Decreet of Locality because after the said Decreet a part of the Paroch of Gordoun was dismembred and Erected in a new Paroch and the Earl of Home burdened with a new Stipend and the Minister of Gordoun Liberat of a great part of his Charge in consideration whereof the Minister then incumbent quite a Chalder of his Decreet of Locality and aquiesced in the rest without ever Demanding any more and so did his Successors now by the space of sixteen or twenty years The Charger answered that his Predecessors forbearance to Lift that Chalder cannot instruct his Consent and though he had expresly Consented he could not prejudge his Successor unless that Chalder had been applyed to the new Kirk by Sentence of a Judge The Lords found the foresaid Reason relevant against the Pursuer in possessorioâ— ay and while he declare his Right here it was represented that the Minister had a sufficient Stipend beside the Chalder in question Mr. Rodger Hog contra the Countess of Home December 11. 1667. MAster Rodger Hog Insisting in his Reduction mentioned yesterday upon his Inhibition the Countess of Home alleadged that she had Right from Appryzers who would exclude the Pursuers Right and Inhibition and would Defend her self thereupon and not suffer her Right to be Reduced ex capite Inhibitionis and might thereby exclude the Pursuer from any Interest It was answered that the Reduction being only upon an Inhibition there are no Rights called for but Rights posterior thereto and it cannot prejudge any prior Right which the Pursuer is content shall be reserved Yet the Lords Admitted the Defender to Defend upon any prior Right that might exclude the Pursuers Right Hunter contra Wilsons December 13. 1667. HVnter having Charged Wiâ—sons for payment of 500 Merks contained in their Bond they Suspended on this Reason the Bonds bears expresly that the same should not be payed till the Suspender be put in Possession of a Tenement of Land in Glasgow for a part of the price whereof the Bond was granted Ita est they neither were nor can be put in Possession because the House was burnt in the Conflagration in Glasgow It was answered non relevat because after perfecting the vendition peculium est emptoris and therefore this being an accidental Fire wherein the Seller was no wayes in culpa nor in mora in respect that at that time there was a Liferenter living whose Liferent was reserved in the Disposition It was answered that albeit in some cases the peril be the Buyers yet where there is an expresse obligement that no payment shall be until Possession by that expresse Paction payment cannot be sought It was answered that the Buyers had taken Possession after the burning and had built the House It was answered that the Possession of the Ground cannot be said the Possession of the House Terra non est Domus and therefore this being but a small part of the price in such a calamitous Case the Suspenders ought to be Liberat thereof Notwithstanding of all these Alleadgeances the Lords found the Letters orderly proceeded here the Buyer was Infeft before the burning and did voluntarly take Possession after the burning Robert Hamiltoun Clerk contra Lord Balhaven December 14. 1667. THe Lord Balhaven having Disponed the Barony of Beill to Iohn Hamiltoun Son to Robert Hamiltoun Clerk reserving Roberts Liferent with power to dispose of fouâ—ty Chalders of Victual at his pleasure and to set Tacks for what time and Duty he pleases and containing an express Provision that it shall be leisum to Robert to do any Deed in Favour of my Lord Balhaven and that the Fee shall be burdened therewith and it is Provided that all Rights Robert shall Acquire shall accresce to his Son who is to Marry Balhavens Oye and failzying of the Sons Heirs mentioned in the Disposition Robert and his Heirs are in the last Termination Thereafter Robert enters in a Minut with my Lord Balhaven by which he is obliged to Accept an hundreth twenty nine thousand Merks and therefore obliges himself and as taking burden for his Son and as Tutor and Administrator to him validly and sufficiently to Denude himself and his Son of their Rights to any that he should Nominat but here is a Clause irritant that if Money or sufficient Persons to grant Bond to Robert be not delivered to Robert at Lambmass last and Payment made of the Money at Martinmass last that the Right by the Minute should expire ipso facto without Declarator The Minute was put in the Duke of Hamiltouns Hand that if these Terms were not performed he should Cancel it Robert Hamiltoun Pursues now a Declarator against Balhaven concluding that he hath an absolute and irredeemable Right to the Land by his first Disposition and Infeftment granted to him and his Son and that the Clause irritant is Committed and that thereby the Minute is null and concludes against the Duke that the Minut was put in his Hands upon the Terms foresaid and that he ought to Cancel or Deliver the same the Dukes Advocats suffered him to be holden as Confest but did not produce the Minute It was alleadged for Balhaven no Process till the Minute were produced for it could not be declared null till it were seen It was answered that the Copy of it was produced and verbatim insert in the Lybel and the Pursuer craved the Minute in the Terms Lybelled to be declared null without prejudice to any other Minute if they could pretend it The Lords ordained Processe but ordained the Pursuer before Extract to produce the principal Minute It was further alleadged for Balhaven Absolvitor because the Minute being mutual there could be no failzie in the Defender because the Pursuer neither was nor is able to perform his part of the Minute in respect the Fee of the Estate is in the Person of the Son who cannot be Denuded by any Deed of the Father for as Legal Administrator he hath no power neither can any Father or Tutor Denude a Pupil of their Fee but there must be interposed the Authority of the Lords in a special Process instructing a necessar Cause for the Minors Utility which cannot be in this Case and though the Father could Denude the Son as he cannot yet he is Minor and may Revock and yet it was offered to fulfil the Minut if the Pursuer would Secure the Defender against the Minors by real Security or good Caution The Pursuer answered that the Defense ought to be Repelled because the Defender the time of the Minut knew his Right and his Sons and cannot pretend an impossibility to have made any such Minut upon a ground then palpable and known and yet contend to keep the Minut above the Pursuers head but he must either take it as it stands or suffer it to be declared void 2dly The Pursuer is in sufficient Capacity to Denude his Son by the foresaids Reservations contained in the first Disposition whereby he has full
Wat contra Russel Fraud in a debitors granting a Bond to his Brother and taking a discharge of the same daâ—e and Witnesses and thereby proponing a defense against an Assigney was found Relevant and receivable by way of Exception unless the Debitor could condescend upon a reasonable cause for which the Bond and Discharge were so granted that it might not inâ—eâ— their design to deceive any that should contract with the Receiver of the Bond December 4. 1665. Thomson contra Hendrisoâ— Fraudulent dispositions may be either Reduced by the Act of Parliament 1621. or declared to be affected with all Execution as if they were in the disponers person December 15. 1665. Eleâ—s contra Keith Vide Ianuary 8. 1669. Captain Newman contra Fraud was inferred by a Fathers granting a Bond to his Son who was Forisfamiliat without a cause onerâ—us albeit the Bond bear borrowed Money yet formerly it was found to be gratuitous and it bearing no Annualrent and only payable after the Fathers death the Father after the date of the Bond continuing in a considerable Trade and his Estate being insufficient to pay his debt the foresaid Bond and Adjudication thereon was Reduced at the instance of posterior Creditors as being a fraudulent conveyance betwixt the Father and Son to insnare Creditors and very hurtful to commerce February 12. 1669. Pot contra Pollock The same February 16. 1669. French contra Watson Fraud of Creditors was found valide to Reduce a Disposition of Moveables being omnium â—â—norum and that the Narrative bearing special onerous causes was not sufficient though the parties were not conjunct but that it behoved to be astructed otherwayes then by the acquirers Oath November 18. 1669. Hendrison contra Anderson Fraud of Creditors was inferred by the Act of Parliament 1691. against an only Son and appearand Heir provided to a great sum of Money by his Contract of Marriage so far as to make a part thereof forthcoming for satisfaction of an anterior creditor albeit the Father was not Insolvent or made Insolvent by the Contract and albeit the Contract bear no Assignment to an Heretable sum but actual payment of Money February 8. 1671. Wat contra Campbel of Kilpont Fraud was not inferred by the latency of a Translation to a Tack by a Husband to his Wife granted for quiting of her Liferent of Lands to his Creditors and therefore was preferred to an Acquirer thereafter upon an onerous cause February 7. 1670. Dam Elizabeth Burnet contra Sir Alexander Frazer A FRAVGHT was found only proportionably due to a Skipper where the Ship was not fully loaden unless he proved by Witnessâ—s that he intimate his going to Sea and required more loading and abode his â—y dayes without necessity to alleadge an Instrument and Protest taken thereon mentioning he was not fully fraughted and craving more Fraught Ianuary 13. 1665. contra Charters FRVITS Vide Cropt Gordoun contr Mâ—â—â—lloch GENERAL LETTERS upon Presentation or Collation of Ministers whether having benefices or modified Stipends are prohibite by Act of Sederunt and the same intimate to the Writers and Keepers of the Signet and Clerk to the Bills but that every Incumbent must have a Decreet conform although he produce his Predecessors Decrect conform Iune 3. 1665. A GIFT granted by the King Erecting Kirk-lands in a Temporal Lordship was found not to be habilâ—â— modus while the same was not vacant but in the hands of the Commendator albeit he was dishabilitat from brooking any Estate by his Fathers forefaâ—ture at the time of the Erection seing his dishabilitation was thereafter Rescinded in Parliament because he was no wayes accessory to his Fathers Crime whereupon his Temporal Provision was validate and the Erection medio tempore was postponed to a posterior Erection to the Commendatar himself upon his own dimission February 24. 1666. Sinclar contra Laird of Wâ—dderburn Gifts of Eâ—cheat competing the Gift last past in Exchequer but first past the Seals was preferred to the other though the other took Instruments against the Keeper of the Seal for delaying him seing the Instrument was after the other Gift was past December 6. 1662. Steuart contra Nasmith A Gift of a Ward being to the behove of the Superiors Heir and made 〈◊〉 of against the Vassals who had the Rights with absolute Warrandice the Gift was â—ound to accreâ—ce to the Vassals they paying a proportional part of the Composition February 15. 1665. Boyd of Pâ—nkâ—ll contra Tennents of Carsâ—lâ—ugh A Gift was found to be affected with a Back-bond granted by the Donator when the Gift past the Exchequer and was Registrate in the Books of Exchequer albeit the Back-bond was not conceived in favours of the Theâ—aurer but of a private person and albeit the Gift was assigned when it was incompleat before it past in Exchequer and the Assignation was intimat Ianuary 31. 1666. Dallace contra Frazer of Streiâ—haâ— Gifts of Escheat bearing all Goods to be acquired was â—ound to extend to Goods acquired within a year after the Gift only and not within a year after the Horning Iuly 2. 1669. Barclay contra Barclay HEIRS â—ound to have the benefite of an obligement to re-dispone Lands albeit Heirs were not expressed but appeared to be omitted by negligence seing the clause bear not that they should beâ—redeemable any time in the Disponers Life Ianuary 9. 1662. Earl of Murray contra Laird of Gairn Heirs were â—ound to have right to an Annualrent though Heirs were not exprest and though it bear only to be payed yearly to the Annualrenter and not Heretably or perpetually February 2. 1667. Pourie contra Dykes An Heir viz. a Son being inâ—eâ—t as Heir to his Mother dying without Issue his Brother Vâ—erine by that Mother not found Heir to him therein but his Father February 5. 1663. Lennox contra Lintoun An Heir found conveenable for the avail of her Marriage without calling the otherâ—Heir portioner who was dead Iune 26. 1666. Arbuthneâ— contra Keith HEIRS OF LINE and not of Conquest â—ound to have right to a Tack albeit Conquest Iune 23. 1663. Ferguson contra Ferguson An Heir of Line of a youngest Brother by a several Marriage found to be the immediate elder Brother of the former Marriage and not the eldest Brother Iune 20. 1664. Lady Clerkingtoun contra Steuart AN HEIR MALE was found to be presently lyable without discussing the Heir of Line where he was obliged to relieve the same November 22. 1665. Scot contra Bothwel of Aâ—â—hinleck AN HEIR SVBSTITVTE in a Bond was found not to make the Substitute Heir lyable in solidum but quo 〈◊〉 valorem of the sum this was a mutual Substitution of a sum payable to two Brothers or the surviver Iuly 3. 1666. Fleming contra Fleming Heirs have right in a Substitution though only a person by Name was Substitute without mention of Heirs and though that persoâ— died before the Institute Ianuary 5. 1670. Innes contra Innes AN HEIR APPARENT was allowed to have Aliment from the
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
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
or out of any other the Canons Portions of this Kirk George Shein contra Iames Christie Eodem die G Christison of Bassallie gave an Infeftment to his eldest Son of the Lands of Bassallie and to his second Son of an Annualrent of 86. merks forth thereof both of one date and both reserving the Fathers Liferent Iames Christie hath Right by Appryzing led against the eldest Son in his Fathers life to the Lands George Shein hath Right by Adjudication against the second Son to the Annualrent and pursues a poinding of the Ground It was alleadged for Iames Christie that Sheins Authors Right was base never cled with Possession and so null whereas his Right was publick by an Appryzing and had attained to Possession It was answered that the Fathers Liferent being reserved the Fathers Possession was both the Sons Possession and did validat both their Rights It was answered that a Disposition by a Father to his own Children reserving his own Liferent though Infeftment follow is alwayes accounted simulat and never accounted cled with Possession by the Fathers Possession as hath been frequently decided It was answeredâ— that albeit in Competition betwixt base Infeâ—tments granted to Children and Infeftments granted to Strangers upon onerous Causes the Childrens Infeftment though prior and though reserving the Fathers Liferent uses to be preferred yet here that holds not for both Infeftments are granted to Children both of one date and neither of them to Strangers or upon onerous Causes and therefore the Reservation here is without suspition of Simulation and the Fathers Possession must both validat the second Sons Annualrentâ— and the eldest Sons property Which the Lords found Relevant and that the Fathers Possession by this Reservation did sufficiently validat both the Sons Infeftments and that the Possession of one after his Death or of any succeeding in his Right did not exclude the other or his singular Successor Mr. Robert Burnet contra Swane Eodem die MR. Robert Burnet Tutor of Lâ—yes pursues for Mails and Duties of a Tenement in Aberdene It was alleadged for Swane the Defender Absolvitor because he stands Infeft in the Lands and by vertue of his Infeftment in Possession and albeit the Pursuers Infeftment be prior it is null neither being Registrat in the Register of Seasins nor in the Town Clerks Books of Aberdene according to the custom of all Burghs but hath been latent many years and no vestige of it in the Town Books so that the Defender was in bona fide to Contract with the common Authour and Apprize thereafter It was answered that the Act of Parliament excepted Seasins within Burgh and the Pursuer having the Town Clerks Subscription was not answerable for his keeping a Prothecal or Record Which the Lords found Relevant and sustained the Seasine Colquhoun and Mcquair contra Stuart of Barscub Iuly 1. 1668. THe Laird of Barscub having seued certain Lands to Colquhoun and Mcquair to be holden of himself in the Contract of Alienation there is a special Clause that because the Lands are holden Ward of the Duke of Lenox therefore Barscub is obliged to relieve these Feues of any Ward that shall fall in time coming Thereafter Barscub Dispones the Superiority of these Lands and by the Death of his singular Successor his Heir falls in Ward whereupon Sentence was obtained against the Feuars for the Ward Duties and the avail of the Marriage and they now pursue relief against Barscubs Heir upon the Clause of Warrandice above-written The Defender alleadged that the Libel was no ways Relevant to infer warrandice against him upon the said Clause because the meaning thereof can only be that he as Superiour and so long as he remained Superiour shall relieve the Feuars which ceases he being now Denuded of the Superiority otherwise it behoved to have imported that he should never sell the Superiority without the Vassals consent which no Law doth require or if the Lands had been Appryzed from him he could not be lyable for the Ward of the Appryzers Heir which is cleared by the ordinary Custom there being nothing more frequent in Charters than Clauses of absolute warrandice and yet none was ever overtaken thereby after they ceased to be Superiours The Pursuer answered that his Libel was most Relevant because this being an Obligement conceived in their favours by Barscub not qualified as Superiour no Deed of Barscubs without their consent can take it from them unless Barscub when he sold the Superiority had taken the new Superiour obliged to receive the Vassals with the same warrandice but now the new Superiour not being obliged by this personal Clause Barscub the old Superiour must remain obliged especially in a Clause of this nature which is express for all Wards to come The Lords Repelled the Defense and Sustained the Libel and found the Superiour albeit Denuded lyable for Warrandice Thomas Rue-contra Andrew Houstoun Iuly 3. 1668. ANdrew Houstoun and Adam Mushet being Tacksmen of the Excize did Imploy Thomas Rue to be their Collector and gave him a Sallary of 30. pound Sterling for a year thereafter he pursued Andrew Houstoun upon his promise to give him the like Sallary for the next year and in absence obtained him to be holden as confest and Decerned Which being Suspended he obtained Protestation and therefore raised Caption and apprehended Andrew Houstoun at Wigtoun who gave him a Bond of 500. Merks and got a Discharge and being Charged upon the Bond of 500. Merks he Suspends on these Reasons that Thomas Rue had granted a general Discharge to Adam Mushâ—t who was his Conjunct and coâ—reus deâ—endi afâ—er the alleadged Service which Discharged Mushâ—t and consequently Houstoun his Partner 2dly The Decreet was for Sallary and it was offered to be proven that Rue for his Malversation was by warrand from Ceneral Monk excluded from Collection that year and by the Discharge of the Decreet and this Bond both of the same Date and VVitnesses it did appear that this Bond was granted for the Decreet and if the Decreet were Reduced by the Reduction thereof depending the Bond would fall in consequence as granted for the same Cause The Charger answered that he was now not obliged to Dispute in relation to the Decreet First Because the Suspender had Homologat the same by taking a Discharge thereof and giving a Bond therefore 2dly There was not only a Homologation but a Transaction upon a Reference made by the Parties to â—aldone conform to his Attestation produced so that that Transaction cannot be recalled upon any pretence but is the most firm and Obligatory Contract of any The Suspender answered that his payment making and taking Discharge was no Approbation nor Homologation but that he might reduce the Decreet and repeat if he had payed or been poynded and so may retain especially seing it was done metu Carceâ—is he being taken with Caption and as to the Transaction he denies the same neither can it be instructed by Baldones Attestation but by the
