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
Apprizing but not by the Messenger being produced as a Title in a Process the same was not Sustained without the Messengers Subscription or his Executions but the Party was remitted to prove the Tenor thereof December 1665. Mâ—culloch contra Craig An Apprizing was found to be satisfied by Intromâ—ssion not only within the years but also within the three years added by the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor though the Apprizing was led long before that Act Ianuary 20. 16â—6 Clappertoun contra Laird of Torsonce Here it was also found that a part of the Lands Apprized being sold irredeâ—mably by the Apprizer were Redeemable within thrâ—e years and that the singular Successor was only comptable for the Rents thereof and not the Apprizer who had sold the same before the Act. An Apprizing led upon several Sums of one whereof the Term of payment was not come the Apprizing was â—ound null as to that Sum but whether it would be null in totum or whether it would be valide to carry the whole Right of the Lands as that Sum had never been in or if a proportional part of the Land effeiring to that Sum would be free of the Apprâ—izing the Lords decided not but were of different Iudgements February 16. 1666. Sharp of Houstoun contra Glen An Apprizing was found extinct as being satisfied by the Debitor and retired by him with a blank Assignation thereto lying by him at his death though his Son thereafter filled up his Name therein which was instructed partly by the Sons Oath which was found not sufficient to prove alone and partly by Witnesses ex officio one of which who proved most clearly was his Brother February 27. 1666. Creditors of the Lord Grâ—y contra the Lord Gray An Apprizing on a Bond bearing a Sum to be payable without Requisition was found valide without either Requisition or Charge of Horning Iuly 21. 1666. Thomson contra Mâ—kitrick An Apprizing was found extinct as to a Party in whose favours the Apprizer granted a Back-bond bearing that the Apprizing should not be prejudicial to that Parties Right which was found Relevant against a singular Successor viz. The Kings Donator having right to the Apprizing by Foreâ—aulture Iuly 31. 1666. Earl of Southesk contra Marquess of Huntly An Apprizing was found satisfied within the Legal by Intromission and no part of the Martinmas Rent was ascribed to a Tercers Right not being served though she gave Tack to the Apprizer he having Entered on the Debitors Possession December 21. 1666. Zeaman contra Oâ—â—phant An Apprizing led against an appearand Heir as specially Charged to Enter Heir was preferred to the Infeftment â—f the next apparent Heir after the Heir Charged his death or the Infeâ—tment of their singular Successor granted after the matter became Litigious albeit the Apprizer from the apparent Heir Charged was never Infeft nor Charged the Superiour upon the Appâ—izing neither was the apparent Heir himself Infeft but that the Superiour might be Chaâ—ged at any time after the apparent Heirs death and albeit the next apparent Heirs could not Enter Heirs to the former apparent Heir Charged but to his Predecessor to the effect they might Reduce or Redeem the Apprizing led against the former apparent Heir February 6. 1668. Iohnstoun contra Erskin An Apprizing was found Redeemable from the eldest Son and apparent Heir of the Debitor within ten years for the sums he truly payed out by the Act of Parliament 1661. albeit his Father was living the time of this Process Iune 19. 1668. â—urnet contra Nâ—smith An Apprizer since 1652. pursuing the rest for his part of the Duties as coming in with them pari passu by the Act 1661. betwixt Debitor and Creditor his Apprizing was â—ound not to be effectual till the allowance thereof were Registrate conform to the late Act of the same Parliament anent Registration of allowances but that it required no determinate time to Registrate but whensoever Registrate it would be effectual as to all Rights not compleated before Registration Iuly 17. 1668. Steuart contra Murraâ—â— An Apprizing on an Assignation to a Cautioner or for his behove Apprizing for the whole sum without deduction of that Cautioners part was not found null in totum but Restricted to the Sum truly due being within the Legal Iuly 22. 1668. Iohnstoun of Sheins contra Arnold An Apprizing and Infeftment thereon granted by the Exchequeâ— of course without notice when the King by Forefaulture was imâ—ediate Superiour was found not to supplie a Confirmation or to exclude the Donator of the Forefaulture pursuing a Removing on a posterior Gift December 9. 