his Fathers Life It is an evidence he acquiesced to his Fathers Provision and cannot seek Annualrent against his Fathers Executors his Father having Alimented him neither is he lyable for that rigor that other Tutors are The Lords Repelled the Reasons as to the principal Sum and found that the Fathers Legacy was not in satisfaction of the Grand-Fathers Legacy but found no Annualrent due but Suspended the Letters simpliciter as to Annualrent Sir Alexander Frazer contra Alexander Keith December 16. 1668. SIr Alexander Frazer Doctor of medecine having purchased the Lands of Mâ—ekelty from Andrew Frazer who had Appryzed the same from Alexander Keith pursues a Declarator of the expiring of the Appryzing and of his Right of the Lands thereby It was alleadged for Alexander Keith that he had Depending Actions of Reduction against the Grounds of the Appryzing and thereupon alleadged that the saids Sums were satisfied before the Appryzing at least by the Pursuer or his Authors Intromissions with the Rents of the Appryzed Lands within ten years after the Deducing thereof During which time the Legal was unexpired by the late Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor whereby the Legal of Appryzings led since 1652. are prorogat for three years And as to the first point he alleadged that the ground of the Appryzing being a minut of Alienation betwixt the said Alexander Keith and Andrew Frazer whereby Andrew Dispones the Lands of Miekeltie and Stranduff to the Defender the Tenor of which minute is that the said Andrew obliges himself to Infeft and Secure the said Alexander in the said Lands and to purge all Incumberances thereupon and that the price shall not be payable till the said Alexander be put in Possession There is also a Commission therein granted to the Defender to purchase two expired Appryzings and to satisfie any other Incumberances and to Serve the said Andrew Heir to Thomas Frazer his Father and to obtain the said Andrew Infeft as Heir to his Father and likewise the Defender himself in the Lands so that the Right the Disponer had being only a back Bond granted by Frazer to Staniwood thereafter Lord Frazer by which he obliged himself to Denude himself of the Lands of Mickeltie in favours of the said Andrew Disponer Which back Bond was Appryzed by the two expired Appryzings but could not reach the Lands of Stranduff because Staniwood was not Infeft therein nor did the back Bond bear the same and therefore the Defender was necessitat to purchase the Right of a third Appryzing led at the Instance of Craigivar against Andrew Frazer the Disponer as lawfully Charged to Enter Heir to Thomas Frazer his Father who died last Infeft in the Lands of Stranduff and which would have excluded any Right that the Defender had from Andrew Frazer especially seing the Sum on which Craigivars Appryzing proceeded was a Debt due by the said Thomas Frazer to William Frazer which William Frazer raised a Pursuit thereupon against the said Andrew Frazer as Representing Thomas his Father and raised Inhibition upon a Dependence which Inhibition is Execute and Registrate against Andrew Frazer before he Disponed the Lands after which Dependence the matter being referred to Arbiters they Decerned Andrew Frazer to pay to the said William Frazer two thousand merks out of the first and readiest of the price of Miekeltie due by the Defender Alexander Keith or out of any other Goods or Sums belonging to the said Andrew so that the Decreet Arbitral upon the Submission being in the same Terms was equivalent to an Assignation or a Precept and the Defender Alexander Keith satisfying that Sum it is in effect payment of so much of the price and Craigivars Appryzing proceeding on that same Sum it was most necessar for the Defender to Acquire that Appryzing as proceeding upon a Right whereupon Inhibition was used before the Minute and upon a Decreet Arbitral in effect Assigning William Frazer to so much of the Sum due by Alexander Keith The Pursuer answered that the Defenders alleadgence ought to be Repelled because the Acquiring of Craigivars Appryzing was altogether needless and no way warranted by the Minute and so cannot exhaust the price because that Appryzing was led 10. years after the Minute and the Defender having accepted a Commission to do all things necessar for Establishing of his own Right he ought to have Served the Disponer Heir to his Father and to have Infeft him in Stranduff and to have Infeft himself upon the Disponers Resignation Or if he had found that the Lands were Disponed to Frazer of Staniwood upon Trust he ought to have procured the same to have been Established in his Person as coming in the place of Andrew Frazer to whose behove the Trust was which would for ever have Excluded Craigivars Appryzing being long posterior to the Defenders Commission contained in the Minute so that it was his own fault that he suffered another to Appryze neither could the Inhibition have prejudged him though prior to the Minut in respect it was upon a Dependence upon which no Decreet in favours of the Inhibiter could ever follow the Cause being Extinct by Transaction and Decreet Arbitral neither is there any Process Extant neither is the Decreet Arbitral equivalent to an Assignation and Precept because it doth not Decern Andrew Frazer to Assign the Sum due by the Defender nor doth it declare that that Sum shall belong to him but only Decerns Andrew Frazer to pay out of Keiths Sum or any other so that thereupon no Action could have been effectual against Keith to pay the Sum but only against Frazer himself The Defender answered that albeit no Sentence of a Judge proceeded upon the Dependence the Sentence of the Arbiters being in eadem causa was equivalent and whereas it is alleadged that the Defender had a Commission to perfect his own Security by the price left in his hand It was answered that the Commission being for his own behove and for his own Security he might make use of it or not make use of it as he pleased especially seing the Disponer was obliged to perfect the Defenders Security 2dly In the Minute there was no Procuratory of Resignation neither were the old Evidents Delivered to the Defender so that he could neither obtain Frazer to be Infeft much less himself upon Frazers Resignation wanting a Procuratory The Pursuer answered that the Commission being a Mandat accepted by the Defender did ex natura mandati bind the Accepter to do Diligence neither is it to his own behove but was also to the Disponers behove that his obligements might be fulfilled and his price not stopped and although the Minute want a Procuratory of Resignation that is no way Relevant for if the Defender had required a Procuratory of Resignation from the Disponer or had required the Writs to instruct the Service being in the Disponers hand and had been refused of either he had been in no fault but without any Diligence to suffer another
for the price of a House The Defender alleadged absolvitor because he had bona fide made Compt Reckoning and Payment to Mr. Alexander Home Assigny Constitute by the Rebel before any Citation or Diligence done against him to put him in mala fide so to do and produced the Assignies discharg bearing that the Defender had made Compt with the Assignyâ— and that there remains only the Sum of 1100. merks which he acknowledgeds to have received and therefore discharged him of the whole The Pursuers alleadged the discharge not bearing Payment of the whole Sum but only of 1100. merks nor yet bearingâ— that the Instructions were given up to the Assigny cannot exoner the Defender but he must yet Re-produce the Accompt and Instructions thereof likeas he has produced a great part thereof in this Process because no discharge could be relevant to liberat this Defender but only payment made bona fide The Lords found the Discharge sufficient to liberat the Defender mainly because albeit the Discharge mentions not the Instructions to be given up yet the Defenders was not oblidged to preserve the same or be at the hazard thereof The Pursuer further offered them to prove that the Defender had yet in his hand the accompt and whole Instructions and therefore ought to repreduce the same that the Lords might consider whether the Rebells Assignyes had allowed any thing to him which ought not to be allowed and did belong to the Donatar which the Lords sustained Iames Dewar contra Countess of Murray December 19. 1661. JAmes Dewar pursues the Countess of Murray for Ejecting him out of certain Lands whereof he had Tack and Spuilzing from him certain Goods The Defender alleadged absolvitor because there was a Clause in the Pursuers Tackâ— providing that if two Years Dutie run together the Tack should expire and in that Case he Renunced the Tack and thereafter the Pursuer having Compted with the Defenders Chamberlain by Writ produced he acknowledged himself Debitor in such Sums and such Duties for bygone Years with this Provision that if he Failzied in payment thereof my Lady should at her own hand intromet with the Corns and others lybelled which were disponed to her for satisfaction of the Rent and likewise it should be leisum to my Lady to set the Lands to any other Tenent thereafter at the Term of Mertimess and to Dispose thereof at her pleasure The Pursuer answered non relevat unlesse by Authority of a Judge the Failzie had been Declared The Defender answered maxime relevat because Declarators are only necessar in Reversions Back-tacks or Infeftments being of great Importance but not in ordinar Tacks betwixt Master and Tenent The Lords found the Defense relevant founded upon the Accompt and Bond in respect of the Tenor thereof as a foresaid but would not have so done upon the Clause of the Tack unless it had born expresly a power to enter to the Possession at any time brevi manu The Pursuer further Replyed That the Defense ought to be repelled because he offered to prove before the Ejection he had payed a great part and offered the rest The Lords having considered the Instructions of Offence produced found that it was not Speciall bearing any Sum of money produced or offered and that there was no Consignation following thereupon and therefore sustained the Defense notwithstanding the Reply Earl of Rothes contra Countess of Buckâ—leuch December 20. 1661 THE Earle of Rothes as Donatar to the Waird of the Countess of Buckcleugh and the said Countess for her self pursued the Tutors of Buckcleugh for Exibition of the Charter Chist and heal Evidences and Writs therein that the Donatar may have Inspection thereof to the effect he may knowâ— what Lands are Waird The Tutors Compeared and disclaimed the Pursuit at the Pupils Instance and alleadged First No Process till the Countess were called 2dly The Lybel is not Relevant to conclude Inspection of all Writs whereunto the Donator can pretend no interest 3dly Non relevat for any Writs because no body is oblidged edere Instrumenta contra se. 4thly If there were any ground for this Pursuit the Lands holden in Waird behoved to be particularly Lybelled The Lords Repelled the first Defense inrespect the Countess was in processu and found the second Defense to restrict the Inspection only to the Countess and her Sister and Father there Retours and Warrants thereof and no more unlesse the Pursuer condescend particularly of other Waird Lands and appointed one of their number to have Inspection of the Charter Chist who should show the the Procutators of either Partie such of the Writs as they found were Waird Hewâ— Montgomerie contra Lord Kirkcudbright Eodem die HEw Montgomerie of Grainshaw and Meclellane his Spouse pursues the Lady Kirkcudbright for Ejecting them out of the five pound Land of Overlaw and craved Re-possession and payment of the Maills and Duties intrometted with The Defender alleadged no Process because it is not alleadged that the Pursuers was in Natural Possession for only the Natural Possessors can have Decreet of Ejection because if there be no deed of violence Lybelled but only Intrometting with the Maills and Duties Ejection is not competent nor any Violent Profits but only Action for Maills and Duties against the Tennents or Intrometters The Pursuers answered That Ejection may be Competent though the Pursuer was not in Natural Possession when a Tennent is Ejected and a Stranger without Interest enters in the Natural Possession albeit the Tennents should Collud or neglect the Heritor having but civil Possession by uplifting of Maills and Duties needs not warn the Ejecter but may crave to be Entered to the Natural Possession and the Violent Profits The Defender alleadged the Case is not here so unlesse it were alleadged the Tennents were cast out but the Defender may Defend the Right to the Maills and Duties upon a better Right then the Pursuer The Pursuer answered That he declared he craved only Re-possession to the ordinar Profits The Lords Ordained the Parties to Dispute their Rights to the Maills and Duties and Possession as in a Double Poynding and as if the Duties were yet in the Tennents hands The Defender alleadged further that she hath right to the Maills and Duties because she offered her to prove that the Pursuers Father in Law granted a Back-band oblidging himself and his Heirs to Re-dispone these Lands to Umquhile Robert Lord Kirkcudâ—right from whom the saids Lands were Appryzed to which Apprysing the Defender hath Right and thereby has Right to the Back-bond and that the Defenders Wife represents her Father as Heir or at least as Lucrative Successor after the Back-bond and so as he might thereupon have debarred the grant of the Back-bond so might the Pursuer as Representing him The Pursuer alleadged 1. Non Relevat because the said Back-bond is but a Personal Obligation and the Defender had thereupon no Real Right but only to the Superioritie because by discharges of the
Denunced for then by the Horning his Escheat would fall but there is no Law nor Statute making the Penalty of Adultery to be the Adulterers Escheat for Queen Maries Statute anent Adultery is only making nottour Adultery Capital but nothing as to other Adulteries The Pursuer answered that Custome had made the Penalty of Adultery to be the single Escheat and for Probation of the Adultery in this case the Defender had publickly confessed it and had stood in Sack-cloth for it a year and had taken Remission from the King The Defender answered that Confession in the Kirk was necessary to purge Scandel when such Probation was Adduced as Church-men allowed to infer Confession which is but extra judicialis confessio and cannot prove ad â—viles aut criminales effectus neither can the taking of the Kings Remission instruct these Crimes seeing Remissions are frequently taken to prevent accusations or trouble The Lords found the Libel not Relevant and that no Declarator could passe unless the Defender had compeared judicially in a Criminal Court and there Confessed or had been Condemned by Probation but that the Confession in the Church or taking Remission was no sufficient Probation Andrew Barclay contra Laird of Craigivar Ianuary 10. 1662. ANdrew Barclay Pursues the Lairds of Craigivar as representing his Father upon all the passive Titles to pay a Bond due by his Father and insists against him as behaving himself as Heir by intromission with the Mails and Duties of the Lands of Craigivar and Fâ—ntrie The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because if any Intromission he had not granting the same it was by vertue of a singular Title viz. an Appryzing led against himself upon a Bond due by his Father The Pursuer answered non relevat unless the legal had been expired for if the appearand Heir Inâ—romet within the Legall during which the right of Reversion is unextinct immiscuit se haereditati and it is gestio pro haerede The Lords found the Defense Relevant albeit the Appryzing was not expired unless the Pursuer alleadge that the Defenders Intromission was more then satisfied the whole Appryzing Laird of Rentoun contra Mr. Mark Ker. Eodem die THe Laird of Rentoun having obtained Decreet against Mr. Mark Ker for the Teinds of Ferniside he Suspends on this Reason that he ought to have retention of the Annuity of the Teind which he had payed and whereto he had Right The Charger answered that there was no Annuity due out of their Teinds because he was Infeft cum decimis inclusis which are not lyable for Annuity The Suspender Answered that there was no exception in the Act of Parliament 1623. of Teinds included The Lords Recommended the matter to be settled this being a leading Case in relation to the Annuity of Teinds included but they thought that Annuity was not due of Teiâ—ds included because such Lands never having had the Teinds drawn there is nothing to Constitute Teind due for them either by Law Paction or Possession and so where no Teind is there can be no Annuity And also because the Ground granting Annuity to the King was because the King having an Interest in the Teinds after the Reformation and the Titulars pretending also Right did surrender the same in the Kings favours and submitted to Him who Confirmed the Titulars questionable Rights and gave the Heretors the benefite of drawing their own Teinds upon a Valuation and therefore the Annuity was appointed to be payed out of the Teinds to the King but the surrender did not bear Teinds included Lord Carnagie contra Ianuary 11. 1662. LAdy Anna Hamiltoun eldest Daughter to the Deceast William Dâ—ke of Hamiltoun having obtained Charter of the Lands of innerw â—ik from the King as becoming in his hand by Recognition in so far as the Lands being holden Ward the late Earl of Dirletoun Disponed the same to Iames Cicil second Son to his second Daughter whereupon the said Lady Anna and Lord Carnagie her Husband for his Interest Pursues Declarator of Recognition against the said Iames Ciâ—il and against Iames Maxwels Heirs of Line and Heir-Male to hear and see them Secluded for ever and that the Lands were fallen in to the Kings hands and belonged to the Pursuer as his Donatar by Recognition through the Ward-vassals alienation thereof without the consent of the King as Superiour The Defender alleadged no Processes because all Parties having Interest are not called viz. Sir Robert Fleâ—cher who stands publickly Infeft in the Lands Libelled The Lords Repelled the Alleadgence as super juretertii in respect it was not proponed by Sir Robert aâ—d that his Right could not be prejudged by any Sentence whereto he was not called Secondly The Defenders alleadged no Process because the Heirs of Line are not lawfully Called in so far as three of them are Resident in the Abbey and are Minors and their Tutors and Curators are only called at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh whereas they Reside within the Regality of Brughtoun and their Curators should have been Cited at the Cross of the Canongate as head Burgh of that Regality The Pursuâ—rs answered that the Defenders Reside in the Kings Palace which is exempt from all Regalities and must be a part of the Royalty being the Kings own House by his Royal Regative The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and found the Kings House to be Royalty and so in the Shire and not in the Regality Iohn Nicolson contra Feuars of Tillicutry Ianuary 14. 1662. JOhn Nicolson as Baron of the Barony of Tillicutry and Miln thereof pursues the Feuars of Tillicutry for a certain quantity of Serjant Corns and for their abstracted Multures for which he had obtained Decreet in his Barony-court which was Suspended The Defenders alleadged that his Decreet is null as being in vacant time Secondly As being by the Baron who is not Competent to Decern in Multures or Thirlage against his Vassals Thirdly The Decreet was without Probation The Baron neither producing Title nor proving long Possession and as to the Serjant Corn nothing could Constitute that Servitude but Writ The Charger answered that Barons needs no Dispensation in Vacance and that Baron Courts use to sit in all times even of Vacance by their Constant Priviledge And that the Baron is Competent Judge to Multures or any other Duty whereof he is in Possession And as to the Serjant Corn in satisfaction of his Decreet he hath produced his Infeftment as Baron of the Barony which gives him Right of Jurisdiction and so to have Serjants whose Fees may be Constitute and liquidat by long Possession The Lords found the Reply Relevant the Charger having 40. years possession as to the Multures and the Pursuer declared he insisted not for the Kings Feu-duties in kind but for the Teind Seed and Horse Corn. The Defenders alleadged Absolvitor for as much of the Corns as would pay the Feu-duties Ministers Stipends and all publick Burdens because they behoved to sell Corns for
Second Answer upon the Act of Council it cannot prove against the Suspenders being only under the Town-clerks hand not being a Process upon Citation nor having a Warrnat subscribed by the Suspenders The Lords having considered the Bond in Question albeit they found the tenor thereof not to be contrair the Act of Parliament yet found the same was unwarranttably taken if the same was extortâ—d as aforesaid and found the Decreet of the Lords not to militat against the Suspenders or to warrand that incarceration brevi manu and found the Act of Council proved not agaiâ—st the Suspenders and yet Ordained them to renew a Bond by the Lords Authority of the like tenor Elizabeth Fleming and Sir Iohn Gibson contra Fleming and Robert Baird BY Contract of Marriage betwâ—xt the said Robert Baird and his Spouse he accepted 12000 merk in name of Tocher in satisfaction of all his Wife could succeed to by her Father Mother Sister and Brothers and discharged his Mother as Executrix and Tutrix thereof Yet she having formerly put more Bonds in the name of Roberts Wife then this Sum and there being no Assignation to the remainder in the Contract pursues the said Robert and his Spouse to grant an Assignation thereof and to pay what he had uplifted of the Sums more nor his Tocher The Defender alleadged the Summons are not relevant he neither oblidged ex lege nor ex pacto to Assign The Pursuer answered this being bona fidei contractus the meaning and interest of the Parties is most to be respected and therefore though it contains but expresly a discharge which cannot be effectual to lift the Sums from the Creditors but would loss them to both Parties he must Assign especially seing his acceptance of full satisfaction imports an oblidgment to denude himself of the superplus And which the Lords found relevant and sustained the Summons Walter Riddell contra Eodem die WAlter Riddell as Executor dative confirmed to one Liddell in the Caâ—nongate pursues his Debitors to pay compears a Donator as ultimus Haeres and craves preference The Pursuer answered First His Gift was not declared 2dly He offered to prove the Defunct had an Agnat viz. an Uncle or an Uncles Son Which the Lords found relevant to be proven by Witnesses Robertson contra Buchannan February 14 1663. RObertson pursues Buchannan to repay to him a sum of Money who alleadged that his Bond bearing to pay this Charger or to Arthur Buchannan his Brother it is alternative electiâ— est debitoris and he has compensation against Arthur which is equivalent as if he had payed him The Lords repelled this alleadgance and found that the Charger being deliverer of the Money and now haver of the Bond it could import no more but that the other Brother was adjected for the Chargers behove and that there is no option to the Debitor in such cases Mr. Iames Forsyth contra Archibald Patoun February 17. 1663. MR. Iames Forsyth as Executor Confirmed to his Sister pursues the said Archibald Patoun her Husband for payment of her third of his Free Goods at the time of her death The Defender alleadged First By the Deceased Wifes Contract of Marriage with the Defender she accepted a 1000 lib. for all she could crave by his decease in case there were no Bairns of the Marriage and albeit there was a Bairn surviving her yet the Bairn shortly thereafter dyed The Lords repelled this Defence and found that the Bairn surviving the Mother never so short was enough It was further alleadged absolvitor because the Deceased Wife having a Child surviving her her share belonged to that Child as nearest of Kin and the Child being dead belongs to the Defender the Childs Father as nearest of Kine to the Child and cannot go back to the Mothers nearest of Kin because there is no succession of Cognats in Scotland The Pursuer answered that if the Child had been Executor Confirmed to the Mother ad eundo haereditate would transmit the same to the Father but there being no Confirmation haerediâ—as mobilium jacebat and the Goods remain yet still in bonis defuncti maritis and albeit it was found in the case of Bells contra Wilkies that it was not necessar to transmit moveables that the Testament were execute yet in that case it was a Confirmation which was esteemed an addition The Defender answered that he had done diligence to have it Confirmed but during the Childs life all Judicatories were stopped and he had taken Instruments of his desire to be Confirmed and alleadged that as Bairns surviving would transmit their Legittime though they had done no diligence so this Bairn surviving alone was sufficient The Lords found that seing there was no Confirmation the Right was not established in the Childs Person and that the Right could not fall to the Father but fell to the nearest of Kin of the Mother and found it was not like a Legittime which is only of the Fathers means and not of the Mothers and hath a special priviledge in Law to be transmitted by more superviving Margaret Hay contra Sir Geoâ—ge Morison Eodem die SIR Geoege Morison having granted a Bond to Umquhile Iohn Bell and Margaret Hay the longest liver of them two in Conjunct-fee and after their Decease to the Bairns of the Marriage the said Margaret with concurse of the Bairns charges for Payment Sir George Suspends on this Reason that Margaret is but Liferenter and the Bairns of the Marriage are but Feears and therefore seing there was an Infeftment upon the said Bond he ought not to pay the Sum till the Bairns be Infeft as Heirs of Provision of the Marriage to their Father and renunce the Infeftment The Lords decerned but superseded the Extract untill the Bairns were Infeft as Heirs of Provision to their Father and did grant Renunciation and found that all the Bairns Male and Female joyntly and equally behoved to be Served as Heirs of Provision to their Father in this Annualrent and Infeft accordingly and that by Bairns was not to be understood the Heir of the Marriage only Colonel Iames Montgomery contra The Heirs of Robert Halliburtoun Eodem die IN a Declarator of Redemption of a part of the Lands of Collfield The Lords sustained the Order at the instance of the Collonel as being a Singular Successor albeit he produced not the Reversion at the using of the Ordor nor now seing the Defender compeared and he offered to prove by their Oath or their Curators that they had the Contract of Wodset in their hand both then and now Birsh contra Dowglas February 18. 1663. BIrsh an Inglish Woman pursues Catharine Dowglas to pay a Bond wherein she and her Umquhile Husband were oblidged The Defender alleadged absolvitor because it was a Bond stante matrimonio given by a Wife which is null in Law It was replyed it is Ratified Judicially and the Defender oblidged never to come in the contrare upon Oath Judicially which is the strongest