Defender alleadged Absolvitor because this Bond being granted without an Onerous Cause after the Provision of the second Contract of Marriage Providing all the Goods Conquest to the Heirs of the second Marriage who were thereby their Fathers Creditors for fulfilling of that Provision no voluntar Dâ—ed done without a Cause Onerous by their Father in Favours of his Daughter of a former Marriage could prejudge them or burden the Moveables acquired in that Marriage It was answered First That the Provision being to the Heirs of the second Marriage they being Heirs could not quarrel but were obliged to fulfil their Fathers Obligation whether for a Cause Onerous or not 2dly Such Clauses of Conquest are ever understood as the Conquest is at the Acquirers Death but does not hinder him any time of his Life to Dispose or Gift at his pleasure which if he might do to any Stranger there is neither Law or Reason to exclude him to do it to his Daughter And albeit it might be interpret Fraud if nothing were left to the Daughters of the second Marriage yet where they have a special Provision and something also of the Conquest with this burden their Father could not be found thereby to Defraud them or to hinder him to use his Liberty Which the Lords found Relevant and Sustained the Bond. Buohan contra Taits February 11. 1669. IN Anno 1623. George Tait of Pirn gave a seisine propriis mâ—nibus to George Tait his eldest Son and a Bond of that same Date bearing that he had given Seisine and obliging him to Warrand the same Reserving his own Liferent Thereafter in Anno 1640. he Contracts in Marriage with Ianet Buchan and for two thousand and five hundreth Merks of Tocher obliges him to Infeft her in the same Lands of Piâ—n whâ—rein his Son was Infeft whereupon she now pursues Reduction of George Tait youngers Infeftment against his Daughters upon these Reasons First That the Seisine propriis mâ—nibus was only the assertion of a Nottar without a Warrand 2dly That the Seisine had not four Witnesses 3dly That this was a clandestine latent Right most fraudulent betwixt a Father and his appearand Heir never having been published or taken effect by any Possession and cannot prejudge this Pursuer who is a most priviledged Creditor and brought a competent Tocher with her 4thly That this being an Infeftment by a Father to his appearand Heir then in his Family it was but as the legittime of Children which is still ambulatory at their Parents Disposal and so must be affected with this posterior burden of the Fathers Marriage It was answered to the first that the Bond of the same Date with the Seisine acknowledging the same is a sufficient adminicle and is equivalent as if the Father had Subscribed the Seisine To the second there is no Law requiring â—our Witnesses to a Seisine for that Act of Parliament is only where a Party Subscribes by a Nottar but relates not to Nottars Instruments Subscribed by themselves upon warrands or adminicles without which they are not valid with 40. Witnesses and without which two Witnesses are sufficient To the third this Infeftment is no ways Fraudulent or Latent seing it is Registrat in the Register of Seisines and Reserves the Fathers Liferent whose Possession is the Sons Possession and cannot be pejudged by a Deed so long posterior thereto To the last Infeftments taken to Children by Parents being Registrat by Parents can never be Recalled The Lords Assoilziâ—d from all the Reasons of Reduction and Sustained the Defenders Seisine Pot contra Pollock February 12. 1669. UMquhile Iohn Pollock having granted a Bond of 5000. Merks to Iames Pollock his second Son of the first Marriage and he having Adjudged thereupon Pot as Assigney by his Wife to her Provision and the Creditors Debts having also Appryzed raises Reduction of Iames. Pollocks Bond and Adjudication on this Reason that the said Bond was without a Cause Onerous given by a Father to a Son as is clear by the Sons Oath taken thereupon and therefore a posterior Debt Lent by Creditors bona fide to the Father is in Law preferable thereto 2dly This Bond to a Son can be but de natura legittimae having no Cause Onerous as if it had born for his Portion Natural and Bairns part In which Case it is Revockable by the Father and the Fathers Creditors though posterior are preferable thereto 3dly This Bond is Reduceable super capite doli as being a contrivance betwixt a Father and a Son to insnare Creditors to Lend to the Father who then drove a great Trade which must be inferred from these circumstances First The Son was foriâ— familiat and sufficiently provided before 2dly The Bond bears no Annualrent and the Term of payment is after the Fathers Death and remained ever latent betwixt the Parties without any thing following thereupon and these Debts were all Contracted within a very little after this Bond which was only a year before the Defuncts Death The Defender answered that the Reasons are no ways Relevant for there is neither Law nor Reason to hinder any person to give Bonds or Gifts freely there being no Impediment the time of the granting neither hath the Law any regard to posterior Creditors but in personal Debts whether for Causes Onerous or not the first Diligence was ever preferable nor was it ever heard that a posterior Onerous Obligation did Reduce or was preferred to a prior gratuitous obligation upon that ground that the prior was gratuitous And to the second Albeit this Bond were in satisfaction of a Portion Natural as it is not yet being Delivered to the Son who iâ— forisfamiliâ—t he can be in no other case then any other person to whom a bond were granted without an Onerous Cause As to the third Dolus non presumâ—tur and all machinations being only animi are only probable scripto vel juramento and can be inferred by no circumstances The Pursuer answered that albeit in dubio dolus aut câ—lpa non preâ—umitur yet it is doubtless probable otherwise then by the Oaths of the Parties whereunto Truâ—â— is never to be given in relation to their own shame contrivance or fraud and therefore matâ—ers of fact do necesâ—arly infer and presume fraud in many cases and in none more then this where the Deed was clandestine and latent betwixt Father and Son and where the Fathers Estate was thereby rendred insuffiâ—ient to pay both his Dâ—bt and the others contracted shortly thereaâ—ter and if it were sustained that such latent Rights betwixt conjunct persons were valide in prejudice of posterior Creditors contracting bona fide and not knowing the same all Commerce behoved to cease for every man might give such Bonds to his Children and continue to Trade and to borrow Money and upon the Childrens anterior Bonds be totally excluded The Defender answered that our Law by a special Statute in Anno 1621. having determined the cases of presumptive fraud and extended
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 Lesly
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
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
truely owand and payed by the Relict after her Husbands decease As to the second Point there is no necessity in Law for Executors or Tutorâ— to have Sentence unlesse it be in Cases of Competition to secure themselves against other Creditors pursuing afterwards or Cases dubious where the Probation is not clear but to pay a clear Debt without burdening Pupils with unnecessary expenses of Law against which the Pupils can now alleadge nothing wherein they were prejudged by voluntar payment such payments were never Repelled Especially in the Case of a Woman paying so soon after her Husbands death nor can it be presumed a Donation because Donations are never presumed but must be clearly proven and it is very ordinar to those who have Interest to pay the Debts and Confirm afterwards The Lords considering the whole Circumstances found the Article not to be allowed a beâ—t they were clear that the Debt was true and really payed by the Executrix yet seeing she payed not being then Executrix nor Tutrix and cancelled the Bond without taking Assignation they thought she could not distresse her Children with it but that it was a Donation in their favour Dame Elizabeth Flemming contra Iohn â—ibson and Flemming November 19. 1661. INter eosdem There was another Article of the said accompt whereby the said Dame Elizabeth Flemming having lent out a sum of money in the Name of Malâ—ome and Andrew Flemming's two of her Bairns she craved that the said Sum should be taken in part of payment of the Portions of the whole Bairns or at least in so far as was more nor the Portions of these two Bairnes might be declared to belong to her self It was answered for the Bairns that this Bond was a Donation by the Mother out of her own means in favours of her Children and could not be imputed as a part of their means because First The Bond did bear the Money to be lent by her in her Childrens name and not in her own Neither did it bear to be as a part of the Bairns means nor in satisfaction thereof as she had specially taken other Bonds in these same Bairns names and so presumed consideratly to gift the Sum to these two Bairns of whom one was a pocthmus Child born eight moneths after his Fathers Death and so was not thought upon by his Father nor provided with Legacies as the rest were Secondly The Tenor of the Bond bears expresly the Sum to be payable to the Mother in Liferent and one of the Children is substitute Heir to another in case they had not Children of their own Whereas another would have fallen Heir of Lyne to them viz. An intervenient Brother and to them both the Mother her self and her Heirs were substitute The Pursuer answered That supposing this were a Donation yet it being a free gift the mother might do it upon what Terms and Conditions and what way she pleased Ita est by the Tenor of the Bond. It is provided that she shall uplift the Sum during her Life and the Children after her decease by which Clause she is more nor a naked Life-renter and seeing this Clause must be interpret cum effectu the only meaning of it can be That during her own Lifetime she might uplift the Sum and dispose of it at her pleasure and so evacuat the fee in her Childrens Persons seeing there is nothing to oblidge her to re-imploy it for the Bairns use if she should once uplift it it as when a Father Infeft his Son in his Lands reserving his own Liferent with power to Dispone during his own life there the Father is Liferenter yet by that Reservation he may annull and evacuat the Sons Fee even so here For which two Practicks of Dury was adduced that a Father providing a Sum to himself and his Wife and the longest liver of them two and failzing of them by Decease to his Son the Son being Infeft in Fee and in the other Practick the Father being expresly infeft in an Annualrent for his Lifetime Yet the Lords found that the Father during his lifetime might uplift the sum and Dispose of it at his pleasure The Lords found by the Tenor of the Bond that the Mother had Constitute her self expresly Liferenter and the Children Feears And that the power to Charge for the Money did bear nothing of a power to her to Dispose of it but was only the ordinar Reservation adjected after the Clause of Annualrent in these words but prejudice of the said Annualrent to her during her life and after her Decease to â—he Bairns to uplist the money and so that albeit she was not expresly oblieged to re-imploy it yet she Constituting her self Liferenter without a power to Dispose of the Fee did sufficiently obliege her to re-imploy the sum And as to the Practicks the case clearly differed in this that there the Father and Mother were not Constitute Liferenters in the sum though the Father was mentioned Liferenter of an Annualrent accessory to the sum But the Clause being to the Father and Mother and after their Decease to the Son It was clear by the common Practicks that the Son was not Feear but Heir Substitute so that the Father was Feear and might Dispose at his pleasure November 20. 1661. In the foresaid Cause It was further alleadged for the Tutrix that the Bond in question could not be accounted a Donation notwithstanding the Reasons before adduced in so far as she was Debitor to the saids two Bairns for their Portion quia debitor non presumitur donare and therefore Provisions granted by Husbands to their Wives albeit they mention not the Contract of Marriage but love and favour And so in the Terms of a Donation yet it is alwayes interpret to be in satisfaction of a prior obliegement in the Contract of Marriage and not that both the posterior and former Provision are due to the Wife It was answered for the Bairns that though Donation be not presumed yet when by the Nature of the Deed done it appeareth to be animo donandi I it is truly such albeit it bear not the name of a Donation especially in this case Which Law excepteth from that general Rule that Parents bestowing sums for the use of their Bairns from their natural affection are alwayes presumed to gift and not to satisfie any former Provision unless it were so exprest Upon which ground an Infeftment granted by a Father to his Son though but a Bastard Redeemable upon a sum of Money was not found in satisfaction of a former Bond granted by him to that natural Son as is observed by Dury upon the 24. of Iuly 1623. Stuart contra Fleming But here not only is this Bond not in satisfaction of the former Portion but bears a Clause of a Liferent and of a return to the Mother which are incompatible with an intention of satisfaction The Lords found the Bond to be in satisfaction of the Bairns Portions pro tanto
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
the Reason Elizabeth contra Eodem die THe said Elizabeth pursued the Executors of her Husband and insisted upon several points First she craved the Ann as belonging wholly to her seing there was no Children and the Ann being in favours of the Wife and Children the nearest of Kin could have no part thereof The Defenders answered that the Ann was introduced the time of Popery when the had no Wife nor Bairns and so did still most properly belong to the nearest of Kin who would get it if there were neither Wife nor Bairns The Lords found the Ann to divide betwixt the Pursuer and the nearest of Kin. The Pursuer insisted next and alleadged that a Bond bearing Clausses of Annualrent and Obliegement to Infeft behoved either to give a Right to the half of the Stock or else to a Terce of the Annualrents The Lords found the Clausses of Annualrent and Destination to exclude her from the Stock as Heretor and the want of Infeftment to exclude her from the Terce of Annualrent The Pursuer insisted in the next place and produced a Bond granted by her Father to her Husband and here the longest liver of them two and the heirs procreat betwixt them without any addition or termination failzing these heirs and without Clausses of Annualrents or Infeftment and therefore she claimed the whole Sum as being the longest liver It was answered that this Bond did Constitute in her only a Liferent according to the ordinar conception and interpretation of that Clause the longest liver of them two betwixt man and wife but especially heirs procreat betwixt them being mentioned which behoved to be the mans heirs who if they had existed would have had right as heirs to their Father not to their Mother and therefore the Father behoved to be Feear and the Mother only Liferenter It was further alleadged that beside the Liferent the Pursuer behoved to have right to the half of the Stock because the sum being moveable albeit the Tenor of the Bond made it payable to the Relict for her Liferent use yet she behoved to imploy it so as the Stock would remain which Stock would still be divisible betwixt the Relict and nearest of Kin as being moveable The Lords found that the Pursuer might take her choise of the Liferent or of the half of the sum but would not allow her both Iames Halyburtoun contra Lord Roxburgh Ianuary 25. 1663. JAmes Halyburtoun as Assigney Constitute by his Father pursues the Earl of Roxburgh for payment of a Debt due to his Father The Defender alleadged no Process because the Assignation was not intimate in the Cedents Life and so he was not denuded but the sum remained in bonis defuncti and behoved to be Confirmed especially seing this Assignation is a general Assignation omnium bonorum without condescending upon this or any other particular The Lords Repelled the Defense and found Process Ninian Steuart of Askoege contra Steuart nf Arnhome Eodem die NInian Steuart as heir to his Father Askoege pursues Reduction of a Transaction of a Tack which Tack was Assigned to him by his Wife and by him Transferred to Iohn Steuart heir of a former Marriage The Reason of Reduction was because the Translation was on Death-bed in prejudice of the heir The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Pursuer is Witnesse in the Translation which imports his consent The Pursuer answered that Subscribing as Witnesse could import no more but that the Witness saw the Party Subscribe but did not obliege to take inspection of the Contents of the Write 2ly The Pursuer when he Subscribed was minor The Defender answered that in this Case the Subscribing as Witness behoved to import consent because that very Subscription it self by the Father being sick did import a Deed done on Death-bed Especially it not being a Testament but a Writ inter vivos and for the minority the Pursuer was in confinio majoris aetatis and suffered the Defender to possess twenty years long after his anni utiles was past The Lords found the Subscription as Witnesse in this Case to import consent and being quarreled inter annos utiles they found sufficient to a minor though in Confirmation Gordon contra Frazer Iuly 3. 1663. GOrdon having Confirmed himself Executor Creditor to Forbes of Auchinvil pursues 〈…〉 Frazer his Relict for Delivery to him of the Moveables who alleadged absolvitor because the Moveables upon the Mayns of Achnivil were Disponed to her by her umquhil Husband it was answered that the Disposition was simulat inter conjunctas personas retenta possessione and therefore null It was duplyed that the Disposition was upon an onerous Cause without simulation because it bears to be in respect that by the Defuncts Contract of Marriage he is oblieged to Infeft his Wife in five Chalder of Victual out of Auchnivil for the Aliment and Intertainment of his younger Children till the age of fourteen years and because he was necessitate to sell that Land therefore he Disponed the moveables in leu thereof which is also instructed by the Contract of Marriage The Pursuer answered that this is but a provision to Children and could not be preferred to the Defuncts Creditors especially being a provision before the Children were existent and if such should be allowed it were easie upon such latent provisions in favours of Children to prejudge Creditors The Defender answered that if the Pursuers Debt had been anterior to the Contract of Marriage he might have had ground upon the Act of Parliament 1621. but this Debt was posterior to the Contract and there was no reason to hinder a Parent to provide his Children and Dispone Moveables to him in satisfaction thereof The Pursuer answered that both being yet but personal obliegements not having obtained effectual Possession the Creditor though posterior must be preferred to the Children especially if the Defunct have not sufficient Estate to pay both 2ly The Disposition is upon a false Narrative because the Lands of Auchnivil are yet undisponed The Lords found that the Childrens Disposition ought to be preferred unless the Father were insolvendo at his death in which case they preferred the Creditors though posterior and likewise found the alleadgence Relevant that the Narrative was false and so the Disposition without a Cause Isobel Mow contra Dutches of Bucleugh Iuly 7. 1663. THe said Isobel having Served Heir to William Mow her Grandsyre Charges the Dutches as Superiour to receive her she Suspends and compearence is made for certain persons to whom the Chargers Father had Disponed the Lands in question who raised Reduction of the Defenders Retour and Infeftment upon this Reason that the Retour was null Serving the Charger Heir to her Grandsyre as last Vest and Seased whereas they produced the Infeftments of their Uncle and Father as Heirs to their Grandsyre in these Lands and therefore instructed that her Grandsyre dyed not as last Invest and Seased as of Fee but her Father their