1668. Earl of Argile contra Stirling Apprizing with a Charge against the Superiour does not exclude the Liferent Escheat of the Vassal against whom the Apprizing was led without consideration whether the Superiour was in culpa by not obeying the Charge Iune 28. 1667. Dowglat contra Lisk An Apprizer having at several times Apprized on several Sums and Entered in possession by the first Apprizing before the secoâ—d was led was found to impute his whole Intromission to the first Apprizing that thereby it might be satisfied within the Legal The Apprizer was also found comptable for what sums he received for a part of the Lands sold by him within the Legal but for no greater price and a joynt probation was refused though it was in the Highlands the Apprizer offering to prove by Witnesses above exception and the Lords ordained both the Feears to be produced and the greatest prices to be proven that they might choose what Rate to â—ollow Ianuary 14. 1669. Mckenzie of Puglasâ— contra Ross of Auchnacloich An Apprizing led against one Charged to Enter Heir who dying un-infeft his Sisters as Heirs to his Grand-Father to whom he was Charged to Enter Heir were â—ound to have the Right of Reversion of the Appriâ—ing albeit they were not Heirs to their Brother who was Charged to Enter Heir but dyed un-infeft Ianuary 1â— 1669. Iohnstoun contra Erskin Lord Lyon An Apprizer having Charged the Superior was found not thereby to become Vassal so as by his death the Lands would â—all Waird but by the Death of the Party against whom the Apprizing was led unless the Apprizer when he Charged the Superior had presented a Chatter with an offer of Money and a Bond for what â—urther the Lords should modifie for the years Rent and had put the Superior in culpa aut mora in not Infefting the Apprizer and that whether the Superior required the same or not February 9. 1669. Black Donator by the Duke of Hamilâ—oun contra French Vide Liferent Dowglas contra Lâ—â—k An Apprizing was found extinct by the Intromission of him to whom the Apprizer granted Back-bond declaring the Apprizing to be to his behove and that against a singular Successor who thereafter obtained Disposition and Inâ—eâ—tment upon the Apprizers Resignation Iuâ—y 12. 1670. Kennedy contra Cuninghame and Wallace An Apprizing posterior was preferred to a prior Appriâ—ing being less
declarator of Distress or Eviction but a pursuit of Removing or Mails and Duties upon Eviction is sufficient which cannot be excluded by a possessory judgement upon 7. years Possession by the publick Infeftment unless it were 7. years after the Eviction February 20. 1668. Forbes contra Innes Base Infeftments granted by a Father to his two Sons of the same date one of Property of Lands and another of annualrent forth thereof was found both valide as being cled with the Fathers possession reserved in both there being no suspition of defraud of Creditors or competition with them and that a singular Successor appryzing and Infeft from the one was not preferable to a posterior Adjudger from the other Iune 30. 1668. Chem contra Chrisly A base Infeftment of annualrent was found validate by Possession upon another Infeftment of annualrent in corroboration of the former out of distinct Lands whereby both Infeftments as to both Lands were found valide though no payment was made by the Debitor or by the Tennents in the first Infeftment Iuly 9. 1668. Alexander contra the Laird of Clackmannan A base Infeftment to a Creditor was preferred to a posterior publick Infeftment granted to a Wife by an additional Ioynture in respect there was a Citation on the base Infeftment anterior to the Wifes publick Infeftment which was found to validate the same and sentence of preference of poynding of the Ground was now granted therein Ianuary 27. 1669. Bell of Belfoord contra Lady Rutherâ—oord A base Infeftment never cled with Possession was found valide to exclude the Terce of the granters Relict Ibâ—dem A base Infeftment by a Father to his Children was found not validate by the Fathers Possession wherein he continued albeit he had a Factory from the Children here it was not alleadged that the Father had granted Discharges or used Citation expresly relative to the Factory Iuly 10. 1669. Gairdiner contra Colvil BASTARDY being gifted by the Vsurpers defends the Bastards Debitors no further than what they bona fide payed to the Donator but not for what was yet in their hands which belongs to the Kings Donator Iuly 19. 