own Rigt The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply Cicil Ruthven contra Hay of Balhousie Eodem die CIcil Ruthven having granted a Bond to David Lamb that thereupon he might Apprize from her an Annualrent whereunto she was Apparent Heir whereupon she having obtained a Decreet and now seeking Adjudication in Lambs Name Lamb produces under his hand a Writ declaring that his Name was but used in Trust that he disclamed the Processe The Lords notwithstanding Sustained Procâ—sse being so far proceeded in respect of the Declaration bearing the Trust and found he could not disclaim in prejudice of the Trust. Lady Swintoun contra Town of Edinburgh Eodem die THe Magistrats and Councel of Edinburgh having granted them to be Debitors to the Lady Swintoun by way of Act conform to their Custom The Lady supplicat that the Lords would grant Letters of Horning upon the said Act whereupon the Magistrats being Cited upon twenty four hours alleadged they were not Conveenable hoc ordine by suiting Letters of Horning upon a Bill but it ought to have been by an ordinary Summons either craving payment or Letters conform The Lords notwithstanding granted Letters of Horning Baillies of Edinburgh contra Heretors of East-lothian and Mers February 20. 1663. THe Baillies pursue these Heretors for so much allowed of the Maintainance of these Shires of the moneths of August and September 1650. And insisting on an Act of Litiscontestation in Anno 1659. Whereby the Defenders having proponed a Defense of total vastation the same was found relevant The Defenders having now raised a review alleadge that they ought not to have been put to prove total Vastation seing Vastation was Notour these Shires being the Seat of the War where the English Aarmy lay which ought to have freed them unlesse the Pursuers had replyed that the Heretors got Rent that year and had been burdened with the Probation thereof 2dly The Order of Sir Iohn Smiths general Commissar and also of the Provisors of the Army bearing the Provisors to have Furnished such Provisions want Witnesses and might have been made up since they were out of their Offices The Lords adhered to the Act and found the Defense of total Devastation yet Relevant in this manner that the Heretors got no Rent and granted Commission to receive Witnesses at the head Burghs of the Shires for each particular Heretor to prove their particular Devastations and Sustained the Order of the General Commissar he making faith that he subscribed an Order of the same Tenor while he was in Office Hary Hamiltoun contra William Hamiltoun February 21. 1663. HAry Hamiltoun pursues his Brother William as behaving himself as Heir to their Father Iohn Hamiltoun Apothecary to pay six thousand merks of Provision by Bond and condescends that William intrometted with the Rents of the Lands of Vlistobe whereunto his Father had Heretable Right The Defender answered that his Father was not Infeft because he Infeft the Defender therein before his Death Reserving only his own Liferent The Pursuer answered that the Infeftment was under Reversion and was Redeemed by the Father which Order though not Declared gave him the Right to this Land and was more than equivalent to an Heretable Disposition cled with Possession which would make the Apparent Heirs intrometting infer behaving as Heir for the Declarator non constituit sed declarat jus constitutum The Lords Repelled the Defense and duply in respect of the condescendence and reply of the Order used 2ly The Defender alleadged absolvitor because those Lands were Apprized from the Defunct and thereby he was denuded and so the Defender could not be Heir therein at least he could have nothing but the Right of Reversion which reacheth not to Mails and Duties The Lords found that unlesse the Defender had Title or Tolerance from the Apprizer the Legal not being expired but the Debitor in Possession his Heir intrometting behaved as Heir the Apprizing being but a Security of which the Apprizer might make no use or but in Part as he pleased Stirling contra Campbel Eodem die THe same last point was found betwixt these Parties and also that the Heirs Intromission with the whole Silver work so comprehending the best of them which is the Heirship was gestio pro haerede Anna Wardlaw contra Frazer of Kilmundi Eodem die ANdrew Wardlaw having a Wodset upon some Lands of the Lord Frarzer The Debitor raises Suspension of multiple Poinding against Anna Sister and Heir to the said Andrew Wardlaw and Frazer of Kilmundi pretending Right by a Legacy from the Defunct to the same Sum. The Heir alleadged that it could be lyable to no Legacy being Heretable The Defender answered primo the Legacy was made in proâ—inctu belli where there was no occasion to get advice of the Formal and Secure way of disposing of the Wodset but the Will of the Defunct appearing in eo casu it must be held as effectual as Testamentum militare in procincâ—u which needs no solemnities 2ly The Heirs Husband hath homologat the Legacy by discounting a part thereof It was answered that no Testament whatever can reach Heretable Rights with us 3ly That the homologation of the Husband cannot prejudge his Wife nor himself quoad reliquum not discounted The Lords found the Heirs had only right except in so far as the Husband had homologat the Legacy which they found to prefer the Legator to the whole benefit the Husband could have thereby jure mariti but not to prejudice the Wife thereafâ—er Iames Aikenhead contra Marjory Aikenhead February 25. 1663. THe said Iames insists for the delivery of a Bond granted to his umquhile Father and Assignation thereto by his Father to him against the said Marjory producer thereof It was alleadged no delivery because the Assignation in favours of the Pursuer was never delivered but keeped in his Fathers Possession which cannot be accompted his Possession seing the Pursuer is a Bastard 2ly The conception of the Assignation is to the Pursuer and his Heirs which failzing to the said Marjory and her Heirs and he being now Minor ought not to dispose of the Sum in her prejudice The Lords Repelled the Defenses against the delivery and found that the Pursuer during his Minority should not uplift the Sum till the Defender were called and had accesse to plead her Interest Adam Hepburn contr Helen Hepburn Eodem die THe Estate of Humby being provided to Heirs whatsoever umquhile Tomas Hepburn of Humby in his Contract of Marriage with Elizabeth Iohnsâ—oun provides the said Estate to the Heirs-male and provides 25000. merks for the Daughters there is a Clause of the Contract Bearing that it should be leisome to the said Thomas at any time during his Life to alter the said Provision or to dispone thereof according to his pleasure thereafter upon Death-bed he Disponed the whole Estate in favours of his Daughter of the Marriage being his only Child Adam Hepburn his Brother as Heir-male intents
understood presumptive nisi contrarium probatur as also they found the Defender his taking right to the Appryzing while being Tutor or continuing in Possession after satisfaction thereof by Intromission not to infer the passive Title and that the Gift and Declarator did take away the Heirship moveable unless it were offered to be proven simul or retenta possessione during the Rebels lifetime Lady Milntoun contra Laird of Milntoun February 27. 1663. THe Lady Milntoun pursues the probation of a Tenor of a Bond granted by Maxwel of Calderwood her Husband bearing that in respect of his Facility he might be induced to dispose of his Wifes Liferent and thereby redact them both to want and misery therefore he oblieges himself not to dispose thereof without his Wifes consent seing he had no means but what he got by her hereupon she used Inhibition which she now produces as an Adminicle and craves the Tenor of the Bond to be made up by Witnesses The Defender having alleadged that there behoved here to be lybelled and proven a special causus omissionis because albeit it were proven that such a Bond once was yet unless it were also proven how it was lost it must be presumed to have been given back to the Husband granter thereof whereby he is liberat and this is the course observed in the Tenors of all Bonds of borrowed Money The Pursuer answered that this was not like a Bond of borrowed Money the intent whereof is not to stand as a constant Right but to be a mean to get payment but this Bond by its tenor was to stand as a constant Right to preserve the Dilapidation of the Liferent and so cannot be presumed to have been quite by redelivery thereof albeit it had been in the Husbands hands The Lords before answer to this Disputeâ— Ordained the Pursuer to condescend what the effect of this Write would be if it were made up for if it have no effect there were no necessity to make it up The Pursuer condescended upon the effect thereof thus that it would be effectual as an Interdiction published by the Inhibition to annual and reduce the Disposition of the Pursuers Liferent made by her Husband without her consent in favours of Milntoun her Step-son 2. This Bond being accessory to the Contract of Marriage betwixt the same and the Marriage is pactum dotale and must have the same effect as if it were included in the Contract of Marriage and so is a Provision for Securing of the Pursuers Liferent to her self and that no Deed by her Husband without her own consent should be effectual The Defender alleadged that none of these Condescendences could be effectual not the first because if the foresaid Bond were an Interdiction it would have no effect unless it were instructed that the granter thereof were prodigus and if it were Instructed that he was rei suae providus it could take away the effect thereof because an Interdiction is nothing else but constitutio Carâ—â—torum prodigo where albeit it is done of course periculo facientis sine causae cognitione with us Yet if it be on an false Ground and Narrative its ineffectual 2ly Though it could be instructed that the Husband was levis yet the Interdiction is null being to his own Wife who cannot be his Curator being sub potestate viri Nor Curator to any other much less can her Husband be made her Pupil contrair to the Law Divine and Humane Neither could the Bond be effectual as a Provision adjected to the Contract of Marriage because it being from an Husband to his Wife so soon as he was Married it returned to himself jure mariâ—i because nothing can consist in the person of the Wife which belongs not to the Husband jure mariti being moveable except an Aliment formerly Constitute to her in a competent measure The Pursuer answered that she opponed the Bond and further offered to restore to the Defender all that he gave for the Disposition of her Liferent The Lords after they had Reasoned the several Points in jure and found that without the offer the Bond could not be consistent as an Interdiction in so far as concerned the Husband to annul the Disposition but were inclined to Sustain the same for the Wife in so far as might extend to a competent Aliment of her Family to her Self Daughter and Servants not excluding her Husband Yer they found the offer so reasonable to Repay the Sum Payed for the Liferent being 5000. merks and the Liferent it self being eight Chalder of Victual and eight hundred merks that they found the effect of the Tenor would be to Restore either Party hinc inde but desired the Pursuer to let the Defender keep the Possession of the House and Lands wherein there was many Woods newly cutted he finding Caution to pay her eight Chalder of Victual and eight hundred merks which his Father was oblieged to make them worth by the Contract of Marriage Sir William Gordoun of Lesmore contra Mr. James Leith Iune 10. 1663. SIr William Gordoun of Lesmore pursues Mr. Iames Leith of New-lesly as representing his Father on all the passive Titles and condescended that he behaved himself as Heir by meddling with his Fathers Heirship moveable and with the Mails and Duties of his Fathers Lands of New-lesly and Syde The Defender answered to the first that his Father could have no Heirship moveable because he dyed Rebel and so his hail Goods belonged to the King as Escheat 2ly If need beis he offers him to prove that he dyed not only Rebel but his Escheat was Gifted and so as a Confirmation takes away vitious Intromission Moveables So the Gift with the Escheat must purge vitious intromission with Heirship being before intenting of this Cause 3ly He offers him to prove that the Heirship moveable was Confirmed promiscuously with the rest of the moveables and that the Defender had right from the Executor which Confirmation though it could not be effectual to carry the Heirship yet it was a collourable Title to show that the Defender had not 〈…〉 miscendi but that he meddled by a singular Title and neither formerly drew an Heirship nor meddled therewith as Heir appearing The Pursuer answered to the first that it was not relevant that he was Rebel nor that his Escheat unless it had been Gifted before his Intromission as well as before intenting of the Cause and that the Defender had Right from the Donator To the second it was answered by the Pursuer that the promiscuous Confirmation was not sufficient because he offered him to prove the Defender Confirmed his own Servant to his own behove The Lords found that the Defenders Father dying Rebel was not sufficient unless it had been Gifted and declared before intromission and they found the Reply Relevant that the promiscuous Confirmation was to the Defenders behove As to the second Member of the Condescendence the Defender alleadged that albeit his Father was Infeft yet his
the Reason Elizabeth contra Eodem die THe said Elizabeth pursued the Executors of her Husband and insisted upon several points First she craved the Ann as belonging wholly to her seing there was no Children and the Ann being in favours of the Wife and Children the nearest of Kin could have no part thereof The Defenders answered that the Ann was introduced the time of Popery when the had no Wife nor Bairns and so did still most properly belong to the nearest of Kin who would get it if there were neither Wife nor Bairns The Lords found the Ann to divide betwixt the Pursuer and the nearest of Kin. The Pursuer insisted next and alleadged that a Bond bearing Clausses of Annualrent and Obliegement to Infeft behoved either to give a Right to the half of the Stock or else to a Terce of the Annualrents The Lords found the Clausses of Annualrent and Destination to exclude her from the Stock as Heretor and the want of Infeftment to exclude her from the Terce of Annualrent The Pursuer insisted in the next place and produced a Bond granted by her Father to her Husband and here the longest liver of them two and the heirs procreat betwixt them without any addition or termination failzing these heirs and without Clausses of Annualrents or Infeftment and therefore she claimed the whole Sum as being the longest liver It was answered that this Bond did Constitute in her only a Liferent according to the ordinar conception and interpretation of that Clause the longest liver of them two betwixt man and wife but especially heirs procreat betwixt them being mentioned which behoved to be the mans heirs who if they had existed would have had right as heirs to their Father not to their Mother and therefore the Father behoved to be Feear and the Mother only Liferenter It was further alleadged that beside the Liferent the Pursuer behoved to have right to the half of the Stock because the sum being moveable albeit the Tenor of the Bond made it payable to the Relict for her Liferent use yet she behoved to imploy it so as the Stock would remain which Stock would still be divisible betwixt the Relict and nearest of Kin as being moveable The Lords found that the Pursuer might take her choise of the Liferent or of the half of the sum but would not allow her both Iames Halyburtoun contra Lord Roxburgh Ianuary 25. 1663. JAmes Halyburtoun as Assigney Constitute by his Father pursues the Earl of Roxburgh for payment of a Debt due to his Father The Defender alleadged no Process because the Assignation was not intimate in the Cedents Life and so he was not denuded but the sum remained in bonis defuncti and behoved to be Confirmed especially seing this Assignation is a general Assignation omnium bonorum without condescending upon this or any other particular The Lords Repelled the Defense and found Process Ninian Steuart of Askoege contra Steuart nf Arnhome Eodem die NInian Steuart as heir to his Father Askoege pursues Reduction of a Transaction of a Tack which Tack was Assigned to him by his Wife and by him Transferred to Iohn Steuart heir of a former Marriage The Reason of Reduction was because the Translation was on Death-bed in prejudice of the heir The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Pursuer is Witnesse in the Translation which imports his consent The Pursuer answered that Subscribing as Witnesse could import no more but that the Witness saw the Party Subscribe but did not obliege to take inspection of the Contents of the Write 2ly The Pursuer when he Subscribed was minor The Defender answered that in this Case the Subscribing as Witness behoved to import consent because that very Subscription it self by the Father being sick did import a Deed done on Death-bed Especially it not being a Testament but a Writ inter vivos and for the minority the Pursuer was in confinio majoris aetatis and suffered the Defender to possess twenty years long after his anni utiles was past The Lords found the Subscription as Witnesse in this Case to import consent and being quarreled inter annos utiles they found sufficient to a minor though in Confirmation Gordon contra Frazer Iuly 3. 1663. GOrdon having Confirmed himself Executor Creditor to Forbes of Auchinvil pursues 〈…〉 Frazer his Relict for Delivery to him of the Moveables who alleadged absolvitor because the Moveables upon the Mayns of Achnivil were Disponed to her by her umquhil Husband it was answered that the Disposition was simulat inter conjunctas personas retenta possessione and therefore null It was duplyed that the Disposition was upon an onerous Cause without simulation because it bears to be in respect that by the Defuncts Contract of Marriage he is oblieged to Infeft his Wife in five Chalder of Victual out of Auchnivil for the Aliment and Intertainment of his younger Children till the age of fourteen years and because he was necessitate to sell that Land therefore he Disponed the moveables in leu thereof which is also instructed by the Contract of Marriage The Pursuer answered that this is but a provision to Children and could not be preferred to the Defuncts Creditors especially being a provision before the Children were existent and if such should be allowed it were easie upon such latent provisions in favours of Children to prejudge Creditors The Defender answered that if the Pursuers Debt had been anterior to the Contract of Marriage he might have had ground upon the Act of Parliament 1621. but this Debt was posterior to the Contract and there was no reason to hinder a Parent to provide his Children and Dispone Moveables to him in satisfaction thereof The Pursuer answered that both being yet but personal obliegements not having obtained effectual Possession the Creditor though posterior must be preferred to the Children especially if the Defunct have not sufficient Estate to pay both 2ly The Disposition is upon a false Narrative because the Lands of Auchnivil are yet undisponed The Lords found that the Childrens Disposition ought to be preferred unless the Father were insolvendo at his death in which case they preferred the Creditors though posterior and likewise found the alleadgence Relevant that the Narrative was false and so the Disposition without a Cause Isobel Mow contra Dutches of Bucleugh Iuly 7. 1663. THe said Isobel having Served Heir to William Mow her Grandsyre Charges the Dutches as Superiour to receive her she Suspends and compearence is made for certain persons to whom the Chargers Father had Disponed the Lands in question who raised Reduction of the Defenders Retour and Infeftment upon this Reason that the Retour was null Serving the Charger Heir to her Grandsyre as last Vest and Seased whereas they produced the Infeftments of their Uncle and Father as Heirs to their Grandsyre in these Lands and therefore instructed that her Grandsyre dyed not as last Invest and Seased as of Fee but her Father their
Poynding against the Pursuer and the Bairns but in regard of so much ground in the matter they declared they would not sustain the Passive Title to make him Successor universal but only as to the just Price and the Cause Onerous Grahame of Blackwood contra Brouns Ianuary 7. 1665. JOhn and William Brouns having Appryzed certain Lands and William Grahame having Appryzed the same within a year after pursues an Accompt and Reckoning against the first Appryzer upon the last Act of Parliament betwixt Debitor and Creditor and craves to come in pari passu with the first Appryzer not only as to there Mails and Duties of the Lands Intrometted with by the Appryzer since the said Act of Parliament but also for these Duties that were Intrometted with before the said Act and that because the Act bears expresly That such Appryzing shall come in pari passu as if there had been one Appryzing led for both It was answered for the first Appryzer that what he did uplift bona fide before any Process intented against him at this Pursuers instance he cannot pay back a part thereof to the Pursuer because he is bona fide Possessor and because the Act of Parliament bears That such Appryzings shall come in pari passu which being in the future must be understood to be from their intenting of Process at least from the date of the Act but not from the beginning The Lords having considered the Tenor of the Act of Parliament found that such Appryzings should only come in pari passu from the date of the Act but that the bygones uplifted by the first Appryzer before the Act should be accompted to him in his Sum but no part thereof repeited to the second Appryzer and found that the Sums Appryzed for Principal and Annualrent of both Parties should be restricted as they were the time of the Act of Parliament in one total Sum and the Rent to be received from that time proportionally to the total Sums and that the first Appryzer should have allowance in his preceeding Intromission of the expenses of the composition to the Superiour and the charges of the Appryzing without compelling the second Appryzer to pay him the same Normand Lesly contra Gilbert Gray Ianuary 10. 1665. NOrmand Lesly charges Gilbert Gray Provost in Aberdeen to pay 2000 merk for which he was Cautioner for William Gray He Suspends and alleadges that the Charger had gotten an Assignation from the said William Gray to an Bond granted by the Earl of Errol to him and therefore craved that the Charger might be decerned to transfer that Assignation to him being given for the security of the same Sum. It was answered that the Charger was only oblidged to give a discharge to his Cautioner and not an Assignation of the Bond it self and much less of any security ex post facto he had gotten therefore The Lords declared they would not give the Charger Process till he Assigned the Bond and all security gotten therefore to the Cautioner William Reid contra John Reid Eodem die WIlliam Reid pursues Iohn Reid as his Tutor to deliver all Writs belonging to the Pupils Father or which were in his Custody and Possession quovis modo Intrometted with by the Tutor Who alleadged the Pupil could have no interest in any Writs but these which belonged to his Father The Lords found that Pupil had interest to call for Exhibition and Delivery of all Writs that were in his Fathers Possession quovis modo and ordained the Tutor to exhibit all but prejudice to any Partie having interest to crave the delivery of these Writs if they belonged to them Campbel contra Mary Bryson Eodem die GEorge Campbel having right by Adjudication to the Reversion of a Wodset of some of the Lands of Newlistoun Wodset by the Laird of Newlistoun to Andrew Bryson Baillie of Edinburgh whereupon he was publickly Infeft and thereafter did dispone the same to his Daughter Marry Bryson and she was Infeft holden of her Father which Disposition contained a power to the Father to dispone on the Sum in the Wodset Right during his Lifetime without her Consent after all Andrew Bryson obtained a Confirmation of the foresaid Wodset with Addition of 16. aikers of Land more for the same Sum which was conceived in favours of himself and the Heirs of the Marriage whereupon he was Infeft The said George having used an Order of Redemption craved Declarator Compearance is made for the said Mary who craved the said Sum to be delivered up to her It was alleadged by the Pursuer that she could not have up the Sum unless she were Infeft as Heir to her Father both in the first and last Wodset and resigned the same and so liberat the Land of the Burthen thereof for albeit she was Infeft proprio nomine yet it was but base holden of her Father so that the Superiority remained with her Father and she behoved to be Infeft as Heir to him and renunce the same 2. The Corroborative Wodset stood in her Fathers Person who by her Disposition had a Power to dispose of the first Wodset and so had altered the Fee thereof to himself and his Heirs It was answered that the second Wodset was taken when Maries mother was dead and she the only child of that Marriage and so was alike as if her name had been expressed 2. The Declarator it self will sufficiently secure the Redeemer albeit there were no Resignation 3dly The second Wodset is but accessory to the first so that the said Mary having power to renunce the first Wodset proprio nomine the second may be declared to be extinct in consequence and further offered Caution if need were to warrand the Redeemer The Lords found the Lands to be Redeemed but ordained the Money not to be given up untill the said Mary had Infeft her self as Heir to her Father and Resigned for they thought the Redeemer ought to put upon no hazard of repetition or of the danger of the Infeftment unrenunced seing it was the ordinar Course to be Infeft and to renunce Magaret Arnot contra Mr. Robert Arnot Ianuary 11. 1665. MArgaret Arnot pursues a Reduction of a Decreet of Exoneration obtained by William Arnot her Uncle and Executor to her Father It was alleadged for Mr. Robert Arnot Son and Successor to the said William that all Parties having Interest were not called viz The Creditors and Legatars who were concerned in the event of the Reduction for if there Sums and Discharges were not allowed according to the Exoneration The Defender behoved to return upon them for payment and therefore they ought to be called to defend their Interest The Lords repelled the Defense and found no necessity to call the Creditors and Legatars but that the Defender might intimat the Plea to them Neilson and Calender contra Ianuary 12. 1665. NEilson and Lodovick Calender her Spouse pursue a Transferrence of an old Summons on which there was an Inhibition used It
Possession as it was the Defuncts Possession So it did continue to be the true appearand Heirs Possession although none had been Served to this Day and therefore the Service or Infeftment following thereupon cannot take away from the true Heir the presumptive Possession of Law which the true Heir hath 2ly No Prescription can be valid against others But these that know or are at least oblieged to know the Right whereupon it proceeds but the true Heir was not oblieged to know their Service nor was he oblieged to Serve himself but when he pleased especially seing he could get no benefit as long as the Liferenter lived and that he was not oblieged to know the first Service appears because he was not called thereto otherways then by a general Citation at the Mercat Cross to all Parties having Interest which is but a point of meer form and prejudges no body and at least could not prejudge a Stranger living out of the Countrey animo remanendi there being neither special nor general Citation as to Persons out of the Countrey on 60. dayes The Lords found no weight in this last Point seing the Law requires no Citation on 60. dayes in cases of Retoures but only 15. dayes generally at the Mercat Cross which they find every man origine Scotus oblieged to take notice of or to have a Procurator at Edinburgh as in communi patriâ who may search the Register of Retoures whether in the publick Register or Town Books before they prescribe They also found that there was no ground for Prescription upon the first Act of Parliament as bearing only relation to these in the Countrey nor upon the last Act of Parliament as bearing only relation Retoures to be deduced thereafter neither did they sustain the Prescription upon the first part of the general Act of Prescription for they found the Liferenters Possession in the Competition of two Heirs not to be profitable to either of them in prejudice of the other nor yet to be the Possession of singular Successors seing it flowed not from these singular Successors but from the Defunct to whom both Parties pretended to be Heir but the Lords found the posterior clause in the Act of Parliament of all Actions whatsomever to extend to the Reduction of Retoures and to be general as to all Actions that may concern Heirs in prejudice of others And found it so much the rather to extend to Retoures that the next ensuing Act finds Retoures to be Deduced thereafter only to be Reduceable within twenty years and so finds the Reduction thereof to prescrive sooner than other Rights and therefore cannot be thought not to have meaned to reach bygone Retoures by the general Act. Creditors of James Masson Merchant Supplicants Nov. 30. 1665. JAmes Masson Merchant in Edinburgh having unexpectedly broke and fled his Creditors gave in Supplication to the Lords bearing that he had most deceitfully broken having the price of the Goods that he had sold meditatione fugae in his hand and that he either lurked in the Abbay or was to go out of the Countrey and therefore craved a Warrand to Messengers of Arms to secure his Goods and apprehend his Person wherever the same could be found until the matter were heard The Lords having considered the case that the occasion was very extraordinar and also the desire most were of the opinion that the Lords might grant the Desire which was done accordingly with a Recommendation to the Duke of Hamiltoun Keeper of the Kings House not to suffer him to lurk there but to expel him that he might be apprehended For albeit ordinarly the Lords grant not Caption or Warrant of Wairding the Person of the Kings free Leidge till he be Denunced Rebel Yet seing the Magistrates of Burghs and the Admiral grant Acts of Wairding against Parties until they find Caution to answer as Law-will The Lords who had eminently in themselves these Jurisdictions they might do the like in the like case but some thought that was a special priviledge not to be extended and this was of dangerous Example to secure persons unheard more proper for the Council as a case extraordinar then for the Session David Boyd contra Isobel Lauder and Iohn Tailzifer Eodem die DAvid Boyd pursues Iohn Tailzifer as Representing his Father on all the passive Titles and Isobel Lauder his Mother and Tutrix for her Interest and condescends upon his behaving as Heir by uplifting of the Mails and Duties of his Fathers Lands by his said Tutrix It was answered that he being a Pupil his Tutrix Intromission could not infer that passive Title against him as hath been frequently sustained these many years It was answered that was but since the Usurpation but before the Tutors Intromission did alwayes infer this Title and the Pupil could only pursue his Tutor for his damnage The Lords found the Pupil not lyable on this passive Title by his Tutors Intromission The Pursuer then insisted against the Tutrix for paying so far as she had intrometted It was answered that she was but called for her Interest to authorize her Pupil but not to pay neither could she be lyable to pay unless a Decreet had been first Established against the Pupil◠and then it had been Arrested in her hands and pursued to be made forthcoming And yet the Lords found the Tutrix hoc ordine lyable White contra Brown Eodem die JOhn White as having Right from Iames White his Fathe◠Charges Brown for 2000. merks who suspends on this Reason that this Translation being by a Father to a Son in his Family at least having no visible Estate to acquire it The Suspender cannot be prejudged as to the manner of Probation by the Fathers Oath by which he offered him to prove that the Father was Debitor in a greater Sum. It was answered that the Cedents Oath could not be taken in prejudice of the Assigney The Lords found that in this case the Reason was probable by the Cedent Oath Telzifer contra Geddes Decemb. 1. 1665. THe competition between Telzifer and Geddes mentioned the eleventh of November last being this day again called Debated and Reconsidered by the Lords at length The question being that Marjory Sandilands having granted a Bond to Samuel Veatch blank in the Creditors name Samuel filled up Marion Geddes Name therein whereupon she Registrat the Bond and Charged him in the mean time Telzifer as Veatches Creditor having Arrested all Sums in Marjory Sandilands hands adebted by her to Samuel Veatch and pursuing to make the same forthcoming she depones that the time of the Arrestment she was no wayes Debitor to Veatch but by a Bond blank in the Creditors Name and that she did not know whose Name was filled up in it But now Telzifer the Arrester compearing craves to be preferred because he had arrested the Sum as belonging to Samuel Veatch his Debitor before Samuel Veatch was Denuded by filling up Marion Geddes Name and intimating or showing the same to