Wines at that time gave 20. pound Sterling and not the second because it was an exception of Compensation and relative to Writ The Lords sustained the first member of the quality but rejected the second and found it relevant to be proven by way of exception Goldsmiths of Edinburgh contra Robert Haliburton December 10 1664. THe Goldsmiths of Edinburgh having obtained Decreet against Haliburton as Heir to his Father He suspends upon this Reason that the Goldsmiths confirmed themselves Executors Creditors to his Father and must allow the Inventar which either they have in their hand or at least should have done Diligence therefore It was answered for the Executors that they being Executor Creditors are not lyable for Diligence having Confirmed but to their own behove for their payment and as Creditors may arrest apprize and do all Dilligence severally the one but prejudice of the other so may they Confirm 2ly They found that having Confirmed in Edinburgh whereas the Defunct lived and died within the Diocie of Glasgow that therefore their Title was null and therefore did not proceed And lastlie oppons their Decreet in foro The Suspender answered that they can never object against the nullity of their own Title 2ly All that time there was no Commissioriat Constitute for the Shire of Air where the man died and so Edinburgh was communis patria The Lords having Debated the general case whether Executor Creditors were lyable for Diligence waved the same but found that in this Case in respect of the questionableness of a Title they would not find them lyable upon their negligence Lyon of Muirask contra Sir Robert Farquhar Eodem die MVirask having pursued a Declarator of Redemption of the Lands of Balmellie against Sir Robert Farquhar Litisâ—ontestation was made in the Cause wherein the Order was sustained proceeding upon an Adjudication against Sir Iohn Vrquhart as Heir to his Goodsire and it was offered to be proven that he died in the Right of the Reversion of this VVodset which was but base and holden of the granter for proving whereof his Charter was produced bearing the Barony of Craigfintrie and Balmellie per expressum At the advising of the Cause It was alleadged that the Defender having protested for Reservation contra producenda It is now instantly verified that the Grand-Father died not in the Right of the Reversion but that he was denuded by Disposition to his Son instructed by his Charter produced The Pursuer answered that he opponed the state of the Process And if such a Defense were now competent it ought to be Repelled because he hath Right from Sir Iohn Vrquhart who is Heir Served and Retoured to his Father in whose favours his Grand-father was Denuded and has declared that he consents to the Declarator upon that Ground and Renounces all other Right The Defender answered that the order having been only used upon the Adjudication from Vrquhart as Heir to his Grand-father if that be excluded albeit the Pursuer have another Right he must use the Order de novo and redeem thereupon 2ly Sir Iohn Vrquharts Right produced Renounces but does not Dispone any Right to the Pursuer The Lords having considered the state of the Process found that a Reply instantly verified is receiveable post conclusum in causa unless it were alleadged to have been known to the Proponer and dolose omitted by which the Pursuer might be put to a Duply suffering new Probation But the Lords found that the Charter produced bearing the Grand-father to be Denuded did not instantly verifie because it expressed not Balmellie and would not allow a Term to prove part and pertinent It was further alleadged by the Defender no Declarator till the Sums consigned were reproduced at the Bar especially seing it was offered to be proven that the Pursuer lifted them himself and he being at the Bar it is instantly verified The Lords sustained the same and Declared the Sums being Reproduced before Extract and that the Pursuer shall be lyable for Annualrent or the Wodsetter shall retain the Duties effeiring thereto Lord Rollo contra His Chamberland December 13. 1664. THe Lord Rollo having pursued his Chamberlain for Intromissions conform to a particular accompt libelled The Defenders have compeared offered to prove he was Discharged which was found relevant and now producing the same it proves but for a part whereupon the Pursuer craved Sentence for the rest It was alleadged for the Defender that there was nothing produced to instruct the Intromission The Pursuer answered that the Defender having made Litiscontestation upon a Discharge without denying the Intromission he has acknowledged the Libel and the Pursuer cannot be put to prove the same without inverting the Order and making two Litiscontestations in the same Cause The Defender answered that this being but an omission of the Advacats or Clerks of a thing palpable the Lords might repone the Defender The Lords adhered to the Act of Litiscontestation but referred to some of their number to move the Parties to what was equitable and it was thought that if the Defender would alleadge that he was not Intrometter for these particulars but that they were in the Pursuer or his other Chamberlains hands and were instantly verified by his oath it were receivable Bishop of the Isles contra Iames Hamiltoun Eodem die THe Bishop of the Isles pursuing Hamiltoun a Merchant in Edinburgh for his Teind Fish taken in the Isles which is a part of the Bishops Patrimony The Defender alleadged â— that he being a Merchant and not a taker of Herring cannot be lyable for the Teind thereof no more then if one should buy Corns in the Mercat or out of the Barn-yard he could be conveened for the Teind It was answered for the Pursuer that it was the immemorial custom that the first buyer from the Fishers should be lyable to the Bishop of the Isles for the Teind of the Fish bought and for proving thereof produced a Decreet at his Predecessors instance against some Merchants in Edinburgh which Decreet did bear that in a former Decreet betwixt the same Parties the Bishops had proven immemorial Possession against the Merchants 2ly The instance holds not of buying Corns in the Mercat or Barn-yeard but if any body should buy the whole Cropt when it was upon the Land untaken off being in the Sheaves or Stoucks he would undoubtedly be lyable as Intrometter for the Teind so if any Merchant bought not upon the place where the Fishes were taken he was not lyable but buying the Fish fresh as they were taken in whole Boat-fulls and selling them there themselves such Merchants must be liable as Intrometters The Defender answered that the Immemorial custom was indeed Relevant but a Decreet against some few Persons could not prove it against others being inter alios actum But here there was only a Decreet bearing that there was a former Decreet in which that was proven The Lords sustained that member against these who bought the hering
that the Liferent of the whole was given in satisfaction of the third and all The Pursuer answered that this could not be presumed unless it had been so exprest no more then a Terce is excluded by a provision of Liferent unless it bear in satisfaction of a Terce The Lords found the Defense Relevant that the Pursuer could not both have her third and the Liferent of the rest but gave her her option either of the third provisione legis or of her Liferent of the whole provisione hominis Earl of Athol contra Iohn Scot. Eodem die THe Earl of Athol having obtained Decreet against Iohn Scot before the Commissar of Dunkeld for the Teinds of the said Iohn his Lands He Suspnds and raises Reduction on this Reason that albeit the Decreet bear a Defense proponed that the Teinds in question are Mortified by the King to a Kirk and that the same was found Relevant and that the said Iohn succumbed in proving thereof yet he offers him to prove that before the Term elapsed he produced the Mortification before the Commissar and thereupon took Instruments which is produced Which the Lords found Relevant Mr. George Norvel Advocat contra Margaret Sunter Eodem die MR. George Norvel pursuing for Mails and Duties upon an Appryzing Compearance is made for Margaret Sunter who alleadged absolvitor because she was Infeft in Liferent before Mr. Georges Right which being found relevant for instructing thereof she produced her Seasine Which the Lords found not to instruct without an Adminicle and therefore sustained the Decreet The said Margaret raised Reduction of this Decreet on this Reason that now she produced an Adminicle viz. her Contract of Marriage 2ly That the Decreet is null because the quantities are not proven The Charger answered to the first that the Lords having found the Exception not proven the Pursuer could not be admitted in the second instance against a Decreet in foro upon production of that which she should have produced at first As to the second he needed not prove the quantities seing her exception was total without denying the quantities The Lords found the Decreet valide but ordained some of their number to deal with Mr. George to show favour to the poor woman Doctor Ramsay contra Mr. William Hogg and Alexander Seton December 22. 1664. THese three Parties having appryzed the same Lands the first Appryzer being Infeft the second not being and the third being Infeft The first Appryzer declared he would not insist for the Mails and Duties of the whole but only possessed a part The question came whether the second Apprizer not having Charged should be preferred to the third who was Infeft It was alleadged for the second Appryzer that he needed not be Infeft because the first Appryzer being Infeft in all he had the only jus proprietatis and there was nothing remaining but jus reversionis which the Appryzing alone carryed and as the second Appryzer might redeem the first as having the right of his Reversion so he might force him either to possess the whole whereby his Appryzing might be satisfied or give warrant to the second to Possess the remainder so likewise he might use Redemption It was alleadged for the third Appryzer that if the question were of the Redemption of the Land the second had good Right but the question being for the Mails and Duties a right of Reversion could never carry these without a Seasine The Lords considering the Point in Law and the great disadvantage the Leiges should sustain if all Appryzers were necessitat to take Infeftment They prefered the second Appryzer Cornelius Inglis contra Mr. Rodger Hog Eodem die MR. Cornelius Inglis being Infest upon an Appryzing pursues a Removing compearance is made for Mr. Rodger Hog who alleadged that he is also Infeft and had charged the Superiour though after the first Appryzer and had possessed seven years by lifting the Mails and Duties and therefore craved the benefit of a Possessorie Judgement The Lords having considered the Case amongst themselves whether an Appryzing and Charge without Infeftment could give the benefit of a Possessorie Iudgement They were equally divided in their Votes and the President resolved before he gave his Vote to settle the Parties contra Edmistoun of Carden Ianuary 6. 1665. EDmistoun of Carden being pursued by a Creditor of his Fathers as Lucrative Successor to his Father by accepting of a Disposition of his Fathers Lands after contracting of the Pursuers Debt alleadged absolvitor because being pursued beforeby another Creditor of his Fathers he did then alleadge that his Disposition was not Lucrative but for a Cause onerous equivalent to the worth of the Land which he proved by instructing the Rental and Rate of the Land at the time of the Disposition by Witnesses and the Sums undertaken for it by Writ whereupon he was Assoilzyed and can never be again conveened upon that ground nam obest exceptio rei judicatae for if he had been condemned as Lucrative Successorâ— upon the other Creditors Probation It would now have proven against him and therefore his beng Assoilzied must be profitable to him against others unless Collusion were alleadged and Instructed The Pursuer answered that this absolvitor was res inter alios acta and albeit a Condemature would have been effectual against the Defender non sequitur that an absolvitor should also be effectuall for him because he was called to that Condemnature but this Creditor was not at all called to the absolvitor 2. Even in a Condemnature if the Defender had omitted any thing that he might have alleadged in the one case competent and omitted would not hinder him to propone the same against another Creditor Therefore the Defender can only repeit the grounds of that absolvitor which if he do the Pursuer will alleadge That whereas in the absolvitor the Defender was admitted to prove the Rental The Pursuer omitted to crave the benefit of Probation which he would have gotten and this Pursuer offers him to prove that whereas the Rental was proven to but 18. Chalders of Victual the true Rental was worth 30. Chalder 3dly A part of the onerous Cause was the Portion of the Defuncts Children which would not Prejudge the Pursuer being an anterior Creditorâ— The Lords found that the absolvitor could not prejudge this Pursuer as to these points omitted and that it could not have effect inter alios except it had been in re antiqua where the Witness had died that in that case the Testimonies out of the former Process might be repeited but as to the Rental the Lords would not give the Pursuer the sole Probationâ— being so lubrick a point as not only what it payed but what the Lands were worth and it might have payed and ordained Witnesses to be examined hinc inde and found that the Bairns Portions not being payed bona fide before the intenting of this Cause could not prejudge the Creditor but ordained the Defender to Suspend on double
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
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
Sandilands the Debitor and that the filling up of Geddes Name being but an Assignation did necessarly require to accomplish it to Denude the Cedent an Intimation for seing express Assignations do necessarly require Intimation to prefer them to arrestments much more ought indirect Assignations which are suspect of Fraud and by which a Debitor may keep all his Estate in the Cloud that none of the Creditors can reach the same by arrestment or otherwise And it being answered that the Bond being delivered blank there was no present Creditor but a power granted to the Receiver of the Bond to make Creditor whom he pleased at least there was no certain Creditor so that Samuel Veatch was never Creditor but had only the power to make the Creditor and so needed not to be Denuded nor was there any Law or custom requiring intimation of the Names filled up in blank Bonds and if any such thing were done upon the accompt of Expediency it ought only to be in time coming The Lords adhered to their former Interlocutor and found Veatch to have been the true Creditor and the filling up of the other Name to be a Transmission equivalent to an Assignation and required Intimation as well for Cases past as to come for they thought that if Veatch before the filling of the Bond had been Rebel it would have fallen within his Escheat Edward Edgar contra Colvills Decemb. 2. 1665. EDward Edgar pursues Colvil Success or Lucrative to his Father Mr. Alexander Colvil in so far as he accepted an Assignation of an Heretable Bond unto which Bond he would have succeeded as Heir It was answered that this passive Title was never extended to Bonds of Provision granted by a Father to his eldest Son and if in security and satisfaction of such a Bond of Provision an Assignation of a Debt due to the Father and his Heirs were granted could not infer an universal Title to make the Accepter lyable to his Predecessors whole Debt so neither can an Assignation to a Bond which is no more in effect and such odious passive Titles are not to be extended but the Pursuer may Reduce upon the Act of Parliament 1621. or at the farthest may crave by this Process the simple avail of what the Defender hath intrometted with by vertue of the Assignation The Lords found the condescendence Relevant as being preceptio haereditatis and as an Assignation to a Tack or a small Annualrent hath been found sufficient so there is like or more Reason for Assignations to heretable Bonds which may be more easily conveyed away from Creditors but they found it not alike as to Bonds of Provision whereby the Father became Debitor and in satisfaction and security whereof he might Assign and would only import single payment but not an universal passive Title Hugh Mcculloh contra Mr. Iohn Craig Eodem die HVgh Mcculloh having Right to an Apprizing of an Heretable Bond of 2000. merks due by Umquhil Mr Robert Craig to Patrick Wood pursues Mr. Iohn Craig as Heir by progress for payment thereof and produces a new Extract of the Appryzing by the Clerk of the Appryzing together with the said Appryzing but so spoiled that neither the Subscription of the Messenger nor Clerk could be known The Defender alleadged no Process till the Principal Appryzing by the Messenger were produced because it being in effect the Executions of the Messenger to whom more was trusted then to the Clerk The Extract by the Clerk without the Messenger was not sufficient It was answered that Appryzings of old were all direct to the Sheriffs of the Shire and were in effect Judicial Process wherein Parties were Cited Called and Decerned and now the Messenger being Constitute Sheriff in that part by the Letters of Appryzing he may choise his own Clerk and the Extract of that Clerk is sufficient as of all other Clerks and albeit for more security both Clerk and Messenger Subscribe yet it hath not been determined how far the Messengers Subscription is necessar And the Decreet of Appryzing is not the Executions of the Appryzing which are distinct therefrom and Instructions thereof The Lords thought that the new Extract behoved either to be astructed with the Letters and Executions and other Adminicles or that they would not sustain it alone But the question was whether it should be astructed hoc ordine or by a proving of the Tenor in a several Process which was carried by the plurality Thomson contra Henderson Decem. 4. 1665. THomson having granted a Bond to his Brother of a sum of Money the same was assigned to Henderson who thereupon Charged The Debitor suspends and produces a Discharge by the Cedent of the same Date and Witnesses with the Bond and alleadged that the Debt being Discharged before the Assignation excluded the Assigney It was answered That the Discharge was granted most fraudulently so that the fraud betwixt the two Brethren is manifest to have been contrived to deceive any Person should Contract with the Creditor whom they saw to have a Bond of a solvendo Person in his handâ— and so might be induced to lend him Money or Contract with him in Marriage or otherwise and the Charger having upon that accompt lent him Money and taken Assignation cannot be excluded by this Contrivance which was done pessimo dolo It was answered First That dolus was not competent by way of Reply 2ly That the Assigney took the Assignation on his own Peril and he should have asked at the Debitor before he took it The Lords though the matter was of small Importance were willing to take the matter of fraud to consideration by way of Reply and therefore ordained the Suspender to condescend upon some reasonable Cause of the granting of the Bond and taking back a Discharge thereof at the same time Beg contra Beg. Decem. 5. 1665. BEg having Disponed some Land to his Son Redeemable on a Rose-Noble and having married a second Wife he Disponed the same to her in Liferent and assigned her to the Reversion The Father having used an Order pursues Declarator The Son alleadges absolvitor because he was assigned to an Appryzing Which Appryzing carried the Right of the Reversion of that Wodset and thereby his Father was Denuded of the Reversion and could not redeem the Wodset till he Redeemed the Appryzing It was answered that the Father was not simply Denuded during the Legal During which time the Appryzing was but like a Right granted in Security which Denuded not the Fiar as if the Son for Security of a Sum had been assigned to the Reversion the Father was not Denuded but might use the Order by which the Security was not worse but better the same holds in this Case and therefore it is that he against whom an Appryzing is led may Redeem the first Appryzing albeit the second Appryzer has appryzed the Reversion otherwise no man could redeem an Appryzing unless he redeemed all his appryzings at once which have different legals and