166â— Windrham contra Megregors Bastardy was found not to be relevantly Libelled that the Defuncts Father and Mother were not Married but that it behoved to be alleadged that the Defunct was commonly holden and repute Bastard But that it was also sufficient that the Defuncts taking a Legitimation had acknowledged his Bastardy February 19. 1669. Kings Advocate contra Craw. Bastardy was found not to be inferred by the negative presumption that the Father and the Mother were not Married but that it behoved to be proven positive that the Defunct was holden and repute Bastard Iune 15. 1670. Livingstoun contra Burn. Bastardy puts the Donator to no better case as to Back-bonds or mutual Obligements than the Bastard his Heir would have been in Iune 20. 1671. Alexander contra Lord Saâ—toun BEHAVING AS HEIR by intrometting with the Mails and Duties of the Defuncts Lands was elided because the Defender intrometted singulari titulo by an Appryzing though the Legal was not expired unless it had been clearly satisfied by intromission or otherwise Ianuary 10. 1662. Barclay contra Laird of Craigivar Behaving as Heir was found in no time coming to be â—lided by taking Right to any Appryzing or Adjudication led against the Intrometters for their own Debt real or simulate though such Rights were expired February 28. 1662. Act of Sederunt Vide Ianuary 22. 1662. Glendoning contra Earl of Nithisdail Behaving as Heir was not inferred by Inâ—romission with the Rents of the Lands which were disponed by the Defunct and Infeftment thereon but to the behove of the Defender the appearand Heir Ianuary 14. 1662. Harper contra Hume of Plandergaist Behaving as Heir was inferred by the appearand Heir his inâ—rometting with the Rents of Lands belonging to his Father the Debitor in so far as being disponed to the Defender they were Redeemed by him though no Declarator or new Infeftment followed and also found by intrometting with the Fathers whole Silver-work without alleadging a formal drawing of the Heirship or taking any of them as such and though the Lands were Appryzed from the Defunct seing the Legal was un-expired and the Defender had no Right from the Appryzer February 21. 1663. Hamiltoun contra Hamiltoun Behaving as Heir by intrometting with Heirship was not â—lided because the Defuncts Lands were apprized seing the Legal was not expired before his death February 26. 1663. Cuthbert of Drakies contra Mâ—nro of Foulis Behaving as Heir was not â—nferred by intromission with the Rents of the Defuncts Lands which were appryzed and whereunto the appearand Heir acquired Right before he fell to be apparent Heir though he continued to possess after the appryzing was satisfied by intromission February 26. 1663. Inter cosdem Behaving as Heir was elided as to Heirship because the Defunct dyed Rebel and his Escheat was gifted and declared Ibidem Behaving as Heir by medling with heirship was not elided because the Defunct dyed at the Horn and thereby nihil habuit in bonis nor yet that the Escheat was gifted before intenting of this cause but that it was gifted and declared before Iune 10. 1663. Gordoun of Lâ—smore contra Keith Behaving as Heir was elided because the Defunct was Rebel his Escheat gifted and the appearand Heir intrometted by the Donators Rights or Tollerance and that before intenting of the Cause albeit no declarator thereon Iuly 4. 1665. Innes contra Wilson Behaving as Heir was not Sustained upon Intromission had by a Tutor November 30. 1665. Boyd contra Tâ—lziâ—er Behaving as Heir was not Sustained by Heirs of Line their Renuncing to be Heirs in favours of the Heir-male to whom the Father had disponed seing they gave no Right thereby hurtful to Creditors but gave a Renunciation voluntarly which Law would have compelled them to give though for their kindness they got a sum of Money Iuly 5. 1666. Scot contra Heirs of Auchinleck Behaving as Heir by Intromission with the Rents of the Defuncts Lands was elided by Tollerance from a Donator of Recognition albeit not declared till after the Intromission the Defender paying the single value Iuly 17. 1666. Ogilby contra Lord Gray Behaving as Heir by intromission with the Duties of the Defuncts Lands was elided by a Disposition from the Defunct to the Intrometters Son the Defuncts oye though without Infeftment or by a Tack by the apparent Heirs Husband though expired before the Defuncts death as continuing per tacitam relocationem Ianuary 16. 1667. Reâ—d contra Salmond Behaving as Heir was Sustained by Exception Ianuary 8. 1668. Forbes contra Innes Behaving as Heir was found to be instructed by a Discharge granted by the Party as appearand Heir bearing receipt of the Defuncts Charter Chist without any Inventary or Protestation and keeping of it two years without necessity to alleadge that any use was made of the Writs but was not inferred by raising of
