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
with the Kings Advocats concurse The Defender answered that the Advocats concurse was but ex stilo curiae and he could make no concurse sufficient for any Improbation and Reduction without the Kings special order The Lords found the Defense Relevant and Assoilzied at which time it was remembred that Sir Thomas Hope insisting in an Improbation of his Good-son the same was not Sustained because it wanted the Kings expresse Order Town of Cowper contra Town of Kinnothy Eodem die THe Town of Cowper having Charged the Town of Kinnothy to desist from Merchant Trade They Suspend and alleadge that they have the Priviledge of Burgh of Barony in keeping Hostlers and selling Wine The Charger answered that selling of Wine is one of their chiefest and expresse Priviledges The Lords considering that this dipped upon the Controversie betwixt Burgh Royal and Burgh of Barony which has remained undecided these thirty years would not Discusse this particular but found the Letters orderly proceeded in general ay and while the Defenders found Caution to desist from Merchant Trade without determining how far that reached Moffet contra Black Eodem die THere being a Bargain betwixt the said Moffet and Black for some Packs of Plaids by which it was agreed that the buyer for satisfaction of the price should give Assignation to certain Bonds exprest but there was no mention what Warrandice At the Discussing of the Cause the Seller craved absolute Warrandice and alleadged that seing it was not Communed that it should be a restricted Warrandice it behoved to be an Absolute being for a Cause onerous and for the price of the Goods 2ly Seing the Agreement required an Assignation in Writ to Bonds the Buyer might re integra resile seing neither the Plaids nor Bonds were Delivered The Lords found that thē Buyer who insisted behoved either to give absolute Warrandice that the Bond was not only due but should be effectual and the Creditor solvendo otherways they suffered the Seller to Resile especially seing the Bargain was not made first by words Absolute for such a price and afterwards that it had been agreed to give such Bonds for that price In which case the Bargain though verbal would have stood Alexander Falconer contra Mr. Iohn Dowgal Eodem die ALexander Falconer pursues Mr. Iohn Dowgal for payment of 1000. merks left in Legacy by umquhil Iohn Dowgal by a special Legacy of a Bond adebted by the Earl of Murray whereupon he conveens the Earl as Debitor and Mr. Iohn Dowgal as Executor for his Interest to pay the special Legacy The Exceutor alleadged that the sum belonged to him because he had Assignation thereto from the Defunct before the Legacy The Pursuer Answered that hoc dato there was sufficiency of Free-goods to make up this Legacy and albeit it had been legatum rei alienae yet being done by the Testator scienter who cannot be presumed to be ignorant of his own Assignation lately made before it must be satisfied out of the rest of the Free-Goods Which the Lords found Relevant Duke and Dutches of Hamiltoun contra Scots Eodem die DUke and Dutches of Hamiltoun being Charged for payment of a Sum due to umquhil Sir William Scot of Clerkingtoun and assigned by him to his four Children alleadged that by Act of Parliament Commission was granted for deducing so much of his Creditors Annualrents as should be found just not exceeding eight years and therefore there could be no Sentence against him as to that till the Commission had decyded The Pursuers answered that these Annualrents were not due for the years during the time the Duke was Forefault by the English which ended in Anno. 1656. and they insist but for the Annualrents since that year It 's answered for the Duke that albeit he had payed many of these years Annualrents by force of Law then standing yet that could not hinder the Deduction but that he would have Repetition or Deduction in subsequent years The Pursuers alleadged he behoved to seek the Heir for Repetition and could not deduce from them The Lords in respect of the Commission would not Decide nor Discuss the Alleadgence anent the years Annualrent but Superceeded to give Answer till the Commission had determined even till seven years after the Forefaulture to make up these that was payed before In this Process compearence was made for Sir Laurence Scot the Heir and Executor Dative who alleadged that there was 2000. merks of the Sum belonged to him because his Fathers Assignation to the Children contained an express Division of their shares which was so much less then the hail Sum Assigned The Children answered they opponed their Assignation which bare expresly an Assignation to the hail Sum and Bond it self and albeit the Division was short it was but a mistake of the Defunct and cannot prejudge the Assigneys Which the Lords found Relevant George Melvil contra Mr. Thomas Ferguson Iune 25. 1664. GEorge Melvil pursues Mr. Thomas Ferguson his step-son for the value of his aliment after the Mothers Decease The Defender alleadged◠Absolvitor because the Defunct was his own Mother and he had no means of his own and it must be presumed that she Entertained him free out of her Maternal Affection and that his Step-Father did the same after he had Married his Mother The Lords sustained the first part of the Defense but not the second anent the Step-father after the Mothers decease Alexander Allan contra Mr. John Colzier Eodem die ALexander Allan pursues Mr. Iohn Colzier to pay a sum of ninety two pounds adebted for the Defenders Mother and that upon the Defenders Missive Letter by which he oblieged him to pay the same The Defender answered absolvitor because by the missive produced he offered him to become the Pursuers Debitor for the sum due by his Mother being about ninety two pounds but by a Postcript requires the Pursuer to Intimat to him or his Friends at Falkland whether he accepted or not which he did not then till after the Defenders Mothers Death and so it being a Conditional offer not accepted is not binding Which the Lords found Relevant and Assoilzied Cauhame contra Adamson Eodem die THomas Cauhame having Appryzed a Tenement in Dumbar from Ioseph Iohnstoun pursues Iames Adamson to remove therefrom who alleadged Absolvitor because this Apprizer could be in no better case then Iohnstoun from whom he Appryzed whose Right is affected with this provision that he should pay 600. pounds to any person his Author pleased to nominat Ita est he hath Assigned the Right to the Defender so that it is a real Burden affecting the Land even against this singular Successor and included in his Authors Infeftment The pursuer answered that albeit it be in the Infeftmen yet it is no part of the Infeftment or real Right but expresly an obliegment to pay without any Clause Irritant or without declaring that the Disponers Infeftment should stand valid as to the Right of that Sum. The