without any burden and Liferenters who having a speciall Competent Provision this general Clause being but adjected as uncertain is not so favourable or so to be extended seing the Husband did not Infeft the Wife in his own time in the Conquest And therefore found her to be lyable to the Annualrent of this Sum which they found instructed by the Hubands Declaration where the Ladies Father is a subscribing Witness Sir Rorie Mcclaud contra Walter Young and John Govane Eodem die WAlter Young Iohn Govan and Hendrie Hope by a Letter written to any that they should Buy Kows from in the Highlands desired that they might use the Bearer of the Letter kindly and for whatever quantity of Kows they bought they should answer such Bills as he should draw upon them therefore Hendrie Hope being broken Iames Gray as Assigney pursues the other two for the whole who alleadged they were only lyable for their own Parts It was answered that they were oblidged to answer such Bills as the Person intrusted by them should draw and they produce a Bill drawn by him upon them or either of them It was answered that such Bills can only relate to the Quantity and not to the Quality and manner of oblidging seing if they had so intended they would have oblidged them and either of them or it would have born what he should draw upon them or either of them should be answered The Lords found every one of them lyable in solidum for they thought that the Clause being dubious was to be interpret against the Writers and the Sellers of the Kows were bona fide to rest upon the interpretation of the Persons intrusted Sir John Leslie contra Sinclar and Dun. Ianuary 22. 1665. SIr Iohn Leslie as Assigney constitute by Sir William Dick to a Bond oblidging Francis Sinclar as Principal and young Dun as Cautioner to deliver 30 Chalders of Bear at 10 merk the Boll Dun alleadges absolvitor because he was Minor in Familia Paterna and so his Father was his Curator of Law and therefore his subscribing as Cautioner was null being without his Fathers consent It was answered the alleadgeance was not competent by exception against a clear liquid Bond. Secondly That the Defense is only competent in the Case of Curators chosen The Lords found the Defense Competent by way of Exception but before answer to the Relevancie ordained the Parties to condescend upon Duns age the time of his Subscription and whether he did then administrat or go about any other affairs Dame Rachel Burnet contra Lepers December 23. 1665. BY Contract of Marriage betwixt Mr. Iohn Leper and his Father and and Dame Rachel Burnet on the other part both Father and Son were oblidged to employ 20000 lib. upon security for the Liferent use of the said Dame Rachel who with concurse of Prestoun her present Husband pursues the Sisters of the said Mr. Iohn Leper as Heirs and otherwayes representing him and their Husbands for their entrests and likewise Doctor Balfours Wife only Daughter of an of the Sisters as Heir to her Father and Mother against whom there was Decreet of Registration obtained during their Lifetimes together and on this ground That the Defuncts Husband did by Contract of Marriage Disposition or otherwayes obtain Right to the Portion of his Wife one of the Sisters and Heirs and therefore is lyable in payment in quantum lucratus est It was alleadged for Doctor Balfour and his Wife that she was willing to renounce to be Heir to her Mother but as for the other passive Title as representing her Father who was locupleâ—ior factus it is no wayes relevant for Marriage is a cause onerous and Tochars are granted ad sustinenda onera matrimonij and therefore are never counted fraudulent deeds or without an onerous cause nor do they fall within the Act of Parliament 1621. against fraudful alienations neither was the Defenders Father lyable though there was a Decreet of Registration against him because before any Execution the Marriage was dissolved It was answered for the Pursuer that that member of the Lybel stands relevant because the Defenders Mother being Heir to her Brother the Contracter could not transmit her Estate to her Husband without the burden of her Brothers Debt and it is a most unquestionable Ground in Law and Equity quod nemo debet cum alieno damno locupletari and therefore Creditors are still preferred to Portions of Children though given for their Tochar The Lords found that Member not Relevant that Decreet was obtained against the Husband and Wife stante matrimonio seing it received not Execution and as to the other Member they thought that if there were but a moderat and ordinar Tochar proportionable to the burdens of the Marriage it would not infer Repitition or if the Tochar was great or an universal Disposition of all the Heirs Right they thought the Husband would be lyable in so far as it was above a proportionable Tochar and therefore before Answer Ordained the Contract of Marriage to be produced and the Pursuer to condescend if there was any other benefit accresced to the Husband by his Wife then by vertue of the Contract It was further alleadged for the Lady Pitmedden one of the Sisters on Life that she could only be lyable for her own sixth part as one of the six Heirs Portioners It was answered by our Law that all Heirs were lyable in solidum There was several Decisions alleadged on either hand on the 7. of February 1632. Hoom contra Hoom Where the Lords found the Heirs Portioners lyable but for their own share Another February 15. and March 21. 1634. Watson contra Or Whereby one of the Daughters having a Disposition of the whole Estate was found lyable for the whole Debt And another Ianuary 24. 1642. Where one of the Heirs Portioners having Disponed her share to the other and thereby being insolvent that other was found lyable in solidum The Lords having considered the Case found the Heir Portioner lyable iprmo loco only for her own share untill the rest of the Heirs Portioners were discust but determined not whether these who were solvendo should be lyable in solidum albeit the Debt exceeded their Portion or only intirely for their own share and for as much more as the value of their Succession could amount to Laird of Cesnock contra Lord Bargany Eodem die THE Laird of Cesnock and the Lord Bargany and Balcarras being bound conjunctly and severally in a Bond Cesnock being distressed for the whole takes Assignation and pursues Bargany for two thirds who alleadged payment and because it was a publick Debt he produced an incident in termino which the Lords sustained not because it buire no warrand to cite Cesnock the Principall Partie and the Executions were within 48 hours by one Person in Kyll Renfreu Fyfe and Edinburgh and so suspect but they superceeded Extract of the Decreet to the first of November contra Wilson and Lodwick Callender
her Spouse Ianuary 2. 1666. 〈…〉 pursues a Reduction ex capite Inhibitionis against Iean Wilson and Lodwick Callender her Spouse of all Dispsitions of certain Tenements of Leith made by the Common Author since the Inhibition It was alleadged for the Defenders absolvitor from this Reduction because the Defenders produced an Appryzing led against the common Author before the Inhibition and which is sufficient to maintain the Defenders Right of the Lands in question and to exclude all Rights and Interest the Pursuers can have thereto It was adswered non relevat seing the Pursuer is not insisting in a Reduction of all Right competent to the Defenders upon general Reasons either bearing expresly or by equivalence that the Pursuer had good Right and the Defender had no Right but the Pertner is insisting specially upon particular Rights called for and upon a special Reason viz. That they were after the Pursuers Inhibition so that albeit the Defender have another better Right than the Pursuer it will not be prejudged by this Reduction nor can it hinder the conclusion of this Summonds viz. That the Dispositions are null as being post Inhibitionem It was answered for the Defender that his Defense is relevant for he alleadging and producing a sufficient Right to the Lands whereof the Dispositions are called for to be Reduced it takes away all Interest in the Pursuer to these Lands and therefore he may justly thereupon exclude the Pursuer from troubling the Defender in this or any other Reduction which can have no effect It was answered that if this ground were layed no Reduction could be sustained of any particular Right called for to be reduced unless the Pursuer did reduce all Rights that the Defender could produce which is neither just nor conform to the Custom because Pursuers may have necessity to reduce some Rights in respect of the probation which may be lost as either Oaths of Parties or Witnesses and yet may not be in readiness to insist against all the Defenders Rights not having found out theirs or their Authors progress but the Lords may reserve the other Rights seing their is no possession or other effect craved but only Declaratoria juris The Lords in respect the Defenders were very poor and their case favourable Ordained the Pursuer to insist upon what he had to alleadge against the Defenders Appryzing produced as if it had been contained in the Reduction but it is not to be layed as a general Ground that in no case Reduction may proceed albeit it exclude not all the Rights produced in the Defenders person especially if any singularity as to the probation appeare George Graham and Jack contra Mr. Andrew Brian Ianuary 3. 1666. GEorge Grahame as Assigney by Iack having charged Mr. Andrew Brian he Suspends and raises Improbation wherein he insists and craves that the Assigney may abide by the Bond the Assigney declared that he would abide by it as being delivered to him as a reall true don Deed without any knowledge of his in the contrare and offered to produce the Cedent to abide by it who compearing It was alleadged that he was a Bankrupt and had a Bonorum and therefore behoved to find Caution to appear at all the Dyets of Process or to enter in Prison till the Cause were Discust or at least that the Assigney would be oblidged to produce him The Lords having considered the Case found that the◠Assigney was oblidged no further then what was offered and they found the Cedent not oblidged to find Caution or enter in Prison but that he should Enact himself to compear Iudicially whensoever any Point of the Improbation were referred to his Oath which might infer the falshood of the Writ if confest and that if in that Case he compeared not the Bond should be improven not only to him but as to the Assigney inferring no hazard to the Assigney as to the Criminal part if he were not found accessory David and Andrew Fairfouls contra Mr. James Binni Ianuary 4. 1666. THE Bairns of the Umquhil Bishop of Glasgow having charged Mr. Iames Binni to pay a 1000 merks he Suspends and alleadges that they were Minors not sufficiently Authorized in so far as they did choose Mr. Iohn Harper and Achmoutie and their Mother to be their Curators or any two of them their Mother alwayes being one so that their Mother being Dead who was sine qua non there behoved to be a new Election It was answered that the Pupils were willing to compear and acknowledge thir Curators as their Curators which is sufficient to Authorize Which the Lords found relevant Laird◠of Milton contra Lady Milton Eodem die THE Laird of Milton pursuing a Reduction of a Decreet of Divorce pronounced by the Commissaries of Edinburgh at the instance of the Lady Milton his Step-mother against Calderwood her last Husband upon Adulterie desired that the Testimonies of the Witnesses might be made privat to him being a matter of so great Importance as tending to take away the Right of the Ladies Jointure disponed be her Husband to this Milton The Lords refused the desire but Ordained the Clerks to give a Note expressing the names Designations and the preambulatory questions in the Depositions as their age married or Not purged of partial Council c. Lady Bute and her Husband contra Sheriff of Bute Ianuary 5. 1666. THE Ladie Bute and her Husband pursue a Reduction of a Right of a part of her Conjunct-fee made in favours of her Son upon this Ground that it was done after her Contract of Marriage with her present Husband and publick Proclamation in the Kirk thereupon It was answered First That once Proclamation was not sufficient 2dly That it was offered to be proven that the Husband knew that the Right was granted and yet he proceeded in the Proclamation and Marriage which behoved to proport his acquiescence and consent and alleadged likewise the Case was most favourable because the Lady had married unsuitably her Husbands Chapland It was answered for the Pursuer that once Proclamation is sufficient as has been several times found and that there is no weight to be layed upon her Husbands knowledge who knew he had a remeed competent in Law whereby the Deed done by his Wife after the Contract and Proclamation would be null and so his going on in the Marriage did not infer his acquiescence or Homolagation And as for the favour of the cause it is much more on the Pursuers part who being provided by her Husband to 27 Chalders of Victuall had before the Contract of Marriage quite 20 to her Son and of the seven remaining he had urged her to quite 100 lib. And 7 bolls of Victual were only now in question The Lords found the Reason of Reduction relevant and repelled the Defense upon the Husbands knowledge for they thought that as Deeds of a Wife cled with a Husband without his consent are null after the Solemnization of the Marriage
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
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
Writ that the Instructions were retained in his hand Iohn Auchinleck contra Mary Williamson and Patrick Gillespy December 18. 1667. MAry Williamson Lady Cumlidge having taken Assignation to several Debts of her Husbands Appryzed the Estate from her Son and in September 1662. Dispones the Estate to her Eldest Son reserving her own Liferent of the Maines and Miln and with the burden of five thousand Merks for Iohn Auchinleck her second Son at the same time her eldest Son grants a Tack to Patrick Gillespy bearing expresly that because he was to Marry his Mother and to possesse the Mains at the next Term therefore he Sets the Land for an inconsiderable Duty for a year after his Mothers Death there was no Contract of Marriage betwixt the said Mary and the said Patrick but they were Married in December thereafter and he possessed it till this time and now Iohn Auchinleck pursues for Mails and Duties bygone and in time coming as having Assignation to the Reservation granted by his Mother It was alleadged for Patrick that as for bygones Absolvitor because he was bonae fidei Possessor by vertue of the Reservation in favours of his Wife belonging to him jure mariti 2dly The Assignation made to the Pursuer was most fraudulent being granted at the time of the Agreement of Marriage betwixt the said Patrick and his Wife and there being a Provision granted to the Pursuer of five thousand Merks the said Mary did most fraudfully at that same time Assigne the Reservation and so left nothing to her Husband but a woman past sixty years It was answered that where there is a solemn Contract of Marriage and Proclamation Deeds done thereafter cannot prejudge the Husband but here there is neither Contract nor Proclamation alleadged and albeit there had been fraud in the Mother the Son being a Boy and absent was no way partaker thereof and cannot be prejudged thereby It was answered for the Defender that he hath a Reduction depending of this ex capite fraudis and if the Wife could do no fraudful Deed after the Agreement of Marriage it will thereby be null whether the Son was partaker or not unless he had been an Acquirer for an Onerous Cause and albeit there was no Contract of Marriage in Writ yet the foresaid Tack evidences an Agreement of Marriage At Advising of the Cause the Lords thought this conveyance a very Cheat and it occurred to them that the Marriage and jus Mariti is a legal Assignation and there having been nothing done by the Son to intimat this Assignation or to attain Possession thereby before the Marriage the Husband by the Marriage had the first compleat Right and was therefore preferable and likewise they found the Husband free of bygones as bonae fidei Possessor any found that the Reason of Reduction upon fraud after the Agreement of the Marriage evidenced by the Tack bearing the Narrative of the intended Marriage of the same date with the Pursuers Right and the Disposition to the eldest Son relevant to Reduce the Pursuers Assignation in so far as might be prejudicial to the Husband Sir Thomas Nicolson contra the Laird of Philorth Eodem die UMquhil Sir Thomas Nicolson having pursued the Laird of Philorth before the late Judges as representing