Liferenter seing the whole Estate was either affected with the Liferent or the remainder thereof was appryzed from the appeared Heir for the Defuncts debts exceeding the value thereof February 13. 1662. Brown contra Liferenters of Rossie An Heir apparent was allowed to have Aliment of his Grand-Father though he had voluntarly infeâ—t his Son the Pursuers Father and though the Pursuer had a stock of Money Liferented by his Mother here the Grand-Father was Iately fallen to a plenteous Estate Iune 17. 1662. Ruthven Feâ—ar of Gairn contra Laird of Gairn An Heir apparent taking Right to Land from his Grand-Father was found not to enjoy the priviledge of a singular Successor and to be in no better case as to that Right than his Grand-Father albeit his Grand-Father was living and the Oye then not immediate Successor Iuly 23. 1662 Lord Frazer contra Laird of Phillorth An Heir Apparent was found to have Right to the Rents of â—is predecessors Lands although he dyed before he was Infeft and that the next Heir intrometting with the Reâ—â—s of the years that the former appearand Heir lived was lyable to pay the said appearand Heirs Aliment in so far as he Intrometted December 20. 1662. Lady Tarsappie contra Laird of Tarsappie An Heir apparent pursuing for Inspection ad deliberandum was found not to have interest to cause a party compt and run Probation that he might know the condition of the Herâ—tage though there was a contrary Decision observed by Dury March 16. 1637. Hume contra Hume of Blacketer seing the ordinary course since hath been contrary Iune 22. 1671. Lâ—sâ—ies contra Iaâ—â—ray HEIRS IN A TACK found not to require service but that such as might be served Heirs might enjoy the benefite thereof Iune 17. 1671. Boyd contra Sinclar HEIRSHIP MOVEABLES was found competent to one who was infeft in Lands and though the same was appryzed and the Appryzer infeft yet the legal was unexpyred and the appryzing stood but as a collateral Security not as a full Right February 26. 1663. Cuthbert of Draikies contra Monroâ— of Foulâ—s Heirship moveable was found to belong to an Heir of person who dyed only infeft in an Annualrent Iuly 19. 1664. Scrymzeour contra Executors of Murray Heirship moveable was not found competent to a person who was only Heir apparent of Tailzie and dyed never Infeâ—t Ianuary 27. 1666. Collonel Montgomerie contra Steuart Heirship moveable being renunced from the Heir of Line in favours of his Father was found not to return to him after his Fathers death but to belong to his Fathers Executors 〈◊〉 18. 1666. Pollock contra Rutherfoord Heirs 〈◊〉 clause AN HERETABLE Obligement quoad creditorem may be moveable quoad debitorem Iuly 25. 1662. Nasmith contra Iaâ—â—ray An Heretable Sum was found so to remain notwithstanding of a Requisition not being made conform to the clause of Requisition and so null as being provided to be required by the Husband with consent of the Wife whose consent was not adhibite nor was the showing the Creditors intention to require his Money enough not being made debiro modo Ianuary 18. 166â— Steuart contra Steuarts An Heretable Bond was found moveable by a charge thogh but against one of the Caâ—tioners Ianuary 24. 1666. Montgomery and his Spouse contra Steuart An Heretable Bond bearing a clause of Annualrent was found not to be moveable though the principal sum was not payable till the debitors death seing the first Term of payment of the Annualrent was past Iuly 31. 1666. Gordoun contra Keith Vide Bond Iune 28. 1665. and Iunâ— 26. 1668. ONE HOLDEN AS CONFEST was reponed against a Decreet of an inferiour Iudge albeit a Procurator compeared and took a day to produce him but without a Procuratory or proponing any Defense that might show any Information of the cause and so no warrand to compear November 24. 1665. Chalmers contra Lady Tinnel Holden as confest was not admitted against a Defender absent where the Messengers Execution did not bear personally apprehended but that the Messenger knew that the Defender was in his House but was forcibly keeped from access by his Wife Iuly 5. 1670. Lindsay and Swintoun contra Inglis AN HOLOGRAPH Discharge was found not to prove its date against an Assigney unless it were astructed by Adminicles or Witnesses that knew it subscribed of that date Ianuary 4. 1662. Dickie contra Montgomery A Holograph Writ proves not quo ad datam yet the date may be astructed by Witnesses above exception but persons of ordinary credite one of two being a Towns Officer were not found such Witnesses albeit no exception was competent against them for being ordinary Witnesses Iune 21. 