Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	enter_v	heir_n	tenant_n	1,676	5	9.7178	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50697	Observations on the acts of Parliament, made by King James the First, King James the Second, King James the Third, King James the Fourth, King James the Fifth, Queen Mary, King James the Sixth, King Charles the First, King Charles the Second wherein 1. It is observ'd if they be in desuetude, abrogated, limited, or enlarged, 2. The decisions relating to these acts are mention'd, 3. Some new doubts not yet decided are hinted at, 4. Parallel citations from the civil, canon, feudal and municipal laws, and the laws of other nations are adduc'd for clearing these statutes / by Sir George Mackenzie ...	Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.	1686 (1686)	Wing M184; ESTC R32044	446,867	482

of Sums than in possessing of Lands because Creditors might alter their Sums and take new Assignations or retire old Rights whereas no man could quite his principal Lands 26 June 1677. Cramond contra the Tennents of East-barns But a Fathers possession as Life-renter was not sufficient to prefer a base Infeftment given to the Son to a posterior publick Infeftment granted to a second Wife or to any Creditor the like in a base Infeftment granted by a Good-sir to his Oye by the Daughter which was not found sufficient being cloathed with the foresaid Civil possession of the Good-sirs reservation of Life-rent to exclude a posterior publick Infeftment 17 of July 1635. And this possession by the Husband or Father or Disponer is called possessio per constitutum and is not favourable in a competition with other Creditors and therefore a Factory granted by the Father to the Son to uplift the Mails and Duties of Lands dispon'd to be holden base by the Son of the Father was not found sufficient to cloath the Sons Infeftment though there were several Processes intented upon the Factory 10 July 1669. This Act requires natural possession by labouring the Land or Civil by uplifting the Mails and Duties and before Registers were invented that kind of possession was only able to put their Creditors in mala fide but though Civil possession hath been found sufficient such as obtaining of Decreets and payment of Annualrents albeit the same had no relation to the Infeftment of Annualrent but was only relative to the Bond whereupon the Infeftment followed yet the setting of a Back-Tack by the accepter of a Wodset hath not been found sufficient to maintain a base Infeftment except payment of the Back-Tack-Duty had likewise followed so that it appears that possessio Naturalis vel Civilis sufficit sed non illa quae a doctoribus dicitur civilissima as is a Back-Tack By this Act also such as make double Dispositions to defraud their Creditors shall be declared infamous and shall be punished in their persons and Goods at the Kings pleasure and this punishment is extended against such as make double Assignations and the 140 Act Par. 12 Ja. 6. bears That no Dewty shall be Dispon'd to two sundry persons which is Crimen stellionatus by the Law and though this Act does not make double Dispositions to be crimen Stellionatus yet it is so in effect but the Civil Law distinguisheth thus l. Quin. duobus ff ad l. Corn. de falso Qui rem unant duobus vendidit dicens rem esse suam tenetur falsi at si non dicat esse suam tenetur Stellionatus Though by this Act Superiours receiving double Resignations are guilty and punishable as said is and seing to receive such Resignations is a great prejudice because it puts the Parties to great expences and that the Superior is presum'd to get and may get advantage by accepting such double Resignations or contributing to the making of such double Rights therefore they ought likewise to be lyable in Damnage and Interest to the Party injured BY this Act it is Statuted that a Charge to enter Heir may be directed against the Successors of the Defuncts they being of perfect age to enter to their Lands within fourty days Year and Day being first past after the Decease of the Predecessor and a Comprizing being led upon their failȝing to enter the same shall be as valid as if they were Infeft Nota Though this Act bears the being of perfect age yet Minors may be validly charged to enter Heir de practica but seing this Act is only made against such as may enter but wilfully ly out It might have been doubted whether Minors in ward-Ward-Lands may be Charged to enter Heir for these cannot enter till they be twenty one years compleat but by our constant Practique they may be Charged since this is necessary for compleating the Creditors Diligence Nota That this Act does not appoint that generally such Execution should pass against the appearand Heir as if he were entred but only that his Land may be apprized and therefore quaeritur what execution may be gotten against his moveable Heirship and it may be urg'd that the same may be affected as the Defuncts other moveables for though they be Heirship respectu haeredis yet they are but moveables respectu Creditoris for they become only Heirship after they are drawn and yet it hath been found that the moveable-heirship may be adjudg'd and by that Decision it would appear that they can only be affected by apprising but there is a Warrand wanting in this Act for apprising them there is an Act of Sederunt anno 1613. allowing Charges to enter Heir to be rais'd within the Year and Day but the Summons thereupon must be execute after the Year and Day expire but not till the fourty days expire after the execution of the Charge but this annus deliberandi being introduced in favours of the appearand Heir he may omit the same and Renunce within the year if he pleaseth Neither can an Adjudication following within the Year be challeng'd ex eo capite July 14. 1631. albeit that the said Act appoints that a Charge to enter Heir may be rais'd after Year and Day expire after the Defuncts Death Yet the Year and Day must only be computed from the appearand Heirs birth if he was posthume Spots tit Heirs Livingstoun contra Houlerton de jure civili posthumus non habetur pro nato cum de incommodo ejus agitur l. etiam § Ille ff de minor THough the meaning of this Act seems to be that where Tradesmen who are Free-men either desert their work or delays the same the Owner of the Work may choose other Free-men or complain to the Deacon Yet it was found in July 1675. by the Council in the case of Borlands against the Masons of Edinburgh that where a Free man either deserted or delay'd the Owner of the work might imploy any even Unfree-men though it was alleadg'd it was not just to punish all the Free-men for the fault of one Nor was it convenient for the Common-wealth that Unfree-men should be admitted for whose work none can be answerable THis Act is Verbatim formerly set down Act 90 Par. 6. Ja. 4. BY the Civil Law Testaments and all Writs of importance were to be Seal'd and with us the appending of the Seal without the Subscription of the Party was sufficient R. M. lib. 3. cap. 8. num 3 4. and Papers were then Tri'd by comparison of Seals as now by comparison of Subscriptions but by this Act the Subscription of the Party and Witnesses is likewise to be added with the Seal and thereafter K. Ja. 6 Par. 6. Act 80. all Papers of importance are to be both Seal'd and Subscrived but now they need only be Subscrived without being Seal'd and though by this Act the Subscription of the Notar is sufficient Yet by that Act two Notars