his Grand-father who was Cautioner in a Bond for the Earl Marishal there being an Interlocutor in the Process Sir Thomas dying his Son transfers the Process and insists The Defender alleadged that the Bond was prescribed as to his Grand-father by the Act of Parliament King Iames the sixth anent prescription of Obligations bearing that if no pursute were moved nor document taken within 40 years that these Bonds should prescribe Ita est there was no pursute nor document against the Defenders Grand-father by the space of 40. years and therefore as to him it was prescribed The Pursuer answered that he opponed the Act of Parliament and Interlocâ—tor of the Judges in his favours and offered him to prove that the Annualrent was payed by the Principal Debtor within these 40. years and his Discharge granted thereupon which was sufficient document and the Pursuer not having been negligent nor at all bound to pursue or seek the Cautioners when he got Annualrent from the Principal the Obligation of both stands entire The Defender answered that the Principal and Cautioners being bound conjunctly and severally albeit in one Writ yet the Obligations of each of them was a distinct Obligation and as the Cautioner might be Discharged and yet the principal Obligation stand so the prescription is a legall Discharge presuming the Creditor past from the Cautioner seing he never owned him for 40. years which is most favourable on the part of Cautioners who otherwise may remain under unknown Obligations for an hundreth years The Pursuer answered that albeit there might have been some appearance of reason if the Persons obliged had been all Co-principals or bound by distinct Writs yet whether Writ and Obligation is one and the Cautioners Obligation thereby but accessory and the Creditor no way negligent there is no ground of such a presumption that the Creditor past from any Party obliged and the Obligations mentioned in the Act of Parliament is not to be meaned according to the subtility of distinction of different notions of Obligations but according to the common Style and meaning of Obligations whereby one Writ obliging Principal and Cautioners is always accompted an Obligation which is sufficiently preserved by payment obtained from the Principal The Lords adhered to the former Interlocutor and repelled the Defense of prescription in respect of the Reply of payment made of the Annualrents made by the Principal Robert Dâ—by contra the Lady of Stonyhil Eodem die THe Lady Stonyhil being Provided in Liferent to an Annualrent of 2800. Merks her Son pursues her for an Aliment both upon the Act of Parliament in respect that the Defuncts Debt was equivalent to all the rest of the Estate beside her Liferent and also super jure naturae as being obliged to Aliment her Son he having no Meaâ—â— and she having a plentiful Provision The Lords in consideration of the newnesse of the Case and that the Debts that might exhaust the Estate were most part personal and no Infeftment thereon before or after the Defuncts death recommended to one of their Number to endeavour to agree the Parties Adam Gairns contra Elizabeth Arthur December 19. 1667. ADam Gairns as Assigney Constitute by Patrick Hepburn pursues Elizabeth Arthur for the Drogs furnished to her and her Children at her desire It was alleadged Absolvitor because she was and is cled with a Husband and the Furniture could only oblige him but not her It was Replyed that she had a peculiar Estate left by her Father wherefrom her Husband was secluded and which was appointed for her Entertainment that her Husband was at that time and yet out of the Countrey and hath no Means The Lords found the Reply Râ—levant Arcâ—ibald Wilsâ—n
that an Annualrent hath not the benefit of a possessory Judgement against a prior Annualrent The Laird of Glencorsse younger contra his Brethren and Sisters Ianuary 10. 1668. THe Laird of Glencorsse having Married his eldest Son and having Disponed to him his whole Estate with Warrandice after the Disposition he did Deliver certain Bonds of Provision in favours of his other Children unto these Children whereupon they Appryze the Lands Disponed to his Son in this Contract there was a Liferent reserved to the Father and nine thousand Merks of Tocher payed to the Father The Son pursues a Reduction of the Bairns Infeftment and Bonds in so far as might be prejudicial to the Disposition granted to him upon this Reason that the Bonds were no delivered Evidents before his Disposition It was answered that they were valide though not Delivered because the Fathers Custody was the Childrens Custody especially they being in his Family both at the time of the Subscribing of the Bonds and of the making of this Disposition and it was â—ever contraverted but that Bonds granted by a Father to his Children though never Delivered during his Life but found amongst his Writs after his Death were valide both to affect his Heirs and Executors The Pursuer answered that his Reason of Reduction stands yet relevant notwithstanding the answer because albeit it be true that Bonds Dispositions and Provisions in favours of Children are valide when they are Delivered by the Parents in their Life or if they have remained uncancelled in their Hands till their Death yet till Delivery or Death they are still pendent Ambulatory Rights and may always be recalled at the pleasure of the Granter and any Deed done by him expresly recalling them or clearly inferring his mind to recall them doth annul them before Delivery ita est the Pursuers Disposition bearing expresse Warrandice against all Deeds done or to be done by the Father granter of these Bonds doth evidently declare his mind that his purpose was not that these Bonds should affect these Lands otherwise he would either reserve the Bonds or a power to burden the Lands and if this were Sustained no Contract of Marriage Disponing the Fee to a Son could be secure it being easie to grant such Bonds and to keep them up above the Sons Head and therewith to affect the Fee yea it would be sufficient against any Stranger unlesse it were for an Onerous Cause 2kly There is not only a Revocation but these Provisions were no Debt of the Fathers prior to the Sons Disposition or Delivery for albeit the date be prior yet the time of their becoming a Debt is only Death or Delivery and therefore all Debt contracted or Deeds done by the Father before his Death or Delivery of the Bonds are prior as to the Obligation thereof to the Bonds so that the Sons Disposition is truly prior as to its Obligations to these Bonds The Defender answered to the first that albeit such Bonds be Revocable before Delivery yet here there is no expresse Revocation but only presumption inserred from the Fathers giving a posterior Disposition which is no sufficient ground either â—rom the Disposition or the Warrandice for the Fathers mind might have been that he would endeavour out of his Liâ—erent or Moveables to Portion his Children and so would not absolutely Burden the Fee but yet in case he should Die or not be able to do it he would not Revock the Bonds even as to that Right which is much rather to be presumed as being much more rational and probable seing there is not any Provision or power of Provision reserved in the Contract neither is there any competent way alleadged for providing of three Children but if this Sole presumption be sufficient though a Father should Dispone his whole Estate without any Reservation of Children or to be so inconsiderat as not to except his Aliment all prior Provisions for his Life-rent undelivered should cease and become ineffectual contrair to that Natural obligation of Parents to provide their Children against which no presumption can be prevalent As to the other ground Provisions though not Delivered can be in no worse case then Bonds delivered with a Condition that the Father might recall the same which would be valid from their Date if they were never actually recalled and so must Bonds of Provision be at least as to gratuitous Deeds after their Date though before Delivery as if a Father should grant Bonds of Provision to many Children at once and should Deliver some of them before the rest if he had not Means sufficient to pay all the Bonds first Delivered could not be thought to exhaust his whole Means and exclude the other Bonds of Provision but all would come in pari passu according to their Dates except their Diligence alter the Case The Lords notwithstanding of what was alleadged found the Reason of Reduction relevant and that the undelivered Bonds of Provision though prior in Date yet posterior in Delivery could not affect the Fee interveening Here there was much alleadged upon the Onerosity of the Pursuers Disposition which came not to be considered in the Decision Grant contra Grant Ianuary 11. 1668. WIlliam Grant of Markinsh pursues a Tutor Compt against Iohn Grant of Ballandallock his Tutor in which these points being reported to the Lords whether the Tutor were lyable for the value of Services of the Pupils Tennents by Harrowing Plowing and Shearing c. And for which the Tutor received no Money but the Services in kind The Lords found the Tutor not Comptable therefore because he could not force the Tennents to pay any price for the same And as to that point the Tutor being super-expended the Pupil might be Decerned upon the Pupils own Process against the Tutor without a distinct Process at the Tutor instance The Lords found he might Parkman contra Captain Allan Ianuary 14. 1668. CAptain Allan having obtained a Decreet against Parkman a Swede Adjudging his Ship Pryze upon these Grounds that she was Sailed with three persons of her Company being Hollanders and Danes being then the Kings Enemies and because she had carried of the Enemies Goods from Bergen in Norway to Amsterdam from whence having gone to France with Ballast and being Loaden there with Salt she did also carry in to France six Barrels of Tar which was sold in France as appears by an Accompt betwixt the â—kipper and his Factor in France bearing so much to be payed of the Kings and Towns Custom of the Tar which necessarly Imports that it was sold there likewise she carried in Stock-fish being Commeatus and Counterband Goods so that having sold several Lasts of Tar in Holland and these Barrals and Stock-fish in France which are clearly Counterband Goods and being taken in her return from France having in her the product of these Counterband Goods whereupon she was jâ—â—tly declared Prize conform to the Lord Admirals Commission ordaining Ships of Allies to be taken having
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
payment of a Debt due to him by a Person Incarcerat in their Tolbooth who escaped The Defenders alleadged no Processe till the Magistrats who then were especially Bailly Boyd by whose Warrand the Rebel came out be called 2dly The present Magistrats cannot be lyable Personally having done no Fault neither can they be lyable as representing the Burgh at least but subsidiarie after the Magistrats who then were in culpa were Discussed now after six or seven years time The Pursuer answered that the Prison being the Prison of the Burgh the Burgh was lyable principaliter and if only the Magistrat doing the Fault were lyable the Creditor might oftimes loose his Debt these being oftimes of no Fortune or sit to Govern and the Town who Choiseth them is answerable for them neither is the Pursuer obliged to know who were Baillies at that time or who did the fault and so is not bound to Cite them The Lords Repelled the Defences and found the present Magistrats as representing the Town lyable but prejudice to them to Cite them who did the Fault Robert Ker contra Henry Ker February 5. 1668. RObert Ker of Graden having granted Bond to Robert Ker his Son for 3000. Merks of borrowed Money and 3000. Merks of Portion for which Sum he did Infeft him in an Annualrent of 240. Pound yearly Suspending the Payment of the one half of the Annualrent till his Death whereupon Robert pursues a Poinding of the Ground It was alleadged for Henry Ker the eldest Son who stands now Infeft in the Lands Absolvitor because he stands Infeft in the Lands before this Infeftment of Annualrent being but base took effect by Possession The Pursuer answered first That the Defenders Infeftment being posterior and granted to the appearand Heir without a Cause Onerous it is perceptio Haereditatis and if the Father were Dead it would make the Defender lyable as Heir and therefore now he cannot make use thereof in prejudice of the Pursuer 2dly The Pursuer offered to prove that his Annualrent was cled with Possession before the Defenders Infeftment in so far as he Received the half of the Annualâ—ent which is sufficient to validat the Infeftment for the whole seing there are not two Annualrents but one for the whole Sum and seing the 〈◊〉 could do no more the one half of the Annualrent being Suspended till his Fathers Death The Lords found this second Reply relevant and found the Possession of the half was sufficient to validat the Possession for the whole but superceded to give answer to the former Reply till the conclusion of the Cause not being clear that the Defense upon the Defenders Inseftment could be taken away summarly though he was appearand Heir without Reduction upon the Act of Parliament 1621. Mr. George Iohnstoun contra Sir Charles Erskin February 6. 1668. THe Lands of Knockâ—â—â— being part of the Lands of Houdon did belong to Umquhil Richard Irwing Umquhile Mr. Iohn Alexander Minister having Charged Robert Irwing to enter Heir in special to the said Richard his Grand-sir in these Lands he did Appryze the same from Robert as specially Charged to enter Heir but Robert died before he was Infeft or Charged the Superior Sir Charles Erskine hath Appryzed from Mr. Iohn Alexander all Right competent to him in these Lands and thereby having Right to Mr. Iohn Alexanders Appryzing he is Infeft thereupon After Robert Irwings Decease his Sisters served themselves Heir to Richard their Grand-sir and are Infeft do Dispone to Mr. George Iohnstoun who is also Inseft Mr. George pursues for Mails and Duties in the Name of Irwings his Authors Compearance is made for Sir Charles Erskine who alleadged Absolvitor First Because he hath been seven years in Possession of the Lands in question by vertue of Mr. Iohn Alexanders Appryzing and his own and so is tulus exceptione in judicio possessâ—rio and cannot be quarrelled till his Right be Reduced 2dly He is potior jure and his Right must exclude the Pursuers because he having Right to Mr. Iohn Alexanders Appryzing which was Deduced against Robert Irwing as specially Charged to enter Heir so Richard as to him is in as good case as Robert had been actually Entered and Infeft by the Act of Parliament declaring that when Parties are Charged to enter Heir and lyes out sicklike Processe and Execution shall be against them as they were actually Entered likeas the Tenor of the special Charge introduced by Custom to perfect the foresaid Act of Parliament bears expresly that the Person Charged shall enter specially and obtain himself Infeft with Certification that the user of the Charge shall have the like Execution against him as if he were Entered and Infeft and therefore Mr. Iohn Alexanders Appryzing against Robert Iâ—wing so Charged was as effectual to him as if Robert had been actually Infeft in which case there is no question but the Appryzer might obtain himself Infeft upon the Appryzing after the Death of him against whom he Appryzed and that summarly without new Processe and there is no difference whether the Superior were Charged during the Life of the Debtor or not The Pursuer answered to the first that no Party can claim the benefit of a Possessory judgement unlesse he have a real Right by Infeftment at least by Tack but a naked Appryzing thoug it may carry Mails and Duties as a naked Assigation and is valide against the Debtor or his Heir â—et in it self it is an incompleat Right and not become real It was answered that the Appryzing alone was sufficient as was lately found in the Case of Mr. Rodger Hog against the Tennent of Wauchtoun The Lords repelled the first Defense and found there was no grond for a Possessory judgement here there was neither Infeftment nor Charge upon the Appryzing The Pursuer answered to the second Defense that it was not relevant to exclude him because Richard Irving having Dyed last vest and seised in the Lands and Robert Irving never having been Inâ—eft the Pursuers Roberts Sisters who were Heirs appearand buth to Richard their Grand-sir and Robert their Brother could not possibly obtain themselves Infeft as Heirs to their Brother becuse the Inquest could not find that Robert Dyed last vest and seised as of Fee but Richard and any Appryzing against Robert who was never Infeft evanished seing no Infeftment was obtained upon the Appryzing nor no Charge used against the Supperior during Roberts Life so that the Appryzer ought to have Charged de novo these Pursuers to Enter Heir to Richard and ought to have Appryzed from them as lawfully Chaged and to have obtained Infeftment upon the Appryzing in their Life and as the Sisters would exclude the imperfect Diligence against the Brother so much more may Mr. George Iohnstoun who is their singular Successor It was duplyed by the Defender that Mr. George Iohnstoun albeit he be singular Successor yet he is Infeft after Sir Charles Erskin and therefore the question now is only betwixt