1665. Bradie contra the Laird of Fairny Holograph was found proven by production of a Transumpt done judicially and the Oaths of the Witnesses and Friends of the Defunct who made the Wriâ— Transumed amongst his Children altering their portions and though a part of it was written by another when the Defunct was so weak that he could not write yet the writ was found holograph as to the rest but not as to this Article albeit the principal writ was lost and not produced but only the judicial Transumpt taken off when it was produced Iuly 30. 1668. Mckenzie contra Ballaâ—dine of Newhall Vide Death-bed November 14. 1668. Calderwood contra Schaw HOMOLOGATION to communicate Appryzings was found not to be inferred by the singular Successors concurring de facto against third parties unless it were proven by the singular Successors Oath that he knew of such a Bond Iuly 6. 1661. Tailzifer contra Maxtoun and Cunninghamâ— Homologation of a Decreet was not inferred by payment thereof without a Charge seing the Givers thereof were Officers having no Commission or any civil Authority Iuly 24. 1661. Iack contra Feddes Homologation of a Decreet Arbitral quoad one of many Articles of different matters was found not sufficient for the whole November 22. 1662. Pringle contra Din. Homologation of a Fathers Legacy to his Children was inferred by his Wife Confirming the Testament without Protestation not to prove that Legacy here the Wife by her Contract was provided to the Liferent of all her Husbands Moveables February 19. 1663. More contra Stirling Homologation of an Infeftment granted to a Wife in satisfaction of her Contract of Marriage was inferred by her continuing six or seven years to possess and setting several Tacks as Liferentrix where the clause in the Contract was only in general to imploy Money on Land or Annualrent and no Infeftment followed thereon nor was the Husband in possession in his Life but the Wise began the Possession albeit the acceptance of the Infeftment was to her prejudice and was not in her hand nor did the Seasine repeat that provision particularly But only according to the conditions contained in the Bond the Seasine being Registrate and the Bond still in the Nottars hand Who took the Seasine in which case the Wife was presumed to know and not
his Estate that she might not be abused in her Marriage by her Mother or her Freinds the same was sustained after the Pupils age of eleven years though the Mother was unmarried and the Daughter valiâ—udinary February 6. 1666. Laird of Dury contra Lady Dury A Tutor was found to have a year to imploy sums not bearing annualrent and not to be obliged to uplift sums where the Pupil was fully secured or where on a sudden the Debitor break but was found lyable for all Diligence according to the Debitors condition by Horning Caption Arrestment Poinding and Appryzing of the Debitors Estate which should be known to him and not for Horning only Iuly 9. 1667. Steâ—in contra Boyd In a Tutor compt the Tutor was not found lyable for the Services he got to the Pupils Tennents in kind and that where he was super-expended a Decreet might be at his instance against the Pupil on the Pupils own Process Ianuary 11 1668. Grant contra Grant A Tutor was found lyable to compt as Tutor and not as Pro-Tutor on production of a Writ under his hand designing himself and acting as Tutor Testamentar without necessity to the Pursuer to produce the Testament December 2. 1668. Sâ—atoun contra Sâ—atoun A Tutor was found lyable for the Annualrent of his Pupils sums which were in responsal Debitors hands but not to re-imploy the same upon annualrent in respect the Tutor dyed durante tutela and that what annualrents he had received his Successors were only lyable for the same and the annualrent thereof from the time the Pupil past pupillarity it being sufficient to lift and imploy the annualrents of Pupils sums at any time during the ordinary course of the Tutory afâ—er the Pupils passing pupillarity Iuly 9 1669. Kintor contra the Heirs and Successors of Logan of Coatfiâ—ld This was stopped on the Purâ—uers Bill till it were furder heard upon the grounds of the first Decision A Tutor having cited his Pupils Friends on both sides that â—t might be declared by the Lords that the Pupils Lands were â—racked above the true value and that they wâ—re not able to pay their Rents without casting the Land waste no party appearing the Process being considered by the Lords they granted Commission to Gentlemen in the Countrey to try the matter of Fact and report February 5. 