Gentlemen within the said Western Shires be above all exception and be more eminent that there are so few of sound Principles there yet to speak modestly the generality of the Inhabitants of these Shires has not been so forward to desire or promote His Majesties Restitution and Interest that now after His Majesties happy Re-establishment they should obtain what they could never effectuate in any time and should be gratifi'd to the prejudice of other Shires of undoubted and constant Loyalty and the overturning the ancient Law and Way of the Kingdom 8. As to the pretence of inequality in the old Way it is to be considered that though an Arithmetical proportion and exactness is not to be expected in any Way Yet there is more reason to presume for the justice and equity of a legal way venerable for antiquity warranted by express Laws and immemorial Custom which for any thing known had its beginning in the time of Freedom and has been continued in the best most peaceable and pureest times notwithstanding any endeavours to the contrary than for a way contriv'd and hatch'd in the Heart and fury of Trouble and Distempers and brought forth and obtruded upon the Countrey with so much partiality and factiousness that it is well known that the Shires and persons who were in opposition to His Majesty had so great and prevalent interest for the time that the valuations both as to the Quota of Shires and proportions and Rents of private persons were carry'd on by the instruments and Commissioners most inequally to the advantage of their party and the evident prejudice and pressure of whole Shires and all persons who were sincere or had the least Affection for the Royal Interest 9. By the Common and Feudal Law and Law of the Kingdom where the Heir of the Vassal Dieth not Entered the Superiour during the None-entry has right to the Duties of the Land holden of him and when the Heir of ward-Ward-lands doth Enter the Superiour hath Right to the Duties for a year under the notion of Relief which in both these Cases of Relief and Non-entry are payable according to Retoures and the New Extent if the old way of Retoures should be altered in relation to the payment of Taxations why not in order to None-entries and Relief so that they should be payed not according to Retour but Valuations there being no reason that the saids Casualities are not exacted in rigour but the ancient Law and Custom for Retoures How dangerous the preparative may be if the way of Retoures should be altered even to those who are for Novations and what Combustion and Disorder it may occasion in the contrary it is so apparent that it needs not to be represented 10. Whereas it is pretended that the Lords and others of the Clergy will have prejudice by the Old Way both as to their own proportion and the proportion of the Vassals and that they are in another condition than formerly by reason that their Rents are impaired by Valuations and Ministers Stipends it is humbly conceived with all tenderness and respect to the reverend Clergy that whatever others for their own interest do suggest under pretence of theirs The Lords of the Clergy and others will not decline to contribute and be Taxt for His Majesties Service as the other Estates and as to the pretended way of paying Taxation according to the Valuations in these late times they cannot be Taxed in that way because the Rents of the Bishops being for the most part in these times of Usurpation mortified to Universities and other pious uses they were not valued nor lyable to Cess and such like burdens it must then follow that either they must be Taxed in the old Way or else not at all as to the proportion of the Clergie it is designed by all the Laws concerning Taxations and it is not higher than it was at any time since Taxations were granted to His Majesties Predecessors and it is to be observ'd in all Acts of Parliament concerning Taxations The Lords of the Clergie do in the first place before the rest of the Estates make a chearful offer of the same proportion without any grudging and though there needs no reason to be given for clear Law and Practice yet that the said proportion is Defin'd and settled upon good Reason it is obvious seing the same is impos'd in order both to their Spirituality consisting in Tiths and their Temporality consisting in Lands and others and it is known that the Tiths are more than the fourth part of the Rent of Scotland and Temporalities and Church-lands will extend to a considerable part of Scotland at least to a fourth part The Clergie having their Benefices and Living not in Property as the other Estates but of His Majesties immediat favour and grant and for their lifetime so that it is not strange that upon the considerations foresaid they pay'd such a proportion of the Taxation the case is not altered upon the account of Valuations and Ministers Stipends that course for Valuation of Tiends and augmentation of Stipends being procured and taken at the earnest desire of the Reverend Bishops and Clergy so that it ought not to be represented as being to their prejudice and de facto the Reverend Bishops and M●nisters have no prejudice by that course by reason the Bishops and Ministers and Benefic'd persons who ought only to be looked upon as Clergie are secur'd by divers provisions contained in the Acts of Parliament anent the Valuation of Tiths and in special that what they were in possession of actually and really the time of the Submission made by them should remain with them in quantitate qualitate unpr●judged by any Valuation so that the Valuation and augmentation of Stipends being only in Relation to and affecting the Spirituality and Tiends the case neither is nor can be altered as to the Clergie they being secured by the saids Provisions and the burden of augmentation of Stipends and prejudice by Valuations doth only ly upon the Lords and Titulars of Erection and Tacks-men of Tiths as the case is not altered in relation to Benefic'd persons so Stipendiary Ministers cannot be prejudg'd by the good old Way seing by an Act of Parliament 162 Ja. 6 Par. 13. They are freed and exempted of all Taxations and Impositions the burden of the proportion of the Clergie doth not ly upon them but for the most part upon the Vassals and Tacks-men against which they have by the Law a present and summar way of Relief as to the Lands and Temporality of the Clergie they are the same and in the same case as in time of former Taxations and that the Vassals of Erection or of Church-men should be in better case than formerly as to the payment of Taxation It is contrary to Law and Reason seing res transit cum onere causa and that Lay-men acquiring Lands from Church-men should have more case of Taxation as to such Lands than

might scruple to pursue a Reduction of a Writ that they themselves had granted upon Oath and albeit this Act Declares only such Contracts to be null yet it will certainly extend to Bands Dispositions and other Writs for as the Reason is the same so both the Narrative and the last words of the Act has the word Writs which comprehends all these and I conceive the Remedy of this Act will extend likewise to promises though these be not comprehended under the word Writs for if it were otherwise the Act might be eluded by taking of Promises upon Oath from Minors As also albeit the Narrative Relates only to Writs of Importance by which are only mean'd in our Law such wherein the sum exceeds an hundred pounds Scots yet since the Statutory part is general and that an hundred pounds may ruine poor people nor should men of Substance Las●le an Oath by interposing it to mean matters therefore I think that this Remedy should be extended to all cases whatsoever BY this Act for facilitating the course of Trade Bills of Exchange are ordain'd to be Registrated within six moneths after they are due and tho the Bill bear no consent to the Registration as Bands do yet they are registrated by vertue of this Act which is Narrated in the beginning of the Paper that is Registrated but this is of no great use and therefore Merchants choose rather to pursue summarly before the Dean of Gilds Court who is with us le consul des Merchans and even these Pursuits are disappointed by Advocations nor have they so much as the priviledge of being Discust summarly without attending the course of the Roll as was crav'd by