as were not constitute by Writ anterior to the Defenders Bond and as to any constitute by Probation of Witnesses for proving Bargains Merchant Compts and Furnishing wherein the Probation and Decreet are both after the Bond they cannot be said to be anterior Debts because they are not constitute till Sentence and albeit the Sentence bear the Debt to have been contracted before this Bond yet that cannot make them anterior Debts because Writ cannot be taken away by Witnesses proving an anterior Debt which would be as effectual against the Writ as if the payment thereof had been proven by Witnesses and the time of Bargaining or Furnishing being a point in the Memory and not falling under the Sense no body would be secure who had Writ but that Bargains and Furniture might be proven anterior thereto The Pursuer answered that his Reason was most Relevant and the constitution of the Debt is not by the Decreet or Probation but by the Bargain and Receipt of the Goods or Furniture after which no posterior Deed of the Debitor can prejudge the Creditors Furnishers and albeit in many cases Witnesses prove not and Witnesses are not admitted to prove where Writ may and uses to be interposed yet where the Probation is competent the Debt is as well proven thereby for the time of contracting as it is by Writ neither doth that ground that Writ cannot be taken away by Witnesses any way hinder for the meaning hereof is only that the Payment or Discharge of that Writ must be proven by Writ and it were a far greater inconvenience if after Bargain and Furniture any Writ granted by the Debitor though without an Onerous Cause should prejudge these Creditors The Lords Sustained the Reason and Repelled the Defense and found Debts constitute by Witnesses to be effectual from the time of contracting and not from the time of Probation or Sentence to take away any posterior Deed of the Debitor done without a Cause Onerous The Pursuer insisted in a second Reason of Reduction that albeit these Debts were posterior to this Bond yet the samine ought to be Reduced as being a fraudulent conveyance betwixt the Father and the Son kept up and latent in some of their Hands without any thing following thereupon to make it known and publick so that the Creditors having bona fide contracted with the Father having a visible Estate were deceived and defrauded by this latent Bond if it were preferred to them 2dly This Bond bears only to be payable after the Fathers Death and so is but donatio mortis causa and but a Legacy or if it be inter vivos it is much more fraudulent and latent 3dly Bonds of Provision for Love and Favour granted to children are accompted but as their legitime still Revockable by the Father and all Debts contracted by him are preferable to them The Defender answered that there was neither Law Reason nor Custom to evacuat or exclude Bonds of Provision granted by Parents ex pietate paterna to their Children upon accompt of their Fathers posterior Debt especially if the Bonds were Delivered for there is no ground for any such thing by the Act of Parliament 1621. which relates only to Deeds done after the Debt contracted neither is there any sufficient ground of fraud that the Bonds were not made publick or known there being no obligement upon Parties to publish the same and Creditors have less means to know the Debts of other anterior Creditors then of Children having a just ground to suspect that they may be provided and to enquire after the same neither doth the delay of the Term of payment import either fraud or that the Bonds were donationes mortis causa The Lords would not Sustatin the Reasons of Reduction upon the Act of Parliament 1621. or upon the general ground that posterior Debts were preferable to all Bonds of Provision but ordained the Pursuer to condescend upon the particular ground of fraud in the Case in question The Collector-general of the Taxation contra the Director of the Chancellery Ianuary 22. 1669. THe Director of the Chancellery being Charged for the present Taxation imposed in Anno 1665. by the Convention of Estates Suspend on this Reason that he is a Member of the Colledge of Justice which by the Act of Convention are exempted It was answered that the Members of the Colledge of Justice were never further extended then to the Lords Advocates Clerks of Session and the Writters to the Signet It was answered that as the Signet depends immediatly and chiefly upon the Lords of Session and Writters thereto are of the Colledge of Justice so the Chancellery depends in the same way upon the Lords who issue Orders thereto from time to time to give out Precepts direct to Superiours or to Bailliffs Sheriffs for Infefting of Supplicants and therefore the Director of the Chancellary being Writer in that Office must enjoy that Priviledge as well as the Writers to the Signet for albeit the Director gives out Precepts and Brieves of Course without the Lords Warrand so do the Writers to the Signet give out many Summons of course without Warrand The Lords found the Director of the Chancellary to be a Member of the Colledge of Justice and therefore Suspended the Letters The Collector general of the Taxations contra The Master and Servants of the Mint-house Eodem die THe Master of the Mint did also Suspend for him and his Servants on this Reason that it was their ancient Priviledge to be free of Taxations for which they produced certain Gifts by former Kings of Scotland and Decreets of the Lords It was answered that the Act of Convention gives only Exemption to the Members of the Colledge of Justice and Discharges all former Priviledges and Exemptions It was answered that Acts of the Convention must be understood salvo jure which takes place even in Acts of Parliament 2dly They produced a late Gift granted by the King in Anno 1668. Exeeming the Master and Servants of the Mint from all Taxation Imposed or to be Imposed which is past the Exchequer and Privy Seal so that the King who hath Right to the Taxation might Discharge the same to whomsoever he pleased The Lords in respect of the new Gift did Exeem the Officers of the Mint and Suspended the Letters The Daughters of umquhil Chrichtoun of Crawfoordstoun contra Brown of Inglistoun Eodem die THe Daughters of umquhil Crichtoun of Crawfoordstoun as Heirs appearand to him immediatly after his Death gave in a Supplication to the Lords desiring his Charter-Chist to be Inventared and Sequestrat Which the Lords granted But before the Commission came to the House William Lowry the Ladies Nevoy upon notice of the Order Rode Night and Day and prevented the same so that all the Writs were carried from Crawfoordstoun to Inglisstoun Thereafter the appearand Heirs raised Exhibition ad deliberandum against the Lady and others who produced three Dispositions by Crawfordstoun in favours of Brown of
young Garner was then an Infant in his Fathers Family and albeit the Right be granted by his Uncle yet it is necessarly inferred to be Acquired by the Fathers Means because it bears not for Love and Favour but for Sums of Money and the Uncle had Bairns of his own It was answered that albeit the Right had been Acquired by the Fathers Means yet its anterior to the Apprizing and Sums on which it proceeds whereupon nothing can be taken away but what is posterior thereto albeit there were a Declarator and Reduction intented for that purpose as there is none The Lords Sustained the alleadgeance and Reduced the Apprizing as to these Tenements 2dly The Pursuer alleadges the Apprizing as to Lady-kirk must be Reduced because the Pursuers produce a prior Infeftment granted by Iohn Garner to his Wife in Liferent and his Bairns in Fee it was answered that the said Infeftment was base never cled with Possession The Pursuers Replyed that the Fathers Liferent not being Reserved the continuation of Possession was as lawful Administrator to the Pursuers Bairns and if need be 's its offered to be proven he had a Factory from them The Defender answered that a Fathers Possession being continued was never found to validate a base Infeftment granted to his Children albeit his Liferent were expresly Reserved but it s ever accounted a latent fraudulent Deed and a Factory can be of no more force then a Reservation otherwise it were impossible to obviat fraudulent conveyances betwixt Fathers and Children The Pursuer answered that albeit such Reservations are not valide in Rights freely granted by Fathers yet it meets not this case especially where there was an anterior Onerous Cause Iohn Garner being obliged by his Contract of Marriage that what Lands he should Acquire should be to his Wife in Liferent and to the Bairns of the Marriage The Lords found that the Bairns Infeftment granted by their Father albeit he had Possest by a Factory from them was not cled with Possession or sufficient to exclude a posterior publick Infeftment and that the Clause in the Contract was but to substitute the Children Heirs to their Father in the Conquest Here it was not alleadged that the Factory was made publick by Process founded at the Fathers Instance or otherwise in this Process The Defender to satisfie the Production of an Assignation upon which the Apprizing proceeded which the Pursuers offered to improve as false in the Date and the Defender now produced another Assignation of the same Date and declared he abade by the same as of that Date and that it being a missing he had caused the Cedent to Subscribe another of the same Date with the first which did expresly bear Reservation of another Assignation formerly Subscribed which he did also bide be as truly Subscribed but not of the Date it bears but of the Date of the true Assignation insert therein The Lords Sustained the Assignation now last produced and did not quarrel the other Assignation though another Date was insert then when it was Subscribed for the Cause foresaid Alexander Glasse contra Iohn Haddin Eodem die ALexander Glasse and William Reid having a proper Wodset of the Lands of Alairtnenie and Iohn Haddin being also Infeft in an Annualrent forth thereof some days prior compet for the Maills and Duties Haddin alleadged that both infeftments being base from the same Author his Infeftment of Annualrent is preferable because prior and first cled with Possession It was answered any Possession he had was by a Factory from Glass It was replyed that he offered to prove Possession before that Factory It was duplyed that by Haddins back Bond produced bearing expresly that Glasse had had a valide Right to the Maills and Duties of the Lands and that he was in Possession thereof and that Haddin had accepted a Factory from him and was obliged to compt to him for the Maills and Duties without any Reservation of his own Right this was an unquestionable Homologation and acknowledgement of the Right and equivalent to a Ratification thereof The Lords found by the back Bond produced of the Tenor foresaid that Haddin had so far acknowledged Reid and Glasses Right that he could not quarrel it upon his own Right but he proponing that there was a Reservation of his own Right related to in the back Bond the Lords found the same Relevant he proving Possession before the other Party and before the Factory The Old Colledge of Aberdeen contra the Town of Aberdeen Iuly 13. 1669. THe Principal and the remanent Members of the old Colledge of Aberdeen having Set a Tack to Doctor Dun of his Teinds during the Principals Life and five years thereafter and bearing an Obligement to renew the like Tack from time to time for ever The Doctor Mortified the same to the Town for plous uses after the Death of that Principal many years The Colledge now pursues the Possessors of the Lands upon an Inhibition for the full value of the Teinds and the Town Defends upon the foresaid Tack It was answered for the Colledge that the Tack is only for the Principals Life and five years after which is expired and as for the new Obligement to renew such Tacks for ever It was answered First Albeita Tack were conceived in these Terms it would be null as wanting an ish 2dly Obligements of the present Incumbents in Universities are not obligator but where there is an equivalent Cause Onerous Received for the good of the University It was replyed for the Town that an Obligement to grant a Tack by them who can grant it is equiparat to the Tack it self which requires no other solemnity as an obligement to grant an Assignation is equivalent to an Assignation and that there is here a Cause Onerous of the Universities Obligement because the Tack bears expresly 300. Merks of grassum and that the former Tack-duty was only ten Merks which by this Tack is made 50. Merks and albeit it want a desinit ish yet it must be valide for a Renovation during this Principals Life and five years after and it is Homologat by the Colledge who have received the same Duties several years since the first Tack expired It was duplyed for the Colledge that this Tack is not valide for any time after the first ish because by the Act of Parliament 1617. Tacks by beneficed Persons under Prelats are prohibit for longer time nor their own Life and five years after and these Teinds are a part of the benefice Mortified to the Colledge and they must be accounted as beneficed Persons and albeit the Teinds were augmented to 50. Merks yet they are worth 200. Merks and for the Receipt of the Duties after the first Tack it is per tacitamrelocatiâ—nem and no Homologation of the Obligement to renew the Tack The Lords found that the Colledge was not comprehended under beneficed Persons but found that there was no sufficient Cause Onerous alleadged for this Obligement of Renewing
bona fide continued the same seing the Father continued in Possession of the Lands and built thereupon and gave an Infeftment of Annualrent to the Merchants after the Infeftment granted to his Son and likewise raised a Poinding of the Ground upon his Infeftment of Annualrent whereupon he now insists It was alleadged for the Son and the Lord Tarphichen that the Sons Right being publick and Registrat in the publick Registers prior to the Pursuers Annualrent for the Bonds whereupon the same proceeds it doth fully exclude them from Poinding of that Ground The Merchants repeat their Declarator by way of reply To which it was answered that whatsoever may be said of Latent and Clandestine Rights betwixt Fathers and Children and other confident Persons yet there is no Law hindering a Father to give an publick Infeftment to his Son unlesse it be in prejudice of the Creditors to whom he was due Sums at that time which being a valide pubick Right no Deed or pretence of fraud of the Father thereafter can prejudge the Son in his Right who being an Infant was not capable to be partaker of fraud neither can fraud be presumed as to Creditors who are but to Contract thereafter nor can a publick Right Registrat and a publick Seising which all the World may and all Concerned ought to know be esteemed a contrivance or fradulent Right and as to any Commerce betwixt these Merchants and the Father which began before the Sons Right no respect can be had thereto because the Pursuers Bonds are lately for a Sum of Money and must import that the former Debts by Traffick were past from or Discharged and if need beis offered to prove that they were actually Discharged 2dly The making up a Debt to be prior to take away the Sons Infeftment can only be probably by Writ or Oath of Party and not by Witnesses who cannot prove above 100. Pounds 3dly Though the cause of the Bond were proven to be a Correspondence and Traffick begun before the Sons Infeftment it is no ways relevant against any Provisions gotten after the Infeftment for such can have effect but from their own Date and the effect is cut off as to what is posterior to this publick Infeftment seing the Merchants did either follow Massons Faith upon their hazards or else they should have had a Procurator here and taken advice how they might have been secured of Massons Estate by the Law of Scotland who would have taken notice by the Registers that Masson was denuded by a publick Infeftment which nothing he could do thereafter could prejudge and would have certified the Merchants thereof and their failing therein is on their own peril and albeit their payment and acting bona fide is sometimes good though made to these who had not a valide but a colourable Right by these who knew not a better Right and might have been compelled to pay upon the colourable Right yet other Deeds though bona fide done are upon the peril of the Actor To which it was answered that by the common Law and Custom of this Nation all fraudulent Deeds are Reduceable and there can be no Deed more fraudulent then this of a Father to his own Infant Son for whom he is legal Administrator and must accept the Right he gives himself and so colludes with himself to make a snare to intrap Merchants and Strangers in the midst of a course of Trade with them which is a common ground of Law whether the Debt be prior or posterior to the Sons Infeftment and albeit the Merchants Bond be posterior yet seing it bears to be for Ware Witnesses according to the ordinar custom are Receiveable for astructing the Writ to prove what the Ware was and when Received which will not be prejudged though there had been a Discharge of the Ware granted the time of the Bond unlesse there had been a real and true payment of the Money for there being nothing then payed this Bond ceases not to have a true anterior Cause as if it had been granted on Death-bed upon a Discharge then given it would be valide as being upon an anterior Cause before the Sicknesse neither is there any difference to be made of the Parts of the Traffick after the Sons Infeftment but seing the Correspondence began before and is once continued as a constant Correspondence and Traffick it must all be drawn back to its beginning as if the Merchants on both sides had Contracted when they began their Correspondence that they should faithfully pay what either of them Received from other till the Correspondence was given up The Lords found that this Bond although posterior to the Sons Infeftment not bearing borrowed Money but Merchant Ware that the quantity and times of furnishing thereof might be proven by Witnesses and albeit there had been a Discharge of the Ware yet so much thereof as was furnished before the Sons Infeftment would affect the same but found that the Sons Infeftment being publick and Registrat no posterior Deed of the Fathers by continuing Traffick or Correspondence nor no pretence of fraud of his could annul or burden the said Infeftment for any Debt contracted posterior thereto Executors of Mr. Thomas Ridpeth contra Iohn Hume Eodem die IN a Competition betwixt the Executors Creditors of Mr. Thomas Ridpeth about a Sum due to Mr. Thomas by Bond and by him Assigned to Iohn Hume who not having Intimat it in Mr. Thomas his Lifetime did thereafter get payment of a part of the same and a Bond of Corroboration for the rest thereafter Toredlie for a Debt due to him by Mr. Thomas Ridpeth Confirms himself Executor Creditor to Mr. Thomas and alleadges that he ought to be preferred because the Assignation made to Iohn Hume was an uncompleat Right wanting Intimation so that the Sum remained in bonis of Mr. Thomas Ridpeth and that he had followed the only legal way to affect it by Confirming himself Executor Creditor to Mr. Thomas and albeit the Assigney may force any other Executor to pay to him yet not an Executor Creditor who is Executor to his own behove for satisfying his Debt It was answered that the Assignation though not Intimat being a special Assignation albeit it cannot have Execution by Horning yet it is the undoubted ground of an Action even after the Defuncts Death against the Debitor and no Executor Creditor can have Right thereto Which the Lords found Relevant and preferred the Assigney Duke Hamiltoun contra Weir of Balckwood Iuly 28. 1669. THe Duke of Hamiltoun insisted in his Declarator against the Laird of Blackwood for declaring that he had Right to his Superiority by the Act of Parliament 1661. bearing That whosoever should get Right from the King to the Superiority of the annexed Kirk Lands the same should be valide as to these Vassals who had Confirmed or should Consent And alleadged that Major Ballantine to whom Blackwood is Heir had taken an Infeftment of the Estate of Blackwood