Heir to his Father by Intromission with the Mails and Duties of the Lands wherein his Father dyed Infeft as of Fee for payment of a Debt of his Fathers who alleadged absolvitor because any Intromission he had was by a Warrand and tollerance of Sir George Kinnaird who stood Infeft in the Lands upon a Gift of Recognition It was answered non relevat unless the Gift had been Declared before the Defenders Intromission because the Gift would not have given Right to the Donatar himself to possess The Defender answered that the Gift was Declared before the Intention of the Pursuers cause which Declarator albeit after Intromission yet must be drawn back to the Gift to purge the vitiosity of the Defenders Intromission in the same way that the Confirmation of a Testament will purge anterior vitious intromission the Confirmation being before the intenting of the Cause The Lords found the Defense relevant to elid the passive Title seing any colourable Title is sufficient to excuse the vitiosity but did not find that the Declarator before intenting the Cause had the same Effect as a Confirmation because by constant Customs such confirmations purge the preceeding vitiosity which has never yet been found in this Case of an Heirs intromission with the Rents of Lands but the Lords found the Defender lyable for the single value of his Intromission Alexander Burnet contra Iohnstouns Eodem die JOhn Iohnstoun having disponed the Lands of Fraster-hill to Gordoun of Lesmore whose Right Alexander Burnet having appryzed and by the appryzing having Right to the Clause of Warrandice contained in the Disposition charges Iohnstoun the Disponer to warrand the Right against a posterior Right granted by him to William Iohnstoun who had obtained first Infeftment It was answered that the Warrandice could have no effect because there neither was nor could be a distress in so far as in William Iohnstouns Disposition Iohn Iohnstouns and his Wifes Liferent were reserved during whose life he could never distresse Burnet 2ly It was Burnets authors fault that for many years he did not take Infeftment having long Right before the second Disposition It was answered that Iohnstoun himself could never object this delay to excuse his fraudulent Deed of granting double Dispositions whereby Parties become infamous by the Act of Parliament 1540. cap. 105. and unto the other point albeit there was no present distress yet there was unquestionable ground of a future distress against which the Defender could answer nothing that could elid it and who being but a naked Liferenter if no execution should pass upon the Clause of Warrandice during his Lifetime he would be fully frustrat The Lords decerned Johnstoun the Disponer to purge the posterior Disposition granted by him and found neither of the alleadgeances in the contrair relevant Brown and Duff contra Bizet July 18. 1666. BRown and Duff having obtained Decreet against Bizet for a Sum due to Umquhil Andrew Duff Merchant in Polland Bizet raises Suspension and Reduction upon this Reason that this Sum having been in bonis defuncti the Charger could have no Right thereto till it were established in their Persons by a Confirmation in Scotland by the Commissaries of Edinburgh ut in communi patria It was answered moveables sequuntur personam and therefore wheresoever the moveables be they are regulat according to the Law of the place where the Defunct resides and it is instructed by the Testimony of the Consul and Counsel civitatis Regiae pusensis that by the Common Law and Law of that place moveables belonged to the Wife and Bairns and the Pursuers were so cognosced by them declaring the said Clares Brown Wife and the said Duff the only Daughter of Andrew Duff and therefore they have sufficient Right without Confirmation in Scotland which appears by the Act of Parliament James 1. cap. 89. Par. 1426. And it hath been still the Custome so to do and that it was so decyded the 16. of Feb. 1627. Lauson contra Bastil Kello It was answered that it was otherwayes decided in the Case of Rob contra French 25. Feb. 1637. And there was no reason that these that lived out of the Country animo remanendi should be in better condition then these that resided in the same and behoved to Confirm and to pay the Quot The Lords found that the Testament behoved to be Confirmed by the Commissars of Edinburgh for having considered the old Act of Parliament they found that the poynt there ordered was to what Judicatures the Merchants going abroad to Trade should be lyable and that such as went abroad not animo remanendi should be subject to the jurisdiction of that place where their Testament would be confirmed viz. where they had their Domicills but these that went out of the Country to remain are excepted but nothing exprest where their Testament should be Confirmed and for the Decision the Point in question was not whether a Confirmation in England was valid but whether a Confirmation without an Inventar was valid and therefore seing nothing was objected against the Confirmation it self The Lords did justly find that the wanting of an Inventar in an English Confirmation where that was the custome did not prejudge it neither is the Case determined by the Decision betwixt Rob and French in respect that the Executor having Confirmed in England and rather being Confirmed by the Legatars would not own the Confirmation but renunced the same and therefore the Lords found no Consuetude or Decision in the Case but determined the same ex bono aequo Hellen Millar contra Watson Iuly 21. 1666. WAtson having obtained a Decreet before the Lords against Hellen Millar for the Rent of some Tenements in Glasgow she Suspends and raises Reduction on these Reasons First That the Decreet was null as being ultra petita in so far as the half of the Duties was only lybelled and the whole was decerned 2dly That Watson's Right was as Heir to Watson who was first Wife to Brown who stante matrimonio acquired this Right to him and her and the one half to her Heirs and the other to his which was a Donation betwixt Man and Wife revocable and revocked by the Infeftment granted to Hellen Millar in Liferent his second Wife It was answered that the Decreet being in foro contradictorio was irreduceable 2dly That the Right was not granted by the Husband to the Wife but acquired from a third Partie The Lords reduced the Decreet finding that it was visibly Extracted by error of the Clerks being ultra petita and therefore sustained the second Reason albeit it was omitted that it was a Donation betwixt Man and Wife being acquired to the Man and Wife and so presumed to be by his means which is equivalent as if he had been Author unless that Watson could condescend that it was by the Wifes means Gavin Hamiltoun contra Duke Hamiltoun and Bishop of Edinburgh Eodem die GAvin Hamiltoun as Assigney by the Collector of vaccand Stipends
Holstein constitute Soveraign therein and they liberat from his Jurisdiction Tolls and Imposts for War It was answered that this Stranger was not obliged to Dispute the Right or Investiture of the Duke of Holstein but it was sufficient for him to say that before this War they did own him as their Prince for simple acknowledgement of a Superiour or Investitur from him doe not make Subjects or comprehend them within the Wars and Quarrels of their Superiours yea though there were a Tribute or Jurisdiction due to that Superiour yet if the Prince do enjoy the Priviledges of making War and Peace he is not a simple Subject but in so far a Soveraign Prince as some of the Princess of the Empyre hold of the Emperour paying him Tribute and there lyes an appeal to the Soveraign Imperial Court yet because they can make War and Peace they are not necessarly involved within the Emperours Quarrels So the Duke of Holstein being a Soveraign Prince and possessing this Island so as to make use of the Subjects thereof in Peace and War therefore is not comprehended in the King of Denmarks Quarrel nor is he or his Subjects in the Sense of the Proclamation The Lords adhered to their former Interlocutor upon the 22 of December when this Case was Debated and Repelled the Alleadgences proponed for Ludquhurn unless it were alleadged that the Inhabitants of this Island do contribute with the King of Denmark in this War against the King and they so alleadging The Lords Ordained the Ship and Goods to be valued and delivered to the Stranger upon Caution or otherwise to be Sequestrat in some Merchants hands that the Ship might be made use of for Fraught and the Goods sold and not made unprofitable and according to the course of Admirality the Lords Ordained Ludquharn to find Caution for Cost Skaith and Damnage by the delay of that alleadgence Mr. Iames Cheap contra Mr. Iohn Philip. Ian. 5. 1667. THe Lords having Considered the Testimonies of the Witnesses adduced before answer betwixt Mr. Iames Cheap and Mr. Iohn Philip upon the Debate mentioned the 19. of December last found the same to prove and to qualifie the Minute they being the Witnesses insert above exception and it but a Minute wherein particulars are not at all nor fully set down which will not be drawn in example as to any full and extended Writs either for altering any Clause therein exprest or for adding thereunto any omitted Laird of Polwart contra Laird of Halyburtoun Ianu. 16. 1667. THe Laird of Polwart as Heir to his Father pursues Hallyburtoun for payment of a Ticket of 250 merks due by the Defender to the Pursuers Father and for a composition payed by the Pursuers Father for receiving him in certain Lands Disponed to him by the Defender wherein he was oblieged to obtain him Infeft The Defender alleadged absolvitor from the payment of the Ticket because it must be presumed to be payed on these grounds first Since the Ticket the Defender sold Land to the Pursuer so that it must be presumed it was Counted and included in the price and albeit that presumption were not sufficient alone it is fortified by these two viz. That it is twenty eight years since the Bond was granted and no word ever heard thereof and that umquhil Polwart in his Testament gave up an Inventar of the Debts owing to him wherein no mention is of the Bond. It was answered that a Writ could not be taken away by Witnesses proving payment much less by presumptions and as to the Taciturnity which is the main one umquhil Polwart dyed about seven years after the Bond was granted and the Pursuer was Minor most of the time since It was answered that Presumptions have been oftimes sufficient to take away VVrits as was found in the case of the Lady Trabroun The Lords Found the Presumptions not Relevant and that they were nothing so strong as these of the Lady Trabroun which were thus Trabroun granted a Bond of 5000 merks to Alexander Peebles which was taken away on these Presumptions that thereafter Trabroun had granted a Bond of 10000 merks to the said Mr. Alexander who was his Advocat with whom he had many Affairs and therefore it was to be presumed the last Bond included the first especially seing Trabroun decaying in his Fortune Mr. Alexander apdryzed his Lands upon the last Bond and not upon the first which he might have done with the same Expence and that he never moved any thing thereupon all his Life by the space of twenty six years and in the Inventar of his Testament he made no mention of it and that his Executors being Examined ex officio did acknowledge they had found it amongst old cast Papers The Defender furder alleadged absolvitor from the Composition because he was never required by Polwart to procure the Infeftment from the Earl of Hume which he could easily have done gratis he being his Uncle especially seing there was no Term in his Obligation to perform and therefore Interpellatio tantum inducit moram The Lords found the Defense Relevant and Assoilzied from the Composition albeit it was alleadged that Polwart for several years had not Componed that the Composition was much less then a years Rent and that Halyburtoun was not in good Terms with the Earl of Hume which was not respected seing Hslyburtoun was not required Reid contra Salmond Eodem die REid pursues Barbara Salmond and Iames Telzâ—fer her Husband for a debt due by her Father as behaving her self as Heir by Possessing a House wherein her Father died Infeft and by Setting another House of his to Tennents It was answered that Iames Telzifer was Tennent in the House Possest by him before the Defuncts Death and might Possess per tacitam relocationem Neither could he safely leave the House till he had given it over to some having Right VVhich the Lords found Relevant 2ly It was alleadged that the Defunct had Disponed the same Tenement to the defenders Son his Oye which disposition albeit it attained not Infeftment yet it was a sufficient Title for Mails and Duties and to continue Possession and to purge the vitious Title of behaving as Heir Which the Lords found also Relevant Barbara Chapman contra Iohn White Ianu. 18. 1667. BArbara Chapman pursues a Reduction ex capite inhibitionis viz. That Calander being Charged to enter Heir to his Father who was the Pursuers Debitor and upon the Charge Inhibition was used against him after which he Disponed to the Defenders Father It was alleadged by the Defender that he is minor non tenetur placitare de haereditate paterna It was answered that Calander his Fathers Author was never Infeft Secondly That the Defenders Father did Dispone the Land to his second Son by both which it could not be called haereditas paterna The Lords Sustained the Defense notwithstanding of the Reply and found no Process till the Defenders majority and that he was not oblieged to
Defender offers to prove uses to be done in the like case Which the Lords found relevant albeit the Intimation was not mentioned in the Designation Robert Dobby contra the Lady Stanyhil his mother Eodem die RObert Dobby pursues the Lady Stanyhil his Mother for an Aliment upon this ground that she being provided to an plentiful Liferent being an Annualrent of 2800. Merks yearly there remains nothing to Aliment him the Heir of free Rent being all exhausted by the Liferent and Annualrent of the Debt The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because there is no ground in Law nor Custom for an Aliment to the Heir except the Rents were exhausted by real burdens by Infeftment but here at the Defuncts Death there was only this Liferent which was not the half of the Rent and there was no Infeftment more 2dly Aliments is only competent to Minors the Pursuer is Major and may do for himself The Pursuer answered that it was alike whether the Debts were personal or real for if Apprysings had been used they would all have been real but the Pursuer did prevent the same by Selling a part of the Land at a great Rate which was all applyed to the Creditors and yet the Liferent and Annualrent of the Debt is more then the Rent neither is there any distinction in the Law as to Majors and Minors who were not bred with a Calling and therefore Carberry who was a man of age got an Aliment and Anthonia Brown got an Aliment from her Mother who had an Annualrent in Liferent and the Debts were all personal at her Fathers Death albeit some of them were Appryzed for before she got her Aliment The Defender answered that there was a sufficient Superplus because she offered to take the Lands or find sufficient Tennents therefore for 4300. Merks yearly which was a 1000. Pounds above her Liferent and would exceed the Annualrents of all the Debts The Lords found this last Defence relevant but did not proceed to determinâ— whether an Aliment would be due where the burden was but by personal Debt Alexander Binny contra Margaret Binny Eodem die MArgaret Binny granted a Bond obliging her self to Enter Heir of Line to her Father and to Resign the Lands in Favours of her Self and the Heirs to be Procreat of her own Body which failzying to the Heirs of Alexander Binny her Father and obliged her self to do nothing contrair to that Succession and having Married William Brotherstanes by her Contract of Marriage nomine dotis she Dispones the Lands to him This Margaret was the only Child of Alexander Binnies first Marriage and there was an Inhibition used upon the Bond before her Contract of Marriage Alexander Binny being Son of the second Marriage and Heir of Line to his Father pursues the said Margaret to fulfil the Bond and to Enter and Resign the Land conform thereto and thereupon did obtain Decreet which being now Suspended It was alleadged that this being but an obligement to Constitute a Tailzy could have no effect to hinder her to Dispone to her Husband in name of Tocher which is the most favourable Debt or to Contract any other Debt which the Pursuer who behoved to be her Heir could never quarrel 2dly It was alleadged for the Husband that he could not be Decerned as Husband to consent to this Resignation contrair to his own Contract It was answered that this was not only a Bond of Tailzy but an obligement to do nothing that might change the Succession and so she could not voluntarly Dispone but the Husbands Provision might be Competent enough seing both she has the Liferent and the Children of the Marriage will succeed in the Feeâ— and albeit the Pursuer must be Heir of Tailzy yet obligements in favours of Heirs of Tailzy are alwayes effectual against Heirs of Line in relation to whom the Heir of Tailzy is but as an stranger The Lords repelled the Reason and found the Letters orderly proceeded till the Wife Entered and Resigned with Consent of her Husband conform to the Bond seing there was Inhibition used before the Contract but they did not Decide whether this Clause would have excluded the Debts to be Contracted by the said Margaret or her Heirs upon a just ground without Collusion but found that she could not make a voluntare Disposition to exclude that Succession in respect of the obligement to do nothing in the contrair Eâ—phan Brown contra Thomas Happiland Ianuary 29. 1668. MArjory Brown being first Married to Happiland and thereafter to Robert Brown she Acquired Right to a Tenement of Land to her self in Liferent and Euphan Happiland her Daughter of the first Marriage in Fee which Infeftment is given by the said Thomas Brown her Husband being then Bailly for the time Agnes Happiland Dispones this Tenement to Thomas Brown Heir of the Marriage betwixt the said Umquhil Thomas Brown and Marjory Bruce and for the price thereof gets a Bond relative thereto Thomas Brown being Charged upon this Bond raises Reduction upon Minority and Lesion To the which it was answered there was no Lesion because the Disposition of the Land was an equivalent Onerous Cause It was answered that the Disposition was no Onerous Cause because the Lands Disponed belonged not to the Disponer but to the Suspender himself in so far as they were Conquest by Marjory Bruce while she was Spouse to his Father so that the Money wherewith she Acquired the same belonging to the Husband jure Mariti the Land must also be his unlesse it were condescended and instructed that she had Heretable Sums not falling within the jus Mariti wherewith this Right was Acquired It was duplyed that this was but a â—aked Conjecture and Presumption which is sufficiently taken off by the Husbands giving Seising as Bailly It was answered that this was actus officij which he could not refuse but he knew that the Infeftment in favours of his Wife would accresce to himself The Lords repelled the Reasons of Suspension and Reply in respect of the Answer and Duply and found that the Fee of the Land belonged to the Wife and her Daughter and that there was no Lesion in giving Bond therefore Laird Aitoun contra Iames Fairy Eodem die THe Laird of Aitoun having bought a Horse from Iames Fairy pursues for repetition of the price and for entertainment of the Horse since upon this ground that he offered to prove by the Witnesses at the buying of the Horse that Iames Fairy promised to uphold him but six years old and that he was truly twelve years old The question was whether this was only probable by Oath or Witnesses But the Lords perceiving an anterior question how soon the Horse was offered back by the Pursuer they ordained him to condescend that very shortly thereafter he offered the Horse back otherwise they would not sustain the Processe John Papla contra the Magistrats of Edinburgh Ianuary 31. 1668. JOhn Papla pursues the present Magistrats of Edinburgh for
many Witnesses on either side proved not only that the â—eithes Lybeled by the Party who Adduced them were holden and repute the true Marches for a very long time but did not express how long but some of them Deponed that Stones in the meithes were commonly holden and repute to be March Stones and so the Testimonies were contrary and if there had not been mutual Probation either Party would have proven sufficiently and neither Party having bounding Charters the question arose whether the â—pregâ—antest Probation should be preferred to give the property to that Party and exclude the other or if both Parties proving so long Possession and mutual interruptions the Probation should infer a promiscuous Possession and Right of the contraverted peice of Land and so resolve into a Commonty albeit neither Party Claimed nor Lybeled Commonty The Lords found the Testimonies of the Witnesses to infer a Commonty to either Party of the Ground in controversie albeit they found that Sir Iohn Gibsons Witnesses were more pregnant yet not so far as to exclude the others but declared that if either Party desired that piece to de divided they would grant Commission for dividing the same and setting down of March-Stones Burnet contra Nasmith Iune 19. 1668. ALexaâ— deâ— Burnet of Carlâ—ps being Creditor to Sir Michael Nasmith of â—osso pursues a Declarator against Iames Nasmith his eldest Son to hear and see it found and declared that an expired Appryzing of the Estate of Pâ—sso now standing in the Person of the said Iames is Redeemable by the Pursuer as a Creditor from the said Iames as appearing Heir of the Party against whom it was deduced within ten years after the appearand Heirs Right upon payment of the Sums that the appearand Heir truly gave out conform to the Act of Parliament betwixt Debitor and Creditor The Defender alleadged Absolâ—itor because the Act of Parliament could not extend as to his Case because the Act bears where appearand Heirs takes Right to Appyzing of their Predecessors Lands but the Defenders Father being living cannot be said to be his Predecessor or that the Defender is his appearand Heir and Statutes are stricti juris not to be extended to like Cases It was answered that Reason of the Law given in that part of the Statute being the same and rather more in this Case where there may be Collusion betwixt the Father and the Son there is no ground to except the same from the Act of Parliament the words whereof do bear this Case for in the ordinar Stile it uses to be thus express such a person to be eldest Son and appearand Heir to his Father and albeit his Father be not dead he may well be said to be his Predecessor not only in regard of his age but as being his Predecessor in the Right of these Lands whereunto the Son is a Successor albâ—it he be a singular Successor The Lords found the Clause of the Act of Parliament to comprehend Rights acquired by appearand Heirs in their Predecâ—ssors Life and therefore declared Agnes Hadden and Mary Lawder contra Shorswood Eodem die THomas Shorswood having granted an Assignation to a Bond of 500. merks in favours of Agnes Hadden and Mary Lâ—wder they pursue Magdalen Shorswood his nearest of kin to dâ—liver the same who alleadged Absolvitorâ— because the Assignation was never delivered but being made a year before the Defunctsdeath remained by him till his death and was never delivered and it is not the Subscribing of a Writ but the Delivery thereof that makes it that Parties in whose favours it is conceived unless the Party were in Family as a Fathers Câ—stody is the Childs Custody and equivalent to Delivery and unless the Writ had contained a Clause to be valide without Delivery which this doth not The Pursuer answered that this Assignation reserveth expresly the Defuncts Liferent and a power to dispose thereof during his Life which sheweth his mind not to deliver the Assignation even when he made it otherwise the Reservation in his own favour would not have been in his own hand which sufficiently shews his mind that the Writ should be valide though not delivered in his life 2. This being a moveable sum this Assignation is in effect dâ—natio mortis causa and so must be valide without Delivery for a Testament or Legacy is valide without Delivery It was answered to the first Alleadgance that the Defunct might have Delivered the Assignation and keeped the Bond so that the keeping of the Assignation was not necessary and so did not import his meaning to be that the Assignation should be valide without Delivery To the second this Assignation is in the Terms and Nature of a proper Assignation and is a Right inter vivos and not donatio morâ— is câ—usa because donatio mortis causa is but as a Legacy affecting only the Deads part but if this Assignation had been Delivered it would have affected all and so could be no donatio mortis causa and albeit it was not Delivered it remains the same kind of Right The Lords Repâ—lled the Defenses and decerned Delivery in regard of the Tenor of the Assignation and that it was a moveable sum it being also infoâ—med that the Defunct had no Children and the said Agnes Hadden who was to have 400. merks of the sum was Cousin-german to the Defunct Relict of Galrigs contra Wallace of Galrigs Eodem die THe Relict of Galrigs pursues for Mails and Duties upon her Seasine given propriis manibus It was alleadged for Galrigs no Process because the Seasine is but assertio notarij without a Warrand there being neither a Contract nor Obligation to give such a Seasine It was answered that Instruments of Seasine given to a Wife pâ—oprâ—is manibus have a sufficient Adminicle and presumption by the Marriage and the duty of the Husband to provide the Wife especially where there is no Contract nor other Provision but most of all where the Wife Renunced her Joynture she had with a former Husband in favours of the Granter of the Seasine and his Creditors which is a strong presumption he would give her something in lieu thereof Which the Lords sustained Steuart of Torrence contra Feuars of Ernock Iune 24. 1668. JAmes Steuart as Donator to the Ward of the Laird of Ernock by the Lord Semple of whom Ernock held the Lands Ward pursues the Possessors for Removing who alleadged absolvitor because they brooked their Lands by Feues granted by the Laird of Ernock The pursuer answered non relevat unless the Feues were consented to or Confirmed by the Superiour for by the Feudal Law no deed of the Vassal can prejudge the Superiour when the Lands are Ward The Defenders alleadged their Feues needed no Confirmation because they are warranted by Law by the 72d Act K. Iam. 2. which stood valide until the Act of Parliament 1606. Prohibiting Feues granted but by immediat Vassals of the King Ita est The first Act cannot extend
Suspenders Oâ—th or VVrit The Lords fâ—und that the granting of the Bond was no Hâ—mologation of the Decreet but that â—e might quarrel the same and that the giving of the Bond was no Transaction if he payed or gave Bond for the whole Sums contained in the Decreet but found that â—f in consideration of the Grounds upon which he might quarrel the same he had gâ—â—â—en an abatement by Arbitration or otherwise that he could not quarrel the same and found it only probable by his Oath or â—â—rit Iames Donaldson contra Harrower Eodem die JAmes Donaldson pursues Iohn Harrower as representing his Father for whom the Pursuer became Cautioner to the Lord Rollo for 100. pound for relief of the Defuncts Goods that were then a poinding for which the Defunct promised payment and did pay the Lord Rollo and produces a Testificat of the Lord Rollo's thereof and craves payment and offers to prove the Libel by VVitnesses the Libel not being above an hundred pound It was alleadged for the Defender that this being a Cautionry and a Promise it was not probable by VVitnesses especially after so long a time the Promiser being dead who might either qualifie the Promise or instruct payment there being nothing more ordinar then to Transact such Affairs without any VVrit The Lords found the Libel not probable by Witnesses Frazer contra Frazer Eodem die JOhn Frazer having obtained a Decreet against William Frazer his Brother to deliver a Tack of the Lands of Boghead granted to their Father and his Heirs to whom the said Iohn is Heir William Suspends on this Reason that he is Heir to his Father of the second Marriage and produces his Retour and produces the Contract of Marriage including a Clause that all Tacks Conquest during the Marriage should belong to the Heirs of the Marriage and this Tack being Acquired during the Marriage the same belongs to him and albeit it he conceived to the Heirs generally yet by the Contract the Pursuer as Heir general will be oblieged to Assign It was answered that this Tack was no new Conquest but had been the old Possession of the Father and the Tack bare the Lands to be presently possest by him The Lords found this Tack to fall under the Clause of Conquest unless the Pursuer prove that there was an old Tack standing which expyred not till the second Marriage was Dissolved in lieu whereof this new Tack was taken Hamiltoun contra Callender Iuly 7. 1668. JAmes Hamiltoun having taken his Debitor with Caption offered him to Iames Callender Baillie of Falkirk to be Incarcerat in the Tolbooth of Falkirk and he refusing he now pursues a subsidiary Action against the Baillie for payment of the Debt who alleadged Absolvitor because he is no Magistrate of a Burgh Royal but of a Burgh of Regality the Baillies whereof were never in custom to be Charged with Rebels The Pursuer opponed the Act of Parliament 1597. cap. 279. bearing expresly Baillies of Stewartries and Regalities according to which the Tenor of all Captions bears the Letters to be direct against all Baillies of Regalities The Defender answered that for the Letters it is but stylus curiae and for the Act of Parliament the Narrative and Reason thereof relates only to Burghs having Provest Baillies and Common Good The Lords having considered the Act of Parliament Repelled the Defense and Decerned here the Rebel was Residenter within the Burgh of Regality where there was known to be a convenient Prison Relict of William Pattoun contra Relict of Archibald Pattoun Eodem die THE Relict and Executors of William Pattoun pursues the Relict and Executors of Archibald Pattoun for Compt and Reckoning of Sums and Goods belonging to the said umquhil William Pattoun by Archibald and craves the Defender to produce Archiâ—alds Compt Books who alleadgen nemo tenetur edere instrumenta sua contra se ad fundandam â—item so that the desire was no wayes reasonable unless the Pursuer had given in a particular Charge and Litiscontestation had been made thereon in which case the Defender might have been compelled ad modum probationis to have produced the Books It was answered the contrair was found in the Compt and Reckoning betwixt the Children of George Suiâ—ty against the Representatives of William Suitty their Tutor and that there was as great reason here the two Defuncts having been Brothers and being in Copartnery together and the one Factor for the other It was answered that the case of a Tutor and his Pupil was no way alike because the Tutors Compt Book was in effect the Pupils and the Copartinery and Factory was denyed The Lords ordained the Book to be put in the hands of the Auditor and if he found by inspection thereof any Accompts appeared as betwixt Partners and Factors he should produce the same to the other Party even ad fundandam litem otherwise that the same should be given back and not showen to the Pursuer Margaret Alexander contra Laird of Clackmannan Iuly 9. 1668. MArgaret Alexander being Infeft in an annualrent out of the Lands of Sauchie by a posterior Infeftment in Corroboration of the former Right she was Infeft in that same Annualrent out of other Lands whereof she was in Possession but this posterior Infeftment being Reduced upon an Inhibition prior thereto she pursues poinding of the Ground of the Lands of Sauchie upon the first Infeftment It was alleadged for Clackmannan Absolvitor because the Pursuers Right of Annualrent is base never cled with Possession and now he is Infeft in the Lands either publickly or by another Infeftment cled with Possession The Pursuer answered that the Infeftment in the Lands of Sauchie was sufficiently cled with Possession in so far as the posterior Infeftment of Annualrent in Corroboration thereof was cled with Possession and as payment made by the Heretor by himself for his Tennents or by Assignation to Mails and Duties of other Lands in satisfaction of the Annualrent infers Possession so payment made by his Tennents by the posterior Infeftment in Corroboration can be no worse then an Assignation to the Mails and Duties of these Lands which as it payes some Terms Annualrent of the first Infeftment so it must cloath it sufficiently with Possession It was answered that here being two distinct Infeftments at several times albeit for the Annualrent of the same sum yet the Possession of the last cannot relate to the first The Lord Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and found that Possession by the last Infeftment did from that time sufficiently validat the first Heugh Boog contra Robert Davidson Eodem die HEugh Boog having arrested Robert Davidsons Fee as Keeper of Herlots Hospital Pursues the Town of Edinburgh to make it forthcoming It was alleadged for Robert Davidson Absolvitor because Robert Davidson had made cessionem bonorum in favours of this Pursuer and his other Creditors and thereupon was Assoilzied The Pursuer answered that a Honorum did no