the draught of the Act that was first under consideration It was also crav'd that Compensation should not be receiv'd against Bills of Exchange as is Customary abroad and a Bill is in effect in the construction of Law a bagg of Money trusted by the Drawer and to be redelivered in another place and Compensation is not even by the Common Law received against Depositations The reason why this Act was only extended to Bills drawn from abroad or in favours of persons abroad and not to Bills drawn from one place within the Kingdom to another was because if that had been allow'd all Debts had still been constituted by Bills and not by Bands and so had been priviledged by too summar execution BEfore Parliaments can proceed to publick Affairs all the controverted Elections must first be cleared and determined which being the occasion of great delayes in the dispatch of business gave the rise to this Act whereby it is ordain'd that none shall have vote in the Elections of Commissioners for Shires or Stewartries except those who are publickly Infeft in Property or Superiority Life-rent or proper Wodset and in possession of a 40 shilling Land of old Extent holden of the King or Prince or in Lands of 400 Pounds Valuation whether Kirk-lands or other Blench Few or Ward-lands and that appearand Heirs being in possession by vertue of their Predecessors Rights and Husbands for the free-holds of their Wives or as Life-renters by the courtesie of Scotland of the Extent and Valuation foresaid have right to Vote The Shire of Berwick having made cross Elections of Commissioners to the late Parliament the Committee for controverted Elections decided these points for clearing this Act which report was approven in Parliament 1. That a Charter confirmed by the King of a 40 shilling Land does not give a party right to vote except his Seasin thereupon be produced and that the Confirmation be of the Seasin since the Confirmation of a Charter imports no more but the Confirmation of a personal obligment 2. Vassals of Kirk-lands of the Extent and Valuation foresaid have no vote unless they hold their Lands of the King as their immediat Superiour for since it is optional to them either to hold of the King or Lord of Erection by the 53 Act 1 Parl. Ch. 2. it is presumed they still hold of the Lord of Erection unless they instruct that they hold of His Majesty 3. Where Vassals produce Rights to a part of a Barony that will give them no right to vote except they can instruct that their Lands are Retour'd to such a proportion as put them in the terms of the Act of Parliament 4. Life-rents not constitute by Infeftments but by personal obligments give not the Life-renters right to vote 5. Persons Interdicted seem to be debarr'd from voting since they who were not fit for managing their own affairs ought not to be trusted to vote for Commissioners to Parliaments but this I think should only hold in Interdictions causa cognita very judicious men consenting to voluntar Interdictions 6. If the King be only Superiour supplendo vices of the immediat Superior by his not entering to the Superiority this will not give the Vassal a vote since the immediat Superior retains all the casualities and consequently remains still Superiour albeit pro hac vice the King supplies the defect of the Immediat Superiours lying out by infefting the Vassal 7. Appearand Heirs albeit in the terms of this Act have no right to vote if they have renounced or if their Predecessors were denuded albeit they were in possession the famine being only by a tollerance from the Party in whose favours the Predecessor was denuded 8. Appearand Heirs by the Mothers side gives not a Title to vote except they be actually entered Heirs since it is presumed there are Heirs Male except the contrair be proven by a Service 9. Vassals who have expired Apprisings or Adjudications have liberty to vote albeit by an Act of the Lords of Session the Lands are declared to be redeemable for the Sums truly due since by this Act Apprisings Adjudications and proper Wodsetts are not to be questioned upon pretence of any order of redemption payment or satisfaction unless a Decreet of Declarator voluntar Redemption Resignation or Renunciation be produced 10. It was found in the Election of the Commissioners of East Lothian that no votes are sustained but these who voted and signed before the Meeting was dissolved and the votes of those who came immediatly after were not sustain'd tho the Preses return'd with some of the number But in the Elections for the Mers it was found that a person was capable to vote albeit he was detained Prisoner by a mis-information from one of the Competitors he having given an account of the way and manner of his Imprisonment to the Meeting and declared his vote to them and after his enlargement did immediatly take the Test and sign the Commission FINIS Several Additions and Supplements to the Observations on the Acts of Parliament BY this Act the Wardens are discharged to judge which is here called very odly to intromet with any thing that pertains to the Dittay of the Justice-Air saving the points that are needful for conservation of the Trews or Truce that is to say

removetur ab officio sed hoc non tenet in judice perpetuo Farin Q. 3. num 423. says that Majores Officiales non removentur sed minores facile removentur by th● cap. 14. Stat. Rob. 2. A negligent Judge viz. a Baillie of Regality is to be punish'd by escheating his Moveables and their life is to be in the Kings will A faulty Judge is also punishable by this Act in the same way as a negligent Judge which must not be mean'd of the meanest fault seing the punishment is so great but whereas by this Act the punishment is the loss of Office for ever if it be not Heretable yet by the 26 Act Parl. 5. Ja. 3. The Heretable Officer lose● his Office for three years whereas this Act bears this being lawfully prov'd and notorly kend we must not conclude that a Judge may be convict upon this notoriety without probation for these two are only exegetick of one another and the sense is they being convict upon notor probation Vid. supra observ on Act 16 Parl. 6 Ja. 2. THe Form now to be follow'd in case any man should masterfully possess another mans Lands is that if violence was us'd at the entering then the Council upon a Complaint will restore the party dispossess'd but if the Intrant entred in vacuam possessionem though without any Right he behov'd to be pursu'd before the Session by an action of Intrusion K. JAMES III. Parliament I. BY this Act the third of the KING'S Rents of Assyse that is to say the third of His Lands and Customes belong to the Queen as her Dowrie or Terce allenarly which is conform to the Common Law of this Kingdom by which the Wife has right to a Third of all the Lands in which a man dies Infest and that though she be otherwise provided if she be not expresly secluded from it by her Contract of Marriage so that it seems the Queen would have had right to a Terce of proper Lands belonging to the King though this Act had not been made But now by the 10 Act Parl. 3 Ch. 2. If a Wife be provided to a particular Provision though never so small either in her Contract of Marriage or in any other Write she will be secluded from a Terce except her Terce be expresly reserv'd to her by and attour the particular Provision Nota The Rents of Assize comprehends the Kings Customes and Lands as was found Decemb. 9. 1466. and March 11. 