Disposition bears and under Reversion of a Rosenoble to Sir Robert in his own Life Mr. John Drummond Sir Roberts appearand Heir grants a Bond to Lowrie of Blackwood whereupon he Adjudges the Land from the appearand Heir and pursues a Reduction of the Disposition as done on Death-bed In which Pursuit Witnesses were appointed to be Examined hinc inde concerning Sir Roberts condition when he made the Disposition and thereafter till his Death the sum of the Probation was that before the Disposition Sir Robert had contracted an Apoplexie whereby he remained senseless for a time but by Cure there remained a Palsie in his Tongue and a Vertigo in his Head which continued till his Death and about a year after that the sickness affected his Brain so that he lost the remembrance of Names of things and most of the Witnesses Depones that he was not found thereafter in his Judgement but that he keeped on his Cloathes and was not affixed to his Bed and went frequently and walked in his Garden and to the Court-hill half a pair of Butts off and one of the Witnesses Deponed that he came to his House alone a quarter of a mile off but that he went never to the Kirk nor Mercat nor any publick place Whereupon it was alleadged for the Defender that the Defunct continued in health at and after the Disposition and that his going so frequently abroad was equivalent to his going to Kirk and Mercat which was sufficient to eleid the Reason of Death-bed and that the Palsie being but in his Tongue albeit he misnamed things it did not import his being on Death-bed especially seing he Disponed for payment of his Debt equivalent to the worth of the Land his Disposition being to a Friend of his Name who Relieved him of his Debt his Heir not being his Son nor Descendent and uncapable to Relieve him of his Debt It was answered that the contracting of his sickness being sufficiently proven to be before this Disposition and the continuance thereof to affect his Brain in that case nothing could purge the same but his going to Kirk and Mercat which were the acts required in Law and could not be supplied by his going privatly abroad and not to any popular publick meeting and as to his Debts they could not validat the Disposition by exception though the Defender might by way of action affect therewith the Estate or Burden the Heir on whose Bond it was adjudged especially seing the Disposition buir for Love and Favour and Redeemable for a Rose-noble The Lords found the Reason of Death-bed sufficiently proven and that his private going abroad though unsupported was not equivalent to going abroad to Kirk and Mercat or publick meeting where the Disease continued to affect the Brain But they found the paying of Debts equivalent to the worth of the Land Relevant by way of exception in regard the Disposition buir to be for payment of his Debt Mr. Iohn Wat contra Campbel of Kilpont Feb. 8. 1671. SIr Archibald Campbel being Debitor to Adam Wat in a Sum of Money he did thereafter Contract his Son Mr. Archibald in Marriage with Thomas Moodies Daughter and by the Contract Thomas Moodie acknowledges the Receipt of fourty thousand Pound from Sir Archibald and is obliged for twenty thousand Merks of Tocher all to be imployed for Mr. Archibald in Fee but Thomas Moodies Daughter Dying and leaving no Children behind her Thomas Moodie did restore the Sums and there is a Discharge granted by Sir Archibald and his Spouse and Mr. Archibald bearing them to have Received the Sums and to have Discharged the same Whereupon Mr. Iohn Wat as Heir to Adam pursues Mr. Archibald to pay him the Sum due to his Father upon this ground that he having Received fourty thousand Pounds of his Fathers Means after Contracting of the Debt ought to make so much of it forthcoming as will pay the Pursuer which Action was founded upon the Act of Parliament 1621. whereby all Deeds done by Debitors in prejudice of their Creditors without a Cause Onerous are declared null and all Parties that by vertue thereof Intromets are declared lyable to restore to the Creditors It was answered for the Defender First That the Libel was not Relevant there being no part of the Act of Parliament 1621. that Incapacitats Debitors to Gift or Dispone Sums of Money or Moveables especially if the Disponer at that time be not insolvent but have a sufficient Estate for satisfying his Debt and it is offered to be proven that Sir Archibald had at the time of this Contract a sufficient Estate for all his Debt in the hands of the Earl of Argile and Glenorchie and albeit by the superveening Forefaulture Argiles Debt be insufficient it was a good Debt the time of the Contract so that there can be no ground to make a Child lyable to Restore a Portion given by a Father who was solvent 2dly Albeit the Defender could be lyable if it were clear that he had the Sum foresaid by his Father yet remaining to the fore yet if it had been lost or spent before the Intenting of this Cause he or any subsequent Estate acquired aliunde is not lyable ita est anything he has is a Wodset of fourty thousand Merks on Kilpont and the two Tochers he had viz. twenty thousand Merks from Thomas Moodie and ten thousand Merks of Legacy and twelve thousand Merk of Tocher with Sir William Gray's Daughter was sufficient to acquire the Right of Kilpont without any thing from his Father 3dly The Discharge produced cannot instruct that Mr. Archibald Received the Money because it bears indefinitly that payment was made to Sir Archibald and his Spouse and to Mr. Archibald and all of them do Discharge The Pursuer answered that the Libel was very Relevant for whatsoever might be alleadged of Bairns Portions by a solvent Father yet this being so considerable a Fortune provided to the only Son and appearand Heir if it did not make him lyable to satisfie the Fathers Debt pro tanto it were a patent way to defraud all Creditors and elude the Act of Parliament for the Father might Sell his Estate and provide the Moneys in this manner and as to the Discharge albeit it be indefinite yet it must be presumed that Mr. Archibald Received the Sums because they belong to him in Fee by the Contract of Marriage The Lords found the Libel Relevant and that the Discharge produced did presume that Mr. Archibald the Feear did Receive the Money but seing the Probation was not expresse but presumptive they allowed Mr. Archibald to condescend upon what Evidences he could give that the Money or Surety thereof was Delivered to his Father Iohn Will contra The Town of Kirkaldy Feb. 11. 1671. JOhn Will pursues the Magistrats of Kirkaldy for paying the Debt of a Person Incarcerat in their Tolbooth who was letten escape by them It was alleadged for the Town that the Person Incarcerat had escaped vi
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 this
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
to an Appryzing of the Lands led before that Term seing Infeftment followed not thereon before the Term Iuly 2. 1667. Luster contra Aitone and Sleigh Arresters Competing the â—irst Arrestment and first Citation before the Lords and compearance sine mora was preferred to a posterior Arrestment and Citation before the Sheriff though obtaining the first Decreet in absence the Arrester not being in that Shire November 23. 1667. Montgomery contra Rankine Arrestments were found not to reach the Fie of a Servant in so far as was necessary for the Servants Aliment conform to the condition of his Service but only as to the Superplus Iuly 9. 1668. â—oog contra Davidson Arrestment was found to Reach the next Terms Rent after it was laid on though it was not due when it was laid on Iuly 20. 1669. Lâ—ssy contra Cunninghame Arresters Compeâ—ing the posterior Arrestment by four dayes was preferred to the prior in respect the Term of the Sum for satisfying of which the Arrestment was laid on was not come the time of the Citation or Competition before the Baillies though by an Advocation raised by the prior Arrester without a just Reason of Advocation the Term was past before the Competition before the Lords Iuly 29. 1670. Charters contra Neilson AN ASSIGNEY was not excluded by payment made to the Cedent after Intimation albeit the Assignation was to the behove of the Cedents Son without a Cause onerous Ianuary 3. 1662. Ross of Earles-milns contra Campbel of Caddel An Assigney constitute by a Tutor who took Assignation to his Pupils Bond was found to have no Process against the Pupil till the Tâ—tor Compts were made unlesse the Assigney foâ—nd Caution for the Tutor Ianuary 24. 1662. Ramsay contra Earl of Wintoun An Assignation omnium bonorum by a Father to his Son was Sustained to give Processe against the Debitors albeit not Intimate in the Fathers Life and so in bonis defuncti Iune 25. 1663. Hallyburtoun contra Earl of Raxburgh An Assigney may be prejudged by the Cedents Oath before Intimation or if the Debitor pursue the Assigney ad hunc eâ—â—ectum to take away the Bond before Intimation by the Cedents Oath and his being so called and producing the Assignation will not exclude the Cedents Oath February 15. 1662. Laird of Pitfoddels contra Laird of Glenkindy An Assigney was found to have interest to pursue albeit his Assignation was not Intimate before the Cedents death without necessity of Confirmation Iuly 27. 1664. Muirhead contra 〈◊〉 Intimation November 18. 1664. Guthrie contra Sornbeg An Assignation being gratuitoâ—s the Cedents Oath was found sufficient against the Assigney Iune 16. 1665. Wright contra Sheils The like Iune 13. 1666. Iack contra Mowat An Assignation to a Reversion being Registrate in the Register of Reversions and a Liferent Infeftmeâ—â— of the Wodset Land Registrate in the Register of Seasines was found sufficient to give the Wife interest even in her Husbands time to Redeem that she might Redeem the Wodset Land for her Liferent use and to be preferred to an Appryzer of the Reversion after the Wifes Right Registrate as said is without necessity of any other Intimation December 5. 1665. Beg contra Beg. An Assignation to a Gift when it is incompleat and before it passe the Exchequer doth not exclude the Donators Back-bond at passing thereof even as to the Assigney Ianuary 13. 1666. Dollace contra Frazer of Streichen An Assignation to such a sum yearly out of the first and readiest of the Teinds of such Lands found not preferable to a posterior Appryzing of these Lands and Teinds as an Assigâ—ation to the Tack or whole Tack-duty of the Teinds would have been preferred as habilis modus February 6. 1666. Watson contra Fleming Assignation Vide Compensatione Cockburn contra Laird of Craigivar An Assigney to a Tack which is Transmitted by Assignation was not found as a singular Successor to Lands passing by Infeâ—tment so that what is competent against the Cedent in Tacks is competent against the Assigney except as to the manner of Probation by the Cedents Oath December 18. 1668. Swintoun contra Brown Assigneys were found to have Right to an Annualrent granted by a Father to his Daughter and her Heirs without mention of Assigneys though her Brothers and Sisters were substitute failing the Heirs of her Body and though the Assignation was granted without a cause onerous to another Brother Iâ—â—e 24. 1669. Steuart contra Stâ—uart An Assignation without Intimation was preferred to an Executor Creditor of the Cedent even as to the Executors own debt Iuly 27. 1669. Executors of Redpeth contra Iohnstoun AN ATTESTER of a Cautioner in a Suspension declaring that the Cautioner was sufficient being conveened Subsidiarie was found to be no further lyable than that the Cautioner then was holden as sufficient for the Sum Charged for December 17. 1667. Paterson contra Hume A BAILLIE of Regality amerciating Parties for a wrong committed in the thrusting out of others out of a Seat in the Church in time of Divine Service and beating of them his Decreet was Sustained though it extended to two hundred pounds half to the Party and half to the Fiscal Ianuary 30. 1663. Steuart contra Bogglâ— and Matthie A Baillie of a Barony of Kirkland being Infeft by the Abbots with full Iurisdiction Civil and Criminal with power to Repledge and with power to apply the whole amerciaments and Casualities to his own behove his Right was found not to be derogate from or prejudged by the Kings Erecting a part of that Barony in a Burgh Royal and giving them power of Heading and Hanging and all Iurisdiction unless they extinguished the Baillies Right by Prescription albeit it did not appear that these Kirklands were Erected in a Regality no mention being made thereof in the Infeftment of Bailliarie nor was it commonly known under that Title February 27. 1667. Lord Colvil contra Town of Culross A Baillie of Regality was found to have power to amerciat the Inhabitants of a Burgh of Regality though having Baillies of their own in the Burgh in respect the Burgh being Vassals to the Baron their power is cumulative and not exclusive of his Iurisdiction but there is place for prevention to the first Attatcher doing diligence Ianuary 14. 1668. The Baillie of Regality of Killimuire contra Burgh of Killimuire BAIRNS Provisions being upon Bond subscribed by their Father but not delivered till he had disponed his whole Estate to his eldest Son with Warrandice from his own deeds done or to be done and reserving his Liferent of a part which was found sufficient to Reduce the Bonds of Provision and Appryzing thereupon as not obligator till delivery or the death of the Father and Revocked indirectly by the Sons Disposition Ianuary 10. 1668. Laird of Glencorse contra his Brothers and Sisters A Bairns provision posterior in date and delivery to a Creditors debt the Creditors Appryzing though posterior was preferred in a Reduction to the Appryzing
was found not jure accrescendi to belong to the Surviver but 〈◊〉 Heir Substitute to the Deceassing without Children yet so as not to be lyable as Heir in solidum but quo ad valorem Iuly 3. 1666. Fleming contra Fleming A Clause in a Writ bearing a Narrative as a Testament and leaving such a 〈◊〉 Heir and Donator to such Tenenements and Assigning him to the Evidents with power to him after return to Recal was found effectual though not formal to inforce his Heir to perfect the same Ianuary 31. 1667. Henrison contra Henrison The same was renewed upon full debate November 4. 1667. and the being of the Writs in the granters hands after his Retuâ—n was found a sufficient Evidence of Recalling it but its coming back in the hands of the other party was found not sufficient to Revive it but they were ordained to instruct how they came by it whether as delivered back again by the Granter or found amongst his Papers November 14. 1667. inter cosdem A Clause obliging a party to pay such a sum as being the Annualrent of such a sum without any obligation for paying the principal exprest was found not to imply an obligement to pay the principal as acknowledged due but was found to constitute the Annualrent perpetual and not for the Womans life though it exprest not Heirs and Assignâ—ys February 2. 1667. Power contra Dykes A Clause in a Bond bearing a sum to be lent by a Father for himself and as Administrator for his Son aâ—d payable to the Father and after his decease to the Son but bearing that it was the Sons own Money not expressing how or from whom it came was â—ound to constitute the Son Feear and the Father Naked Liferenter February 14. 1667. Campbel contra Constantine A Clause disponing Lands was found to carry the Miln if the Lands were a Barony or if the Miln was not exprest in the Authours own Right otherways that it could not pass as part and perâ—inent February 15. 1667. Countess of Hume contra Tenents of Oldcambus and Mr. Rodger Hog A Clause in a Contract of Marriage whereby the Husband is obliged to take the conquest to the future Spouse in Conjunctâ—ee and the Heirs betwixt them Which failing the Heirs of the Mans Body which failing the Wifes Heirs whatsoever was found not to constitute the Wife Feear upon the â—ailing of Heirs of the Mans Body but the Husband February 20. 1667. Cranstoun contra Wilkison A Clause in the dispositive part of a Charter Cum privilegio piscaudi in aqua c. was found not to be a sufficient Right of Salmond-fishing unless Salmond-fishing had been thereby possesâ— forty years without interruption and so it is only a Title for Prescription February 27. 1667. Earl of Southesk contra Laird of Earlshall A Clause in a Bond bearing sums to be payed to a Man and his Wife and their Heirs beaâ—ing Annualrent though no Infeftment followed was found to give the Wifes Heirs no share seing the Money appeared not to have been hers and was presumed to be the Mans and he surviving did Revock the Substitution as a Donation betwixt Man and Wife Iune 19. 1667. Iohnstoun contra Cuninghame A Clause in an Assignation by a Father to his Daughter bearing a power to alter during his Life was found not to take effect by an Assignation to a third party who instantly granted a Back-bond bearing his Name was but in trust to do diligence and obliging himself to denude in favours of the Father his Heiâ—s and Assigneys but was not found to operate for the Fathers Heir but for the Daughter his Assigney Iuly 17. 1667. Scot contra Scot. A Clause in a Tack setting 14. Aâ—kers of Lands presently possest by the Tacks-man was found not to limite him to 14 Aikers of any present Measure seing he had possessed still since the Tack these 30. years albeit it was alleadged that besides 14. Aikers there were six Aikers severally â—enned and possest by different persons before that Tack Iuly 19. 1667. Daeâ— contra Kyle A Clause in a Bond bearing a sum borrowed from Husband and Wiâ—â— and payable to the longest liver of them two in Conjunctfee and to the Heirs betwixt them or their Assigneys which failing to the Heirs or Assigneys of the last liver was found to constitute the Husband Feâ—ar and the Wife Liferenter albeit she was last liver and the Heirs by the last Clause were but Heirs of provision to the Husband in case the Heirs of the Marriage failed Ianuary 26. 1668. Iustice contra Barclay his Mother A Clause in a Bond whereby a Woman obliged her self to enter heir of Line to her Father and to resign certain Lands in favours of her self and the heirs of her body which failing to the heirs of her Father and obliged her self to do nothing contrary to that Successionâ— whereupon Inhibition was used before her Marriage was found effectual against her and her Husband whom she Married thereafter and disponed the Lands to him and his heirs as being a voluntar deed without an equivalent cause onerous albeit by the said Bond of â—ailzie the heir of provision behâ—ved to be the heir to the Woman her self without discussing whether deeds done for causes onerous without collusion would be effectual against the said heir of provision Ianuary 28. 1668. Binnâ—â— contra Binnie A Clause in a second Contract of Marriage that the heirs of the Marriage should have right to Tacks acquired during the Marriage was found to extend to a new Tack obtained of Lands then possessed by the Father unless he had a Tack thereof before in Writ which if not expyred the new Tack would not be esteemed conquest if the new Tack were given for the old Iuly 3. 1668. Frazer contra Frazer A Clause in a Testament leaving a Legacy to a second Son in satisfaction of all he could befal by his Fathers deceass was found not to be in satisfaction of a debt due by his Father to that Son as having uplifted a Legacy left to him by his Mothers Father both not being above a competent provision by a Father in his condition to his Son December 15. 1668. Winâ—â—â—am contra Eleis A Clause in a Contract of of Marriage providing all the Husbands Goods and Gear acquired during the Marriage to the Wife for her Liferent use was found to be with the burden of the Husbands debt and only to be meaned of free Gear and not to exclude the Husbands Creditors at any time contracting December 23. 1668. Smith contra Muire A CLAVSE OF CONQVEST in a Wifes Contract of Marriage who was competently otherwayes provided was â—ound to carry the Lands conquest with the burden of a sum which the Husband declared under his hand to be a part of the price though the same would not hold in the burdening of heirs of conquest December 20. 1665. Lady Kilbocho contra Laird of Kilbocho This sum was due to the Seller of the