proven they were not obliged to take Terms to produce or otherwise upon this pretence of Part and Pertinent before the samine were instructed any party might necessitate all his Neighbours to make patent to him their Charter Chists The Pursuer answered that the Defenders ought to take a Term to produce and that before Certification at that Term he would prove Part and Pertinent and alleadged the Practique in the Case of the Town of Sterling observed by Dury the 24. of Iune 1625. The Lords Sustained the Defense and would not put the Defenders to take Terms till the Lands in question were first proven to be Part and Pertinent and allowed the Pursuer to insist primo loco in this Declarator for that effect and as to the Practique alleadged they found in that Case the Defenders alleadged upon no Right whereas the Defenders propone here upon an expresse Infeftment Laird Kilburny contra the Heirs of Tailzie of Kilburny and Schaw of Greinock Eodem die UMquhile Sir Iohn Crawford of Kilburny having only two Daughters the eldest Married to Blackhal Dispones his Estate to Margaret the younger and to the Heirs-male of her Body which failing to the eldest Heir Female without division throughout all the Succession and failling the Issue of this Daughter his eldest Daughter and her Issue and failling of these Iordanhil and Kilburny their Issue all which failling his own Heirs and Assigneys whatsomever In which Disposition there is a Clause that the said Margaret and the Heirs of Tailzie should not alter the Tailzie nor Dispone or burden the Lands ' or contract Debts whereby they might be Apprized and carried from the Heirs of Tailzie otherwise the Contraveeners should lose their Right ipso facto and there should be place to the next Heir of Tailzie but there is a Clause subjoined that the said Margaret and the Heirs of Tailzie might Sell Dispone and Wodset the Lands of Easter Greinock and Carsburn and might burden the same with Sums of Money for paying and satisfying of the Defuncts Debts The said Margaret Crawford having Married the Earl of Crawfords Son Patrick they did Sell the Lands of Easter Crawford and Carsburn to Sir Iohn Schaw of Greinock at a Rate far above the ordinar Price having expected a Bargain with the Town of Glasgow for a Harbour there but the Town having made another Bargain with New-wark Greinock pursued Kilburny either to annul the Minut or fulfil the same and to secure him in relation to the Clause de non alienando and to that effect Kilburny raises a Declarator against the Heirs of Tailzie to hear and see it found and Declared that by the Right granted to the Lady by her Father she might lawfully Sell the Lands of Easter Greinock and Carsburn The Heirs of Tailzie compeared not but Greinock compeared and was admitted for his Interest which was that the Processe being for his security he might propone all the Defenses which he thought competent to the Heirs of Tailzie and alleadged that the Libel was no ways Relevant bearing a power to Sell simply but that it ought to have been conform to the Clause in the Disposition viz. to Sell Wodset or Burden for payment of the Defuncts Debts which did necessarly import that no further could be Sold then what was sufficient to pay the Debt and therefore no Processe till the Libel were so ordered and the Debts produced The Pursuer answered that he opponed the Clause having two Members one bearing with full power to Dispone the Lands of Easter Grienock and Carsburn and the other bearing to affect the same with Sums for paying of the Defuncts Debts which payment of the Defuncts Debts was but the end motive and consideration for which the power was granted but was no restriction quality or limitation of the power 2dly It did only relate to the second Member of the Clause and not to the first Member which bore with full power to Sell and Wodset c. which full power is directly opposit to a limited power 3dly Albeit the Pursuer were obliged to instruct the Debt and apply the price for satisfying thereof yet the Clause doth not limit him to Sell only so much as will be equivalent to the Debt but he satisfying the Debt more or lesse hath acted conform to the Clause which uses to be so exprest in Clauses of this nature as that the Heirs of Tailzie may Dispone so much as will be sufficient for payment of the Debt which not being exprest these restrictive Clauses being against common Law are strictissimi juris and not to be extended beyond what the words expresly bears 4thly Albeit the Pursuer were obliged to instruct that there were Debt which might be a price yet he were not obliged to instruct that they would be equivalent to this price but to such a price as were not a third part within the ordinar Rate in which latitude every Seller hath power and the alienation cannot be quarrelled and albeit that price would be more then the Debt yet these Lands being two intire Tenements which none would Buy by Parcels the Pursuer could only be comptable to the Heirs of Tailzie for the superplus The Defender answered that he opponed the Clause being one and copulative and that these Lands being put per expressum in the Clause de non alienando It could not be thought that the immediat following Clause would give the Lady as much power as to these Lands as if they had not been in the former Clause but the intent to satisfie the Defuncts Debt being the last words in the Clause is relative to the whole Clause and natively resolves into an Restriction or Quality not bearing that they night be the more able to pay the Debts but for payment and satisfaction of the Debts The Lords considering that Heirs of Tailzie were absent and that as to them the Interlocutor would be in absence found it most just and safe for both Parties to declare conform to the Clause that the Alienation was valide for satisfying the Defuncts Debts and found not that the Debts behoved to be equivalent to this price The Creditors of John Pollock contra James Pollock his Son January 21. 1669. THe Creditors of John Pollock having Adjudged his Tenement for their Debt and James Pollock having gotten a Bond of 5000. Merks from his Father payable after his Fathers death which was granted after he was Married he did also Apprize thereupon within year and day of the Adjudication The Adjudgers raise a Reduction of this Bond and the Apprizing following thereupon upon these Reasons First Because the Bond was granted for Love and Favour and albeit it bear borrowed Money yet the said Iames has acknowledged by his Oath that it was for Love and Favour and so being granted betwixt most conjunct Persons after the contracting of their Debts it is null by the Act of Parliament 1621. The Defender alleadged that the Reason was not Relevant as to such Debts
them off from some Merchant and therefore payment should not be made to such Persons till they produce the Merchants Accompt and his Discharge or if it be and if these Persons interposed pay not the Merchant as in this case the loss must not be to the Merchant but to these who payed to the interposed Persons upon their hazard and if this were not all Merchants would be ruined for no Persons of quality do immediatly take off from the Merchants themselves The Lords found that these Articles in the Accompt in relation to the Petticoat and the 114. pounds which were known by the Defender or his Lady to be taken off in their Name and put in Andrew Bruce his Book were due by them and that though the same had been paid to Margaret Sinclar it was upon the Defenders peril if she paid not the Merchant They did also find that the Goods being acknowledged to be converted to the Defenders use they were lyable to the Pursuer in so far as they proved not they paid Margaret Sinclar and found the same probable by Margarets Writ or by Witnesses but found not that Ground Relevant that Margaret Sinclar was intrusted generally to take off Ware or that the Grounds alleadged did instruct a particular Warrand to take off from the Pursuer and therefore did not find the payment made to Margaret Sinclar which she failed to pay the Merchant to be upon the Defenders peril except as to the two parcels of Accompt aforesaid which the Defenders knew to be in their Name in the Pursuers Book Countess of Dundee contra Straitâ—un February 24. 1669. THe Countess of Dundee as Donatrix to her Husbands Escheat pursues Straitoun for a Sum due to her Husband The Defender alleadged absolvitor because that same day this Bond was granted by him to the Earl a Creditor of the Earls arrested to whom the Defender had made payment and obtained his Assignation and therefore as Assigney craves compensation and preference as Arrester It was answered that this Debt being contracted by the late Earl after he was Rebel it cannot burden his Escheat in prejudice of the King and his Donator for though Creditors whose Debts were due before Rebellion arresting after Rebellion may be preferred yet no Debt contracted by the Rebel after Rebellion can burden his Escheat neither by arrestment nor compensation Which the Lords found Relevant and preferred the Donatrix except as to what was due to the Defender by herself or for Drogs to her Husband which she was content to allow The Earl of Kincardin contra The Laird of Rosyth Eodem die THe Earl of Kincardin pursues the Laird of Rosyth for the Teinds of his Lands to which the Pursuer has Right The Defender alleadged that he had obtained a Decreet of the high Commission for Plantations against the Earl whereby they Decerned the Earl to Sell and Dispone these Teinds for a price mentioned in the Decreet being about nine years Purchase thereof and therefore the Pursuer cannot have Right to the Teinds themselves but only to the Annualrent of that Sum which was the price The Pursuer answered that he opponed the Decreet produced which did not de presenti adjudge the Teinds to the Defender but Decerned the Pursuer to sell them to him upon payment of the said price which can give no Right to the Teinds till the price be payed or at least offered which was never done The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply The Earl of Annandail contra Young and other Creditors of Humeâ— Eodem die THe Earl of Annandail having obtained Assignation from Iohn Ioussie to a Sum of Money due by the Earl of Hume whereupon Inhibition was used Anno. 1634. and shortly thereafter an Appryzing upon which Aunandail was lately infeft whereupon he now pursues Reduction of the Infeftment granted by the Earl of Hume to Young as being after his Inhibition which Inhibition being auterior to the most part of the Debs Wodsets and Apprizings of the Estate of Hume and being supposed to be the leading Case that the Decision thereon might rule all the rest many of the Creditors did concur with Young and produced their Interests and craved to see the Process It was answered that they had no Interest in Youngs Right and so could not crave a sight of the Process It was replyed that albeit the Sentence against Young could not directly operate against them yet indirectly it would as being a Dicision and Practique in the like case The Lords found this no Interest to stop Process but allowed any Creditors that pleased to concur in the Dispute It was then alleadged Absolvitor because this Assignation Inhibition and Apprizing albeit standing in the Person of the Earl of Annandail yet it was truely on Trust to the behove of the Earl of Hume and if to his behove it did accresce to the Defenders as having Right from him and for evidence of the Trust they condescended upon these grounds First That the Debt was contracted 35. years since and no Diligence ever used thereupon till now except an Apprizing whereupon no Infeftment was taken till of late albeit Infeftments were taken of the Estate of Hume upon many posterior Apprizings which are now expired and will exclude this Apprizing 2dly The Assignation granted by Iousie to Annandails Father was immediatly after the Lands of Dunglasse was Sold by the Earl of Hume to the Laird of Dunglass by whom Ioussie was payed as a part of the price by Sir William Gray who was then Debitor to Dunglasse likeas Ioussies Oath being taken ex officio upon his Death-bed Depones that Sir William Gray payed him the Money albeit he knew not by whose Means or to whose use yet he knew nothing of any payment made by the Earl of Annandails Fatherâ— 3dly This Inhibition and Apprizing was never in Annandails or his Fathers Possession but still in the Possession of the Earl of Hume and his Agents and still in his Charter Chist 4dly The Earl of Annandail took a Security from the Earl of Hume for all Sums due to him or for which he was Cautioner wherein there is neither mention nor reservation of this Sum or Apprizing 5thly The Earl of Annandail has consented to many of the Creditors Rights which he would never have done if this Apprizing had been to his own behove thereby preferring others to himself the Creditors therefore craved Witnesses to be Examined ex officio upon all these points for clearing of the Trust which being an obscure contrivance can be no otherwise probable all the Actors being now Dead and is most favourable in the behalf of Creditors who if this pursute take effect will be utterly excluded for if the Inhibition Reduce their Rights the Pursuers Apprizing supervenient upon that same Sum is now expired and irredeemable The Pursuer answered he did declare he would make only use of this Right for satisfaction of the Debts due to him and for which he was
for Debt due to him by Cheisly and he being nowayes particeps fraudis Cheislies Fraud or Circumvention cannot prejudge him for albeit Extortion vi majori be vitium reale that follows the Right to all singular Successors yet fraud is not and reaches none but participes fraudis both by the Act of Parliament 1621. and by the civil Law L. It was answered for Scot that albeit it be true that an Assigney for an Oâ—erous Cause cannot be prejudged by the Oath of his Cedent and consequently by no Circumvention probable by his Oath yet in Personal Rights an Assigney is in no better case then the Cedent nisi quoad modum probandi but what is relevant against the Cedent and competent to be proven either by Writ or Witnesses is competent against the Assigney so that the Circumvention against Cheisly being inferred by pregnant Evidences and Witnesses and not by his Oath it must be effectual against Thomson whose Name being filled up by Cheisly is in effect Cheislies Assigney for so all blank Bonds are commonly found by the Lords to have the same effect with an Assignation 2dly Assignies without an Onerous Cause even as to the Oath of the Cedent or any other consideration are in no better case nor the Cedent but here there is no Onerous Cause appears for which Cheisly transmits this Right to Thomson for the Bond â—ears not that for Sums of Money due by Cheisly to Thomson or any other Cause Onerous on Thomsons part that Scot should be obliged at Cheislies desire to pay Thomson but only that because Cheisly had Assigned a Process to Scot therefore Scot becomes obliged to pay to Thomson 3dly As there is no Cause Onerous instructed on Thomsons part so his own Oath de calumnia being taken renders the matter most suspitious by which he acknowledges he got the Bond from Cheisly and that Cheisly was not then his Debitor for so great a Sum as in the Bond but that by payments made to him and for him thereafter he became his Debitor in an equivalent Sum but Depones that he hath nothing to instruct the Debt nor no Note thereof in his Compt Book though he be an exact Merchant and Factor so that there is no Evidence or Adminicle of an Onerous Cause instructed And lastly Albeit Parties getting blank Bonds bearing borrowed Money from the blank Person whosoevers Name is filled up the Bond then bears the Sums borrowed from him whose Name is filled up and cannot be taken away but by his Writ or his Oath but this Bond bears only a Process Assigned by Cheisly and no borrowed Money or other Cause by Thomson and Thomson living in the same Town with Scot whom he knew and is commonly known to be a simple Person and Cheisly a subdolous he ought before accepting of the Bond to have acquainted Scot of the filling up of his Name and if he had any thing to say and cannot now pretend that he acted bona fide but either must be in dolo or in lata culpa quae dolo aequiparatur The Lords found that having considered the Tenor of the Bond and Thomsons Oath Thomson was in the same condition as to the relevancy and probation of the Reasons of Circumvention against Cheisly and therefore found the Libel Relevant against them both to annul the Bond the Apprizings and Infeftment and all that had followed thereupon Naper contra Gordon of Grange Feb. 12. 1670. IOhn Naper as Representing his Father did Pursue William Gordon of Grange as Representing Hugh his Father for payment of 2000. Merks due by the said Umquhile Hugh his Bond and upon the said Williams Renuncing to be Heir obtaind Adjudication of the Lands of Grange and others in so far as might belong to the said Umquhile Hugh his Debitor his Heirs and thereupon did Pursue the Tennents for Mails and Duties In which Action it was alleadged for William Gordon now of Grange that he stands Infeft by Disposition from the said Umquhile Hugh Gordon of Grange his Father for Onerous Causes and Sums of Money undertaken and payed for his Father which was found Relevant and to evite the same the said Iohn Naper raised Reduction of Grange's Right granted by his Father ex capite Inhibitionis raised against his Father upon the said Bond before the Disposition made to this Grange which Inhibition being produced this day fourtnight it was alleadged for Grange that the samine was null because the Executions buir not a Copy to have been lest at the Mercat Cross at the publication of the Inhibition which the Lords found Relevant and now the Pursuer insisted on this Reason that the Disposition though it buir Onerous Causes yet being after the Contracting of his Debt by a Father to a Son the Narrative bearing the Cause thereof is not Probative against a third Party but the same must yet be instructed Which the Lords Sustained and ordained Grange to produce the Instructions thereof William Lowry contra Sir Iohn Drummond Feb. 18. 1670. UMquhile Sir Robert Drummond of Meidup having Disponed the Lands of Scotstoun to Sir Iohn Drummond of Burnbank Mr. Iohn Drummond Writer in Edinburgh his Grand Nevoy intending to Reduce that Disposition as on Death-bed grants a Bond to William Lowry of 12000. Merks who thereupon having Charged the said Mr. Iohn to enter Heir in special to the Lands of Scotstoun to the said Sir Robert his Grand Uncle Apprizes from him all the Right of the Lands that might be competent to him if he were entered Heir and thereupon raises Reduction of Sir Iohn his Right as being granted by Sir Robert on Death-bed in prejudice of his nearest Heirs in whose place the Pursuer now is by the Apprizing It was alleadged for the Defender no Process upon any Charge to enter Heir against Mr. Iohn Drummond because he is not the nearest appearand Heir but has an elder Brother living The Pursuer answered that the said elder Brother had gone out of the Countrey 18. years agoe and was commonly holden and repute Dead likeas he produced a Missive of one Creiâ—htoun his Commerad in the War abroad bearing the Circumstances of his Sickness Death and Burial Dated Iuly 6. 1667. It was answered that semel vivus semper presumitur vivus nisâ— contrarium probetur and what was alleadged could be no probation but some probabilities of Death The Pursuer answered that the brokard is but presumptio juris and not presumptio juris de jure and therefore only transâ—ert onus probandi which Probation may be valid without Witnesses by such adminicles as the Lords shall find sufficient which are here sufficiently alleadged viz. long Absence common Fame and a Missive Letter The Lords found that eighteen years Absence and being holden and repute Dead was sufficient Probation to take off the presumption of Life unless a stronger Probation for the Parties being on Life were showen then the naked presumption thereof Lauchlen Lesly contra Guthry Feb. 19. 1670. LAuchlen
the Mails and Duties for the Cropt and year 1667. Achtertire insists for the Duties of the Cropt 1667. which are payable at Martimess 1667. The way of payment of the Rent of those Lands and many others being that the Tennent enters at Whitsunday and payes his Rent at Martimess thereafter for the whole year and if he remove at the next Whitsunday he payes no Rent at that Term but leaves his Corns Sowen by him upon the Ground which he Shears after his removal Whereupon it was alleadged by Sir Iohn Drummond that this way of payment being aforehand Duty whereby the Tennent payes at Martimess before he Sowes the Cropt for the Cropt of the year of God subsequent to the Martimess that therefore Sir Iohn entering at Whitsunday 1668. and having Right to the Duties due for the Cropt and year 1668. he has Right to the Duties due at Martimess 1667. because that Duty albeit not payable in the year 1668. yet is payable for the Cropt 1668. seing the Tennent if he were removing at Whitsunday 1668. would for the payment made at Martimess 1667. carry free with him without any payment the whole Corns of the Cropt 1668. so that if Sir Iohn should enter to the void Possession of the Land at Whitsunday 1668. he should have no benefit of the Cropt 1668. but only of the Cropt 1669. It was answered for Achtertire that he has the only Right to the Rent payable at Martimess 1667. and Sir Iohn can have no Right thereto because his entry being but at Whitsunday 1668. he can have no Interest in the Cropt then Sown and standing on the Ground unto which no Buyer did ever pretend but the Seller if he be in natural Possession takes always with him his own growing Cropt even after the Buyers enters into Possession and so do all outgoing Tennents and so did Achtertire at his entry which being at Whitsunday 1656. he lifted the Duties due at Martimess thereafter but lifted not the Martimess Duty of the Cropt 1655. payable before his Wodset and therefore now he must lift the Rent due at Martimess 1657. or otherwise he wants a years Annualrent and if Sir Iohn Drummond should lift a years Rent due at Martimess 1667. and an other years Rent due at Martimess 1668. he should have two full years Rent of the Land within half a year of his entry which was at Whitsunday 1668. and which can never be understood except it had been clearly so expressed by the Parties neither is there here any further forehand Duty then what ordinarly Tennents paying Silver Rent and not Inlayed or Rentalled Victual entering at Whitsunday do for they pay the one half of there Rent at Martimess thereafter and the next half at the Whitsunday following that Martimess and for his years Rent they must have a years Cropt both of Grass and Corn and all the difference here is that the Rent due for the Possession from Whitsunday 1667. to Whitsunday 1668. is payable together at Martimess 1667. in the middle of the year whereas if it had been according to the ordinar course of Silver Rent being payable half at Martimess 1667. and half at Whitsunday 1668. Sir Iohn Drummond who entered but at the Whitsunday 1668. could have no Right to the Rent even payable at Whitsunday 1668. so neither can he claim it when it is payable jointly at Martimess 1667. The Lords found that Achtertire had Right to the Rent payable at Martimess 1667. and that Sir Iohn Drummond had Right to no part thereof Ierdan of Apilgirth contra Iohnstoun of Lockerby Feb. 24. 1670. APilgirth having Apprized Lockerbies Estate and pursuing on the Apprizing Lockerby alleadged that the Apprizing was satisfied at least he offered presently what was defective in this Accompt Lockerby alleadged upon a Wodset Right whereof an order was used whereupon the question arose and was reported by the Auditor whether after order used for Redemption of a proper Wodset the Sums Consigned being immediatly taken up by the Redeemer and the Wodsetter remaining four or five years in Possession thereafter and Declarator of Redemption being obtained upon production of the Sums consigned with the Annualrent from the Consignation whether the Wodsetter had Right to the Mails and Duties and might refuse his Annualrent or if he behoved to accept of his Annualrent and compt for the Mails and Duties It was alleadged for the Wodsetter that the Consignation was but simulat and the Money remained not in the Consignators hand so that he did justly retain the Possession and so was not comptable for the Duties The Lords found the Wodsetter comptable for the Duties seing he had no objection against the legality or verity of the order so that it was his fault that he keeped not the day of Consignation and Received his Money conform to the premonition and that the user of the order did no wrong to take up the Money out of the Consignators hand seing Consignations are upon peril of he Conâ—igner he making the same forthcoming at the time of Declarator with Annualrent since the Consignation George Graham contra The Laird of Stainbires Feb. 26 1670. GEorge Graham Merchant in Edinburgh Pursues the Laird of Stinbires for a Merchant Compt taken off partly by his Umquhile Father before his Decease and partly by his Factors and Servants thereafter It was alleadged as to the Defuncts Part of the Accompt the samine was not pursued within 3. years of the off-taking and therefore it is only probable by Writ or Oath of Party The Pursuer answered that he was ordinar Merchant to the Defunct for many years and that this was a current Accompt to the Defunct and his Heir the Defuncts Funerals having been taken off at his Death and the other subsequent Furniture to the Heir always since so that there is not three years betwixt that part of the Accompt that is for the Funerals and the last of the current Accompt given off to the Defunct and therefore it remains a current Accompt as to both 2dly There is not threeâ— year betwixt that part of the Accompt furnished to the Defunct and the Summons raised against his Heir deducing the year and day in which the â—eir could not be Pursued which is intra annum deliberandi The Defender answered that the currency of an Accompt was never extended to a Defunct and his Heir but only to one Person to exclude the prescription of probation by Witnesses neither in this short prescription is Minority or any other incapacity to be deduced and the Pursuer ought to have raised his Summonds intra annum deliberandi though he could not have obtained Decreet The Lords Sustained the Compt both against the Defunct and Heir as an current Accompt to be proven by Witnesses for the whole Doctor Hay contra Marjory Iameson Iune 8. 16670. DOctor Hay as Heir to his Father who was distressed as Cautioner for Con of Artrachy pursues a Reduction and Improbation of all Rights of the Lands of