1500. Ogilvie contra Gray It may be doubted whether this Act was Temporary relating only to this Queen or if any Queen of Great-britain will have right as Queen of Scotland to a third of the Property conform to this Act since the Act seems to be reasonable in it self and that the Queen is founded in this right by the Common Law and if this had been only a Temporary Right relating only to this Queen it would not have been inserted amongst the general Laws or at least it would not have been generally conceiv'd as this Act is in these Terms The Dowrie of the Queen for terminus indefinitus aequi●ollet universali I find that in the 191 Act Parl. 13 Ja. 6. Queen Ann is provided to the third of the Property but not to the third of the Customes but that being by express paction derogats not from this Law SOmetimes Benefices Ecclesiastick were bestow'd upon secular persons who were call'd Commendators because the Benefice was commended and intrusted to their oversight and they were Procuratores in r●m s●am habebant tantum detentionem poss●ssionem but were not Proprietars and so could not Dispone Roman Concil 350. And because Commendators were but Trusties or Tutors Therefore Rights made by them though with consent of the Chapter are no longer binding in our Law than during the Commendators own Right And by this Act these Commendams are discharg'd and yet the Deeds done by them are not annull'd and therefore many Rights made by Commendators since this Act are sustain'd as valid though they were not Proprietars By the Canon Law only the Pope could grant commendam perpetuam and the Bishops could only grant Commends for six Moneths c. Nemo Elect. l. 6. THe pain of Lawburrows here exprest is hightned by the Act 166. Par. 13 Ja. 6. by which every Earl or Lords Penalty is made two thousand pounds every great Baron a thousand pounds every Free-holder a thousand merks every Fewar five hundred merks the un-landed Gentleman two hundred merks and the Yeoman one hundred merks which last Act is now observ'd and though Penalties be exprest here against breakers of Lawburrows found to Church-men and that there be no mention made of them in the last Act yet an Arch-bishop or Bishop can pursue now for the same penalty that is due to an Earl and Bishops and their Wives are allow'd the same Solemnities at their Funerals that are allow'd to Noblemen and their Wives by the 14 Act 3 Par. Ch. 2. And though there be no mention made here of Dukes and Marquesses yet the priviledge granted to Earls is extended to them 2 o By this Act the Penalty is to be apply'd to the King and is due by and attour the Reparation due to the person les'd but by the last Act and the present Custom the Penalty is to be divided betwixt the King and the Party and though by this Act the Master is free if he present his Servant who breaks the Law-burrows Less than the Law-burrows that is to say he who found the Lawburrows bring the Trespassors to the King or Sheriff within fourty days Dominus noxali judicio servi sui nomine conventus servum actori noxae dedendo liberatur yet by our present Custom the Master finds Caution that the Raiser of Law-burrows shall be skaithless from him against whom it is rais'd and his Men-Tennents and Servants and therefore the Master seems now lyable though he should present his Servants Albeit these be the ordinary Penalties allow'd where there is no other proof of the Danger then the Oath of the Complainer yet if the Complainer prove Threatnings the Council or Criminal Court may ordain surety of Law-burrows to be found upon such sums as they think proportional to the danger Vid. Not. on Act 129 Par. 9 Ja. 1. Supra THough by this Act all Summons are to be on twenty one days Warning yet all Summons that are priviledg'd by their own Nature or the Lords Deliverance come in upon six days vid. Hope Form of Process and by an Act of Sederunt July 21. 1672. It is declar'd that no Actions can be priviledg'd except Removings recent Spuilȝies recent Ejections Intrusions succeeding in the Vice Exhibitions Causes alimentary Summons for making forthcoming Transferrings Poyndings of the Ground Walkennings special Declarators Suspensions Prevento's and Transumpts all which and all second Summons in all Actions are to come in upon six days warnings except recent Spuilȝies because by the 65 Act Par.

dwelling therein and yet I think they should not be Sanctuaries if they dwell not there except that allowance be granted them either by express Concession or Prescription but these gave not Protection to such as were notorious Criminals Novel Justin. 17. cap. 5. verb. Neque homicidis neque adulteris neque Virginum Raptoribus delinquentibus terminorum custodies cautelam sed etiam inde extrahes supplicium iis inferes non enim talia delinquentibus parcere convenit c. And now I find not that any of the Kings Palaces are Sanctuaries as to Cryms with us and in no case should they be a Sanctuary against searching for and apprehending Malefactors as is clear l. 3. ff de fugitiv Div. Marcus facultatem dedit ingrediendi tam Caesaris quam Senatorum praedia volentibus fugitivos inquerere The Conȝie-house pretends also to be a Sanctuary with us This priviledge of a Sanctuary was only granted to Holy and Consecrated Places and amongst Protestants no Consecrations are in use but yet according to the Canon-Law Churches even before Consecration are generally thought by Lawyers to have that immunitie vid. Covar variar resolut cap. 20. num 4. And albeit this Priviledge be properly a Canonical Priviledge yet it cannot be denyed but that the very Churches of the Gentiles had this Priviledge as is clear by T●●ucid lib. 7. and was approved of by Councils and Fathers who are cited cap. 17. Quest. 4. Praesertim cap. Miror cap. pen. fin de Immunitate Ecclesi●st vid num cap. 35. I●sua cap. 20. Deuter. cap. 19. Exod. cap. 21. But though by the Canon Law 40. Paces about the Mother-Church and 30 about other Churches had the same Priviledge of Immunitie albeit Skeen speaks only of the 30. paces in his Annotations ad cap. 6. Statut. Alex. 2 d. Yet I read of no such Priviledge to either the 30. or the 40. paces nor to the Palaces of Bishops nor to Hospitals vid. Covar ibid. BEfore this Act the Tennent might have been Poynded by the Brief of Distres for all the personal Debt owing by his Master but by the first part of this Act it is appointed that the Tennents shall be poynded only for as much as they owe their Master which did hold only in poynding for moveable Debts for in Decreets of poynding the Ground the Creditor might have poynded all he found upon the Ground and all invecta illata though the Tennent owed not so much to the Master yea though he owed him nothing as was found 11. July 1628. And though the Tennents Term of payment were not come if the Term of payment of the Annualrent were by-past and they who were so poynded had their relief of the Heretor for whose Debt they were poynded but now the Lords extends this Act so as to defend Tennents against poynding upon Infertments of Annualrent granted by the Master so that execution cannot passe against them for more than they owe their Master as to which only they can be personally lyable and their Goods or invecta illata can b● only poynded but yet this was not properly an Extension for debita fundi are the Heretors or Lords Debt since the Heretor is personally and the Land is really lyable therefore This Act extends only to Tennents of Lands but not to Tennents of Teinds who cannot be poynded for their Masters Debt 14. January 1556. The second part of this Statute prescribes the way of Appryzing Lands from Debitors and it is the Original Statute whereupon Apprysings are founded in our Law and it seems strange that so material a part of our Law should not have an entire Statute but should have been brought in at the close of another and less important case The form prescribed to Compryzings by this Statute is that if the Creditor cannot recover payment by poynding the Moveables the Sheriff shall cause sell the Land to the avail of the Debt and from this Act it is that to this day the Moveables must first be fought and though the Appryzing will be null for want of this Solemnitie yet the offering to prove that there were as many Moveables upon the Lands as might pay the Debt will not reduce the Compryzing except these Moveables were offered to the Messenger when he was executing the appryzing