to be Creditor in the same Clause The Lords found the conception of the Clause that the Brother by falling now Heir was excluded seing it was clear by the meaning of the Defunct that his Heir should have his Lands and his Bairns of his second Marriage should have though but one 4000 merks but here the Heir of the first Marriage was never served Heir They also found that the Portions of the Children being to an uncertain day and not conceived to their Heirs or Assigneys that they dying before that day had no right to the Stock but only the Annualrent medio tempore so that the Stock accresced to the surviving Children as if the Defuncts had never existed and that their Assigneys or Creditors could not have affected the same and so found the Brother had no right as nearest of Kin to the two deceasing Children not attaining the Age mentioned in the Contract William Stewart contra Stewarts Ianuary 18. 1665. WIlliam Stewart pursues a Poynding of the Ground of the Lands of Errol upon an Infeftment of Annualrent granted to his Grand-Father by the Earl of Errol by his Bond and Infeftment following thereupon in which Bond there were Cautioners the Annualrent was for a Sum of 7000 merk and a Sum of 8000 merk Compearance is made for the Pursuers Brothers and Sisters who alleadged that as to the Sum of 7000 merks it became moveable and belongs to them as nearest of Kine In so far as their Father made Requisition for the same It was answered the Instrument of Requisition is null and being disconform to the Clause of Requisition in respect that the Original Bond was to the Husband and Wife the longest liver of them two in Conjunctfee and their Heirs c. And the Requisition bears expresly That if the Husband or his Heirs required with consent of the Wife then the Debitor shall pay ita est the Instrumenet bears no consent It was answered that albeit some Points of the Requisition were omitted yet seing the mind of the Defunct appears to take himself to his Personal Right and consequenly to prefer his Executor to his Heir it is sufficient The Pursuer answered non relevat because every Intimation of the Defuncts Intention is not enough but it must be haili modo and the ground whereupon the Sums become moveable is because the Requisition looses and takes away the Infeftment and therefore if the Requisition be null the Infeftment is valid and he Bairns can never have access The Lords found the Requisition null and preferred the Heir Stewart contra Stewart Ianuary 19. 1665. IN the foresaid Cause it was further alleadged for the 8000 merk that it was also moveable because as to it there was no Liferenter and the Fear himself did require It was answered for the Children that the Requisition is null because it mentions not the production of a Procuratory nor the production of the Right it self 2ly The Requisition is made to Bogie as Cautioner for the Earl of Kinnoul whereas he was Cautioner for the Earl of Errol granter of the first Bond. It was replyed oppones the Requisition bearing That the Procurators power was sufficiently known to the Notar 2ly non Relevat unless the Person required had called for the Procuratory or Right and had been refused 3ly The Procuratory is now produced with the Right and the Defunct acknowledged the Procuratory and Right because he raised horning thereupon The Lords sustained the Requisition and found the Sum moveable and preferred the Bairns thereto Shaw contra Lewens Eodem die WIlliam Shaw being a Factor at London and dieing there and having Means both in England and Scotland There falls a Competition betwixt his Executors nuncupative in England and his nearest of Kine Executors in Scotland Anna Lewens Executrix confirmed in England produces a Sentence of the Court of Probat of wills in England bearing That upon the Examination of Witnesses that Court found that William Shaw did nominat Anna Lewens his Executrix and universal Legatrix And that being asked by her what he would leave to his friends in Scotland He declared he would leave her all and them nothing because they had dealt unnaturally with him It was alleadged for the Defuncts Cusigns Executors Confirmed in Scotland that they ought to be preferred because as to the Defuncts Means and Moveables in Scotland the same must be regulat according to the Law in Scotland where a nuncupative Testament hath no use at all and albeit a Legacy may be left by word yet it cannot exceed a 100 lib. Scots It was answered that as to the Succession the Law of Scotland must regulat so that what is Heretable cannot be left by Testament though made out of Scotland As was found in the Case of the Successors of Col Henderson dying in Holland and in the Case of contra Meldrum yet as to the Solemnity of Acts to the Law and Custom of the Place where such Acts are done takes place as where an Act is done in Scotland albeit it be only probable by Writ or Oath of Parties yet being done in England it is probable by Witnesses though it were of the greatest moment and though the Law of Scotland in Writs of Importance requires the Subscription of the Partie before Witnesses or of two Nottars and four Witnesses yet Writs made in France and Holland by the Instrument of one Nottar are valid so here there being no difference from the Law of Scotland which always preferres Executors nominat before nearest of Kin and the difference only as to the Solemnities and manner of Probation that there it may be proven by Witnesses there was a Nomination and here only by Writ The Lords having considered the Reasons and former Decisions preferred the Executors confirmed in Scotland for they found that the Question was not here of the manner of Probation of a Nomination In which case they would have followed the Law of the Place but it was upon the Constitution of the essentialls of a Right viz. A nomination which albeit it were certainly known to have been by word yea if it were offered to be proven by the nearest of Kin that they were Witnesses thereto yet the Solemnitie of writ not being interposed the Nomination is in it self defective and null in substantialibus Lord Lour contra Ianuary 20. 1665. IN a Process for making arrested Sums furth-coming two Arresters viz. my Lord Lour and another Competing It was alleadged for Lour that the first Arrestment is null because the Partie was out off the Countrey when it was only made at his dwelling house which is not Legal seing all Summonds Intimations Premonitions Requisitions and all Denunciations against Parties out of the Countrey must be by Letters of Supplement from the Lords Execute at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh and Peir and Shore of Leith So must Arrestments against these who are out of the Countrey be there Which the Lords found relevant and preferred the second Arrestment Personal
albeit it appears to flow from the Mother yet that is but dolose and in effect it flows from the Father 2. Seing the superplus was appointed to be an Aliment to the hail Children seing there is but one it ought to be modified and what remained above the 600. merks and a competent Aliment to belong to the Creditors The Lords found that the Childs Renunciation should repone himâ— and found that if the Provision had been Exorbitant it might have been counted as fraudulent but they found it not exorbitant seing the Land was offered to the Defenders for 900. merks and there was 200. merks thereof Liferented by another Woman so that there râ—mained but 100. merks for the Child and therefore Repelled the Defenses and Decerned VVilliam Dickson contra Iohn Hoom. Eodem die WIlliam Dickson having charged Iohn Hoom upon a Bond of 37. Pounds Scots He suspends and offers to improve the Bond as not subscribed by him but another Iohn Hoom. It was answered Improbation was not receivable but in a Reduction or where the original Writ was produced But this Bond was Registrate in an Inferiour Court and the Charger was not oblieged to produce nor was the Clerk called The Lords in respect the matter was of small importance admitted the Reason of Improbation the Suspender Consigning principal Sum and Annualrent and declared they would modifie a great Penalty in case he succumbed and ordained Letters to be direct against the Clerk of the inferiour Court to produce the principal Howison contra Cockburn November 17. 