1670. Tutor of colzâ—an contra nearest of kin of the Pupil A Tutory granted to two and bearing them to be joyntly was found void by the death of either Ianuary 17. 1671. Drummond of Riccartoun contra Feuars of Bothkenneth TVTOR DATIVE of a furious person was found not to exclude the nearest Agnat as Tutor of Law to be served quandocunque though the Idiot was necessitate to pay upon the Tutors citation to make forthcoming Ianuary 21. 1663. Mr. Iames Steuart and Robert his Tutor Dative contra Spreul Vâ—â—â—MUS HAERES being gifted was found to have no effect till there be be a declarator thereupon in the same way as in Bastardy Iuly 30. 1662. Laird of Balnagoun contra Dingwall The like Iuly 31. 1666. Crawfoord contra Town of Edinb VSE OF PAYMENT of a duty to a Minister for Teinds and his discharge for the whole Teinds for a long time was found sufficient against him who had the Tack and Prorogation of these Teinds until interruption by Citation or Inhibition thogh the duty was very smal the Minister was but stipendiaâ— having that quantity allocat out of these Teinds Ianuary 19. 1669. Earl of Athol coâ—tra Robertson of Strowan VSVRY was not inferred by a Creditors taking a Tack for his furder security for so much Victual or 20. shilling less than the 〈◊〉 at the setters option that abatement being for the setters pains and hazard in getting in the price November 23. 1664. Scot contra Laird of Barefoord VICCARAGE was not found due out of Yeards which were aparâ— of the Chanons Portions which had never paid Viccarage Iune 30. 1668. Minister of Elgin contra his Paâ—ochioners THE VIOLENT PROFITES of an Ox Spâ—ilzied in Labouring time was found to be 5. shilling every day during the Labouring time February 28. 1668. Lord Iustice Cleâ—k contra Hume of Linthil VITIATION of a Contract of Marriage diminishing the Tocher and Ioyntuâ—e by the Husband and Father after the marriage was found not to prejudge the Wife who consented not but her Right was extended as before the Vitiation in prejudice of the Husbands Creditors infeft by him albeit the Contract being Registrate the Viâ—â—ation could not not appear to the Creditors when they lent their Money Iune 11. 1670. Hunter contra The Creditors of Peter VITIOVS INTROMISSION was not â—lided because the Defunct dyed Rebel at the Horn and so there was nothing in bonis defuncti unless the Defender alleadged he had the gift of Escheat ante motam litem February 17. 1662. Gray contra Dalgarno Vitious Intromission was retrinched to single avail because the Defender entered in possession by a disposition of the moveables though no delivery or possession was in the Defuncts life February 27. 1662. Chalmers contra Dalgaâ—no Vitious Intromission was purged by the Intrometters confirming within year and day after the Defuncts death the Executry being his Wifes albeit after intenting of the pursuers cause Ianuary 28. 1663. Stevinson contra Ker and others Vitious Intromission was purged by a Disposition and Instrument of Possession in the Disponers Lifetime though the Defender judicially acknowledged there was no natural possession Iuly 6. 1664. Brown contra Lawson Vitious Intromission was not sustained after the Intrometters death against any representing him where there was nothing done to instruct it in his Life further than Quo ad valâ—rem but not as an universal passive Title Iuly 10. 1666. Cranstoun contra Wilkison Vitious Intromission was elided because the Intrometter had warrand from the Donator of the Defuncts Escheat thogh there was no Declarator seing the Warrand and Intromission was ante notam litem Iuly 4. 1665. Innes contra Watson Vitious Intromission was not inferred by intrometting with 50. pound the Intrometter having after his Intromission confirmed himself Executor and omited that sum but was only found lyable for the sum it self February 26. 1668. Râ—oth contra Cowan Vitious Intromission was found not receivable by Defense against an Assignay viz. That the Cedent who was Creditor to a Defunct was vitious Intrometter with his goods and so Debitor the Assignation being for an onerous cause Ianuary 20. 1671. Captain Ramsoy contra Henrison WARD was found not to fall by the death of an Appryzer who had Charged unless he had put the Superiour in culpa by preseâ—ting a Charter to be subscribed by him and offering a Sum with a Bond and Caution for what more the Lords should modifie for that years Rent and that therefore the Ward fell by the death of him against whom the appryzing was led February 9. 1669. Black contra French Ward being gifted by the King the Donatâ—r was found to have