and when the Scheduls of appryzing were laid on upon the ground of the Lands tantum creditur nuncio referenti se fecisse executionem in stabilibus quia non ●●t●bant bona mobilia debitoris quod non auditur volens probare contrarium ad annullandam executionem Surd. Concil num 1. lib. 1. This Solemnitie descends from l. 15. § 2. de re Jud. by which Moveables were first to be poynded and then Immoveables failȝing of these and was formerly introduc'd into this Nation by the cap. 9. Stat. 2 d. Rob. 1. By this Act it is appointed that the Lands be appryzed to the avail of the Debt this proportion was long observed and much was referred to the arbitriment of the Judge and Inquest Balfour who collects the oldest Decisions and such as were about the time of the Institution of the Colledge of Justice in his title of Comprizings chap. 3. gives this for a Rule that ilk twenty shilling Land of old extent was comprized to twenty Merks 4 July 1533. James Heren contra Henrie Livel and ilk Mark Land of yearly profit was to be Comprized to twenty Merks of Stock which answered to five for the hundred penult May 1589. Adam Dickson contra John Carhattel penult March 1539. But I have seen diverse old Comprizing led about this time at the instance of George Lord Seaton and Lady Jean Hepburn his Mother against some Vassals and Wodsetters in the Barony of West-niddery in Linlithgow Shire where more then five of the hundred was allowed as will appear by computation one of these Comprizings dated 18. March 1523. bears 21. Aikers with 12. shilling Scots per aiker to have been appryzed in payment of two hundred and fourty pounds of principal due to the said Lord George and a second Comprizing also led at his instance dated 17. December 1541. bears 25 Aikers and two parts of an Aiker of infield land to have been appryzed in payment of two hundred and fourty pounds of principal due to the said Lord George and a 〈◊〉 Compryzing also led at his instance dated 17. December 1541. bears 25. Aikers and two parts of an aiker of infield to have been apprized for payment of three hundred and fourty two pounds of principle each aiker being valued to a merk of yearly Rent a third Appryzing at his instance dated 6. Feb. 1544. bears 20. Aikers and a half to have been appryzed for 244. lib of principal ilk aiker being valued to 15. shil●ing of yearly Rent and a fourth Comprizing dated 5 th May 1547. bears 18. Aikers to have been apprized in payment of two hundred and twenty merks principal and the Rent of an aiker to be valued

quod ejus est auferri ab eà nequit sine consensu suo 5 o. Tochers are oft times augmented in consideration of the Coniunct-fie and therefore its most unreasonable and illegal that what was given her for an onerous cause should be taken from her and applyed to the behove of one who represents the Contracter who was bound to warrand her Life-rent and who got good deed upon that account And it is unjust that the Husband by spending his Estate should burden her or that his Heir should not rather want than she 6 o. Whatever may be said to oblidge a Mother jure naturae to entertain her own Children and I think this Aliment has been at first founded on that Principle of Justice whereby Donatores Patroni Parentes were only lyable in quantum facere potuerunt called by Lawyers Exceptio competentiae yet there is no reason that a Life-rentrix should be oblidged to entertain an appearand Heir who is a meer stranger and this jus naturae oblidges the Mother not only to entertain the appearand Heir but all her Children as was found in the case of the Countess of Buchan And albeit the Act of Parliament speaks only of Heirs yet by our Law even appearand Heirs will get an Aliment allow'd them though thereafter they renounce but it is less clear if it will be allow'd them after they have renounced July 16. 1667. Hamilton contra Symington And yet in this case they are but meer strangers and can no more be called Heirs or appearand Heirs after Renunciation as also though this Act mentions only Ward Lands yet it is ex praxi extended to others who have no Ward Lands the 22 Feb. 1673. Finnay contra Oliphant And though both the Rubrick and the words of the Act provide only Aliment for Minors yet it is extended to appearand Heirs who are Majors as in the case of Rig contra the Lady Carberrie nor will it be sufficient that the Life-rentrix offer to entertain the appearand Heir in the Family with her as Durie observes the 14. Feb. 1627. Noble contra his Mother nor is this only extended where the Mother Liferents all but it is even extended to the case where all the Minors Estate beside what is Life-rented is not sufficient to pay the debt and is affected by legal diligences as was found 13 Feb. 1662. Antonia Brown contra her Mother but it may be very well doubted whether this last Decision may be extended where the debt is only personal and I find the Lords did refuse to decide this point in a case debated 1667. betwixt the Lady Staniehill and her Son though the Son there alleadg'd that he sold his Land to hinder Comprising and if it had been Comprized she would have been lyable And this Action for Alimenting the Heirs was still sustained against both the Grand-Fathers Relict and the Fathers Relict pro rata of their Life-rents which they had of the appearand Heir albeit it was alleadg'd that the Mother having a nearer relation and being the Wise of him who spent the Estate should be only lyable or at least first lyable 12. Decemb. 1677. Laird Airdrie contra the two Ladies but yet I find the Grand-Father was found lyable in no proportion with the Mother where he had only reserv'd a mean proportion to himself when he did Infest the appearand Heirs Father 7. July 1629. It may be doubted whether a Husband marrying the Life-rentrix having given her a provision in contemplation of this Joynture will be lyable to Aliment since he is a meer stranger to which all that can be answer'd is that he was oblidg'd to know it was lyable to this burden and if he will be found lyable it may be doubted if he will not be free from the provision given in contemplation thereof tanquam causa data causa non sequuta As also it may be doubted whether the pursuing such an Action as this will infer a Passive Title seing the appearand Heir is thus lucratus but yet I think it will not since he reaps thereby no advantage which would have accresced to the Creditors to whom no part of his Aliment would have belong'd and even appearand Heirs renuncing will have right to an Aliment as is observed before The Civilians think that a Mother is oblig'd to Aliment her Child till it be past three years of age l. 3. C. de Patr. Pot. ibid. gloss and even after three years of age if the Father be not able to Aliment the Child the Mother is because the Child is oblig'd to Aliment and reverence the Mother vid. Surd. de Aliment quaest 14 tit 1. But they make no mention of such an alimentary action as this which we allow THough buyers of Land be obliged to keep the Tacks set by their Predecessors yet the Superior is not obliged to keep them when the Land falls to him in Ward during which time he is Proprietar nor are Life-renters nor Conjunct-fiars oblig'd to keep them during their temporary Rights but when these Rights expire the Tacks revive and yet by this Act the Superior or Life-renter cannot remove them till the next Whitsunday after the Ward or Life-rents fall the Tennents paying the Maills and Duties to the Superiors or Life-renters but it may be doubted whether this will hold when the Duty is only a simulate Duty and not near the Rent of the Land for this was design'd to secure the Tennents reasonably but not to prejudge the Superior or Life-renter but certainly this Act will not defend these Tennents who have payed their Duties to their Masters before hand THough particular pains be set down as to Law-burrows in Civil cases by former Acts yet in Criminal cases because of the importance and danger it is left Arbitrary to the Judges to cause the Parties find Caution under what sums they please and before the Council likewise the sum under which Caution is to be found is de praxi Arbitrary Since this Act sayes that the Party complainand shall be harmless it would seem by this Act the Council can oblige no party to keep another harmless except where the party himself complains in which case he must give his Oath he dreads bodily harm conform to the 129 Act Par. 9. Ja. 1. vid. observ on that Act. But yet the Council is in use to cause men find Caution to keep others skaithless even where the parties do not crave it but this is only in cases where there have been previous breaches of the peace amongst them so that either a party does complain and then he must give his Oath and if he complain not there must be a previous breach of the peace and in that case there is no need of an Oath or a Complaint that he does fear bodily harm Though the Council or Justices may by this Act exact Law-burrows yet by this Act it is only ordain'd where Complaints are rais'd before them and by Complaints here is not to be