1665. THe Executors of David Howison pursue Iames Cockburn for the price of several ells of Cloath which the said Iames by his Ticket produced granted him to have received in name and for the use of the Laird of Langtoun his Master It was alleadged absolvitor because by the Ticket the Defender is not oblieged to pay the Cloath and doth only act in name of his Master and therefore the Merchant ought to have called for the Accompt from his Master within three years which he has not done till many years long after his Masters death It was replyed that the Ticket must obliege him at least docere demandato for his doing in name of his Master could not obliege his Master so that if he be not so oblieged the Merchant loses his Debt and no body is oblieged It was answered that he who Acts with any Mandatar should know his Commission and if he does not know it it is upon his own hazard but if the Mandatar Act not in his own name but his Masters he does not obliege himself and if Servants who receive in their Masters name should be thus oblieged to shew their warrand it would be of very evil consequence seing their Receipt can be proven by Witnesses within three years and their Warrand would not be so probable The Lords found that post tantum tempus the Defender was not oblieged to instruct his warrand but the same was presumed to have been known to the Merchant unless it be proven by the Defenders Oath that he acted without a warrand or that he did not apply the Cloath to his Masters use Baxters in the Canongate November 21. 1665. THere being a Contract betwixt two Baxters in the Canongate to make use of an Oven still keeped hot for both their uses the one pursues the other as desisting and obtained Decreet before the Baillies of the Canongate for 36. Pounds of Damnage which being Suspended It was alleadged ipso jure null as having compearance mentioning Defenses Replys c. And yet expressing none but refers the Defenders Action to the Pursuers Probation by Witnesses who now offered to prove positive that he continued in doing his part The Lords would not sustain this visible Nullity without Reduction though in re minina inter pauperes for preserving of Form Laurence Scot. contra David Boswel of Auchinleck November 22. 1665. UMquhil David Boswel of Auchinleck being Debitor to Laurence Scot in 1000. pounds by Bond He pursues his Daughters as Heirs of line and David Boswel now of Auchinleck his Brothers Son as Heir-mail or at least lucrative Successor by accepting a Disposition of Lands from the Defunct which were provided to Heirs-mail and so being alioqui successurus It was alleadged for the said David no Process against him till the Heirs of Line were first discuâ—â— It was Replyed and offered to be proven that he was oblieged to relieve the Heirs of Line Which the Lords found Relevant It was further alleadged for the Defender that he could not be conveened as lucrative Successor by the foresaid Disposition because the time of the Disposition he was not alioqui successurus in respect that his Father was living It was answered that albeit he was not immediat Successor yet being the mediat Successor the Disposition was precepâ—â—o haereditatis and the Lords had already found that a Disposition to an Oye made him Lucrative Successor albeit his Father who was immediat appearand Heir was living The Lords sustained not the Lylel upon that member for they found it was not alike to Dispone to a Brother as to a Son or a Brothers-son as to an Oye because a Brother is not appearand Heir nor alioqui successurus seing the Disponer has haeredes propinquiores in spe and therefore cannot be presumed to have Disponed to his Brother or Brother Son in fraud of his Creditors seing that by that Disposition he does also prejudge his own Son if he should have one and this 〈◊〉 prejudice to the Pursuer to Reduce the Disposition upon the Act of Parliament as accords Mr. Iames Campbel contra Doctor Beaton November 23. 1665. DOctor Beaton being Infeft in certain Lands Wodset by the Laird of Balgillo does thereafter by a minute take an absolute Disposition thereof for a price exprest in the Minute whereupon Mr. Iames Campbel arrests in Doctor Beatons hands all Sums due by him to Balgillo for payment of a Debt due by Magillo to Mr. Iames and likewise Iuhibits Bagillo after which there is a Tripartite Contract betwixt Bagillo on the first part the Doctor on the second and Iohn Smith who bought the Lands on the third the Doctor and Bagillo Dispone with mutual consent and the Doctor particularly assigns the Minute to Smith Bagilâ—o Renounces the Minute as to the price and Smith is oblieged to pay the Wodset to the Doctor the Debitor being before conveened for making arrested Goods forthcoming and having Deponed that he was owing no Sums to Bagillo the time of the arrestment but by the Minute which was an Inchoat Bargain never perfected but was past from thereafter and that he was not Disponer to Smith but only consenter whereupon he was assoilzied But Mr. Iames Campbel having now found the Tripartite Contract pursues the Doctor again thereupon super dolo that by passing from the Bargain and yet assigning the Minute and not destroying it he had dolose evacuate Mr. Iames Inhibition and Arrestment seing Smith
Registration of Seasines there is neither Law nor Favour since for posterior acquirers who might have known the prior Infeftments And therefore in Infeftments of Warrandice Lands the Possession of the principal Lands is accompted Possession of the Warrandice Lands neither is there any ground to oblidge a Person who takes a Feu of Lands to demand a more publick infeftment of the Warrandice Lands then of the principal It was answered that albeit the Narrative of the Statute mention Fraudful alienations yet the dispositive words are General that wherever an Infeftment hath been publick by Resignation or Confirmation and hath attained Possession year and day the same shall exclude any prior base Infeftment attaining no Possession and if the said Act were only to be measured by Fraud then if it could be alleadged and astructed that the first Infeftment though base was for a cause onerous and without Fraud it should be preferred which yet never hath been done And for the Practiques they meet not this Case nor the Act of Parliament because the posterior publick Infeftment had attained no Possession It was answered that now consuetude had both Interpret and Extended the foresaid Act for thereby posterior publick Infeftments though they be not for cause onerous or cled with Possession year and day are ordinarily preferred contrair to the tenor of the Statute and base Infeftments retenta possessione where the obtainer of the Infeftment is negligent are accounted Simulat presumptione juris de jure but where there is no delay nor ground of â—imulation the base Infeftment is preferred whether the posterior publick Infeftment attain Possession for year and day or not The Lords having heard this Case at length and debated the same accuratly amongst themselves in respect they found no preceeding Decision whether base Infeftments of Warrandice where there was possession of the Principal Lands were valid or not against posterior publick Infeftments They found this base Infeftment of Warrandice valid against the posterior publick Infeftment The Infeftment in Warrandice being Simul with the Principal and not ex intervallo and being after the Act of Parliament 1617. but did not decide the Case to be of generall rule for Warrandice ex intervallo before the said Act. Grissell Seatoun and Laird of Touch. contra Dundas Ianuary 11. 