as having bought the Oxen in which case Sentence was found necessary before the possessors were dispossessed Iuâ—y 7. 1671. Strachans contra Gordouns STIPENDS of Ministers affect the Teinds as a real burden and all intrometters even these who buy as Merchands buying the whole Teind of a Mans Land for a year so that they cannot pretend payment made to the Heretor bona fide seing they should know that real burden Iune 24. 1662. Vernor contra Brown Stipends quoad Intrants were found to divide in two Terms that the Intrant before Whitsondâ—y hath â—oth Terms but after Whitsonday and before Michalmass only one Term Iuly 24. 1662. Wâ—yms contra Cunninghame Stipends were not found to burden and Heretor where there is a Liferenter living Iune 24. 1663. Menzeis contra Laird of Glenâ—rchie Stipend of a Minister reponed shortly after Michalmass as having Presentation Collation and Possession before and wrongously put out was found not to prefer him to that years stipend against the lncumbent possessing and serving the Cure 〈◊〉 Michalmas bona fide Iuly 9. 1663. Kirkaldy contra Balcanquel A Stipend whereto a Stipendiar was presented at Lambass and served from thence and was admitted shortly after Michalmass reached not the whole stipend but the half though the Presentation was before Michalmass and the actual service seing the Admission was shortly after Iune 7. 1664. Hay contra Collector of Vaccand stipends A stipend was found to affect the whole Teinds unbought where there was not a Locality and so the Minister might take himself to any Hereâ—or for his whole free Teind and not pro rata without prejudice to him to pursue for Relief December 3. 1664. Hutcheson contra Earl of Casâ—â—ls A Stipend was found instructed by seven years possession without any Title in Writ so as to give a possessory judgement November 25. 1665. Petrie contra Mitchelson A stipend was found to belong to a Minister Transported in Ianuary who continued preaching till April and not to his Successors who was presented before Whitsonday but not admitted till Lâ—mbass none compearing for the Collector of the vaccand stipends Ianuary 26. 1670. Mcquâ—en contra Marquess of Dowglass and Purves STOLLEN GOODS were â—ound recoverable by the owner by warrand from the Sherifâ— summarly without citation of the possessors though they had peaceably possessed the Gooods four moneths in that pleugh unless they had acquired possession by an onerous Title Iuly 7. 1671 Strachanâ— contra Gordounâ— and others Vide Spuilzie SVBMISSION betwixt Commissars to the Bishop without any determinat Ish or time determined to be filled up or blank but generally referring all controversies that should arise to the Bishop was found valide and not determined by a year but a Term was affixed to determine what differences are now occurring February 3. 1669. Bosewel contra Lindsay of Wormisâ—oun SVBSTITVTION Vide Clause SVCCESSOR LVCRATIVE was not inferred by a Disposition by a Father to a Son having an elder Brother living or so presumed as lately before gone out of the Countrey and so not then alioqui successurus February 28. 1662. Hamiltoun contra Mâ—farlane of Kirktoun Successor lucrative being alleadged by a Disposition of Land by a Father to his Son in his contract of Marriage for a Tocher payed to the Father and debts and Bairns Portions far within the value of the Land he was not found lyable in solidum nor yet the pursuer put to a Reduction but the passive Title was sustained personaliter in so far as the onerous Cause was less then the ordinary price at that time with annualrent since the intenting of the Cause Iune 17. 1664. Lyâ—n of Muâ—resk contra 〈◊〉 Successor Lucrative was not inferred by a Disposition being only to a Nephew the brother being alive who was not â—ound alioqui successurus as in the case of an Oye November 22. 1665. Scot contra Bosâ—wâ—l of Auchmâ—eck Vide Lucrative Successor A SVMMONS whereof the Executions appeared visibly new and the user would not abide by it was found not to be transferred but whether an Inhibition raised on that summons would thereby fall or if warrand might be granted to use new Executions on that Summons though year and day was past and that by special priviledge to validate the Inhibition was not decided Ianuary 12. 1665. Wilson and Callender her Spouse contra Summons not being execuâ—e within year and day from the date thereof no process was sustained thereon Iuly 22. 1665. Row contra Viscount of Stormont Summons on an Assignation libelled at the Assignays instance was not sustained seing the date of the Assignation was posterior to the date of the summons albeit the Cedent concurred Novembâ—r 15. 1666. Abâ—rcrombâ—e contra Andersons A SVPERIOR not being called to a Cognition of Marches by Arbiters or legally cited doth not annul the same but it is but prejudice to the superiour when the Fee shall be in his hand February 8. 1662. Lord Torphichan contra A Superiour by receiving an Appryzer was found not to derogat from the Right of Ward in the Superiour though he made no reservation seing it was a necessary Act for him to receive Iuly 19. 1664. Hospital of Glasgow contra Campbell A Superiour bound in absolute warrandice against Ward having a gift of his own Ward to his own behove was found not to distress his Vassals thereby farder then for a proportional part of the composition and expenseâ— February 15. 1665. Boid of Penkil contra Tennents of Carsâ—uth A Superiour was decernâ—d to receive an Adjudger though the superiour himself had appryzed and alleadged a better right but the Infeftment to be salvo jur◠〈◊〉 sâ—o Iuly 4. 1667. Chein contra Christie A Superiour giving a disposition of his Vassals superiority reserving their property and which disposition bear that the Aâ—quirer should hold of the superiour himself The said disposition with the Infeftment thereon was found null as interponing the Acquirer betwixt the superiour and his vassal but was sustained as a gift of Non-entry in respect it bear an assignation to all the casualities of the superiority and the general declarator thereon was found to extend to the feâ—-duties after citation Ianuary 30. 1671. Dowglas of Kâ—â—head contra his Vassal A Superiour being charged to receive an Adjudger was â—ound to have his option either to receive him for a years rent or to pay his sums getting assignation to the adjudication but â—o that the Land should be redeemable from the superiour for the sums princâ—pal and annualrent contained in the adjudication without any sum for composition of Entry and that the adjudication was in this as an appryzing by the 36. Act King Iames 3d. Iune 10. 1671. Scot of Thirlâ—stane contra Lord Druâ—laâ—rig SVPERIORITY of Kirk Lands annexed to the Crown Anno 1633. reserving the Feu-duties to the Lords of Erection who consented to the surrender was â—ound not to be a ground for the Vassal to force the superiour to instruct his consent but that it is presumed Iuly
Captain Barclay and that some of them were Subscribed no Witnesses being present but that he had bidden the Captain put in what Witnesses he pleased and that whereas before he had declared that he had Subscribed no Disposition yet he had done it being in the power of the Lady Towies Friends who told him that Captain Barclay being next Heir-male of Towie had a mind to take his Life which he found afterward not to be true and was willing to do any Deed for conveying of the Estate to the Captain seing he had no Heirs-male of his own The Clerks of Exchequer Advocats and several Writers and their Servants were also Examined upon Oath anent the having of the said Disposition and Bond The Clerks of Exchequer Deponed that the Disposition was produced in Exchequer and Resignation made thereon and the râ—st Deponed that they had seen the Disposition and Bond and were Consulted thereupon by the Captain but had given them back to him Upon the whole Matter the Pursuer craved that now seing there was sufficient Probation of the Forgery of the Writs and that the Lords had produced before them a just double of the Disposition presented to the Exchequer that therefore the Lords would proceed to improve the same and to declare that the same were false and Forged by the Captain and that they would remit him to the Justice General according to the ordinary Custom in Improbations It was answered for the Defender that the Lords could not proceed to improve the Writs because the Writs were not produced and never any Writ in Scotland was improven but when the principal Writ it self was produced neither can it otherwise be for Improbation before the Lords being ad effectum civilem to take away the Writ and Right therein the same behoved alwayes to proceed upon a particular and individual Writ which therefore behoved to be produced before the Lords and Witnesses for suppose it could be prove that a Write of such a date and such a Tenor was Fabricat and Forged at such a time and place which might inâ—er a Crime against the Forgers yet it could not take away all right by such a Writ because there might be several Writs of the same Date and the making up and improving of a false Writ of such a Date could not take away the true Writ of the same Date unless the principal Writ it self had been produced that the Judges and Witnesses might know that that was the very Writ in question And therefore our Custom hath settled and fixed upon this Remeid by allowing a Certification that if the Writs called for to be Improven were not produced they should be holden and repute as false and feinzied and should make no Faith but did not find them proven to be Forged and Feinzied but only to make no Faith as if they had been fenzied which in this Process has been done and the Lords have neither Law nor Custom to do any further 2dly Albeit the Witnesses have by their own Testimonies declared themselves to be Forgers of false Writs their Testimonies cannot prove that Captain Barclay was either Authour or accessory to their Forgery because they are socij criminis and have by their Testimony made themselves infamous as Falsers and so there is no Faith to be given to their Testimonies against any other but themselves Besides they have given partial Counsel to the Pursuer and have betrayed their Testimonies by voluntarly coming to them and declaring what they would Depone and therefore the Lords can neither Improve the Writs nor Remit Captain Barclay to the Justice as a Falser The Pursuer answered that albeit the ordinar Course in Improbations be only Certification when the Writs are not produced yet there is nothing to hinder the Lords to use extraordinary Remeids in extraordinary Cases and there can be no Case more extraordinar than this where there is an evident Tract of Forgery for taking away a considerable Estate of sixscore Chalders of Victual Improven by the very Witnesses insert and that the Writs have not been produced It is the Defenders own fault who knowing them to be false wilfully Abstracts the same and it will be a very great incouragement to Forgery if the Forger knew that all his hazard will be to suffer Certification if his Forgery take not Neither were ever Witnesses in Improbation of Writs exclude in the Civil Process as being socij criminis But if they acknowledge the Forgery thereof they were Improved though they themselves were accessory to the Forgery otherwise if Witnesses can be induced to Subscribe as Witnesses to a forged Subscription there were no possibility of Remeid seing it cannot be thought they would suffer any other to be present or that the Forger himself would consess The Lords refused to proceed to Improve the Writs not being produced or to Remit the Parties to the Justice But they did Declare that by the Processes they found Steil Ross and Ferguson the Witnesses to be guilty of Forgery by their own Confession and that they found Captain Barclay had made use of the VVrits acknowledged to have been Forged and therefore ordained these of their number that were upon the Privy Council to Represent the Case to the Council that they might cognosâ—e what furder Censure they saw just to be Inflicted and it was the privat opinion of most of the Lords that at least the Witnesses and Barclay himself should be banished But they found it not proper for them to express their opinion or prelimit the Council But withal the Lords found the Probation adduced sufficient to Declare Captain Barclay and the VVitnesses infamous and did Declare them such accordingly Iames Watson contra Agnes Simpson February 1. 1670. AGnes Simpson being Infeft by umquhil Alexander Stewart her Husband in Liferent in an Annualrent of 40. pound yearly out of the Lands of Laâ—ellethem she in Anno 1657. obtained a Decreet of Poinding of the Ground and the Tennents having Suspended on multiply Poinding calling her and James Watson and others wherein she is preferred in Anno 1666. to her Annualrent for all years bygone and in time coming In which 〈◊〉 of multiple Poinding Watson was absent Watson making use of the names of the Tennents does raise a second Suspension Anno 1668. wherein he is called on the one part and the said Agnes Simpson on the other part which now coming to be Discust it was alleadged for the said Iames Watson that the Decreet of multiple Poinding against him being in absence he ought now to be heard upon his Right which is a publick Infeftment long before the Liferenters base Infeftment or before it was cled with Possession It was answered that by the express Act of Parliament anent double Poindings It is Declared that where parties are called and compear not but intent Reduction of the Decreet that they shall never be heard against the Decreet or what the obtainer thereof has uplifted unlesâ— they shew a sufficient Cause
of their absence and that the obtainer of the Decreet shall only be obliged to answer the other Party in the second instance according to the Right which is then competent in his peâ—Peâ—son and the obtainer of the Decreet shall have undoubted Right to the Mails and Duties ay and while he be warned at the instance of the other Party and better Right shown as is clear by the Act of Parliament 1584. cap. 3. So that Watson having yet raised no Reduction of the Decreet of multiple Poinding preferring Simpson but only a second Suspension in name of the Tennents who Suspended before the said Agnes Simpson her Decreet standing and her Right standing thereby cannot be taken away till in a Reduction Watson produce a better Right It was answered that Watson does not contend for the years lifted by Simpson or for any years prior to his second Suspension albeit he does produce an unquestionable Right that would exclude her from all yet in regard of the Act of Parliament he is satiâ—fied she be preferred for all years till he in his second Suspension produce his Rights but alleadges that he needs not raise Reduction because the Act of Parliament does not require the same but any Complaint or Process is thereby sufficient Neither does the ordinar course of Law require a Reduction of a Decreet in absence but a Suspension alone is sufficient and if he be put to a Reduction his unquestionable Right will be excluded for all years bygone and ay and while he raise his Reduction and produce his Right It was answered that albeit the ordinar course requires not Reduction of Decreets in absence yet the Act of Parliament requires the same because in the Narrative it expresly mentions that the party absent in the double Poinding uses to raise Reduction And in the Statutory part it mentions that the other Parties Complaint shall be heard in the second instance which is always understood to be Reduction or Declarator and in a second Suspension The Lords found that Reduction was necessary to take away a Decreet of multiple Poinding in absence and that a second Suspension was not sufficient and therefore preferred Simpson and found the Letters orderly proceeded but prejudice to Watson to raise his Reduction for the Duties in time coming Alexander Jack contra Collonel Borthwick February 2. 1670. ALexander Jack alleadging that he Subscribed a blank to have been filled up in a Bond of Cautionry in a Suspension which was found among the Writs of umquhil George Jack as a blank Paper who lived several years thereafter and after his Decease his Relict finding the same caused fill up in the blank a Bond of ten thousand pound as being borrowed from Thomas Boid of Pinkill and is now in the Person of Collonel Bâ—râ—hwick who having Charged thereupon the said Alexander Jack Suspended and raised Reduction on this Reason that he had never any medling or borrowing with the said Thomas Boyd but that the said Bond was a blank Paper found among the Writs of the said Deceast George Jack and neither he nor the said Alexander were ever worth so great a sum and now seing Collonel Borthwich did not insist in his Charge Jack was necessitate to proceed to take away the Bond and craved that the Lords would Examine Witnesses ex officio upon the truth of this Reason The Lords ordained the Writer and the Witnesses to be first Examined ex officio and thereafter other VVitnesses as the Lords should see Cause Earl of Kinghorn contra The Laird of Pittarro February 3. 1670. THe Earl of Kinghorn pursues a Declarator of the nullity of a Bond of 1000. merks granted by his Father and now standing in the name of Piâ—tarro as Creditor on this Ground that he never borrowed the sum from Pittarro nor delivered this Bond to him but having Trusted umquhil Alexander Keith as his ordinar Agent and Writer with this Bond blank in the Sum and Date to have borrowed Money upon the same took never effect but remained so blank in the hands of Alexander Keith for many years till his Death and thereafter in his Relicts hands till her Death and after her Death the blank was filled up by John Bane her Brother and the Date made in Anno 1647. whereas the Bond mentions Alber as Cautioner who Died before the year 1640. whereupon Pittarro's Oath and the Oath of Alexander Keith Friend to the said umquhil Alexander being taken Pittarro acknowledged that the Bond was blank and filled up by the said John Bane as the Reason bears and that he received the same by advice of this Alexander Keith in satisfaction of 1000. merks and 40. pound due to Pittarro by Mr. Roger Mowat and lifted from him by umquhil Alexander Keith by Pittarro's Warrand for which he obtained Decreet against Alexander Keith his Executrix before the Commissars now produced in Process and proceeding upon a missive Letter of umquhil Alexander Keiths acknowledging the Debt It was answered for Pittarro that by the Bond produced it was clear that his Name was in the Bond ab initio as Creditor and was not filled up ex post facto neither was there any wrong in filling up this Sum because he having already proven that Alexander Keith had uplifted the like Sum of his from Mr. Roger Mowat and that my Lord Kinghorn being Debitor to Keith in considerable Sums of Money payed to his Creditors conform to Discharges produced in Process Alexander Keith might lawfully have filled up the Sum in the Bond for Repayment of Pittarro whose Money he had uplifted and any Friend of his had done my Lord Kinghorn no wrong seing thereby he would be exonered of the like Sum to Keith and was content yet to Compt and Reckon with Kinghorn for Alexander Keith and to Restrict his Sum to what shall be found due by the umquhil Earl of Kinghorn to Keith Likeas this Alexander Keith by his Oath in Process Depones that he heard that umquhil Alexander Keith on his Death-bed Declared that Kinghorn was Debitor to him in nine thousand merks and therefore he thought it no fault to fill up the blank in this Bond. It was answered for Kinghorn that albeit umquhil Alexander Keith was trusted by the umquhil Earl of Kinghorn with this blank Bond that Trust being meerly personal to him It was a most unwarrantable trinkating for any other after his Death to fill up the Bond especially seing neither by Testament nor any other Writ umquhil Alexander Keith who only was intrusted and who lived many years after and was no ways surprised with Death did signifie that the Money was borrowed from Pittarro or taken from any of his Creditors and applyed to Kinghorn's use and the hear-say of this Alexander Keith is of no moment and if any thing be due by Kinghorn to Keith the Pursuer Represents his Father as Heir and shall answer Pittarro or any Executor or Creditor of Keiths whenever he shall be pursued but cannot be insisted against