by clearing that the granter was denuded and so the second Right was null There may be some pretext for granting such double Rights periculo petentis the Exchequer not being Judges competent to the competition of double Rights yet where the first can clearly and instantly exclude the second there is no reason for passing the second for by passing such double Rights the first is put to the necessity of a Reduction since no Right once passed under the Great Seal can be annulled by way of exception but only by way of reduction and since the second right though null may be the foundation of a Prescription and will establish a full right in the obtainer if he continue 40 years in possession THis Act prohibiting Flesh to be transported in Ships except in so far as is necessary for Victualing the Ships is now in Desuetude King IAMES the sixth Parliament 6. IT is observable that in this Act is said that Our Soveraign Lord has declared and granted Jurisdiction to the Kirk which consists in the Preaching of the Word the correction of Manners and the Administration of Sacraments which inferrs that Ecclesiasticks have no temporal Jurisdiction save from the King which the Canons have also acknowledged as shall be clear'd in the Act concerning the Supremacy But they are acknowledg'd to have had an Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction for the Act bears Has declared and this Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction is declar'd to consist in Preaching Correction of Manners and Administration of Sacraments THis Act discharges Gaming and Drinking in Ale-houses on the Sabbath and is considered in the Act 83. Par. 6. Ja. 4. THough such young Noblemen or Gentlemen as go abroad need not now Licences from the Council nor to make application to the Bishop or Superintendent within 40 dayes after their return yet if the Council suspect that they are like to change their Religion they use to cite the Parents and to force them to bring home their Children or else to Imprison or Fine them as they see cause This Act was renewed by a Proclamation of Council January 1679. BY this Act the Labourer is to require him who has right to the Teinds to come and Teind within 8 dayes after the Shearing by making premonition on three Sabbath dayes after the Shearing which is by the 48 Act Par. 11. Ja. 6. restricted to two Sabbaths and thereafter by the 5 Act Par. 21. Ja. 6. It is appointed that the Teinding beat three several times viz. the In-field at one time the Bear at another time and the Out-field Corn at a third time and that 8 dayes interveen after each compleat Shearing but all this is innovated by the form set down very fully 9 Act Par. 22. Ja. 6. Which last Act is now in observance and being fully consider'd needs no further explication VId. crim pract tit Idle Beggers and observ on the 16 Act 3 Sess 1 Par. Ch. 2. Where this Act is Ratifi'd and enlarg'd In this Act excellent Overtures are set down for punishment of Vagabounds and these who flee from their Masters Service who by this Act are appointed to be burnt in the Ear and Scourg'd for the first Fault and to suffer Death for the second so far can the repeating of a Crime highten its punishment even in mean Crimes analogical to this Act is the Tit. ff de Fugitivis where likewise many excellent Overtures are propos'd ALbeit by this Act all the Hornings are to be Registrated in the Sheriff-Books of the Shire where the Rebel lives Yet by the 265 Act 15 Par. Ja. 6. In case the Sheriff refuse to Registrat the same it is sufficient that they be Registrated in the general Register but if the Horning be for a Criminal Cause it must be Registrated in the Books of Adjournal Act 140 Par. 8 Ja. 6. Observ. 2 o. That Horning against Witnesses need not be Registrated at all nor can Witnesses Escheats fall upon such Denunciations because it were hard to put the pursuer to so much expenses or to make an Escheat fall for a negligent Contumacy Observ. 3 o. That Denunciations at the Mercat Cross of the Shire where the Rebel Dwells should only debar Rebels ab agendo and not Denunciations at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh as was found January 24. 1674. Blair contra Blair and even these Defenders who are Denunced at the head Burgh of the Shire cannot be debarr'd from proponing that which requires their personal presence nor are their Creditors or Assigneys debar'd from pursuing Observ. 4 o. Though by this Act the Thesaurer has power to intromet with the Rebels Goods and may raise Letters for that effect which were call'd Letters of Intromission yet now Escheats must be Gifted and the Donatar must raise Summons of general Declarator thereupon wherein it must be try'd if the Rebel was lawfully Denunc'd and after general Declarator he must have a Decreet of special Declarator which is in effect only a Decreet for payment though it be abusively call'd a special Declarator and the former Letters of Intromission are justly found not to be legal now The affixing a Roll of the Rebels Names here mentioned is in Desuetude except as to Fanaticks and these who pay not the Kings publick Dues Some doubts concerning this Act are Explain'd in the Act 142 Par. 8 Ja. 6. THis Act is Explain'd Crim. pract tit Libels BY this Act the pains of breaking Law-burrows is to be divided equally betwixt the King and the Party injur'd and the reason of this is because the King is injur'd by the breaking of the Law-burrows The Charge of Law-burrows being in His Majesties Name and though ordinarly the Party Charged finds Caution of Law-burrows yet if after the Charge any prejudice be done the party Charged is lyable because the Charge is contemn'd July 8. 1628. Semple contra Cuninghame The civil Action whereby this breach of Law-burrows is pursu'd is call'd An Action of Contravention and must because of this Act of Parliament be rais'd at the Kings Advocat's instance as well as at the instance of the party injur'd and the pursuers Title is the Charge if no Caution be found or the Extract of the Bond of Cautionry if Caution be found the ordinary Deeds whereby Contravention is infer'd are beating or stricking the party to whom the Lawburrows is found or his Servants except the Servants or Tennents were beat upon a special account no ways relating to the Master which speciality must be proven or else it s presum'd to have been on the Masters account and for the same reason it is that though the stile of Letters of Law-burrows bear That the Complainer his Men Tennents and Servants c. shall be Skaithless in their persons Lands Heretages Goods and Gear Yet the taking of two Horse from the pursuers Tennents was not sustained to be a Contravention because that was not done on the Masters account nor was the Tennent himself pursuer January 28. 1632.