1666. GRissall Seatoun and the Laird of Touch younger her Assigney pursues Dundas as charged to enter Heir to Mr. Hendrie Mauld for payment of a Bond of 8000 merks granted to the said Grissall by the said Mr. Hendrie her Son It was alleadged that the Bond was null wanting Witnesses It was Replyed That the Pursuer offered him to prove it Holograph It was duplyed that albeit it were proven Holograph as to the body yet it could not instruct its own date to have been any day before the day that Mr. Hendrie died and so being granted in lecto aegritudinis cannot prejudge his Heir whereupon the Defender has a Reduction It is answered that the Reduction is not seen nor is there any Title in the Defender produced as Heir It was answered that the nullitie as wanting Witnesses was competent by exception and the the duply as being presumed to be in lecto was but incident and was not a Defense but a Duply The Lords Repelled the Defense upon the nullitie of the want of Witnesses in respect of the Reply and found the Duply not competent hoc ordine but only by Reduction and found there was no Title produced in the Reduction Executors of William Stevinson contra James Crawfoord Ianuary 12. 1666. THE Executors of William Stevinson having confirmed a Sum of 3000. and odd Pounds due by Bond by Iohn Ker to the said William and also by Iames Crawfoord who by his missive Letter became oblidged to pay what bargain of Victual should be made between the said Iohn Ker and Iohn Stevinson for himself and as Factor for William Stevinson And subsums that this Bond was granted for a Bargain of Victual It was answered that albeit this Bond had been in the name of William Stevinson yet it was to the behove of Iohn Stevinson his Brother who having pursued upon the same ground the Defender was Assoilzied and that it was to Iohns behove alleadged First That Iohn wrot a Letter to his Brother William to deliver up his Bond acknowledging that it was satisfied and that Iohn having pursued himself for the other Bond granted in place of this The said Umquhil William Stevinson compeared or a Procurator for him before the Commissars and did not pretend any Interest of his own neither did William during his Life which was ten yearsâ— thereafter ever move question of this Bond nor put he it in the Inventar of his Testament though that he put most considerable Sums therein It was answered 1. That the presumptions alleadged infer not that this Bond was to Iohn Stevinsons behove because by Iames Crawfoords Letter there is mention made of several Bargains of Victual both with Iohn and William so that the Bond and pursuite at Johns instance might be for one Bargain and at Williams for another especially seing the Sums differ 2dly Writ cannot be taken away by any such Presumptions It was answered That if the Defender James Crawfoord had subscribed this Bond it could more hardly have been taken away by Presumptions but he hath not subscribed the Bond but only his missive Letter which is dubious whether it be accessory to this Bond or if that Bond was for this Bargain and therefore such a writ may well be â—lided by such strong Presumptions The Lords found the Presumption Relevant and that they instructed the Bond was to Johns behove and therefore in respect of the ahsâ—lvitor at Crawfoords instance they Assoilzied William Dick contra Sir Andrew Dick. January 13. 1666. WIlliam Dick pursues Sir Andrew Dick his Father for a modification of his Aliment whereupon the question was whether Sir Andrew Dick himself being indigent and having a great Family of smal Children and the Pursuer having been Educat a Prentice whether the Pursuer should have a Modification The Lords considering the great Portion the Pursuers Mother brought and that he was a Person of no ability to Aliment himself by his industrie decerned Sir Andrew to receive him in his House and to entertain him in meat and Cloath as he did the rest or else two hundred merks at Sir Andrews option James Crawfoord contra Auchinleck January 17. 1666. THE Heirs of Lyne of Umquhile Sir George Auchinleck of Balmanno being provided to a Portion payable by the Heirs Male did thereupon charge the Appearand Heir Male and upon his Renounciation to be Heir obtained Decreet cognitionis causa after which that Appearand Heir dyed and the Decreet being Assigned to Iames Crawfoord Writer he now insists in in a Summons of Adjudication containing a Declarator that he having charged the next Appearand Heir to enter to the last Appearand Heir against whom the Decreet cognitionis causa was
Suspenders Oâ—th or VVrit The Lords fâ—und that the granting of the Bond was no Hâ—mologation of the Decreet but that â—e might quarrel the same and that the giving of the Bond was no Transaction if he payed or gave Bond for the whole Sums contained in the Decreet but found that â—f in consideration of the Grounds upon which he might quarrel the same he had gâ—â—â—en an abatement by Arbitration or otherwise that he could not quarrel the same and found it only probable by his Oath or â—â—rit Iames Donaldson contra Harrower Eodem die JAmes Donaldson pursues Iohn Harrower as representing his Father for whom the Pursuer became Cautioner to the Lord Rollo for 100. pound for relief of the Defuncts Goods that were then a poinding for which the Defunct promised payment and did pay the Lord Rollo and produces a Testificat of the Lord Rollo's thereof and craves payment and offers to prove the Libel by VVitnesses the Libel not being above an hundred pound It was alleadged for the Defender that this being a Cautionry and a Promise it was not probable by VVitnesses especially after so long a time the Promiser being dead who might either qualifie the Promise or instruct payment there being nothing more ordinar then to Transact such Affairs without any VVrit The Lords found the Libel not probable by Witnesses Frazer contra Frazer Eodem die JOhn Frazer having obtained a Decreet against William Frazer his Brother to deliver a Tack of the Lands of Boghead granted to their Father and his Heirs to whom the said Iohn is Heir William Suspends on this Reason that he is Heir to his Father of the second Marriage and produces his Retour and produces the Contract of Marriage including a Clause that all Tacks Conquest during the Marriage should belong to the Heirs of the Marriage and this Tack being Acquired during the Marriage the same belongs to him and albeit it he conceived to the Heirs generally yet by the Contract the Pursuer as Heir general will be oblieged to Assign It was answered that this Tack was no new Conquest but had been the old Possession of the Father and the Tack bare the Lands to be presently possest by him The Lords found this Tack to fall under the Clause of Conquest unless the Pursuer prove that there was an old Tack standing which expyred not till the second Marriage was Dissolved in lieu whereof this new Tack was taken Hamiltoun contra Callender Iuly 7. 