of Rae contra Sinclar of Dumbaith 1. February 1677. SInclar of Dumbaith Sandside and others having in a Hostile manner invaded the Lord Raes Country There was a Criminal pursute intented against them for the
Crimes committed upon the occasion foresaid but the said pursute being taken away by a Remission there was thereafter a SpuilÈie pursued at the instance of the Master of Rae having Assignation from his Father and by his Tennents whose Goods had been Robbed and taken And it being Alledged against the said Pursute that it was prescrived The Lords sustained the Reply that the Prescription was interrupted by the foresaid Process before the Justices And again this Day a Summonds of SpuilÈie which had been formerly intented being produced and it being Alledged that by the said Summonds and Execution upon the same the Prescription was interrupted The Lords Found That the same did not interrupt In regard it appeared that the Names of the Defenders have been Blank in the saids Summonds and since filled up with another Ink And it appeared by the Executions that the same were at the instance of Gray of Arbo and others mentioned in the Summonds without specifying the said other Persons and the Defenders had settled with and satisfied Arbo So that it appeared that the Names of the said other persons had been filled up in the body of the Summonds of purpose to be a Ground for the said Reply But tho the Lords did not sustain the Process as to the effect of giving the Pursuer Juramentum in litem In regard the Goods Libelled were Libelled to extend as to the number of Good and the Damnage sustained by the Pursuers Cedent to vast Sums exceeding the value of that whole Country yet the Lords did adhere to their former Interloquitor That they would consider the time of the advising the profits of the Goods as in a SpuilÈie It occurred to some of the Lords and was moved whether Juramentum in litem being given to the Party wronged and upon that account that the quantities and the Kinds of Goods taken from him could not be so well known to others and proven if the same be a personal favour Or if it may be extended to an Assigney Newbyth Reporter D. 448. Holmes contra Marshall 2. February 1677. THE Lords Found That a Woman being provided by her Contract of Marriage to a Liferent of the Conquest of Lands or other Goods that should be acquired dureing the Marriage And the question being of Moveables and she having accepted a Third of the same she could not return to crave a Liferent of the other two parts tho it was Alledged by her she had not accepted the same in satisfaction of what she could claim 2. It was Found That a Woman being provided as said is to a Liferent of all the Moveables her Husband had the time he Marryed her and which he should acquire during the Marriage It was in her Option either to take her to her Liferent of the whole or to claim the 3d part in property but making Election could not varie Tho this was Found by plurality yet some of the Lords were of Opinion that by the Provision foresaid she has only a Liferent and that she had not the said Election Seing eo ipso that she is provided to a Liferent of all it is intended and agreed there should be no Communio bonorum It being inconsistent that she should be both Proprietar and Liferentar usufructu formali Newbyth Reporter Gibson Clerk D. 449. _____ contra Tait 6 February 1677. THE Lords Found That a Bond being granted on Death-bed with consent of his Appearand Heir for his Interest bearing an obligement to pay a Sum of Money Is to be considered not as a Legacy but as a Bond inter vivos Seing by the Common Law all persons are in legitima potestate as to the granting of Bonds And our custom whereby persons on Death-bed are not in in liege poustie is qualified with an exception viz. unless the Heir consent in whose favours the same is introduced Castlehill Reporter D. 450. _____ contra _____ eod die THE Lords Found That Appearand Heirs may be pursued as behaving before the year expire seing eo ipso that miscent adeunt passive And as to that pretence that they would be wronged if it should have appeared by the probation that they did not meddle It is of no weight Seing the Lords may modify Expences D. 451. _____ contra _____ 29. February 1677. AN Exhibition being pursued at the instance of an Heir of Conquest And it being Alledged by the Heir of Line that some of the Lands whereof the Writes were craved to be exhibited were in Holland and that by the custom there the Eldest Brother did not succeed as Heir of Conquest but all the Brothers and Sisters equally so that the Writes ought not to be delivered to the Pursuer who had only an Interest as to the fifth part whereas the Defender had four parts having acquired three from his Brothers and Sisters and having one himself and he having the far greater interest in the Land and Writes ought to have the keeping of the same being Lyable to make them forthcoming to the Pursuer The Lords notwithstanding preferred the Elder Brother to the keeping of the Writes In that same Cause It was Alledged That as to the Lands in Scotland the Defuncts Right was only by a Comprysing which was personal and whereupon no Infeftment had followed and which belonged to the Heir of Line as Tacks and Reversions The Lords nevertheless Found that the Heir of Conquest has Right to the same conform to a late Decision D. 452. Purveyance contra Knight 8 June 1677. THE Lords Found Upon the advising of a concluded Cause after Debate in praesentia in the Case in question That Liber Rationum and a Compt-Book of a Merchant containing an Article of Debt due by him to the Pursuer was a sufficient Probation In respect the said Compt-Book was written with the Merchants own Hand and he was known to be a person of great Honesty and Exactness and the Article was so clear that the time therein mentioned he stated himself to be Debitor in the said Sum all by gone Annualrents being payed and in an other part and Article of the said Book he did acknowledge that he had borrowed the said Sum and was special as to the time and there was a great Confidence and near Relation betwixt him and the Creditor and therefore the Lords decided as said is in respect of the said Circumstances but thought it hard that Compt-Books in Scotland where there is not that exactness that is else where in keeping Books should have that Faith that is given to them elsewhere Mr. Robert Stewart Actor alteri Cuningham Mr. John Hay Clerk In praesentia D. 453. Campbel contra Taite eod die THE Lybel being referred to the Defenders Oath and he having declared upon a general Interrogator that he was not owing the Sum acclaimed It was urged the time of the advising of the Oath that the Defender should declare whether or not he had gotten a parcel of Lint and what way he had payed the price of the