Clause is here added to this Act and is not in the 4 Act 1 Par. Ch. 1. THis Act is Explained in the Observation on the 8 Act 1 Par. Ja. 6. but more fully in my Jus Regium Cap. The Right of Succession Defended and it is remarkable that it was past without a contrary Vote or the least Objection only most thought it so just that it was unnecessary and really it had been so if some in England had not controverted it THis Act Discharges ●ree-quarter and Localities but because some pretended that by this Act they were free from all necessity of carying Corn or Strae or Grass whereas if this were true the Souldiers Horses had been made unfit for Service by such Carriages and the Troopers and Dragoons might have been easily Murther'd whilest they went out singly to bring it in therefore by Act of Council this is fully regulated THere having been a full Debate before His Majesty how far Masters were answerable for their Tennents the Parliament to prevent the like for the future made this Act being fully convinc'd that Masters in Scotland could command their Tennents and Servants suitable whereto there are many old Statutes Commanding Masters to present them and finding that without this the Peace could not be secured and upon the event it is found that this has secur'd the Peace for Tennents and Servants knowing that their Masters would find out their Crimes which Sheriffs and others could not know and that they could not get Service or Land any where If they were disorderly they have conformed and this hath Restor'd Masters to the just Influence which our Predecessors had over their Tennents and Servants and which they lost by their Fanaticism by which they came to depend only on their Ministers and minding more Conventicles than their Work and in which extravagancy they were so far advanc'd that they would not see themselves till they were secur'd that they should be allow'd to go to these nor is the Master ty'd by this Act to any hard thing since by presenting them to Justice or by putting them out of his Land or out of his service he is free from all danger and this is in his power as also to secure him yet further it is Declar'd that he may break their Tacks and that if any Master take them who are put away he shall be lyable unto three years Duty It having been also Debated before the King that there could be no Deputs nam'd for putting the Laws against Ecclesiastick Disorders to execution within the bounds of Heretable Judges therefore His Majesties Power is Declar'd as to this Point by the Clause of this Act but this is now unnecessary because by the 18 Act of this Parliament His Majesties cumulative Power is Declar'd as to all points IT is very observable that the longer the World lasts Probation by Witnesses-lessens alwise in esteem because men grow alwise more Wicked In our Saviours time out of the mouth of two or three Witnesses every word was to be established Thereafter by our Law and by the Laws of other Nations nothing above an hundred pounds could be proven by Witnesses And albeit of old the affixing of a Seal was probative without a Subscription or Witnesses but as by former Acts the Subscriptions of Parties is Declar'd requisit So though formerly the Designing the Witnesses was sufficient although they did not Subscrive Yet by this Act no Writ is Declar'd Probative except the Witnesses Subscrive and without their Subscriving the Writ is Declared null But the Act of Parliament does not condescend whether this nullity shall be receivable by way of exception Or if it must require a Reduction But I conceive it must be null by way of exception since the Law hath Declar'd such Papers null and the want of Witnesses appears by production of the Paper it self The second thing Established by this Act is that no Witnesse shall sign as a Witness to any Parties Subscription except he know the Party and saw him subscrive or saw or heard him give warrand to the Nottar or touch the Pen The occasion of which part of the Act was among other remarkable Cases that a Gentlewoman pretending that she could not Write before so many Company desir'd to sign the Paper in her own Chamber whereupon she got the Paper with her and at her return brought it back subscriv'd and she thereafter rais'd a Reduction of the same Paper as not truly sign'd by her and though this should hardly have been sustainable at her own instance because she was heard to own it by the subscriving witnesses and the whole company yet this exception of dole could not have secluded her Heirs or Executors from reducing it as said is If witnesses without seeing a party subscrive or giving warrand to subscrive shal subscrive as witnesses they are declared to be punishable as accessory to Forgery which quality some think was added to seclude the punishment of Death it being as may be pretended too severe to punish by Death that which is the effect of meer negligence and unto which very many fall through negligence yet our Law knows no difference betwixt accessories and principals further than ex gratia accessories may sometimes find a mitigation of the punishment I conceive also that a party signing as Witness without seeing the Paper subscriv'd should be lyable to a third party who got assignation to that Paper in Damnage and Interest if it be Reduced ex eo capite since he was a loser by his negligence But quid juris 1. If the party himself to whom the Paper was granted were pursuing such an action for Damnage and Interest since he should have considered his own security and the Witnesses might have trusted to his exactness 2. Quid juris if the Witness heard Command given to one of the Nottars since the Act says That unless they heard him give Warrand to a Notar or Notars and touch the Notars Pen and yet even in that case the Paper may be null because there was not a Command given to both the Notars and a third party may thereby lose his Right 3. It may be doubted if upon a Notars asking if the party will warrand him to subscrive the party do give a Nod whether that Nod will be equivalent to a Warrand and free the Witness who thereupon subscrived as Witness And it seems it should for the Act says except he saw or heard him give Command and a man cannot see a Warrand otherways than by a Nod and nutus was sufficient by the Civil Law to infer a Mandat The third point in the Act is that albeit in all Forraign Nations the Subscription of a Notar proves in all Obligations for there the Notar keeps the Paper sign'd by the Party and gives only a Duplicat sign'd by him and albeit in our Law a Notars Subscription did prove in all Instruments such as Seasins Intimations c. If the Witnesses were