1668. JAmes Hamiltoun having taken his Debitor with Caption offered him to Iames Callender Baillie of Falkirk to be Incarcerat in the Tolbooth of Falkirk and he refusing he now pursues a subsidiary Action against the Baillie for payment of the Debt who alleadged Absolvitor because he is no Magistrate of a Burgh Royal but of a Burgh of Regality the Baillies whereof were never in custom to be Charged with Rebels The Pursuer opponed the Act of Parliament 1597. cap. 279. bearing expresly Baillies of Stewartries and Regalities according to which the Tenor of all Captions bears the Letters to be direct against all Baillies of Regalities The Defender answered that for the Letters it is but stylus curiae and for the Act of Parliament the Narrative and Reason thereof relates only to Burghs having Provest Baillies and Common Good The Lords having considered the Act of Parliament Repelled the Defense and Decerned here the Rebel was Residenter within the Burgh of Regality where there was known to be a convenient Prison Relict of William Pattoun contra Relict of Archibald Pattoun Eodem die THE Relict and Executors of William Pattoun pursues the Relict and Executors of Archibald Pattoun for Compt and Reckoning of Sums and Goods belonging to the said umquhil William Pattoun by Archibald and craves the Defender to produce Archiâ—alds Compt Books who alleadgen nemo tenetur edere instrumenta sua contra se ad fundandam â—item so that the desire was no wayes reasonable unless the Pursuer had given in a particular Charge and Litiscontestation had been made thereon in which case the Defender might have been compelled ad modum probationis to have produced the Books It was answered the contrair was found in the Compt and Reckoning betwixt the Children of George Suiâ—ty against the Representatives of William Suitty their Tutor and that there was as great reason here the two Defuncts having been Brothers and being in Copartnery together and the one Factor for the other It was answered that the case of a Tutor and his Pupil was no way alike because the Tutors Compt Book was in effect the Pupils and the Copartinery and Factory was denyed The Lords ordained the Book to be put in the hands of the Auditor and if he found by inspection thereof any Accompts appeared as betwixt Partners and Factors he should produce the same to the other Party even ad fundandam litem otherwise that the same should be given back and not showen to the Pursuer Margaret Alexander contra Laird of Clackmannan Iuly 9. 1668. MArgaret Alexander being Infeft in an annualrent out of the Lands of Sauchie by a posterior Infeftment in Corroboration of the former Right she was Infeft in that same Annualrent out of other Lands whereof she was in Possession but this posterior Infeftment being Reduced upon an Inhibition prior thereto she pursues poinding of the Ground of the Lands of Sauchie upon the first Infeftment It was alleadged for Clackmannan Absolvitor because the Pursuers Right of Annualrent is base never cled with Possession and now he is Infeft in the Lands either publickly or by another Infeftment cled with Possession The Pursuer answered that the Infeftment in the Lands of Sauchie was sufficiently cled with Possession in so far as the posterior Infeftment of Annualrent in Corroboration thereof was cled with Possession and as payment made by the Heretor by himself for his Tennents or by Assignation to Mails and Duties of other Lands in satisfaction of the Annualrent infers Possession so payment made by his Tennents by the posterior Infeftment in Corroboration can be no worse then an Assignation to the Mails and Duties of these Lands which as it payes some Terms Annualrent of the first Infeftment so it must cloath it sufficiently with Possession It was answered that here being two distinct Infeftments at several times albeit for the Annualrent of the same sum yet the Possession of the last cannot relate to the first The Lord Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and found that Possession by the last Infeftment did from that time sufficiently validat the first Heugh Boog contra Robert Davidson Eodem die HEugh Boog having arrested Robert Davidsons Fee as Keeper of Herlots Hospital Pursues the Town of Edinburgh to make it forthcoming It was alleadged for Robert Davidson Absolvitor because Robert Davidson had made cessionem bonorum in favours of this Pursuer and his other Creditors and thereupon was Assoilzied The Pursuer answered that a Honorum did no
a time Duncan Campbel contra the Laird of Glenorchy Iuly 25. 1668. DVncan Campbel pursues the Laird of Glenorchy for Ejecting him from certain Lands and especially that his Brother by his Direction did violently cast out the Pursuers Children and Servants out of a part of the Land Laboured by himself and perswaded and enticed his Tennents to receive Tacks from and pay the Mails and Duties to him and therefore craves Re-possession and Double Mail as the violent Profits of the whole Lands during the Defenders Possession The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because he had obtained Improbation against the Pursuer of all his Rights of these Lands and others and likewise Decreet of Removing The Pursuer answered that the Defense ought to be Repelled because the Improbation was only by a Certification when he was Prisoner in Irland and the Defender by Articles of Agreement produced had acknowledged the Pursuers Right and obliged himself to Infest him in the Lands in question 2dly Though the Pursuer had but Possession without any Right he might not be Ejected but by a Precept of Ejection from a Judge which is not alleadged The Defender answered that these Articles of Agreement were never perfected nor extended and could only import a Personal Action against the Defender for extention or implement wherein when the Pursuer insists he will get this answer that he can have no benefit of the Articles being mutual until he perform his part thereof which is not done The Lords Repelled the Defence and Duply and Sustained the Ejection The Defender alleadged further that that Member of the Libel craving violent profits for that part of the Land Possest by Tennents because by the Defenders perswasion they became his Tennents is not Relevant because Ejection is only competent to the natural Possess or upon violence and perswasion is no violence The Pursuer answered that the prevailing with the Tennents was consequent to the casting out of the Defender out of his own House and natural Possession and was as great a fault as Intrusion and equivalent thereto The Defender answered that the Law has allowed violent profits only in Ejection or Intrusion which can be drawn to no other Case though it were as great or an greater fault The Lords sustained the Defence and found violent profits only competent for that part that the Pursuer Possest naturally but if the whole Lands had been an united Tenement or Labouring that the Pursuer had been Ejected out of the principal messuage of the Barony and the Ejecter had thereby gotten Possession of the whole it is like the Lords would have sustained Ejection for the whole but this was not Pleaded Lord Rentoun contra Lambertoun Iuly 28. 1668. THis day the Lord Rentouns Processe against Lambertoun mentioned the 21. Instant was Advised by the Probation it appeared that the Corns in the Girnels of Haymouth and the Cattel in the Mains of Rentoun and Horses were taken away by Lambertoun with a Troop or Troopers and that the Corns were carried to Dunss the Army being thereabout at that time whereupon the question arose whether or not Lambertoun were lyable for these which by the Probation did not appear to be applyed to his use but to the use of the Army The Lords Assoilzied him therefrom as they had done in several cases formerly upon the Act of Indemnity whereby whatsoever was acted in the Troubles by Warrand of any Authority in Being was totally discharged and the Lords did thereupon find that the Actors were not obliged to produce or show a Warrand but that it was enough the Deeds were done manâ— militari unlesse the contrair were proven by the Actors own Oath that what was medled with was not employed to entertainment of Souldiers or any other publick use but to their own private use Laird of Milntoun contra Lady Milntoun Iuly 30. 