more and even before Contracting of the Creditors Debt her Infeftment must stand valid seing it was less than what was her Right The Lords found the Vitiation of the Contract to have been after the Marriage and Sustained the Declarator and ordained the Ground to be Poynded for what she wanted of her Infeftment of 700. merks for bygones and for the whole in time coming unless it were proven by the Wifes Oath that she consented to the alteration of her Contract Margaret Livingstoun contra Burnâ— Iune 15. 1670. MArgaret Livingstoun as Donatrix to the Bastardy of a Mason in Falkirk pursues a Declarator of the Bastardy and Restitution of the Goods against Burns who alleadged no Process because the Libel condescending upon the Bastards Father and Mothers Names and that the Defunct was Bastard the same must be proven by VVitnesses and so the Summons must be continued it being a known Maxime that all Summons not instantly verified either by Presumption or Probation by VVrit but which must be proven by VVitnesses or Oath must be continued The Pursuer answered that albeit ex alundante she had condescended on the Bastards Father and Mother yet whoever were Father and Mother that they were not Married together is a Negative and proves it self and needs no further Probation but is presumed and puts the burden of Probation upon the Defender that they were really Married at least so holden and repute 2dly Albeit Probation were necessar that the Defunct was either Bastard or so commonly repute the Probation may proceed upon the first Summons in favorem Fisci and is so accustomed in Declarators of Bastardy and in Declarators of Non-entry wherein though the Death of the Vassal be Libelled yet the Summons is not continued The Lords found that the Summons behoved to be proven that the Defunct was at least holden and repute Bastard and that Bastardy was not presumed but they Sustained the Declarator without continuation and that the Declarator might proceed upon the first Summons Scot of Thirlestoun contra The Laird Drumlanrig Eodem die SCot of Thirlestoun having Adjudged cerrain Lands Charges Drumlanrig Superiour to receive him who Suspends and alleadges he ought to have a years Rent conform to the late Act of Parliament 1669. It was answered that this and all other Acts have Effect ad futura But not only this Adjudication was led before the Act but Drumlanrig was Charged before the Act and having no just reason to Disobey the Charge when he was Charged he cannot claim the benefite of a subsequent Law It was answered The Tenor of the Act was Declaratory and bear a general Clause that Adjudications should be in all things as Apprizings The Lords found that seing the Act did not expresly relate to bygones It could not extend to any Adjudication whereupon a Charge was given before the Act. Lord Iustice Clerk and his Son Sir Alexander contra Earl of Hume Eodem die THere being a Contract betwixt the Earl of Hume and Iohn Stuart of Coldinghame and Francis Stuart sometime Earl of Bothwel whereby the Lordship of Coldinghame was agreed to be possest by the Earl of Hume until he were payed of nineteen thousand Pounds and also that the Earl should uplift two hundreth pound Sterling of Annualrent â—orth â—hereof to him and the Heirs-mail of his Body and it was Declared that the Possession for the nineteen thousand pound should only be for the Annualrent thereof fructibus non computandis in sortent Sir Alexander Hume as having Right to this Contract by progress did pursue a Declarator against the late Earl of Hume that in regard his Predecessor the Earl of Hume Contracter Died without Heirs-male of his Body and he continued to Possess who had no right to the Annuity of two hundreth pound Sterling that his Possession did satisfie the nineteen thousand pound and purged the Right the said umquhil Earl dying there is now Summons of Transferrence at Sir Alexanders instance against this Earl of Hume as Representing his Father and also therein a Declarator against this Earl as appearand Heir that the Contract was satisfied and extinct by Intromission and the Lands Liberate Compearance is made for an Appryzer who produced his Infeftment and who had apprized the Lordship of Coldinghame and all Right thereof competent to the late Earl of Hume who alleadged no Process for the conclusion of Declarator against this Earl of Hume because all Parties having Interest were not called viz himself who had Denuded the Earl of Hume and who is not cited The Pursuer answered that this being a Personal Contract with the Earl of Hume whereupon no Infeftment had followed seing the original Right was in no Register he was not obliged to search the Register for the Infeftments of Appryzers but it was sufficient for him to call the appearand Heir of the Contracter But seing this Alleadgeance could not be proponed for the Earl of Hume being jus terâ—tij neither by the Appryzer unless he had produced his Right to verifie the same instantly seing he now compears for his Interest he may be admitted and heard to Defend thereupon in causa but not to delay or exclude the Process till a new Citation but according to the Lords ordinar custom he may see the Process in the Clerks hands and propone his Defense as the Lords have done in the same Process against one Park another Appryzer The Lords Repelled the Defense but allowed this Appryzer as they had done the other to see in the Clerks hands and to be heard upon his Right and Ordained all the Advocats compearing for the Defenders to produce any other Interest in their hands and not be delay the Process by dropping them in severally Langlands contra Spence of Blair Iune 17. 1670. LAnglands pursues Spence of Blair for Reduction of his Rights of certain Lands granted by Hamiltoun of Blair his Author because Hamiltoun was Inhibit at the Pursuers Instance before he granted these Rights to the Defender It was alleadged for the Defender Absolvitor because the Inhibition was null the question being of Lands lying within the Regality of Culross and the Inhibition was not Execute at Culross the head Burgh of the Regality but at Pearth the head Burgh of the Shire and for instructing that Culross was a Regality the Lord Colvils Infeftment was produced which though it bear not expresly a Regality yet is bears a Bailirie with power to Repledge which importeth a Regality and accordingly the Bailzie and not the Sheriff makes count in Exchequer and Briefs are direct to the Bailzie and there is produced an Inhibition Anno 1657. and another in Anno 1666. Execute at Culross The Pursuer answered that Culross was never denominat holden or repute a Regality but a Bailliry and though the power of Repledging be a special priviledge of Regality yet there are many other priviledges thereof not consequent upon the Repledging 2dly The Pursuer having followed the ordinar course used the time of his
of the Price and bearing this provision that it sholud not be payable till the Earl obtained George Infeft by his Superior The Earl Assigns the Bond to Lady Lucy his Sister who having raised Inhibition upon the Bond against George Hay and having thereafter Charged him he Suspended alleadging that the Condition was not fulfilled he not being Infeft and the Lady offering a part of the Sum to purge that Condition pro damno interesse and to procure his Infeftment George accepted of the offer and thereupon the Letters were found orderly proceeded for 3000. Merks of the Sum and Suspended for the rest in place of the Condition upon this Decreet the Lady Apprizes the Lands of Mountcastle and now Insists in a Reduction of a Disposition of the same Lands granted to Dunlap and Pitcon for themselves and to the use and behove of the Disponers other Creditors underwritten viz. Where there was a blank of several Lines which is now filled up by another Hand and though this Disposition was anterior to the Inhibition and did prefer Dunlap and Titcon for any Sums due to themselves or for which they were Cautioners the time of the Disposition Yet the Lords found by a former Interlocutor that as to the other Creditors filled up in the blank it should be repute as posterior to the Inhibition and filled up after the same unless the Creditors prove by the Witnesses insert or other Witnesses above exception that they were filled up before the Executing of the Inhibition The Cause being called this day the Creditors repeated their former alleadgeance and offered to prove that their Debts were anterior to the Inhibition and also that at the Subscribing thereof it was communed and agreed that Dunlap and Pitcon should undertake the remainder Creditors Debts at least they promised to give Dispositions of parts of the Estate effeirand to their Debts and accordingly they had done the same after the Inhibition but being upon a promise before the Inhibition they were valide having causam anteriorem and they offered to prove the Communing and Promise by the Writter and Witnesses insert 2dly They offered to purge and satisfie the Pursuers Interest 3dly They alleadged that their Disposition from the common Author of the Property of the Lands in question did comprehend all Right the Disponer had and consequently the Condition and Provision in the Bond that before payment George Hay should be Infeft for the Disposition would no doubt carry any obligement for Infefting the common Author The Pursuer opponed the former Interlocutor and alleadged that she was not obliged to Assign her Right seing she had now Apprized and that her Apprizing was now expired and yet of consent she was content to Renunce her Right but would not Assign it to exclude other Creditors or to distresse the Cautioners and as for the Condition of the Bond the Defenders Disposition gave them no Right thereto because there was no obligement in the Bond to obtain the common Author Infeft but only a suspensive Condition that payment should not be made till he were procured to be Infeft for hat the provision to obtain the Infeftment being only an Condition and not an Disposition after the Disposition to the Defenders the Pursuer might have payed the Bond or transacted thereanent with George Hay and was not obliged to know the Defenders The Lords adhered to their former Interlocutor and found the offer not sufficient and that the Pursuer was not obliged to Assign her Right though she had offered of her own accord to Renunce it and found the Persons Intrusted their undertaking the Creditors Debts before the Inhibition Relevant only to be proven by Writ or by the Ladies Oath of Knowledge and would not make up such a material Clause by the Oaths of the Witnesses insert nor of the Persons Intrusted and if they had made any such promise it was their own fault that they caused not put it in Writ knowing that their Oaths albeit they might prove against them yet that they would not prove for them for the Lords thought that if such blanks and clandestine Promises were allowed they might disappoint the Diligences of all Creditors Thomas Kennedy contra Archibald Kennedy of Culzean Eodem die THe Laird of Culzean having three Sons Iohn Archibald and Alexander for a Provision to Archibald the second Dispones his Lands of Corrowa and others with this provision that if Iohn should die and Archibald Succeed to be Heir Archibald should denude himself of the Lands in favours of Alexander and if Archibald wanted Heirs of his Body Alexander should be his Heir notwithstanding of any Law or Custom to the contrare thereafter a few Moneths before the Fathers Death this fourth Son called Thomas was Born Iohn the eldest and Alexander the third are both dead Infants Archibald falls to be Heir and so the Condition exists in which he was obliged to Dispone to Alexander Thomas enters Heir of Line to Alexander and pursues Archibald to Dispone the Lands to him It was answered for Archibald that Thomas as Heir of Line to Alexander can have no Right to this Provision First Because the Provision is only in favours of Alexander without mention of his Heirs 2dly Though it could be extended to Alexanders Heirs yet it being no Heretage to which Alexander could Succeed it is Conquest and would not descend to Thomas Alexanders Heir of Line but would ascend to Archibald as Heir of Conquest to Alexander It was answered for the Pursuer that in this case theâ—meaning and intention of the Father must be considered by his Provision inter liberos which is clear to have been that Archibald should not both have his Estate and these Lands of Corrowa but that the same should descend to Alexander and if Thomas had been then Born he would no doubt have provided that failzying of Alexander Archibalds Portion should fall to Thomas and if he had declared that the Lands of Corrowa should only belong to the Heirs of Line it would undoubtedly have excluded the Heirs of Conquest He has done the equivalent for having provided the Lands to Archibald and his Heirs whatsomever he does by a posterior explicatory Clause declare that if Archibald died without Heirs of his Body Alexander should be Archibalds Heir therein notwithstanding of any Law or Custom to the contrare which can have no other meaning then that notwithstanding by the Law Iohn as Heir of Conquest would Succeed to Archibald wanting Heirs of his own yet Alexander the younger who would be Heir of Line should Suceeed which is as much as to say that this Provision should belong to Archibalds Heirs of Line and not to his Heirs of Conquest and consequently having made no mention of Alexanders Heirs he did also mean Alexanders Heirs of Line who is the Pursuer Thomas and the case is so much the more favourable that if this failed Thomas hath neither Provision nor Aliment The Lords considering that both Parties were
of a thousand merks whereanent it being Debated anent the manner of Probation and Witnesses ex officio being craved for clearing the Trust by the Writer Witnesses and Communers The Lords refused to Sustain the same till first they considered the other Reason of Circumvention which was Libelled thus That the Disponer was a lavish weak person that the Disposition was elicite by his own Good-brother for a thousand merks only and that he keeped him privatly from the access of all other Friends and drank him drunk in which condition he was when the Disposition was Subscribed and that it was not Read unto him and it being excepted upon a Ratification some Weeks after at another place and the Reason of Circumvention repeated on the same Terms against that Ratification The Lords ordained Witnesses to be Examined ex officio upon the Reason of Circumvention as to both and specially whether these Writs were Read at the Subscribing and whether the Subscriber was Drunk and whether he was thereby insensible or disordered in his Reason or what were the Motives induced him to Subscribe Sir George Maxwel contra Maxwel of Kirkonnel Eodem die SIr George Maxwel of Nether Pollock pursues Maxwel of Kirkonnel for payment of a Debt of his Fathers as behaving himself as Heir by intromission with the Mails and Duties of his Fathers Lands of Kirkonnel The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because his Father was Denuded and an Appryzer Infeft and so could have no Heir in these Lands It was Replyed that notwithstanding of the Appryzing the same remained Redeemable and the Defunct remained in Possession and the Defender his appearand heir did continue his Possession and so has behaved as Heir and though he had had a Right or Warrand from the Appryzer yet during the Legal it is immistio having no other Cause nor Title It must be presumed to be granted to him as appearand Heir much more where he hath no Warrand from the Appryzers 2dly It is offered to be proven the Appryzers were satisfied by intromission and what is wanting the Pursuer offers to satisfie the same at the Bar for by the Act of Parliament 1661. betwixt Debitor and Creditor Appryzings acquired by appearand Heirs may be satisfied by the Defuncts Creditors for the sums they truly payed out by the space of ten years So that the Defender ought to condescend and Depone what he gave out and to count for his Intromission and what is wanting the Pursuer will pay The Defender answered that behaving as Heir being an odious universal passive Title any colourable Ground is sufficient to restrict it to the value intrometted with And as to the offer to satisfie the Defender of the Appryzing to which he has Right It is not competent hoc ordine for by the Act it is only introduced in favours of other Appryzers and the Pursuer is a meer personal Creditor without any Appryzing It was answered that the Narrative of that part of the Act bears it expresly to be in favours of Creditors and though the subsumption is only applyed to Appryzers yet it is not exclusive and by the common Custom satisfaction of Appryzings by intromission or present payment is ever received by Exception or Reply The Lords found that behaving as Heir is sufficiently elided by any Right or Warrand from the Appryzers as to intromission thereafter or that if the Defunct died not in Possession But that the Appryzers had then or thereafter attained Possession before the intromission But found that the appearand Heirs continuing in the Defuncts Possession without a Warrand did infer behaviour and that the offer to purge the Appryzing at the Bar was competent hoc ordine without burdening the Creditors with the Expenses of Appryzing to make the appearand Heir lyable for what he intrometted with and that the appearand Heir should assign the Appryzing whereupon the Creditor might continue Possession till he were satisfied of the sums now payed out Robert Lermont contra The Earl of Lauderdail Iuly 12. 1671. SIr Alexander Swintoun having Disponed his Estate of Swintoun to Iohn Swintoun his Son in his Contract of Marriage there is a Clause therein on thir Terms that it shall be leisom to the said Sir Alexander to affect and burden the Estate with Infeftments of Wodset or Annualrent for the sum of fifty four thousand merks for his Creditors and Bairns thereafter Sir Alexander grants a Bond of 1400. merks to the Laird of Smeatoun and declares it to be a part of the fifty four thousand merks whereof 2000. merks being now in the Person of Robert Lermont He pursues the Earl of Lauderdail as now come in the place of Iohn Swintoun by his Foresaulture to pay the sums or at least that the Lands is or may be burdened therewith because the Forefault Persons Infeftment being qualified with the said Reservation it is a real Burden affecting the Estate and Swintouns Infeftment being publick and thus qualified and burdened was as to this point the Creditors Infeftment and his being Forefault could not prejudge the Creditors as to this real Burden in a publick Infeftment granted by the King The Defender alleadged that the Libel was not Relevant for the Reservation being a meer Power of Burdening by Infeftment it cannot be pretended that the Forefault Persons Infeftment is sufficient therefore But seing Swintoun made no use of that power albeit it might have been sufficient against Swintoun the Contracter or his Heirs It cannot militate against the King or his Donator to whom the Fee returns by Forefaulture without any Burden but what the King has consented to by publick Infeftments or Confirmations And though old Swintoun had given the Pursuer a base Infeftment it would have fallen by the Forefaulture not having been Confirmed much more when there is no Infeftment The Lords found the Libel not Relevant and Assoilzied The Heirs of Mr. Thomas Lundy contra Earl of Southesk and others Eodem die THe Estate of Sir Iames Keith of Powburn being Appryzed by several of his Creditors they now compet for preference Mr. Thomas Lundie who led the first Appryzing was more then year and day before the rest and thereupon his Heir craved preference It was alleaged the Apprizing was null First Because it proceeded upon a Bond carrying a Clause of Requisition and the Claim of the Appryzing did not Libel thereupon so that albeit it be now produced and done debito tempore Yet the Claim was not sufficiently instructed without it 2dly The Messenger did unwarrantably continue the Court of Appryzing till another Dyet without any necessar Cause which was never accustomed before and is of very evil consequence for thereby Messengers at their pleasure may continue and weary out the Persons concerned who might propone Defenses or produce Suspensions and are not obliged to attend the pleasure of the Messenger 3dly The Appryzing was at the Beitch-hill of Cowper which is not within the Shire where the Lands ly And albeit there be a Dispensation
Cautioners or Infeâ—tment of Land Iuly 7. 1664. Miln contra Hume of Eccles. THE ACT SALVO IVRE being excluded in a Ratification to a particular Party and that Exclusion not being repeated in the Act Salvo The Lords were unwilling to decide whether such Exclusion should be sufficient but ordained the Parties in the first place to Dispute their Rights without consideration of that Clause Febâ—uary 11. 1665. Earl of Lauderdaâ—l contra Viscount of Oxenfoord AN ADJUDGER ordained to be Received without instructing his Debitors Right who Renunced to be Heir Salvo jure superioris cujusâ—bet February 9. 1667. Ramsay contra Kâ—r ADâ—UDICATION being on a Disposition and obligement to Infeâ—t and not upon a liquid sum the Superiour was not found obliged to receive the Adjudger unless he instructed the Disponers Right Iune 24. 1663. Medowgal contra Laird of 〈◊〉 Adjudication being pursued by a Creditor on a personal Debt was not excluded by a Back-bond of the Defuncts Debitors bearing his Infeftment to be on Trust to the behove of a third Party whose Creditors compeared against the Adjudger yet was not put to Dispute his Debitors Right till aâ—ter the Adjudication he might use Exhibition of his Evidents but the Adjudication was granted with the burden of the Back-bond November 23. 1663. Livingstoun and Sornbeg contra Lord Forrester and Creditors of Grange Adjudication was Excluded as to the Property in favours of a Party shewing the Deâ—unct to be Denuded and himself Infeft but was Sustained to Adjudge any Right of Reversion Clause irritant or Provision in favours of the Defunct Debitor Iuâ—y 22. 1664. Inter â—osdem Adjudication was Sustained against a second appearand Heir upon a Decreet cognitionis causa upon the Renunciation of a former Heir without a new Charge against the Heir or his Renunciation The Defender declaring that the Lands should be Redeemable within ten years if the Pursuer Entered within these years Ianuary 17. 1666. Crawford contra Auchinleck Adjudication was found not to be stopped upon a better Right than the Deâ—uncts alleadged upon by a Party compearing but the Pursuer was suffered to Adjudge upon his periâ— November 15. 1666. Chein contra Christie ADMIRAL or the Iudge of the high Court of Admirality does Reduce the Decreets of inferiour Admirals or their Deputs February 24. 1668. Captain Mastertoun contra Strangers of Ostend The Lord Admiral being out of the Countrey found not necessary to be called in the Reduction of a Decreet of Admirality where the Iudge pronuncer of the Decreet was Called Inter â—osdem ADVOCAT was found obliged to Depone concerning the having of his Clients Writs February 1. 1666. contra Rallo An Advocat being in his Duty hindering a Suspension to pass being threatned by a Party who said he would make him repent what he had said if he were in another place and calling him Liar and Knave the Lords imprisoned the Party and Fined him in 500. merks Iuly 14. 1668. Mr. David Fâ—lcoâ—er contra Sir Iames Keith ADVLTERY was found not to infer Escheat unless the Adulterer were Convict Criminally or Denunced as Fugitive though he had confessed and stood in Sackcloath a year Ianâ—ary 9. 1662. Baird contra Baird ALIBI was found not receivable for proving a false datâ— to annul the whole Write where the Witnesses insert proved the 〈◊〉 of the Subscription though of aâ— Erroneous date February 23. 1667. Laird of May contra Ross. ALIMENT was found due by the Heir to his Brothers and Sisters their Mother being dead and they left without any Provision Ianuary 24. 1663. Children of Wedderly contra Laird of Wedderly Râ—o absente Aliment was found due by an Heir-male to Heirs of Line to whom he was obliged to pay such a sum when they were Mâ—rriageable without mention of Annualrent or Aliment here the Heir-male sâ—cceeded to a considerable Estate November 8. 1663. Lady Otter contra Laird of Otter Aliment was found due by an Heir-male to an Heir-â—emale of a second Marriage till her age of fourteen from which time her Portion bear Annualrent and beaâ— no mention of Aliment till then her Mother being dead and having no way to subsist without consuming the Stock of her Portion February 11. 1663. Frazer contra Frazer Aliment was found due by an Heir-male to Heirs of Line till their Marriage and not till the Term of payment of their Portions only seing the same bear no Annualrent râ—o absâ—â—te November 12. 1664. Daughters of Balmerino contra Lord Balmerino Aliment of a Child was found not due where the Child was freely intertained by the Mothers Father who demanded nothing during the time of the Intertainment and was holden as freely gâ—fâ—ed for all years before the pursuit Iuly 21. 1665. Laird of Ludquhairn contra Laird of Geight Vide Mother Aliment was found due upon a Bond of Provision granted by a Father to his Daughter obliging him to Intertain her till the Term of payment of her Portion which bear no Annualrent and that not only till the Term of payment but thereafter till her Marriage and even for years in which her Mothers Brother Alimented her Gratis after her Fathers Death but for no time of his Life seing she leâ—t her Fathers House upon pretence of her Step-mothers severity Ianuary 21. 16â—8 Steuart contra Laird of Rossesyth Alâ—ment of a Daughter by her Mother Married was â—ound due the Daughter being appearand Heir to her Father whose whole Lands the Mother Liferented though the Daughter Renunced to be Heir Iuly 16. 1667. Haâ—iltoun contra Symontoun Aliment was not found due to an appearand Heir who was Major and keeped a Brewary by a Liferenter whose Liferent was very mean and intertained one of his Children Ianuary 27. 1669. Stirling contra Heriot ANN was found to be the whole year wherein the Defunct dyed if he dyed before Michalmas and if he dyed after Michalmas and before Ianuary to be the whole year in which he dyed and the half of the next year but if he reached Ianuary dying in February he hath that whole year Iuly 5. 1662. Executors of Fairly contra his Parochioners Anâ— of a Minister having a Wife and no Bairns was found to divide equally betwixt his Wife and nearest of Kin Iune 24. 1663. and Iuly 19. 1664. Scrymzour contraâ— Executors of Murray Ann of a Minister dying after Michalmas and before Marâ—â—nmas was â—ound to extend to that years Stipend and the halâ— of the next Iuly 19. 1664. Inter â—osdem ANNEXED PROPERTY of the Crown was found not validly dissolved unless the dissolution had preceeded the Gift and Infeftment and had proceeded upon weighty Reasons by a special Act and not by a Clause iâ— a Ratification of the Gift February 25. 1669. Kings Advocat contra Earl of Mortoun and Viscount Grandiâ—ound absent ANNVITY of Teinds included being in question it was recommended to the Parties to settle but the Lords inclined to Liberat the Teinds Ianuary 10. 1662. Laird of Rentoun contra Ker. ANNVS DELIBERAND I was found to
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
Substitution was found not jure accrescendi to belong to the Surviver but 〈◊〉 Heir Substitute to the Deceassing without Children yet so as not to be lyable as Heir in solidum but quo ad valorem Iuly 3. 1666. Fleming contra Fleming A Clause in a Writ bearing a Narrative as a Testament and leaving such a 〈◊〉 Heir and Donator to such Tenenements and Assigning him to the Evidents with power to him after return to Recal was found effectual though not formal to inforce his Heir to perfect the same Ianuary 31. 1667. Henrison contra Henrison The same was renewed upon full debate November 4. 1667. and the being of the Writs in the granters hands after his Retuâ—n was found a sufficient Evidence of Recalling it but its coming back in the hands of the other party was found not sufficient to Revive it but they were ordained to instruct how they came by it whether as delivered back again by the Granter or found amongst his Papers November 14. 1667. inter cosdem A Clause obliging a party to pay such a sum as being the Annualrent of such a sum without any obligation for paying the principal exprest was found not to imply an obligement to pay the principal as acknowledged due but was found to constitute the Annualrent perpetual and not for the Womans life though it exprest not Heirs and Assignâ—ys February 2. 1667. Power contra Dykes A Clause in a Bond bearing a sum to be lent by a Father for himself and as Administrator for his Son aâ—d payable to the Father and after his decease to the Son but bearing that it was the Sons own Money not expressing how or from whom it came was â—ound to constitute the Son Feear and the Father Naked Liferenter February 14. 1667. Campbel contra Constantine A Clause disponing Lands was found to carry the Miln if the Lands were a Barony or if the Miln was not exprest in the Authours own Right otherways that it could not pass as part and perâ—inent February 15. 1667. Countess of Hume contra Tenents of Oldcambus and Mr. Rodger Hog A Clause in a Contract of Marriage whereby the Husband is obliged to take the conquest to the future Spouse in Conjunctâ—ee and the Heirs betwixt them Which failing the Heirs of the Mans Body which failing the Wifes Heirs whatsoever was found not to constitute the Wife Feear upon the â—ailing of Heirs of the Mans Body but the Husband February 20. 1667. Cranstoun contra Wilkison A Clause in the dispositive part of a Charter Cum privilegio piscaudi in aqua c. was found not to be a sufficient Right of Salmond-fishing unless Salmond-fishing had been thereby possesâ— forty years without interruption and so it is only a Title for Prescription February 27. 1667. Earl of Southesk contra Laird of Earlshall A Clause in a Bond bearing sums to be payed to a Man and his Wife and their Heirs beaâ—ing Annualrent though no Infeftment followed was found to give the Wifes Heirs no share seing the Money appeared not to have been hers and was presumed to be the Mans and he surviving did Revock the Substitution as a Donation betwixt Man and Wife Iune 19. 1667. Iohnstoun contra Cuninghame A Clause in an Assignation by a Father to his Daughter bearing a power to alter during his Life was found not to take effect by an Assignation to a third party who instantly granted a Back-bond bearing his Name was but in trust to do diligence and obliging himself to denude in favours of the Father his Heiâ—s and Assigneys but was not found to operate for the Fathers Heir but for the Daughter his Assigney Iuly 17. 1667. Scot contra Scot. A Clause in a Tack setting 14. Aâ—kers of Lands presently possest by the Tacks-man was found not to limite him to 14 Aikers of any present Measure seing he had possessed still since the Tack these 30. years albeit it was alleadged that besides 14. Aikers there were six Aikers severally â—enned and possest by different persons before that Tack Iuly 19. 1667. Daeâ— contra Kyle A Clause in a Bond bearing a sum borrowed from Husband and Wiâ—â— and payable to the longest liver of them two in Conjunctfee and to the Heirs betwixt them or their Assigneys which failing to the Heirs or Assigneys of the last liver was found to constitute the Husband Feâ—ar and the Wife Liferenter albeit she was last liver and the Heirs by the last Clause were but Heirs of provision to the Husband in case the Heirs of the Marriage failed Ianuary 26. 1668. Iustice contra Barclay his Mother A Clause in a Bond whereby a Woman obliged her self to enter heir of Line to her Father and to resign certain Lands in favours of her self and the heirs of her body which failing to the heirs of her Father and obliged her self to do nothing contrary to that Successionâ— whereupon Inhibition was used before her Marriage was found effectual against her and her Husband whom she Married thereafter and disponed the Lands to him and his heirs as being a voluntar deed without an equivalent cause onerous albeit by the said Bond of â—ailzie the heir of provision behâ—ved to be the heir to the Woman her self without discussing whether deeds done for causes onerous without collusion would be effectual against the said heir of provision Ianuary 28. 1668. Binnâ—â— contra Binnie A Clause in a second Contract of Marriage that the heirs of the Marriage should have right to Tacks acquired during the Marriage was found to extend to a new Tack obtained of Lands then possessed by the Father unless he had a Tack thereof before in Writ which if not expyred the new Tack would not be esteemed conquest if the new Tack were given for the old Iuly 3. 1668. Frazer contra Frazer A Clause in a Testament leaving a Legacy to a second Son in satisfaction of all he could befal by his Fathers deceass was found not to be in satisfaction of a debt due by his Father to that Son as having uplifted a Legacy left to him by his Mothers Father both not being above a competent provision by a Father in his condition to his Son December 15. 1668. Winâ—â—â—am contra Eleis A Clause in a Contract of of Marriage providing all the Husbands Goods and Gear acquired during the Marriage to the Wife for her Liferent use was found to be with the burden of the Husbands debt and only to be meaned of free Gear and not to exclude the Husbands Creditors at any time contracting December 23. 1668. Smith contra Muire A CLAVSE OF CONQVEST in a Wifes Contract of Marriage who was competently otherwayes provided was â—ound to carry the Lands conquest with the burden of a sum which the Husband declared under his hand to be a part of the price though the same would not hold in the burdening of heirs of conquest December 20. 1665. Lady Kilbocho contra Laird of Kilbocho This sum was due to the Seller of