Rob. 1. They who take Lands to Champart are to be in the Kings will and lose their employment for all their life-time Champart is a ●rench word signifying a part of the Land controverted so that whosoever takes part of the thing controverted per pactum de quotâ litis falls under that Law By this Act whoever takes Rewards or Buds are punishable by tinsel of Honour Fame and Dignity and by the 93 Act 6 Par. Ja. 6. the taking by their Wives and Servants which was here omitted is punishable by Infamy Deprivation and Confiscation of all the Defenders Moveables By this Act giving of partial counsel that is to say consulting is declared a species of Bribing though nothing be taken at least it is punishable as bribing so that it seems a Judge may not consult albeit he abstain from judging in that cause These words That he shall take no further Rewards nor Buds than is permitted of the Law are set down to shew that Judges may lawfully take the Quota allowed by Law to Judges which we call Sentence-money and the Civil Law Sportulae The taking Bribes was in the Civil Law punish'd per l. Jul. repetundarum l. 1 3 6. d. t. And the punishment was death if Money was taken to pronounce a Capital Sentence or Confiscation of Goods and Banishment in other cases l. 7. § 3. eod tit but by the Doctors and in our Law this Crime is called Barratrie Such as defame Judges as Bribers are punished here as Bribers but besides the poena talionis which is inflicted upon all such as murmure against Judges there is likewise an Arbitrary punishment adjected and either the King or his Council are Judges competent to the cognition of this Crime by this Act. Nota That if a Spiritual Man murmure against any Judge he has the priviledge to be called before his own Judge ordinar by this Act but this revocatio sori is not now in use since the Reformation BAse Infeftments are these which are given to be holden of the Disponer which are valid Rights in themselves though they never attain possession for else they could not give good Interest to reduce the Rights that may hinder them to attain possession These base Infeftments are introduced with us contrary to the principles of the Feudal Law which allows no Feudal conveyance without the Superiors consent and were introduc'd rather by accident than upon design This Act upon which they are founded being introduc'd rather to suppress simulate Infeftments than to strengthen base Infeftments and the great priviledges arising to them now did insensibly grow from the favour which our Law shewed alwayes to lawful Creditors even as the priviledge of necessitating Superiors to receive Comprizers did Base Infeftments though yet wanting possession are preferable to posterior Arrestments but they are not preferred to posterior Life-rent Escheats except they attained possession in cursu rebellionis Feb 21. 1667. Miln contra Clerkson and before this Act of Parliament 1540. they were still preferr'd to posterior publick Infeftments But by this Act it is statuted that publick Infeftments cloathed with Possession for year and day shall be preferr'd to base Infeftments not cloathed with possession though prior which praesumptione juris de jure are by this declared to be simulate Rights But though this Act requires that the publick posterior Infeftment be granted for onerous Causes yet a publick posterior Infeftment though gratuitous will be preferr'd 3 March 1626. Law con Balgownie But this may be doubted because of this Act and in that Decision the publick Infeftment was preferr'd because Inhibition had follow'd thereupon for any Act that can take off the presumption of simulation and which will make the Infeftment any way to be known doth fortifie the Infeftment as well as if possession had follow'd and so an Inhibition following upon the debt for which the base Infeftment was granted will prefer that Infeftment to a posterior publick Infeftment without necessity to reduce ex capite Inhibitionis and an Infeftment following upon an Appryzing was without reduction ex capite Inhibitionis preferr'd to a prior base Infeftment though clad with possession because the Appryzing follow'd upon a debt whereupon Inhibition was serv'd before that base Infeftment the said 3 of March 1626. And likewise if other diligence was done or the time was so short that a years possession could not be attain'd then a Terms possession was sustain'd or though there followed no possession at all the base Infeftment will be preferr'd to a posterior publick Infeftment interveening before the possession could be acquir'd 13 Feb. 1624. Possession likewise of a part of the Land sustains the Infeftment for all but this should hold only in Lands erected in a Barony or such wherein one Seasing may serve 5 Feb. 1668. Ker contra Ker. Hope in his lesser Practiques is of opinion that in the concourse of two base Infeftments the prior will be preferr'd in petitorio though no possession follow'd thereupon which seems to be reasonable because before this Act of Parliament jus illud obtinebat and by this Act Nihil quoad hoc est innovatum yet de practicâ a base Infeftment is as null till it be cloathed with possession as an Infeftment à me is before it be confirmed If neither of the two base Infeftments be cloathed with possession prior in tempore est prior in jure The Husbands possession was alledg'd to be the Wifes possession as to her principal but not quoad her additional Joynture 7 Decemb. 1664. Lady Craig contra Lord Loure and in our Law the Husbands possession is accounted the Wifes possession whether the Husband possest by himself or by Wod-setters or Comprizers deriving right from him though it was alledg'd that this was not the Husbands possession they having possest proprio jure which priviledge is not only introduc'd ob savorem detis but because she could not possess for which reason likewise a base Infeftment for relief is preferr'd to a posterior publick Infeftment upon a Comprizing albeit the Cautioner was only charged to make payment which was found a sufficient distress 28 July 1625. As also after a solemn dispute the Lords did prefer a prior base Infeftment for warrandice though not cloathed with natural possession to a posterior publick Infeftment 9 January 1666. Brown contra Scot. But here the Infeftment of warrandice was given simul semel with the Infeftment of the principal Lands so that there remains still a doubt as to Infeftments of warrandice given ex intervallo but Infeftments for relief were not found sufficiently cloath'd with possession by payment of the Sums for which they were granted as Infeftments of warrandice are by possession of the principal Lands because it was alledg'd that it was more natural that the possession of one Land should cloath the Infeftment of another than that possession of Annualrents should cloath an Infeftment of Land and that there might be greater collusion in payment