1668. THe Laird of Milntoun infifted in his Action of Reprobator wherein this point of the Dispute was only Discust whether Reprobators were competent unlesse they were protested for at the taking of the Witnesses Testimonies or whether it were sufficient to Protest at any time before Sentence or if there were no necessity at all and especially as to this Case It was alleadged there was no necessity of a Protestation and if it were there was a Protestation at the Re-examination of the Witnesses and also before Sentence It was answered that a Protestation was most necessar because the want of it was an acquiescence in the hability and honesty of the Witnesses and if it should not be necessar all Process this five years might come in question upon Reprobation which were of dangerous consequence and therefore as Incidents are not competent but when Protested for no more Reprobations as to the alleadged Protestation at the Examining of the Witnesses it is but subjoined to the Interrogators only Subscribed by one of the four Examinators who Subscribed the Testimonies and who does not remember of his Subscription so that it has been surreptitiously obtained from him as to the other Protestation the same was not when the Witnesses were taken but at the conclusion of the Cause It was answered that it was in competent time even at the conclusion and that Reprobators were not only not rejected but expresly allowed by the Pursuer by way of Action The Lords found this Reprobator competent in this Case but did not resolve the point generally whether they were competent when not at all Protested for as to which the Lords were of different Judgements but most seemed to require a Protestation ante rem Iudicatam yet so that if it were omitted the Lords might repone the Party to Reprobators if any emergent made the Testimonies suspect through inhability or corruption in the same manner as the Lords will repone Parties against Certifications Circumductions of the Term and being holden as Confest Sir George Mckenzie contra the Laird of Newhal Eodem die SIr George Mckenzie Advocat having Married a Daughter of Iohn Dickson of Hartrie they pursue a Proving of the Tenor of an Inventar of Harâ—ries Lands wherein he altered the former Substitution of his Children in several Bonds and paricularly of a Bond of 5000. Merks granted by Whitehead of Park payable to himself and after his Decease to Helen Dickson his youngest Daughter who was Married to Ballenden of Newhal and by the Inventar the Substitution was altered and the one half of the Bond appointed to pertain to Elizabeth now Spouse to Sir George Mckenzie and the other to Helen and Michael to prove that the samine was Holograph because it wanted Witnesses there was produced for Adminicles the Copy of it written by Iohn Kelloes Hand Hartries Nephew and an judicial Instrument containing the Tenor of it by way of Transumpt but there was some words of difference between the Instrument and the Copy which was Subscribed by Iohn Ramsay Hartries Good-brother and Mr. Iohn Pringle Hariries Good-son who and several others being adduced as Witnesses
his own and was not in his Family and albeit he were not eager to put his Father out of Possession of his House and Lands yet his continuance of Possession is not Relevant unless it had been to his death or for a longer time but any delay that was is because it is but of late that the Doctor hath obtained special Declarator till which he was not in capacity to discontinue his Fathers Possession Neither can Members of Court be admitted to prove that the Father wared out the Expence and procured the Gift because the Doctor at the passing of the Gift gave a Back-bond that he being satisfied of the Debts due to him and the Expences thereof there should be place for the Rebels Creditors and did make Faith at the passing of the Gift that it was to his own behove after which no Winesses can be admitted against him nor any other presumptive Probation of the simulation of the Gift Which the Lords found Relevant and found also the Pursuers Reply upon the Back-bond alleadged granted by the Doctor to his Father Relevant to be proven by the Doctors Oath only Sir Iohn Vrquhart Supplicant December 7. 1669. SIr Iohn Vrquhart gave in a Supplication to the Lords bearing that he being Cited before the Council upon several alleadged Riots and fearing that he might be excluded from appearing in his own defense by hornings against him therefore desired that the Lords would grant Suspension of all Hornings against him ad hunc effectum only to give him personam standi in judicio but prejudice to the Creditors of all other execution Which desire the Lords granted as to all Hornings he should condescend upon Pittrichie contra Laird of Geight December 15. 1669. MAitland of Pittrichie having obtained the Gift of Recognition from the King of certain Waird-lands held by the Laird of Geight of His Majesty pursues Declarator of Recognition upon Geights Alienation of the Lands wherein compearance was made for the Purchasers thereof who alleadged Absolvitor because the time of their Alienation by the Law and custom in force for the time Such Alienations without consent of the Superiour were valide The Pursuer answered that any Law or Custom that then was is now Annulled and Rescinded as from the beginning The Defender answered that no Laws of whatsoever Tenor can be drawn back by invalidat Deeds done by the Law and Custom for the time especially as to Matters Penal such as Recognitions so that Parties having acted bona fide according to any thing they could know for a Rule cannot fall in the Penalty and certification of Recognition which imports a contempt of the Superiour and cannot be inferred by any Deed legal for the time The Pursuer answered that the contempt is the same when the Vassal alieâ— natâ— his Fee without the Superiours consent and when such Alienations being by Law become void and the Superiours Right of Recognition revived the Vassal did not after that time crave the Superiours Confirmation as Heir so he Laird of Geight having never sought Confirmation from the King since His Restauration it is no less contempt than if since the Kings Restauration he had Alienat especially seing the King refuses Confirmation to none who demand it It was answered for the Purchasers that the Vassal being Denuded in their favour according to the Law standing for the time his fault cannot lose their Right for though he should collude against them yet that ought not to prejudge them and there being no obliegment upon the Vassal to seek a Confirmation to the behove of the Purchasers they cannot be prejudged for not obtaining the same The Pursuer answered that the Purchasers might have craved the Kings Confirmation of their Right both for themselves and in name of Geight the immediat Vassal which Geight neither would nor could oppose The Lords Repelled the Defenses in respect of the Reply that no Confirmation was craved neither by the Vassal nor Purchasers his Sub-vassals which they might have done if they had pleased and therefore declared the Lands to be Recognosced Innes contra Innes Ianuary 5. 