contravention or one made up of all at the conclusion of the cause Iuly â— 1664. Earl of Airly contra Mcintosh A CREDITOR personal was found to have no interest to compeat to exclude another Creditor alleadging his debt payed Iuly 24. 1662. Shed contra Gordoun and â—yle A CROPT of Corn was â—ound not to be as a part of or accessory to the Ground or as sata solo cedunt solo so that after Possession attained by Removing against a violent Possessor warned the cropt on the Ground was found not thereby to belong to the Heretor entering even as to that part thereof which was sown after the Warning but as to what was sown after the Possessor was dispossed by the Removing and his Goods off the Ground the corn was found to accresce to the Heretor by paying the expense of the Seed and Labourage as Eatenus locupletior factus February 22. 1671. Gordoun contra Mcculloch IN CRVIVES no necessity was found for the stream to be continually free besides the Saturdays slop but that the same is commonly in desuetude and particularly in the Cruive in question notwithstanding that it be speciall in the Act of Parliament Iuly 29. 1665. Heretors of Don contra Town of Aberdene A CVRATORS Decreet obtained against him by a Minor for Liberation of the Curator from his Office upon consent of the Minor and his alleadged irregularity was â—ound not to Liberate that Curator from his Office even for Omissions after the Decreet Iuly 21. 1664. Scot of â—road-meadows contra Scot of Thirlestoun But with consideration of the irregular forcible Acts that he should not be lyable therefore but liberat pro tanto vide Minor Ibid. Curators being chosen three in number or any two of them the Mother being sine qua non and she being dead the Pupil was found sufficiently authorized by the other two he appearing judicially and acknowledging the same Ianuary 4. 1666. David and Andrew Fairfouls contra Binnâ—â— Curators or a Father as lawful Administrator authorizing Minors or Children to their own behove being Caâ—tioners for or with them was found null December 7. 1666. Sir George Mckenzie contra Fairholme CVSTODY of Money was found to liberate the Keeper where his whole means were sent for safety to a Garison and there lost and he being required to deliver the Money in custody declared that it was there and the owner might have it for sending for it without special probation as to the Money in question he giving his Oath in Supplement that it was there and was lost Iuly 19. 1662. Fiddes contra Iack vid. Novemb. 16. 1667. Whitehead contra Straâ—toâ—n DAMNAGE of a Tenement by the fall of a Neighbour Tenement was found competent against an Appryzer of a Liserent of the fallen Tenement possessing thereby February 16. 1666. Hay of Knockcâ—ndie contra Litlejohn Renewed Ianuary 13. 1666. the ruinousness of the fallen House being Proven though no Requisition to Repair it Damnage done to Victual Embarqued for the use of Merchants by the fault and negligence of the Skipper was found not to oblige the Skipper and Owners to take the Victual and pay the price but only to pay the damnage seing the Victual was not wholly corrupt but remained in Specie February 19. 1670. Leslie contra Guthrie DATE of a Bond wanting as to day moneth and year was found not to annul it seing it bear in the Body Annualrent from such a Term in such a year last by-past which supplyed the date as to the year Iune 15. 1662. Grant contra Grant of Kirkdail Date of a Discharge in a Merchants compt Book being â—nstructed by Witnesses and Adminicles was found to prove against the Merchants Assigney Ianuary 9. 1663. Skeen contra Lumsdean Date being wanting in a Writ was sustained to be astructed by a Witness insert that it was anterior to an Assignation whereupon it was admitted as a compensation against the Assigney Iune 29. 1665. Thorntoun contra Milne Date of a Writ being wanting was found not to annul it the party referring the verity of the Subscription to the Subscribers oath which was allowed with power to qualifie if it was undelivered or in minority Iuly 7. 1666. contra Duncan Date of a Writ being false was found not to infer Falsehood of the whole or nullity thereof where the Witnesses insert proved the verity of the Subscription February 23. 1667. Laird of May contra Ross. The date of a Writ was not quarrelled by the Lords as false albeit it was not Subscribed the day that it bear in respect there was a Writ of the same Tenor truly subscribed that day but being a missing the Granter a long time after Subscribed another of the same Tenor and date and the first being found and both produced in Process the user abode by the first simply and by the last as to the verity of the Subscription but not of the date which was so insert for the reason foresaid Iuly 10. 1669. Gardner contra Colviâ— DEATH of a party was found instructed by 18. years absence out of the Countrey and repute dead and a Letter produced wâ—itten by a Comrad in the War bearing that he was dead to Sustain an Adjudication upon a Bond granted by the next Heir which was to his own behove February 18. 1670. Lowrie contra Drummond DEATH-BED was not Sustained to Reduce a disposition by a Father to his Son of a Sum as prejudicial to his Heir seing by Contract with his eldest Son he reserved that power to burden the Estate to any he pleased though it bear not on death-bed yet that was not excluded nothing being there done but the designation of the Person Iune 28. 1662. Seatoun of Barns contra his Brother Death-bed was found relevant to reduce a Disposition and Infeftment of Lands to an Heir female and of line in prejudice of a Brother and Heir-male who was provided to the Lands by the Disponer with a clause with power to him to alter during his Life which was found not to extend to death-bed though he should have been proven in soundness of mind as contrary to the presumptio juris de jure that persons on death-bed are weak February 25. 1663. Hepburn of Humbie contra Hepburnâ— this clause not being in the Writ etiam in articulo mortis or on death-bed Death-bed and a Testament was found equivalent albeit the Testament was made in leige poustie and so no provision therein prejudgeth the Heir December 14. 1664. Lady Colvil contra Lord Colvil Death-bed was found not Relevant to hinder a Husband to provide a Wife with a Ioynture she having no Contract of Marriage nor competent provision nor any Terce he having only Tenements in Burgh of which no Terce is due but the Lords modified the Provision near to a Terce February 22. 1661. Rutherfoord and Pollock contra Iack. Death-bed was found not competent by way of exception or duply Ianuary 12 1666. Seatoun and the Laird of Touch contra Dundas Death-bed was
the 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
being Extracted on the improbation though it be omnium exceptionum ultima Ianuary 23. 1666. contra Earl of Kinghorn In Improbations the Lords declared they would grant three Terms for production of Rights of Lands and appointed the Ordinary to intimate the same November 26. 1667. Hay of Haystoun contra Drummond and Hepburn Improbation upon certification was found null because the Defender was then Prisoner of War in Ireland and his Right was after acknowledged by an agreeement though not perfected Iuly 25. 16â—8 Campbeâ— câ—ntra Laird of Glenâ—rchy In an Improbation the Witnesses insert were examined ex officio what they knew of the Truth or Forgery of the Writs in question though the Writs were not produced there being pregnant presumptions and fragrant fame of Forgery Iuly 6. 1669. Barclay contra Barclay In an Improbation after certification was Extracted The Lords Examined Witnesses as to the Forgery in so far as it might be known without production of the Writs in question and though thâ— Witnesses were accessory to the Forgery November 9. 1669. Inter eosdem In an Improbation where the Writs were once judicially produced in Exchequer and wilfully keeped up certification being Extracted The Lords upon Copies Examined the Witnesses insert and Writer who confessed the Forgery and were moved thereto by the Defender whereupon the Writs were not improven as not being produced but the Writers and Witnesses were found Forgers and the Defender as user and accessory and all were declared infamous and remitted to the Council to use an extraordinary Remedy by Banishment against the Defender Ianuary 26. 1670 Inter eosdem In an Improbation where one of the Witnesses insert had a Designation alleadged competent to more persons all that were alleadged to be so designed that were alive were ordained to be Summoned and the hand writs of those that were dead to be produced Iune 8. 1671. Steuart contra Mckenzie and Kettlestoun In an Improbation of the Minute of a Tack wherein one Deponed that he had subscribed at the Defenders Instigation who told him that he caused the Pursuers Name to be set to the Writ and another that he did not see the Pursuer subscribe and the third who was Writer of the Minute and also Brother to the Defender Deponed that he saw the Pursuer subscribe with her own hand The Writ was found improven and false but there was not two Witnesses instructing who was the Forgeâ— Iuly 22. 1671. Miller contra Bothwel of Glâ—â—corse INCIDENT was not Sustained upon an Act before answer ordaining all Writs to be produced the parties would make use of which was found only to extend to such Writs as they then had Iuly 3. 1662. Kello contra Paâ—toun In an Incident four Terms were allowed for proving the having of the Writs by Witnesses but the Terms were to be short December 15. 1665. Moâ—teith contra Anderson An Incident was Rejected because the Pursuer of the principal Cause was not called thereby and the Executions suspect December 23. 1665. Laird of Câ—â—neck contra Lord Bargeniâ— Incident was not Sustained at the instance of any but these whose Names as Purshers were filled up in the Bill though it contained a blank but it was Sustained against the Defenders havers of the Writs for whom a blank was left though nor at first filled up in respect of the custom for the last and not for the first Iuly 3. 1667. Creditors of Waâ—chtoun contra Counteâ—s of Hume PRO INDIVISO was not sustained to hinder Removing of a Relick from an House as being a Tenement Indivisible though she had a Terce of it but the Heretor was found to have Right to possess yet so that if he dwelt not so himself she should be preferred to all others she giving like Mail as others would pay Ianuary 26. 1665. Logan contra Galbraith INFEFTMENT of Annualrent holden base was found valide against a posterior Publick Infeftment because thereon there was a Decreet of poinding the Ground though it could take no effect for a long time seing the Entry to the Annualrent was not till after the Constituents death February 26 and 27. 1662. Creditors of Kinglassie competing Infeftment past in Exchequer on an appryzing against one who was Infeft by his Authour not Confirmed was found not to supply or comprehend a Confirmation in prejudice of another Creditor who regularly had obtained Confirmation of that null Seasine in so far as might concern his base Right depending thereon Ianuary 16. 1663. Tennents of Kilchattan contra Laird of Kilchattan Major Campbel and Baillie Hamiltoun Infeftments graâ—uitous to a Wife after she was provided by her Contract of Marriage was found not to be taken away at the instance of Creditors upon the Act 1621. by Exception or Reply Iuly 22. 1664. Lord Loure contra Lady Craig An Infeftment to a Wife in Liferent was Sustained by her Seasine adminiculat by her Contract albeit the Seasine was not immediatly upon the Contract but related a Bond granted for the same Cause which was not produced Ianuary 29. 1665. Norvil contra Sunter Infeftment of warrandice Lands being in the same Investiture with the principal Lands and both holden base was preferred to a posterior publick Infeftment of thâ— same Warrandice Lands though cled with long possession and that upon an Action of Mails and Duties upon the Distresse without Reduction Ianuary 9. 1666. Brown contra Scot. An Infeftment of Kirklands was Sustained though it bear to be upon Resignation and had not the râ—ddendoâ—per expressum but relative to the former Infeftment without necessity to produce any original Right seing the Charter was subscribed by the Abbot with consent of the Convent Ianuary 17. 1666. Lord Rentoun contra Feuars of Coldinghame An Infeftment to a person on her own Resignation bearing expresly her to be Heir to her Father who was last Infeft The Charter was found equivalent to a precept of clare constat Ianuâ—ry 20. 1666. Inter eosdem Infeftment of the Office Forrestrie with a Duty out of the whole Lands of an Abbacy was found valide being granted by the Abbot and Convent without Confirmation by the King or Pope Ibidem Infeftment in warrandice granted by a Husband to his Wife though base holden of himself and ex intervallo after the principal Infeftment was found valide against a posterior publick Infeftment of the same warrandice Lands as being cled with the Husbands Possession in the principal Lands and that there needed no Declarator of Distress or Eviction but a pursuit of Removing or Mails and duties upon the Eviction is sufficient which cannot be excluded by a possessory Iudgement upon seven years Possession by the publick Infeftment unless it were seven years after the Eviction February 20. 1668. Forbes contra Innes An Infeftment of Annualrent being before a Liferenters Infeftment after which there followed a corroborative Security accumulating the bygone Annualrents and giving Infeftment for both which posterior Security was not Sustained against the Liferenter nor was it held
truely owand and payed by the Relict after her Husbands decease As to the second Point there is no necessity in Law for Executors or Tutorâ— to have Sentence unlesse it be in Cases of Competition to secure themselves against other Creditors pursuing afterwards or Cases dubious where the Probation is not clear but to pay a clear Debt without burdening Pupils with unnecessary expenses of Law against which the Pupils can now alleadge nothing wherein they were prejudged by voluntar payment such payments were never Repelled Especially in the Case of a Woman paying so soon after her Husbands death nor can it be presumed a Donation because Donations are never presumed but must be clearly proven and it is very ordinar to those who have Interest to pay the Debts and Confirm afterwards The Lords considering the whole Circumstances found the Article not to be allowed a beâ—t they were clear that the Debt was true and really payed by the Executrix yet seeing she payed not being then Executrix nor Tutrix and cancelled the Bond without taking Assignation they thought she could not distresse her Children with it but that it was a Donation in their favour Dame Elizabeth Flemming contra Iohn â—ibson and Flemming November 19. 1661. INter eosdem There was another Article of the said accompt whereby the said Dame Elizabeth Flemming having lent out a sum of money in the Name of Malâ—ome and Andrew Flemming's two of her Bairns she craved that the said Sum should be taken in part of payment of the Portions of the whole Bairns or at least in so far as was more nor the Portions of these two Bairnes might be declared to belong to her self It was answered for the Bairns that this Bond was a Donation by the Mother out of her own means in favours of her Children and could not be imputed as a part of their means because First The Bond did bear the Money to be lent by her in her Childrens name and not in her own Neither did it bear to be as a part of the Bairns means nor in satisfaction thereof as she had specially taken other Bonds in these same Bairns names and so presumed consideratly to gift the Sum to these two Bairns of whom one was a pocthmus Child born eight moneths after his Fathers Death and so was not thought upon by his Father nor provided with Legacies as the rest were Secondly The Tenor of the Bond bears expresly the Sum to be payable to the Mother in Liferent and one of the Children is substitute Heir to another in case they had not Children of their own Whereas another would have fallen Heir of Lyne to them viz. An intervenient Brother and to them both the Mother her self and her Heirs were substitute The Pursuer answered That supposing this were a Donation yet it being a free gift the mother might do it upon what Terms and Conditions and what way she pleased Ita est by the Tenor of the Bond. It is provided that she shall uplift the Sum during her Life and the Children after her decease by which Clause she is more nor a naked Life-renter and seeing this Clause must be interpret cum effectu the only meaning of it can be That during her own Lifetime she might uplift the Sum and dispose of it at her pleasure and so evacuat the fee in her Childrens Persons seeing there is nothing to oblidge her to re-imploy it for the Bairns use if she should once uplift it it as when a Father Infeft his Son in his Lands reserving his own Liferent with power to Dispone during his own life there the Father is Liferenter yet by that Reservation he may annull and evacuat the Sons Fee even so here For which two Practicks of Dury was adduced that a Father providing a Sum to himself and his Wife and the longest liver of them two and failzing of them by Decease to his Son the Son being Infeft in Fee and in the other Practick the Father being expresly infeft in an Annualrent for his Lifetime Yet the Lords found that the Father during his lifetime might uplift the sum and Dispose of it at his pleasure The Lords found by the Tenor of the Bond that the Mother had Constitute her self expresly Liferenter and the Children Feears And that the power to Charge for the Money did bear nothing of a power to her to Dispose of it but was only the ordinar Reservation adjected after the Clause of Annualrent in these words but prejudice of the said Annualrent to her during her life and after her Decease to â—he Bairns to uplist the money and so that albeit she was not expresly oblieged to re-imploy it yet she Constituting her self Liferenter without a power to Dispose of the Fee did sufficiently obliege her to re-imploy the sum And as to the Practicks the case clearly differed in this that there the Father and Mother were not Constitute Liferenters in the sum though the Father was mentioned Liferenter of an Annualrent accessory to the sum But the Clause being to the Father and Mother and after their Decease to the Son It was clear by the common Practicks that the Son was not Feear but Heir Substitute so that the Father was Feear and might Dispose at his pleasure November 20. 1661. In the foresaid Cause It was further alleadged for the Tutrix that the Bond in question could not be accounted a Donation notwithstanding the Reasons before adduced in so far as she was Debitor to the saids two Bairns for their Portion quia debitor non presumitur donare and therefore Provisions granted by Husbands to their Wives albeit they mention not the Contract of Marriage but love and favour And so in the Terms of a Donation yet it is alwayes interpret to be in satisfaction of a prior obliegement in the Contract of Marriage and not that both the posterior and former Provision are due to the Wife It was answered for the Bairns that though Donation be not presumed yet when by the Nature of the Deed done it appeareth to be animo donandi I it is truly such albeit it bear not the name of a Donation especially in this case Which Law excepteth from that general Rule that Parents bestowing sums for the use of their Bairns from their natural affection are alwayes presumed to gift and not to satisfie any former Provision unless it were so exprest Upon which ground an Infeftment granted by a Father to his Son though but a Bastard Redeemable upon a sum of Money was not found in satisfaction of a former Bond granted by him to that natural Son as is observed by Dury upon the 24. of Iuly 1623. Stuart contra Fleming But here not only is this Bond not in satisfaction of the former Portion but bears a Clause of a Liferent and of a return to the Mother which are incompatible with an intention of satisfaction The Lords found the Bond to be in satisfaction of the Bairns Portions pro tanto
and a Donation pro reliquo which many thought strange seeing a Bond of 100. Sterling mentioned 14th Instant reâ—eired and payed by the Mother and being proven by Patrick Scots oath so to have been done to the satisfaction of most of the Lords which was clogged with no Provision was not allowed to be in Satisfaction of these Bairns Portions Bosewel contra Bosewel November 22. 1661. JOHN Bosewel Pursues Bosewel of Abden as representing Henry Bosewel his Father for payment of a 1000. pounds due to the Pursuer by the said umquhil Henry and insisted against the Defender as lucrative Successour by accepting a Disposition of Lands and Heritage from the said umquhil Henry whereunto he would have succeeded and was therein his appearing Heir The Defender alleadged he was not lucrative Successor because the Disposition was for Causes onerous The Pursuer answered non relevat unless it were alleadged for Causes onerous equivalent to the worth of the Land as was formerly found in the Case of Elizabeth Sinclar contra Eâ—phingstâ—â—â— of Cardoâ—â— The Defender answered maxime relevat to purge this odious passive Title of lucrative Successor which is no wheâ—e sustained but in Scotland specially seeing the Pursuer hath a more favourable remeid by Reduction of the Disposition upon the Act of Parliament 1621. if the price be not equivalent and there it is sufficient to say it was for a considerable sum or at least it exceeded the half of the worth for there is latitude in buying and selling and as an inconsiderable Sum could not purge this Title so the want of an inconsiderable part of the full price could as litle incur it The Lords before answer ordained the Defender to produce his Dispositior and all Instructions of the Cause onerous thereof that they might consider if there was a considerable want of the equivalence of the price here the Defender pleaded not that he was not alioqui successurus the time of the Disposition being but Consing German to the Defunct who might have had Children Dowglasse contra Iohnstoun Eodem die EODEM die In the Competition between Dowglass in Abernethie who Confirmed himself Executor Creditor to Gilbert Weymes in Dumblane where Gilbert dwelled and Iohn Iohnstoun as Executor Confirmed to the said Gilbert by the Commissars of Edinburgh because Gilbert in a Voyage from Scotland to Holland died at Sea The Lords found the Commissars of Edinburgh to have no Right unless the Defunct had died abroad animo remanendi This Interlocutor was stayed till the Commissars were further heard Marjory Iamison contra Rodorick Mccleud December 3. 1661. MARIORI Iamison Relict of umquhil Mr. Iohn Alexander Advocat pursues Rodorick Mccleud for payment of a Bond of Pension of 200. merks yearly granted to her Husband bearing For Service done and to be done The Defender alleadged the Libel is not relevant unless it were alleadged that Mr. Iohn had done Service constantly after granting of the of the Pension which the Lords Repelled The Defender alleadged further that he offered him to prove that Mr. Iohn did desist from his imployment as Advocat after the Pension and became Town Clerk of Aberdeen and the Pension being granted to him who exerced the Office of an Advocat at that time must be persumed for his Service as Advocat The Lords Repelled this Defense in respect of the Bond of Pension bearing For Services done and to be done generally Sir Robert Farquhar contra Lyon of Muiresk Eodem die SIR Robert Farquhar pursuing a Reduction of a Disposition against Iohn Lyon of Muiresk upon Circumvention The Lords granted Certification unless not only the Extract but the Principal Disposition were produced in respect they were registrate at that time when the Principals were given back to the Parties Thomas White contra Crocket December 4. 1661. THOMAS White pursues Patrick Crocket in Eliot to make payment of the sum of 600. merks which the Pursuer alleadged he had in a Leather-Girdle when he lodged with Crocket being in an In-keepers House and that the Defender promised that the Pursuer should want nothing after the Pursuer had shown him the said Girdle yet the Defender came ordinarly in the Chamber where the Pursuer lay that night and he wanted his money from under his head which he declared and shew to the Defender the next morning and therefore according to the Law nautae caupones stabularij c. which is observed in our Custom the Defender as Keeper ought to be Decerned to restore The question was here only of the manner of Probation The Lords found all the Libel Relevant to be proven pro ut de jure and declared that these being proven they would take the Pursuers oath in litem upon the quantity Baillie of Dunnean contra Town of Inverness Eodem die BAILLIE of Dunnean pursues the Town of Inverness for violent Intromission in his Moss and molesting him therein both Parties were content to Dispute as in a Molestation The Defenders alleadged Absolvitur because the Town of Inverness was Infeft in their Bâ—rgh and Burrow-lands with common Pasturage in Montkaplâ—ch and offered them to prove the Moss contraverted was a part of Montkaâ—loch and that they have been in constant Possession thereof accordingly The Pursuer Replyed the Defense ought to be Repelled because he offered him to prove that he was Infeft in his Lands of Dunnean with Parts and Pertinents and that the Moss contraverted was proper Part and Pertinent of his said Lands and that he was in use to debar the Defenders therefrom and to get Moss Mail for tollerance to cast therein and produced the same under the hand of nine of the Citizens and one by their Clerk and therefore being in libello ought to be preferred in Probation The Lords before answer granted Commission to Examine Witnesses hinc inde upon the Possession of either Party Which being Reported the Defenders craved the same with the Dispute to be Advised The Pursuers Procurators alleadged there was yet no Litiscontestaâ—ion and they were not Insisting and the Defenders could not compell them to Insist without a Process to Insist with certification in which case they would get a day to Insist The Lord found that the Probation being taken before Answer was equivalent to Litiscontestation as to the Points Proposed and that they miâ—ht proceed both to Advise the Points of Probation and Relevancy together and might instantly Decern accordingly albeit it hindred not the Parties to Propone other Alleadgences in jure then it were in the Dispute as in ordinary Litiscontestation and therefore the Lords considered the Parties Infeftments specially that of the Town of Inverness bearing with liberty to them to cast Fail and Divote in the Month of Kaploch and several other Months according as they were accustomed of before Which Clause the Lords found to be Qualified and Taxative and not to give an absolute Right of Commonly but only such as they had before which behoved to be cleared by Posterior long Possession and
