Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	king_n	parliament_n	session_n	5,616	5	10.5793	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B01410	Answers for Alexander Hamiltoun of Kinkel, to the petition given in be way of answer, for John Ayttoun of Kinaldy against him.	Hamilton, Alexander, of Kinkel, fl. 1695.	1695 (1695)	Wing A3463AA; ESTC R172385	3,895	4

Answers for Alexander Hamiltoun of Kinkel To the Petition given in be way of Answer for John Ayttoun of Kinaldy against him THE said Alexander Hamiltoun of Kinkel having given in two Petitions to his Grace and the Honourable Estates of Parliament the one whereof was General and the other Special condescending upon the Right and person in relation to which the clause in the General act anent prescriptions is craved to be extended Kinnaldie gives in a Petition by way of answer wherein he represents that the Right of Woodset condescended upon in Kinkels second Information was Redeemed But that not being hujus loci all that I shall say is that it was no other wayes Redeemed than by elicting upon Death-bed the Discharge and rennonciation condescended upon in my second Petition and that for no Onerous cause as shall be made appear in due time In the nixt place he gives particular reasons why the desire of my Petitions should be refused And 1 mo Because there being a Reduction of the said Right depending before the Lords of Session who are Judges competent It is impracticable to anticipat their Decisions when the parties concerned are not called To which it is Answered that the Authority of King and Parliament is Soveraign and cannot be declined nether is it impracticable or unusual for that Honourable Court to re●one person● losed in th● 〈◊〉 oppresive 〈◊〉 against the saids opp●●sions and ru●●ing consequences thereof and that either by General or special Acts and without any regard whither the same by consequence may be prejudicial to causes depending before the Lords of Sesion or not And even without Citation or hearing of parties which was imposible by reasons of the vast number of Donators and such others and also was needless in regard that by such a Restitution against the Injustice of Arbitrary Power no particular persons Right was directly impugned And it is clear by the General Act anent Fines and Forefaulturs and several particular Acts in favours of Forefaulted persons for repetition of the bygone Rents of their Lands And the King and Parliament are the only competent Judges in many such cases in respect the Lords of Session and other inferior Judges being more strictly oblidged to the Letter of Law are not capable to give persons oppressed a Just and full redress Although it is humbly conceived that in this case the Grounds of Comon Law would stop the course of prescription while Kinkel was non valens agere if the mentioning of shorter prescriptions only in the foresaid clause of the General act did not make the case more doubtful although it is very probable that there being the same reason of equity for discounting the foresaid years of oppression in long prescriptions that the mentioning of shorter prescriptions was not intended by way of Restriction But because there was greater ground to doubt as to them or because these short Prescriptions were only under the Parliaments view as a case wherein greater numbers of people might be concerned and therefore Kinkel has good ground to apply to the Parliament for explaining extending the said Clause and also Kenaldies complaint of this method as singular as groundless especially seeing the same was actually done in a case betwixt the Earl of Airly and Sir John Damster and that there is the same Reason in long and short prescriptions as said is As also seeing Kinkel was obliedged to make a particular Condescendance to the effect Kinaldy might give in his Answers which he has accordingly done and which supplies the want of a Citation To the second Reason it is answered It is most groundless for Kinaldy to alleadge That Kinkel delayed to insist in this Process until he was sure of the Death of his Witnesses insert in the Renounciation Seeing 1 mo The true Reasons of delay were his bad Circumstances the time and because Kinkels papers when his house was Garisoned were robbed and he could not have access to them until a little before the intenting of the said Reduction as also he is clear to depone that he never saw the said Renounciation nor knew any manner of way who were the witnesses insert therein 2 do Kinkel has proven his reason of Reduction ex capite Lecti by witnesses yet living beyond all exception 3 tio As Kinkel could not then foresee such a happy Change by which he might Exspect more impartial Justice So no man can imagine he would have suffered prescripion to run against him If he had been in the least Measure valens agere And where it is alledged there was nothing to hinder Kinkel from intenting this Reduction dureing the Lifetime of his brother in Law Judge Kerr It is Answered that as Kinkel was then stated with Kinaldy instigat the Arch-Bishop to persecute him and took from the Bishop the gift of his Escheat about the time he was under an Process of excumunication and Kinkel being ingadged to Kinaldy upon the account of Cautionrie and under summar execution for several summs and further his affairs being otherwise perplexed It is a frivolus inference from Kinkels for bearing in such an unfavourable Junctur to ingadge in a tedious and expensive pursuit to conclude that he was conscious of the injustice of the Plea Especially considering that he knew there were 20 Years of the Prescription then to run during which space and at any time therein he might have pursued as certainly he would have done If he had not been Debared by the Legal incapacity the violence of the time brought him under To Kinaldies 3d reason it is Answered he thereby clearly Insinuats which he exptesly confesses in other parts of his Petition That he has no other defence to appone to Kinkels just claime But that of prescription which being in it self a little not very favourable is in this particular case wherein a great number of these years ran against Kinkel when he was non valens agere as said is most odious and unjust and therefore no regard ought to be had to the representation he makes of the great loss he will sustain by reponing of Kinkel Seing on the other hand Kinkel has lyen under the pressure of the said loss ever since the granting of that renounciation and if Kinaldy be involved in 60 Thousand Merks because he is forced to testore to Kinkel a part of his own which he has so long Possessed upon an invalid tittle neither Kinkel nor the judges are to blaime And as to his alledgance That if there had been any Just grounds for Kinkels claming this Summs he would have objected it by way of compensation in several pursuits at Kinaldies Instance against him and would certainly have mentioned it when he disponed his other lands to Kinaldy in satisfaction of these Debts as also when Kenaldy obtained Decreets of General and speciall Declarator of Kenkels single and Lifere●t Escheat It is answered That these pursuits were for liquid debts and could not be compenced by the summs