1670. Innes having granted an Assignation of an Heretable Bond of 6000. merks 4000. merks thereof to Robert Innes his eldest Son and 2000. merks thereof to William and Ianet Inness his younger Children and in case of Roberts Decease providing his part amongst the rest equally Ianes having died before Robert her Heirs and Roberts Heirs compet for the sum for Robert died without Children and William as Heir to Robert claimed the whole sum upon this Ground that Ianet being substitute by the Father to Robert without any mention of Ianets heirs Ianet having died before Robert she had never right and her Substitution became absolutely void and her Heirs not being exprest this Substitution cannot extend to them because though ordinarly Heirs are comprehended though not exprest qui acquirit sibi acquirit suis yet here is no Acquisition but a voluntary Substitution whereby it may be rationally conjectured the mind of the Defunct was that he would prefer Ianet to Roberts Heirs of line not being Heirs of his Body but not that he would prefer Ianets Heirs which were a degree further from his own other Bairns And the case of Substitutions in the Roman Law was urged that if the Substitute died before the Institute the Substitutes Heirs have never place It was answered that Institutions and Substitutions with us do far differ from the Roman Substitutions whereby if the Institute succeed the Substitute has never place as Heir to the Institute but the Institutes Heirs whatsomever which failing the Institute is there interpret so that if the Institute never be Heir then the Substitute has place as Heir of Tailzie and provision to the Substitute so that here Ianets Heirs are Heirs to Robert who had no Heirs of his Body and do exclude William his Brother and though Ianets Heirs be not mentioned yet they are understood and comprehended because in Tailzies and Provisions there uses never to be an Institution or Substitution of a single person without the Heirs of their Body And though there be some singular Cases in which Heirs not being exprest are not comprehended this is none of them It was further alleadged for William that William and Ianet being Substitute joyntly Ianet deceasing before Robert her share accresces to him jure accrescendi ex conjuncta substitutione It was answered that there is here only substitutio conjuncta verbis but disjuncta rebus for the sum is declared to belong to William and Ianet equally so that each of them has but Right to a half The Lords preferred the Heirs of Ianet and found that they had Right as Heirs of Provision to Robert and that they ought to be served to him and not to Ianet who had never Right her self having died before she was or could be Heir to Robert Elizabeth and Anna Boids contra Iames Boid of Temple Ianuary 6. 1670. JAmes Boid of Temple in his
Sub-tennent to the principal Tennent The Lords Debate the same amongst themselves some being of opinion that the Sub-tennents payment bona fide before the Term was sufficient because he was only obliged to the principal Tennent and he might have a Tack for a less Duty then he or for an elusory Duty which if he payed and were Discharged he was not conveenable and oft times the Sub-tennents Term was before the principal Tennents Yet the Lords found that payment made bona fide by the Sub-tennent to the principal Tennent was not Relevant and that because the Master of the Ground has Action not only against the Tennent but also against the Sub-tennent or any who enjoyed the Fruits of his Ground and may conveen them personally for his Rent as well as really he has an Hypothick in the Fruits neither can the Sub-tennent prejudge the Master of the Ground of that Obligation and Action by paying before the Term otherways he might pay the whole Terms of the Tack at the very entry thereof and so Evacuat the Heretors Interest as to the Sub-tennent yeaâ— though the Sub-tennents Tack-duty were less then the principal Tennents it would not Exclude the Heretor pursuing him as Possessor for the whole but only give him Regress for Warrandice against the principal Tacks-man but the Term being come if the Heretor Arrested nor pursued not the Sub-tacksman he might impute it to himself and the Sub-tacks-man might justly presume that the principal Tacks-man had payed and so might pay him bona fide Countess of Hume contra Tennents of Alcambus and Mr. Rodger Hoge Eodem die THe Countess of Hume being provided by her Contract of Marriage to the Lands of Alcambus Pyperlaw and Windilaw extended to 24 Husband-Lands she gets a Charter upon her Contract bearing For Implement thereof to Dispone to her the Lands and Barony of Alcambus c. with a Seasine taken at Alcambus She thereupon pursues the Tennents Compearance is made for Mr. Roger Hog and other Creditors who bought these Lands from Wauchtoun who had bought them from the Earl of Hume and alleadged Absolvitor from the Mails and Duties of the Miln of Alcambus because my Lady by her Contract of Marriage was not provided to the Miln neither was she Infeft therein per expressum and Milns do not pass as Pertinents without a special Infeftment 2ly Absolvitor for the Rents of Pyperlaw and Windilaw because my Ladies Seasineâ— bears Only Inâ—eftment in the Lands of Alcambus and mentions not these Lands which are particularly in the Contract The Pursuer answered to the first That by her Charter she was Infeft in the Lands of Alcambus with the Milns with other Lands mentioned therein c. 2ly That Alcambus bore by her Charter to be a Barony which is nomen universitatis and carries Milns albeit not exprest To the second It is offered to be proven that Alcambus is the common known Designation and is commonly known to comprehend Pyperlaw and Windilaw as Parts and Pertinents thereof and that they are all holden of one Superiour and lyes contigue so that they are naturally unite and without any further union in a Barony or Tenement and a Seasine upon any place of them serves for all It was answered for the Defender to the first Point That Alcambus was not a Barony neither doth the Designation thereof by the Earl of Hume make it a Barony unless it were instructed 2ly The adding of Milns in the Charter if the Lady had not Right thereto by the Contract is a Donation by a Husband and is Revocked by his Disposition of the Lands of Alcambus and Miln thereof to the Laird of Wauchtoun the Defenders Author The Pursuer answered that the Charter was but an Explication of the meaning of the Parties that by the Contract the intention was to Dispone the Miln especially seing the Miln hath no Sucken but these Husband-Lands of Alcambus which are Disponed without any Restâ—iction of the Multure so that the Miln would be of little consequence without the Thirâ—e The Lords having compared the Contract and Charter found that by the Contract the Lady could not have Right to the Miln 〈◊〉 she would be free of the Multures and found that the Charter did not only bear for Implement of the Contract but also for love and favour and so found the Adjection of the Miln to be a donation Revocked Nor had they respect to the Designation of the Lands as a Barony but they found it Relevanâ— if the Lady should â—rove that it was a Barony to carry the Right of the Miâ—n or that in my Lords Infeftments there was no express menâ—â—â—n of the Miln but that my Lady had them in the same Terms my Lord had them They found also that Reply Relevant that Alcambus was the Name of the whole Lands to extend the Sea sine to the Lands of Pypâ—rlaw and Windilaw though not named and that they might be yet Parts and Pertinents of the Tenement under one Common Name Andrew Smeatoun contra Tabbert Feb. 7. 1667. ANdrew Smeatoun being Infeft in an Annulrent out of a Tenement in the Canongate pursues a Poinding of the Ground and produces his own Infeftment and his Authors but not the original Infeftment of the Annualrent It was alleadged no Process until the original Infeftment were produced constituting the Annualrent especially seing the Pursuit is for all bygones since the date of the Authors Infeftment so that neither the Pursuer nor his immediat Author hath been in Possession 2ly If need beis it was offered to be proven that before the Rights produced the Authors were denuded It was answered that the Pursuer hath produced sufficiently and that his Right was cled with Possession in the Person of his mediat Author before the years in question To the second this Pursuer hath the benefit of a possessory judgement by his Infeftment cled with Possession and is not obliged to Dispute whether his Author were denuded or not unless it were in a Reduction The Lords sustained the Pursuers Title unless the Defender produced a Right anterior thereto in whiâ—h case they ordained the Parties to be heard thereupon and so inclined not to exclude the Pursuer upon the alleadgeance of a possâ—ssory judgement but that Point came not fully to be debated It is certain that a possessory judgement is not relevant in favours of a Proprietar against an Annualrenter to put him to Reduce because an Annualrent is debitum fundi but whether an Annualrenter possessing seven years could exâ—â—ude a Proprietar until he Reduce had not been decided but in this case the Lords inclined to the Negative Mr. Alexander Foulis and Lord Collingtoun contra Tennents of Innertyle and La. Collingtoun Feb. 9. 1667. SIr Iames Foulis of Collingtoun being in treaty of Marriage with Dam Margaret Erskin Lady Tarbet She did dispone 36 Chalders of Victual of her Joynture in the North to a confident Person that she might make use thereof for the benefit of