and there is no necessity of Reduction but where the Writs must be Produced before they can be Reduced and even in that case if the Pursuer satisfie the Production himself the Defender hath no delay and here the Pursuer produces all that is necessar and craves the rest to be Declared null in consequence The Lords sustained the Summons Glendinning contra Earl of Nithisdale Ianuary 22. 1662. GEorge Glendinning of Partoun pursues the Earl of Nithisdale for fulfilling of a Contract of Excambion betwixt the Earls Father and the Pursuers Grand-father and insist against the Earl as lawfully charged to enter Heir to his Father The Earl alleadged absolvitor because he offers him to Renunce to be Heir The Pursuer replyed the Defense ought to be repelled quia res non est intigra because the Earl has done a Deed prejudicial to his Renunciation viz. he granted a Bond for two thousand pounds sterling to the Earl of Dirltoun only simulatlie to his own behove whereupon his Fathers whole Estate was adjudged and that Adjudication assigned to the Earl himself and so he having intrometted be that Simulat Title with the Maills and Duties of his Fathers Lands he hath behaved himself as Heir and cannot Renunce The Defender duplyed that the Reply ought to be repelled because he offered not only to Renunce but also to Purge that Deed of his and the Adjudication of two thousand pounds sterling and to declare that it should not prejudge the Pursuer nor his Fathers lawful Creditors and that he should be comptable for the Price of any Lands he had sold or any Rents he had uplifted The Pursuer triplyed that the duply ought to be repelled because medio tempore the Earl had bought in expired Apprisings with the Profits of the Lands The Defender quadruplyed that he was content to restrict any such Rights to the Sums he truly payed for them and not to exclude the Pursuer by them The Pursuer Answered That he having once behaved himself as Heir no Offer nor Renunciation could be received The Defender Answered that his Intromission could not be gestio pro herede because it was singulari titulo and not as Heir and in gestione there must appear animus adeundi aut immiscendi The contrair whereof is here for the granting of the Bond and the taking right to the Adjudication thereupon was of purpose that his Intromission might not be as Heir or as immixtion which can never be without an illegal and unwarrantable Deed but all that was here done was Legal there being no Law nor Custom to hinder the Earl to grant a Bond albeit gratis and after Dirltoun had Adjudged the Lands there was no Law to hinder the appearand Heir to take Assignation thereto and bruik thereby more then a Stranger and albeit there were Simulation or Fraud that might be a ground to Reduce upon but not to infer a general passive Title to make the Defender lyable to all his Fathers Debts from which Passive Title qui res colleratus titulus excusâ—â— and albeit this Passive Title be not any where else in the World but in Scotland yet it was never applyed to this Case now in question but by the contrare since the Act of Parliament one thousand six hundred twenty one by which Heirs may be charged to enter Heirs to their Predecessors not only for the Defuncts Debts but their own any Bond granted by the Appearand Heir although gratis would be valid to Apprize or Adjudge the Defuncts Estate and therefore there being many Cases in which the Appearand Heir could not probably know whether the Heretage would be Hurtful or Profitable This hath been ofttimes advised as the remeid be Sir Thomas Hope and many since That the Heir Appearand might grant a Bond and thereupon the Lands being Adjudged might take Right thereto The Pursuer answered the Defender had intrometted with the Rents of his Predicessors Land which albeit not animo adeundi yet animo Immiscendi Lucrandi which cannot be maintained by a simulat null Bond by himself to his own behove and Adjudication thereupon and if this were sustained no Person would ever after enter Heir to his Predecessor but take this indirect way to the Defraud and Vexation of Creditors and entring so to possesse would buy in other Rights and maintain his Possession as this Defender hath done and would not be oblieged or willing to restrict these Rights as he doth The Lords after long Consideration and debate in the matter found the Earls offers relevant but resolved to make and publish an Act of Sederunt against any such courses in time coming and declared that it should be gestio pro haerede to intromet upon such simulat Titles Adam Hepburn contra Hellen Hepburn Eodem die ADam Hepburn Brother to the Deceast Thomas Hepburn of Humbie Pursues Reduction and Improbation against Hellen Hepburn his Brother Daughter of a Disposition made by him to his Daughter on Death Bed The Lords granted a third Term for Production in respect of the Improbation albeit there was but a Writ or two called for Nominatim Laird of Rentoun contra Mr. Mark Ker. Ianuary 24. 1662. THE Laird of Rentoun having obtained Decreet before the Commissaries of Berwick against Mr. Mark Ker compearing for three Chalders of Victual of Teind Mr. Mark Suspends upon iniquity because he having proponed a Relevant Defense that he ought to have allowance of the Annuitie which he had payed which affected the Teinds It was repelled The Charger Answered non relevat by way of Suspension without there were a Reduction The Suspender Answered the Reason was instantly verified by inspection of the Decreet The Lords found the Reason not competent by Suspension without Reduction Mr. Iames Ramsay contra Earl of Wintoun Eodem die M r. Iames Ramsay as having Right by translation from George Seaton Assigny constitute by my Lady Semple to a Bond due by the umquhile Earl of Wintoum pursues this Earl for payment who alleadged no Process because the time of the Assignation taken by Sir George Seatoun he was one of the Defenders Tutors and so it is presumed that the Assignation was purchased by the Pupils Means and as the Tutor could have no Process thereupon against the Pupil till he had made his Tutor accompts so neither can his Assigney seeing in Person alibus all exceptions competent against the Cedent are competent against the Assigney The Lords found the Defense relevant unlesse the Pursuer would find Caution to pay what should be found due by Sir George by the Tutors Accompts as they had done before betwixt Grant and Grant January 15. 1662. Laird of Lamingtoun contra Sir Iohn Chiesly Ianuary 29. 1662. THE Laird of Lamingtoun pursues Sir Iohn Chiesly upon the late Act of Parliament 1661. betwixt Debitor and Creditor to restrict a proper Wodset granted by Lamingtoun to him of the Lands of Symontoun to his Annualrent The Defender excepted upon a Back-bond granted by Lamingtoun whereby
instruct the Protestation The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the absence of the Register and the oldness of the Horning Achinbeck contra Mccleud Eodem die IN an Improbation at the Instance of the Laird of Achinbeck against Mccleud The Lords found that the Improbation behoved to be continued albeit the samine had an ordinar priviledge to pass upon six dayes for the first Summonds past of course periculo penitentis Acheson contra Earl of Errol Eodem die ACheson pursues the Earl of Errol as presenting his Father to pay a Debt wherein his Father was Cautioner for the Earl of Mar and for instructing thereof produced the Extract of a Bond Registrate by consent in the Books of Session The Defender alleadged no Processe against him because the Bond was not Registrat by any Procurator for his Father because he was Dead before the Registration and so cannot prove against him neither being a principal Writ Subscribed by his hand nor being a Decreet of Registration by consent of his Procurator nor upon Citation The Pursuer alleadged that it was an authentick Evident and bare expresly Sic subscribitur Errol and seing by Law and Custom the Pursuer was necessitat to leave the Principal at the Register when the Registrat the same and that the Registers are now lost without his fault The Lords refused to sustain the Extract against the Earl of Errol but yet would not put the Party to an Action of proving the Tenor but would receive Adminiâ—les to instruct that Earl was Cautioner and therefore ex officio ordained the other Subscribers of the Bond or any other person that could be adduced for instructing the Truth to be required ex officio Thomas Crawford contra Earl of Murray February 8. 1662. THomas Crawford as Executor Creditor Confirmed to Umquhil Robert Ingâ—is as Assigney by his Relict for satisfaction of her Contract of Marriage pursues the Earl of Murray for payment of the Sums Confirmed addebted by him to the said umquhil Robert The Defender alleadged compensation because he had Assignation to a Debt due by the said umquhil Robert which as it would have been relevant against Robert himself so must it be against his Executor The Pursuer replyed First non relevat unless the Assignation had been Intimat before the Confirmation but an Executor Creditor having done Diligence by Confirmation it is not in the power of any of the Defuncts Debitors by taking Assignation from any of his Creditors to prefer that Creditor to any other Creditor which is no ways legittimus modus preferendi But the Creditors must be preferred only according to their Diligence Secondly This Pursuit being for Implement of the Relicts Contract of Marriage and pursued to their behove hath by our Law and Custome preference to all other personal Creditors though having done more Diligence The Lords found either of these two Replys Relevant to elide the Defense albeit the Assignation was before any Pursuit moved upon the Pursuers Confirmation Lord Torphichan contra Eodem die THe Lord Torphichan and certain of his Feuars pursue a Reduction of a Decreet of the Sheriff whereby he set down Marches betwixt their Lands and others upon this Ground that he did not proceed by an Inquest conform to the Act of Parliament but by Witnesses Secondly That he as Superiour was not Called Thirdly That the Sheriff had unwarrantably Sustained the setting down of Marches foamerly by Arbiters to be proven by Witnesses The Defenders answered the first Reason was not objected and the Defenders Compearance it was competent and omitted To the second the Superour could have no Detriment To the third that the setting down of March-stones being a palpable Fact might be proven by Witnesses whether done by the Parties themselves or by Friends chosen in their presence their being neither Decreet-arbitral nor Submission in Writ The Lords Repelled the Reasons in respect of the Answer and declared that if the Land fell in the Superiours hands by Recognition Non-entry or otherwise The Decreet should not prejudge him if he were not Called Ramsay of Torbanie contra Mcclellane February 11. 1662. DAvid Ramsay of Torbanie having raised Suspension and Reduction of a Decreet against him at the Iâ—stanâ—e of Thomas Mcclellane in Anno 1658. Insists upon this Reason that he being pursued as Heir to his Father at the Instance of Thomas Mcclellane he proponed this Relevant Defense absolvitor because the Bond pursued upon was granted by his Father after he was Interdicted without consent of the Interdictors and so could not affect the Person Interdicted Heir albeit he had succeeded in his Estate The Defender answered that the said alleadgence was justly Repelled in respect of this relevant Reply that the Interdiction hath no effect as to Moveables and Personal Execution neither as to any other Lands then such as lay in the Shires or Jurisdictions where the Interdiction was puplished and Registrat conform to the Act of Parliament ita est this Interdiction was published and Registrate only at Linlithgow and therefore if the Defender hath succeeded to any Lands not lying in Linlithgow Shire or if he hath medled with Heirship Moveable or be vitious Intromettor with his Fathers Moveables he is lyable for this Sum albeit after the Interdiction ita est he succeeded to Lands in the Stewartry of Kirkcudburgh and Moveables c. and therefore the Defense was justly Repelled The Lords found the Decreet just and therefore Repelled the Reasons of Suspension and Reduction Bells contra Wilkie February 12. 1662. GRissel and Bells raise a Reduction against Iames Wilkie of a Decreet obtained at his Instance against them in Anno 1659. whereby the said Iames Wilkie being Executor Confirmed to his Mother who was one of the Sisters and Executors of umquhil Patrick Bell their Brother in which Confirmation the said Iames gave up the third of the said Patricks Goods and thereupon obtained Decreet against these Pursuers as the two surviving Executors to pay to the said Iames his Mothers third Part of her Brothers Means The Reason of Reduction was that the Decreet was unjust and contrair to the Law and Custom of this Kingdom whereby there is no right of Representation in Moveables as in Heretage neither doth the Confirmation of the Executors establish in the Executors a compleat Right untill the Testament be execute either by obtaining payment or Decreet and if the Executor die before Execution the Right ceases and is not Transmitted to the Executors Executor but remains in bonis defuncti of the first Defunct and therefore Executors ad non Executa must be confirmed to the first Defunct which being a constant and unquestionable custome one of the three Executors deceasing before Executing the Testament her Right fully ceases and both the Office of Executrie and Benefit accresâ—es to the surviving Sisters as if the deceased Sister had never been Confirmed Executrix The Defender in the Reduction Answered That this Reason was most justly Repelled because albeit it be true
Disponed these Lands to the Pursuer with her consent Subscribing the Disposition It was Duplyed The Defenders Subscription and Consent was Extorted metus causa whereupon she has Action of Reduction depending and holds the production satisfied with the Writs produced and repeates her Reason by way of Duply viz. if she was compelled by her Husband it was by just fear because she offered to prove by Witnesses that he threatned her to consent or else he should do her a mischief and that he was a fierce man and had many times beaten her and shut her out of Doors and offered to prove by the Nortar and Witnesses Insert that at the time of the Subscription she declared her unwillingness The Lords found the Defense and Duply Relevant David Wilkie contra Sir Andrew Ker. Eodem die DAvid Wilkie and others Tacks-men of the Castoms Charged Sir Andrew Ker for the Tack-Duty of the Customs of the Border Anno 1650. Set by them to him he Suspends and alleadges by the publick Calamity of the English Entry in Anno 1650. in Iuly Traffick was hindered and by the Kings Proclamation against Commerce with these The Charger answered it was a Casuallity ex natura rei and that they had payed without Defalcation and the Suspender had profit in former years The Lords before answer Ordained the Suspender to Compt upon what benefit he got in Anno 1650. and what Profite above the Tack-duty in former years Adamsons contra Lord Balmerino Iune 26. 1662. ADamsons being Infeft in an old Annualrent out of two Tenements in Leith and having thereupon obtained Decreet of Poynding the Ground in Anno 1661. and insisting for poinding one of the Tennents Goods now belonging to the Lord Balmerino for the whole Annualrent Balmerino Suspends on these Reasons First The Heretor against whom the Decreet of poinding was obtained and all the Tennents were Dead and therefore it can receive no summar Execution against the present Heretor and his Tennents but there must be a new Decreet against them Secondly Balmerino hath peaceably possessed this Tenement twenty or thirty years and thereby hath the Benefit of a possessory Judgement by which his Infeftment cannot be questioned without Reduction and Declarator Thirdly The Englishes possessed this Tenement several years by the publick Calamity of War and therefore there must be Deduction of these years Annualrents as is frequently done in Feu-duties Fourthly The two Tenements being now in the hands of different singular Successors Balmerino's Tenement can only be poinded for a part of the Annualrent The Pursuer answered that Poinding of the ground is actorialis chiefly against the Ground and therefore during the Obtainers Life it is valued not only against the ground while it belonged to these Heretors and Possessors but against the same in whosoever hands it be that the Moveable Goods therein or the Ground Right thereof may be Apprized To the second Annualrents are debita fundi and a Possessory Judgement takes neither place for them nor against them To the third though in some cases Feu-duties ceass by Devestation that was never extended to Annualrents due for the profit of a Stock of Money To the fourth the Annualrent being out of two Tenements promiscuously The Annualrenter may Distress any part for the whole in whosoever hands the Tenement may be The Lords Repelled all these Defenses but superceded Execution for one half of the Annualrent for a time and Ordained the Suspender to give Commission to Balmerino to put the Decreet in Execution against the other Tenements for its proportion for his relief medio tempore Wilson contra Thomson Eodem die WIlson having obtained Decreet against Thomson for poinding of the Ground of a Tenement of Land Thomson Suspends on this Reason that the Chargers Infeftment is base and before it was cled with Possession the Suspender was publickly Infeft and thereby excludes the base Infeftment though prior The Charger answered that the Reason ought to be repelled because he had used Citation upon the base Infeftment before the publick Infeftment by which Citation res fuit letigiosa The Lords Repelled the Reason in respect of the Answer and found the base Infeftment validat by the Citation whereupon the Decreet followed Ruthven contra Laird of Gairn Iune 27. 1662. THe Laird of Gairn having Infeft his Son in his Estate reserving his own Liferent after his Sons Death his Oye pursues him for an Aliment out of the Estate conform to the Act of Parliament appointing the Heir to be Entertained by the Donatars to the Ward Conjunct-feears or Liferenters thereof The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Act of Parliament cannot be extended to his case who voluntarly Infeft his Son in his Estate with the burden of his Liferent Secondly If any Aliment were due the Mother who is Liferenter must bear her part Thirdly Aliment is only due where the Heir hath no other means But here the Heir hath a Stock of Money which though Liferented by his Mother yet he may Entertain himself out of the Stock The Pursuer answered First That the Act of Parliament anent Alimenting of Heirs is generally against Liferenters without exception Secondly The Disposition by the Defender to the Son was for a Tocher worth all the Estate he then had wherefore no part was Liferented by the Son or his Wife the Pursuers Mother but only a sum of Money which came by her self and there is no reason that the Stock thereof should be exhausted for the Pursuers Aliment the Defender having now succeeded to a plentiful Estate The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Replyes Mr. David Watson contra Mr. Iames Ellies Eodem die MR. David Watson having acquired Right to the Superiority of Stenhouse milne pursues the Feuers for their Feu-duties who alleadge First no Process the Lands in Question being kirk-Kirk-lands Disponed to a Lord of Erection and it is declared that the Lords of Erection having only right to the Feu-duty till they be Redeemed by the KING at ten Years purchase by the Act of Parliament thereanent in Anno 1633. And thereby none have Right but such as subscribed the submission surrendring their Interest in the KING'S hands untill the Pursuer Instruct that his Author did subscribe the said submission he hath no Interest Secondly absolvitor from the Feu-duties 1650. and 1651. Because the Lands were wasted these Years by publik calamity of War Thirdly absolvitor from Harrage and Carrage because all Services are reserved to the KING by the said Act of Parliament The Lords assoilzied from Harrage and Carrage but differed for the Feu-duty being smal and found no necessity for the Pursuer to instruct that this Author did subscribe the Surrender after so long time but that the same was presumed for his so long bruiking the Fee Sir William Wilson contra Sir William Murray Eodem die WIlson having Apprysed Sir William Murrays Estate pursues him and his Tenents for Mails and Duties who alleadged that by the Act
because he represents Frazer of Phillorth his Grand-father who Disponed the Lands in question to Doors and was oblieged to infeft him and did de facto resign in the Kings hands in his favour and so personally objection umquhil Phillorth Doors Author would be for ever excluded from objecting against Doors Right which flowed from him so neither can the Defender who represents him object against the Pursuer who is Successor in Door 's Rights The Defender answered that being called albeit he had no Right in his Person he might propone a Defense upon a Nullity in the Pursuers Right viz. that it is a non habente potestaâ—mâ— which is very competent here by exception This Declaâ—ator â—eing judicium petitorium wherein he may well repeat this Defense without necessiâ—y to call Doors because Doors being called in the Improbation all Infeftments in his Person are Improven for not production and so the Reason is instantly verified and albeit he were Successor to his Grand-father which he denys yet he may well alleadge that any Right flowing from his Grand-Father is personal and incompleat and can be no ground of Declarator of Property The Lords repelled the Defenses and found it not competent to the Defender to quarrel the Pursuers Authors Right unless he had a better Right Skeen contra Lumsdean Iuly 19. 1662. SKeen having Charged Alexander Lumsdean upon a Bond granted by Mr. Thomas Lumsdean as principal and the said Alexander as Cautioner he Suspends on this Reason that the cause of the Bond was Bills of Exchange drawn by Verhage upon Kezar in Camphire to be payed to Skeen or his Order which Bills Skeen ordered to be payed to Mr. Thomas Lumsdean's Wife and Mr. Thomas granted the Bond charged on for the saids Bills which Bills were protested upon Kezar's not paying of the Bills as the Protest bears To which protested Bills Mr. Thomas Lumsdean assigned the Suspender and whereupon he now alleadges that he must have allowance of the Bills protested being the cause of the Bond and therefore Skeen himself is lyable for the Bills which must compence the Charger The Pursuer answered that the Reason ought to be repelled because he offered him to prove that albeit the bills were protested for not payment by Kezar on whom they were drawn yet Mr. Thomas Lumsdean having gone back to Verhage who drew them Verhage payed Mr. Thomas and that before the Intimation of the Suspenders Assignation 2ly That Mr. Thomas Lumsdean being Factor in Camphire in his Factor Book upon the 109. page thereof there are four posts of Payment payed by the said Verhage to Mr. Thomas Lumsdean at diverse times conform to the Magistrates of Camphire their report upon the Lords Commission bearing that the said Factors Compt Book is Authentick and unvitiat and that Verhage who drew the Bills and Kezar upon whom they were drawn had both sworn before them that Verhage had payed the same to Lumsdean so the question was upon the manner of probation whereanent the Suspender alleadged 1. That Compt Books not being subscribed were not probative Writs even against the Merchant himself 2ly That at least they cannot prove against the Suspender his Assigney 3ly That they could be no better then Holograph Discharges by the Cedent which cannot instruct their own Date against the Assigney and so cannot prove the same to have been before the Intimation as for the Testimonies of Verhage and Kezar their Testimonies cannot take away Writs and yet are suspected being both Debitors for the Bills and that it was not instructed who write the Book whether Lumsdean himself or his ordinar Book Keeper The Lords found the Probation sufficient against the Assigney the Charger also proving that the Books were written by Lumsdean himself or by his â—rdinar Book-keeper and thought that the Book proved against this Assigney being Mr. Thomas own Brother and no suspition he would wrong him and there being four several Posts of payment in several Months besides the Depositions of the foresaids persons Fiddes contra Iack Iuly 19 1662. FIddes pursues Iack for payment of a Bond of 500. merks which Iack acknowledged to have received in custody form Fiddes to be keeped as his own Iack alleadged that he had but the custody and did conform to his Obligation he sent the Money to Dundee in Anno 1650. where he lost both it and much more of his own at the plunder of Dundee The Pursuer answered no way granting that his Money was lost at Dundee yet it ought not to liberat the Defender because he oft-times required and desired the Defender to pay him his Money before the plundring of Dundee and seing he did not then give it it was lost upon the Defenders hazard The Defender answered that any requisition was made was but verbal without Instrument and that it was made to the Defender being in Edinburgh after this Money and the Defenders whole means was sent to Dundee for safety and that at the time of any such desire he shew the Pursuer so and bid him send for it to Dundee when he pleased he should have it The Lords before answer having ordained Witnesses to be examined hinc inde and having advised the same found that the Pursuer did desire his Money and at that same time the Defender told him it was at Dundee and said he might have it when the pleased to send for it and Witnesses also proved that he was at Dundee and was in esteem as a man of good means then and that he was there aâ—the plunder of Dundee and ever since was in a poor miserable condition and some of them deponed that he had a considerable sum of Money far above this in question there The Question was whether this probation was sufficient to assoilzie albeit none of the Witnesses did particularly Depone that they knew the Pursuers Money to have been at Dundee and lost there Tâ—e Lords found that the probation was sufficient the Pursuer giving his oath in Supplement that it was there and lost there for they considered that at the time of the Pursuers Requisition the Witnesses proved the Defender declared it was there and that ex natura rei it was hard to prove particularly this Mony being a Fungible to have been lost there but that it behoved to be presumed so seing the man lost his whole means there and hath been poor ever since Montgomery of contra Eodem die MR. William Wallace having obtained a Disposition of the Lands of Hagburn from Thomas Hunter he gave a Back-bond oblieging him to sell the same at the best avail and as a part of the price to pay a Bond of Provision to Thoma's Sisters and Brother granted by their Father and having retained his own Sums and such as he was Cautioner for was oblieged to count for the rest and being first pursued before the Englishes and now before the Lords he was decerned to take the Lands at sixteen years purchase and a half and to count
the Houses The Lords found there was yet place to Resile and therefore assoilzied Margaret Stevenson and her Son contra Ker and others Eodem die MArgaret Stevenson pursues Margaret Ker as vitious Intromissatrix with the Goods of her Husband for payment of a Debt wherein he was Cautioner She alleadged absolvitor because her Iutromission was purged in so far as she had Confirmed herself Executrix Creditrix It was answered by the Pursuer non relevat unless before intenting of the Cause The Defender answered it was sufficient being within year and day after the Defunct's Death Which the Lords found Relevant Lord Balnagoun contra M. Thomas Mckenzie Eodem die BAlnagoun as Donator to the Escheat of his Father pursues Mr Thomas Mckenzie for the price of some Lands sold to him by his Father and for the annualrents since It was answered for the Defender that there was no Annualrent due by the Minute and albeit it was the price of Land yet Balnagoun had never made Mr. Thomas a Right to this day but had forced him to be at a huge Expenses and Plea and so was in mora that the price was not payed and albeitâ—he did possess the Lands it was by redeeming Wodsets thereupon contained in the Minute The Lords found Mr. Thomas lyable either for the Annualrent or for the superplus of the Rents of the Land more then payed the Annualrent In this Process it was found that the Probation of a Tenor before an Inferiour Iudge was null Margaret Edgar contra Iohn Murray Ianuary 29. 1663. MArgaret Edgar having Charged Iohn Murray as Cautioner for the umquhil Viscount of Stormont he Suspends and offers him to prove by her Oath that she transacted with him to accept a Decreet against the principal to free him The Charger answered that she being a Wife clade with a Husband could not swear in his prejudice The Suspender Replyed that before her Marriage he had raised a Pursuit and Cited her to hear and see it found and declared he was free of Cautionry in respect of the said Transaction and so the matter being Litigious her marrying during the Dependence cannot exclude him from his Oath but must work against her Husband who is only jure mariti a Legal Assigney The Lords found this Reply Relevant Scot contra Mr. John Dickson Eodem die SCot as Assigney by her Father to a Bond Charges Mr. Iohn Dickson to make payment he Suspends on this Reason that the Assignation being while the Charger was Wife to Scot her Husband the Sum belonged to the Husband jure mariti and therefore craves Compensation of the like Sums payed to or for the Husband The Charger answered that though the Date of the Assignation was before her Husbands Death yet her Father keeped the same in his Custody and it was not Intimate till after the Husbands Death and so the Right not being Established in the Wifes Person by Intimation could not accresce to the Husband unless the Suspender would instruct that it was Intimate before The Lords found that seing the Assignation was now in the Wifes hands they would not put the Suspender to prove the Delivery thereof during the Marriage but that it was presumed to have been delivered according to the Date and that thereby it became the Husbands jure mariti though no Intimation was in his time Archibald Stuart contra Bogle and Matthie Ianuary 30. 1663. BOgle and Matthie being Conveened before Archibald Stuart as Baillie of the Regality of Glasgow for a wrong committed upon two other Persons in the Kirk upon the Sabbath thrusting in upon them in Seat and beating them they were therefore amerciat in 200. Pounds half to the Party and half to the Fiskall It was alleadged the Fine was exorbitant and that Inferiour Courts could not amerciat above ten Pounds as it had been found by several Decisions It was answered that this Court being a Regality and the Fact so atrocius the Fine was very Competent The Lords Sustained the Decreet Town of Linlithgow contra Inhabitants of Borrowstounness Eodem die THe Town of Linlithgow having apprehended an Inhabitant of Borrowstounness in their Town being an un-free man and exercising the Trade of Merchandise they put him in Prison he granted Bond to forbear in all time coming Likeas they fined him in a 100. merks he Suspended and raised Reduction on this Reason that the Bond was extorted when so far as he was summarly taken and put in Prison and could not get out till he promised to give the Bond and immediatly after he was out subscribed the same The Charger alleadged there was no unjust force or fear because by the Acts of Parliament in favours of Free Borrows all unfree men are discharged to exercise the Trade of Merchandise whereupon they had obtained Decreet against the same Suspender to desist and cease therefrom Secondly They and all other free Borrows had immemorially possessed this priviledge to apprehend persons found within their Town and forced them to find Caution as Law will upon Debt due to any in the Town and particularly to put them in Prison till they give such Bonds in Surety as this The Suspender answered to the first there was no such Warrand by the Act of Parliament but only to Charge with general Letters un-free men to find Caution and for the Priviledge of Borrows to arrest un-free persons within their Towns it is only in case of Debts and other Merchandises due to Burgesses but cannot be extended to this Case where there is a special Order set down by Act of Parliament The Lords found that the Burghs Royal summarly upon Staple Ware of un-free men and might judge thereanent but not summarly Incarcerate their Persons but only to Charge them and found their Custom and Priviledge not to extend to this Case and therefore found the Reason of Reduction Relevant The Lady Carnagy contra The Lord Cranburn Eodem die LAdy Anna Hamiltoun and the Lord Carnagie her Husband as having obtained a Gift of Recognition from the King of the Barony of Innerweek and being thereupon Infeft pursues the Lord Cranburn to whom the samine was Disponed by the Earl of Dirletoun Grand-Father to both for declaring the Recognition and the Donatrix Right in so far as Iames Maxwel late Earl of Dirletoun holding the saids Lands of His Majesties Ward and relief had without His Majesties consent Alienat and Disponed the same to Iames Cicile his Oye then second Son to the Lord Cranburn procreat betwixt him and the Earl of Dirletouns second Daughter It was alleadged for the Defender absolvitor because where there was no Infeftment there could be no Alienation nor Recognition and there could be no Infeftment without the same were granted to the Disponer or his Procurator to the accepter to his Procurator but here there was no accepter nor Procurator because Cranburn being then a Child and in England had granted no Mandat to take this Seasine and therefore had raised Reduction thereof