her Children and Disponed 36 Chalders of her Liferent of the Lands of Innertyle to Cuninghame of Woodhal who transferred the same to Mr. Alexander Fâ—ulis of Ratho who granted a Back-bond bearing That his Name was made use of for the use and behove of Collingtoun and his Lady and that to this effect that the profit of the Liferent should be applyed to the Aliment of their Families joyntly and therefore obliged himself to Dispone in their favours and de presenti did Dispone The next day after this Disposition there is a Contract of Marriage betwixt Collingtoun and the Lady wherein there is this Clause that Colâ—ingtoun Renunces his jus mariti to the Lady's Liferent or any other Right he might have thereto by the subsequent Marriage and takes his hazard for what he may have any other way Mr. Alexander pursues the Tennents upon his Disposition Compearance is made for the Lady who alleadges he hath no interestâ— because he is denuded by the Back-bond Compearance is made for Collingtoun who declared he concurred with Ratho and consented he should have the Mails and Duties to the effect contained in the Back-bond and that he would not make further use of the Re-disposition contained therein It was answered for the Lady that Collingtouns concourse could not sustain this Process because Ratho was already de presenit denuded in favours of Collingtoun and her Likeas Collingtoun was denuded by his Contract of Marriage whereby he renunces his jus maâ—iti and all other Right he can have to the Liferent Laâ—ds in favours of the Lady and so renunces the Clause of the Back-bond in so far as it is in his favours It was answered that the Contract of Marriage could not derogat to the Back-bond unless the Back-bond had been per expressum Discharged or Renunced therein because albeit the Contract of Marriage be a day posterior to the Back-bond yet both are parts of one Treaty of Marriage and so in the same condition as if they were in one Writ so that a posterior Clause in general Terms cannot take away a prior special Clause of this moment yea though it were in a Contract leâ—s favourable then a Contract of Marriage which is ubeâ—â—mae fidei general Clauses are not extended above what is specially exprest and the jus mariti being exprest and the Back-bond not exprest it cannot be presumed that they changed their minds in one night to Renunce the benefit of the Back-bond but this Conveyance was made of purpose because Collingtoun being in Debt if the Right were Constitute in a third Party and only to their behove as an aliment the Creditors could not reach the same but it were the greatest Cheat imaginable to conceive that the general Clause subsequent should evacuat the whole design and take away the provision of the Back-bond Neither doth the general Clause renunce all Right that Collingtoun had or might have to the Liferent-lands any manner of way but only all Right he could have by the subsequent Marriage any manner of way Ita est that he doth not claim Right jure mariti nor by the subsequent Marriage but by the Paction contained in the Back-bond and it is most certain that the jus Mariti which is most peculiar to this Nation doth not comprehend all Rights a Husband hath in relation to the Person or Means of his Wife but only the Right of moveable Goods or Sums which without any Paction whatsoever way they come in her Person belong ipso facto to him not by Paction but by Law and that jure mariti or by vertue of the Marriage so thaâ— albeit he could not have Right even by the Paction except that he were Husband or that Marriage had followed yet his Paction is his Title and not the Marriage which is but tacita conditio or causa sine qua non so that Discharging or Renuncing of the jus mariti or the benefit by the Marriage if it were posterior to the Contract of Marriage would not take away the Contract and being in the Contract cannot take away the prior â—action and Disposition granted by the Wife in favours of a Husband or a third Party to his behove It was answered for the Lady that she adheres to the clear express Terms of the Contract of Marriage which Renunces not only the jus mariti but all other Right to the Liferent-lands by the subsequent Marriage which being a several Writ and a Day posterior most necessâ—rly take away the Back-bond without considering the meaning of Parties quia in claris non est loâ—us conjecturis at least the meaning can be no otherways cleared but by Writ or the Ladies Oath otherwise the most clear and solemn Contract shall be arbitrary and may be taken away by presumptions or conjectures and no man shall be secure of any Right 2ly Verba sumendasunt cum effeâ—â—u iâ— this did not take away the Back-bond it had no effect for the Lâ—dy before the Contract was denuded of her whole Liferent both of Inneâ—tyle and in the North so that there was no need to Renunce the jus mariti or Right by the Marriage to the Liferent-lands It was further alleadged by the Lady that albeit the Renunciation could not reach the Back-bond in so far as it is a Paction so that it yet stood effectal for application of the Liferent right for the aliment of the Lady and Collingtouns Family joyntly yet thereby they both had a Communion and Society equally and the Husband could pretend no Right in the administration or manadgement but only jure mariti in so far as he is Husband and therefore he acknowledging that he has renunced his jus mariti cannot pretend to the administration of this aliment but it must remain intirely to the Lady The Lords found that the Clausâ— in the Contract of Marriage did not derogat to the Back-bond and as to the Point of administration they considâ—red it to consist in two things in uplifting the Rent and manadging the Liferent-lands and in the application thereof to the use of the Family and manadging the Affairs of the Family As to the first they found thâ—â— both Parties having entrusted Ratho the Trust of manadgement of the Rent could not be taken from him without Collingtouns consent and as for the manadgement of the Family it self they found that it neither was nor could be reâ—unâ—ed by the Husband in favours of the Wife and that any such Paction though it had been clear and express taking the Power and Government of the Family from the Husband and â—â—ating it in the Wife is contra bonos moresâ— and void aâ—d that the jus maritiâ— as it is properly taken in our Law for the Husbands interest to the Wifes Moveables being Renunced cannot be understood to reâ—â—h to the Renunciation of the Husbands power to Rule his Wife and Family and to administrat the aliment thereof Elizabeth Ramsay contra Ker of Westnisbet Eodem die ELizabeth Ramsay having pursued an adjudication of