Infeftment was only base not cled with Possession and that the Defenders Title was by another Party Possessing and publictly Infeft before his Fathers Death Which the Lords found Relevant Iames Allan contra Iames Paterson Iune 17. 1663. JAmes Allan charges Iames Paterson as Cautioner in an Indenter for a Prentise set to the Charger for five years and insists upon that Article of paying two dayes wadges for ilk dayes absence and subsumes that the Prentise left his Service after the first two years and was absent three years The said Iames Paterson Suspends on this reason that it must be presumed Collusion betwixt the Charger and his Prentise that having gotten the Prentise Fee and not learned him the Trade he had suffered him to escape never making intimation to the Suspender that he might have brought him back to his Service while now that he is out of the Countrey and not knowing where The Charger answered that there was nothing to obliege him to make such intimation neither could a sufficient presumption of Collusion be sustained The Lords found the Letters orderly proceeded either while the Cautioner caused the Prentise Re-enter and serve out his time or otherways payed fifty pound for damnage and interest to which they modified the Charge Margaret Fleming contra Iames Gilleis Iune 18. 1663. MArgaret Fleming being Infeft in an Annualrent of 700. merks out of Houses in Edinburgh in Liferent with absolute warrandice from all dangers perils and inconveniencies whatsomever pursues Declarator against the said Iames Gilleis as Heretor for declaring that her Annualrent should be free of all publick burden since the rescinding of the Act of Parliament 1646. whereby Liferenters were ordained to bear proportional part for their Annualrents with the Heretors The Defender answered the Libel was not Relevant for albeit the Act of Parliament was rescinded the justice and equity thereof remained that whatever burden were laid upon Land shouldly proportionably upon every part therof and every profit forth of it Which Defense the Lords found Relevant and Assoilzied Francis Hamiltoun contra Mitchel and Keith Eodem die SIr Alexander Keith of Ludquharn being oblieged by Bond to Robert Mitchel in Leith for the price of certain Bolls of Victual was arrested in Leith till he found Francis Hamiltoun Cautioner as Law will and both being pursued on the Act raised Advocation on this reason that the Baillies of Leith had unjustly forced him to find Caution as Law will he not being dwelling in Leith nor Leith not being a Burgh Royal but a Burgh of Barony It was answered that the priviledge and custome of the Town of Edinburgh was to arrest within Leith and all other priviledges and pendicles thereof The Lords found that it behoved to be condescended in what place of Leith Ludquharn was arrested for the Peer of Leith was a part of the Burgh Royal of Edinburgh and was served by a Bailie of Edinburgh called the Water Baillie and if he was arrested there it was valid but the rest of Leith is but a Burgh of Barony and in that part thereof the Baillie is called Baron Baillie it were not valid Euphan Hay contra Elizabeth Carstorphine June 19. 1663. THe said Euphan having obtained Decreet against the said Elizabeth for certain Furnitur to her House She suspended on this reason that her Husband was not called The Charger offered to prove in â—ortification of her Decreet that her Husband was 20. years out of the Countrey and she repute as Widow Which the Lords found Relevant George Reid contra Thomas Harper Eodem die THese Parties competing in a double Poinding George Reid craved preference because he was assigned to the Mails and Duties by Thomas Mudie Heretor of the Land Thomas Harper alleadged that he had arrested the Duties upon a Debt owing to him by William Mudy Father to the said Thomas and any Right Thomas had was fraudulent and null by exception by the express words of the Act of Parliament 1621. being betwixt Father and Son without any onerous Cause and he ought not to be put to Reduce in re minima his Debt being within a 100. pound The Lords found he behoved to Reduce conform to their constant Custom in Heretable Rights Ferguson contra Ferguson June 23. 1663. UMquhil Ferguson in Restalrig having a Tack set to him by the Lord Balmerino for certain years his eldest Brother Son as heir of Conquest and his youngest Brother Son as heir of Line competed for the Mails and Duties of the Lands The Lords found the Tack to belong to the Heir of Line albeit it was Conquest by the Defender Mcdowgal contra Laird Glentorchy June 24. 1663. Mcneil having Disponed certain Lands to Mcdowgal wherein he was Heir apparent to his Goodsyrs Brother oblieged himself to Infeft himself as heir therein and to Infeft Mcdowgal at least to renunce to be heir to the Effect Mcdowgal might obtain the Lands adjudged whereupon Mcdowgal having raised a Charge to enter heir Mcneil renunces and thereupon Mcdowgal craves the Land to be Adjudged and Glentorchy Decerned to receive and Infeft him Glentorchy alleadged that he could not receive him because he had right to the Property himself unless the Pursuer condescend and instruct his authors in whose place he craves to be Entered had Right The Pursuer answered that lie needed to instruct no Right nor was he oblieged to Dispute the Superiours Right but craved the ordinar course to be Entered suo periculo with reservation of every mans Right and the Superiours own Right as is ordinary in Appryzings and Adjudications The Defender alleadged that albeit that was sustained in Appryzings where the Superiour gets a years Rent and though it might be allowed in ordinar Adjudications proceeding upon a liquid Debt favore creditorum yet not in such a Case as this where the Vassals apparent Heir Dispones and oblieges himself to Renunce of purpose to Charge his Superiour The Lords found no Processe till the Pursuer instructed his Authors Titles But an Infeftment being produced he was not put to Dispute the validity thereof in this instance Menzeis contra Laird Glenurchy Eodem die THe Daughters of Mr. William Menzeis as Executrix to him pursues Glenurchy for payment of a Bond due to their Father he alleadged minority and Lesion and that he had Reduction thereupon depending The Pursuers answered no Lesion because this Bond being granted to their Father for his Stipend by the Defender who was Heretor of the Land he was not leased because as Heretor he was lyable for the Stipend The Defender answered that his being Heretor could not Obliege him because his Grand-father was then living whose Liferent was reserved in his Disposition who and the intrometters could only be lyable Stipends not being debita fundi and it were of very evil consequence if the Heretor were lyable during the whole life of a Liferent The Lords found that there being a Liferenter the Heretor was not lyable and therefore sustained
Benefice by his Right of Presentation and Collation It was alleadged for the Collectors of the vacant Stipends that his Stipend was not as the allowance of an helper but was a several Congregation separate from the Parsonage of Peebles and at the Parsons Presentation and that no helper has a Presentation and that the Incumbent not being admitted till after Michaelmess has no Right to any part of the Fruits of that year though he was Presented before because the Kirk cannot be said to be full but vacant till the Minister be admitted The Lords found that this Kirk having a Presentation could not return in the vacancy to the Parson of Peebles and that the Presentation being at Lambas and the Incumbent serving at the Kirk and Entring to his Tryals immediatly till he was Entred which was in October thereafter and that he had Right to the half of that years Stipend not being presented before Whitsonday and found the other half to belong to the Collector of vacand Stipends Lairds of Tulliallan and Condie contra Crawfoord Eodem die THe Lairds of Tulliallan and Condie as having a Right from him pursues Declarator of the Expiration of an Appryzing led at the Instance of Crawfoord to which Margaret Crawfoord his Daughter has now Right and condescends that the sum Appryzed for was satisfied within the Legal by Compensation in so far as Tulliallan had Right to a Contract whereby Crawfoord the Appryzer was oblieged to deliver so many Chalders of Coal weekly or in Case of Failzie four pounds for ilk Chalder It was alleadged for the Defender that this Article of Compensation ought to be repelled First because the said Contract is prescribed 2ly The Appryzing proceeded upon a Decreet of Compt and Reckoning wherein an Alleadgence being founded upon the same Contract was past from pro loco tempore and so can never now be made use of to take away that Decreet much less the Appryzing against a singular Successor who seing the same past in tuto to take Right without the hazard thereof 3ly The Defender cannot be oblieged after fourty or fifty years time to prove the Delivery of an yearly Duty of Coal 4ly The Compensation is not de liquido in liquidum because the one is a personal Contract the other is an Apprysing and Infeftment the one hath not a liquid price Constitute but bears expresly such a Sum in case of failzie and not as the price which being much more then the ordinar price then is but a personal failzie which cannot be liquidat till Declarator and modification of a Judge The Pursuer answered that he was evicting the rigor of an Appryzing in causa maxime favorabili And as to the first alleadgence anent the Prescription offers to prove Interruption by Arrestments c. To the second not Relevant according to the Custome before the years 1649. competent and omitted was not relevant against Decreets of Suspension But Suspenders might either omit or pass from their Reasons and Suspend upon them again which could not but be alswell effectual against the Assigney as the Cedent As to the third this Article being instructed by Writ no presumption nor less time then Prescription could take it away To the which the Coals having a liquid Sum in lieu thereof the Article is liquid and as payment within the legal will annul an Appryzing so will Compensation which is equiparat in Law though the Case would not be alike in a Wodset against a singular Successor The Lords found the Defenses against this Article relevant viz. that the Article was not liquid by a Sum Constitute expresly for a price and that it being alleadged that in the Decreet this alleadgeance was past from and an expresse reservation that it might be made use of against any other just Debt then that which was in the Decreet whereupon the Appryzing proceeded The Lords had also consideration that the Legal of the Appryzing was not yet expired Lyon of Muirask contra Laird of Elsick Eodem die LYon of Muirask pursues the Laird of Elsick upon a Debt of his Fathers as Successor titulo lacrativo The Defender alleadged absolvitor because any Disposition he had from his Father was in his Contract of Marriage whereby 10000â— merks of Tocher was received by his Father and 14000. merks of Debt more undertaken for his Father with the burden of his Fathers Liferent The Pursuer answered the alleadgeance ought to be repelled because he offered him to prove that the Land Disponed was then worth fourty or fifty Chalders of Victual so that the Cause onerous was not the half of the value and therefore as to the Superplus he was Lucrative Successor The Defender answered that any onerous Cause or price though incompetent was enough to purge this passive Title and albeit the Pursuer might reduce the Right and make the Lands lyable because the Cause was not onerous and equivalent yet he could not be personally lyable in solidum for all the Defuncts Debts The Lords having seriously considered the bussinesse after a former Interlocutor the last Session Assoilzing from the passive Title but finding the Lands redeemable by the Pursuer or any other Creditor for the sums payed out did now find further that the Defender was lyable for the superplus of the just price of the Land according to the ordinar Rate the time of the Disposition and that the superplus over and above what he payed or undertook ought to bear Annualrent as being the price of Land Iames Iustice contra Earl of Queensberry Eodem die IAmes Iustice as having right to a Bond of 6000. merks due by the Earl of Queensberry pursues the Earl and the Lord Drumâ—anrig his Son as taking his Estate with the burden of his Debt to pay it who alleadged no Processe because the Pursuers Right was an Assignation granted by a Tutrix not bearing in Name of the Pupil or as Tutrix in his Name because being in infancy he could not subscribe but bearing to be done by her as taking burden for the Pupil The Lords found the Assignation not formal not bearing the Pupil Disponer with his Tutrix but yet found the Letters orderly proceeded the Charger before Extract producing a Ratification by the Pupil and Tutrix formally done Laird of Prestoun contra Nathaniel Ebred Iune 24. 1664. THe Laird of Prestoun pursues Reduction and Improbation against Nathaniel Ebred of all his Rights of certain Lands The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Lands in question are Abbay-lands Erected in a temporal Holding in favour of Prestoun and therefore by the Act of Parliament 1633. all such Lands are annexed to the Crown and the Feu-duties are only found due to the Lords of Erection ay and while they be redeemed which is repeited in the 30. Act of Parliament 1661. and therefore the Pursuer not being Superiour but the King he has no interest to Improve of Reduce The Pursuer answered that he opponed his Infeftment of the Lands holden of the King
that the Liferent of the whole was given in satisfaction of the third and all The Pursuer answered that this could not be presumed unless it had been so exprest no more then a Terce is excluded by a provision of Liferent unless it bear in satisfaction of a Terce The Lords found the Defense Relevant that the Pursuer could not both have her third and the Liferent of the rest but gave her her option either of the third provisione legis or of her Liferent of the whole provisione hominis Earl of Athol contra Iohn Scot. Eodem die THe Earl of Athol having obtained Decreet against Iohn Scot before the Commissar of Dunkeld for the Teinds of the said Iohn his Lands He Suspnds and raises Reduction on this Reason that albeit the Decreet bear a Defense proponed that the Teinds in question are Mortified by the King to a Kirk and that the same was found Relevant and that the said Iohn succumbed in proving thereof yet he offers him to prove that before the Term elapsed he produced the Mortification before the Commissar and thereupon took Instruments which is produced Which the Lords found Relevant Mr. George Norvel Advocat contra Margaret Sunter Eodem die MR. George Norvel pursuing for Mails and Duties upon an Appryzing Compearance is made for Margaret Sunter who alleadged absolvitor because she was Infeft in Liferent before Mr. Georges Right which being found relevant for instructing thereof she produced her Seasine Which the Lords found not to instruct without an Adminicle and therefore sustained the Decreet The said Margaret raised Reduction of this Decreet on this Reason that now she produced an Adminicle viz. her Contract of Marriage 2ly That the Decreet is null because the quantities are not proven The Charger answered to the first that the Lords having found the Exception not proven the Pursuer could not be admitted in the second instance against a Decreet in foro upon production of that which she should have produced at first As to the second he needed not prove the quantities seing her exception was total without denying the quantities The Lords found the Decreet valide but ordained some of their number to deal with Mr. George to show favour to the poor woman Doctor Ramsay contra Mr. William Hogg and Alexander Seton December 22. 1664. THese three Parties having appryzed the same Lands the first Appryzer being Infeft the second not being and the third being Infeft The first Appryzer declared he would not insist for the Mails and Duties of the whole but only possessed a part The question came whether the second Apprizer not having Charged should be preferred to the third who was Infeft It was alleadged for the second Appryzer that he needed not be Infeft because the first Appryzer being Infeft in all he had the only jus proprietatis and there was nothing remaining but jus reversionis which the Appryzing alone carryed and as the second Appryzer might redeem the first as having the right of his Reversion so he might force him either to possess the whole whereby his Appryzing might be satisfied or give warrant to the second to Possess the remainder so likewise he might use Redemption It was alleadged for the third Appryzer that if the question were of the Redemption of the Land the second had good Right but the question being for the Mails and Duties a right of Reversion could never carry these without a Seasine The Lords considering the Point in Law and the great disadvantage the Leiges should sustain if all Appryzers were necessitat to take Infeftment They prefered the second Appryzer Cornelius Inglis contra Mr. Rodger Hog Eodem die MR. Cornelius Inglis being Infest upon an Appryzing pursues a Removing compearance is made for Mr. Rodger Hog who alleadged that he is also Infeft and had charged the Superiour though after the first Appryzer and had possessed seven years by lifting the Mails and Duties and therefore craved the benefit of a Possessorie Judgement The Lords having considered the Case amongst themselves whether an Appryzing and Charge without Infeftment could give the benefit of a Possessorie Iudgement They were equally divided in their Votes and the President resolved before he gave his Vote to settle the Parties contra Edmistoun of Carden Ianuary 6. 1665. EDmistoun of Carden being pursued by a Creditor of his Fathers as Lucrative Successor to his Father by accepting of a Disposition of his Fathers Lands after contracting of the Pursuers Debt alleadged absolvitor because being pursued beforeby another Creditor of his Fathers he did then alleadge that his Disposition was not Lucrative but for a Cause onerous equivalent to the worth of the Land which he proved by instructing the Rental and Rate of the Land at the time of the Disposition by Witnesses and the Sums undertaken for it by Writ whereupon he was Assoilzyed and can never be again conveened upon that ground nam obest exceptio rei judicatae for if he had been condemned as Lucrative Successorâ— upon the other Creditors Probation It would now have proven against him and therefore his beng Assoilzied must be profitable to him against others unless Collusion were alleadged and Instructed The Pursuer answered that this absolvitor was res inter alios acta and albeit a Condemature would have been effectual against the Defender non sequitur that an absolvitor should also be effectuall for him because he was called to that Condemnature but this Creditor was not at all called to the absolvitor 2. Even in a Condemnature if the Defender had omitted any thing that he might have alleadged in the one case competent and omitted would not hinder him to propone the same against another Creditor Therefore the Defender can only repeit the grounds of that absolvitor which if he do the Pursuer will alleadge That whereas in the absolvitor the Defender was admitted to prove the Rental The Pursuer omitted to crave the benefit of Probation which he would have gotten and this Pursuer offers him to prove that whereas the Rental was proven to but 18. Chalders of Victual the true Rental was worth 30. Chalder 3dly A part of the onerous Cause was the Portion of the Defuncts Children which would not Prejudge the Pursuer being an anterior Creditorâ— The Lords found that the absolvitor could not prejudge this Pursuer as to these points omitted and that it could not have effect inter alios except it had been in re antiqua where the Witness had died that in that case the Testimonies out of the former Process might be repeited but as to the Rental the Lords would not give the Pursuer the sole Probationâ— being so lubrick a point as not only what it payed but what the Lands were worth and it might have payed and ordained Witnesses to be examined hinc inde and found that the Bairns Portions not being payed bona fide before the intenting of this Cause could not prejudge the Creditor but ordained the Defender to Suspend on double
was alleadged that the Executions of the first Summons were new and by ocular inspection false and craved the Pursuer might abide thereby who refused and so being without an Execution on the first Summons but having an Execution on the second were null The Pursuer craved them to be Transferred instatu quo but prejudice to the Defender in the cause to alleadge no Process because the first Execution was wanting The Lords refused to transfer but some were of opinion that a new Summons in eadem causa would be sufficient to make the Inâ—ibition effectual being raised on the Summons of Registration of a Bond others thought that albeit the Style bear that Inhibitions were not granted but upon fight of the Summons execute yet it was ordinar to give it on an unregistrate Bond or a Charge to enter Heir Execute though there was neither Decreet nor Dependence and therefore though Executions be put on to get these raised yet they are not adhered to but now used so that this Summons though without Execution yet might be transferred and thereon Executions might be used and thereby the Inhibition stands valid which was the more clear way for albeit Summons bear to cite to such a day next to come and so ordinarily cannot be used no citation being thereon within the year yet the Lords special warrand may allow a Summons to be sufficient for citation thereafter as well as they may give other priviledges Janet Shand contra Charles Charters Ianuary 13. 1665. CRichtoun of Castelmain and Crichtoun of St. Leonard granted a Bond to Iohn Shand and Herren his Spouse the longest liver of them two and their Heirs c. With a Clause for Infeftment whereupon there was an Appryzing led in Iohn Shands lifetime against one of the Debitors thereafter Iohn Shand charges the other Debitor for payment after the Charge Iohn Shand gives in the Appryzings to be allowed and after his Death his Wife takes Infeftment upon the Appryzing the Bond being now produced before the Lords in an Exhibition pursued by Ianet Schand as Heir to Iohn Shand. There is a competition for delivery betwixt Ianet Shand as Heir to Iohn Shand as being Heritable and Charles Charters as having right from Herrein Iohn Shands Relict as being moveable It was alleadged by the Heir that the Sum became Heretable by the Superveening of the Appryzing It was answered that there was a Charge after the Appryzing which returned the Bond to be moveable It was answered that the Charge was not against the Partie whose Lands was Appryzed but against the other Party 2ly The Charge could only return the Bond to its first condition before the Appryzing So that the Bond being since 1641. the Relict is excluded and the Charge cannot bring her in 3ly Albeit it could yet after the Charge the Defunct returned to his Heretable Right by obtaining that Appryzing allowed which allowance the Relict produced and took Infeftment so that these last Acts being upon the Real Right the Heir must be preferred and therefore the ground of preference of the Executor or Heir is the will of the Defunct either to make use of his Heretable or Moveable Right which is still ambulatorie and in his power and whatever Right he last makes use of evidences his choise and according thereto the Right is either Heretable or Moveable but here he did last make use of his Real Right by allowance of the Appryzing after the Charge which the Relict homologat by taking Infeftment conform It was answered for the Creditor of the Relict that this being on Debt though due by many Debitors The Charge against one did sufficiently show the purpose of the Defunct to make use of his Right and the Charge doth render the Bond simply moveable and doth not return to the condition it was before the Appryzing To the 3. passing from the Charge must either be express or a Deed of evident consequence but the allowance of the Appryzing is not such which might be done only ad hunc effectum that if the Appryzer should pass from his Charge the Appryzing might revive and be secure The Lords found the Sum Heretable Charles Charters contra a Skipper Eodem die CHarles Charters having fraughted a Ship to Queensburgh by Charter Partie The Skipper was to ly so many lye dayes and to bring a Fraught thence he returned without full Fraught whereupon Charles refuses full payment and being decerned by the Baillies of Leith to pay the rest he Suspends on this Reason that the Skipper ought to get the Fraught only proportionally to the Loading and offers to prove the third part less then the full Loading brought home and that the Skipper could not have his full Fraught unless he instruct that he intimat to the Factor at Queensburgh to whom he was direct of his coming and that he lay his lye dayes and after Intimation to the Factor to give him any Ware he had he took Instrument or protested thereon The Lords found he ought to prove the Intimation ut supra by Witnesses but required no Protest or Instrument thereon Edgar contra Edgar January 17. 1665. ISobel Edgar pursues for 4000 merks provided in her Mothers Contract of Marriage by this Clause whereby her Father having married her Mother to his second Wife oblidged him and the Heirs of the first marriage which failzing his Heirs and Executors to pay to his Bairns of the second Marriage 4000 merks albeit there were but one of them and if there were more the same Sum to be divided among them the Portions of the Male Children to be payed at their age of 21. and the Femal at the age of 18. And to pay them five of each hundreth after his Death till the Terms of payment Ita est the Heirs of the first Marriage failzied by decease and there was four Bairns survived of the second Marriage whereof two died before they attained to their age mentioned in the Clause and now there remains but two the Pursuer and her Brother who is become Heir whereupon she alleadges that she hath the benefit of the whole 4000 merks It was answered for the Brother that he hath right to the half because he is a Bairn of the Marriage as well as she and albeit he be become Heir yet that takes not away his Share by this oblidgment as a Bairn of the second Marriage 2ly Albeit his being Heir would exclude him yet the Portions of the two that are deceased having become Heirs by there survivancy transmit the same to their nearest of kine and so he and the Pursuer are equally nearest of Kin. The Pursuer answered that the Heirs of the first Marriage having failled the Clause stands now as if it had been conceived thus that the Father had oblidged himself and his Heirs which comprehends all Heirsâ— to pay to the Baiâ—ns of the second Marriage which must be understood of Bairns beside the Heir because the Heir is constitute Debitor and so cannot be thought
to be Creditor in the same Clause The Lords found the conception of the Clause that the Brother by falling now Heir was excluded seing it was clear by the meaning of the Defunct that his Heir should have his Lands and his Bairns of his second Marriage should have though but one 4000 merks but here the Heir of the first Marriage was never served Heir They also found that the Portions of the Children being to an uncertain day and not conceived to their Heirs or Assigneys that they dying before that day had no right to the Stock but only the Annualrent medio tempore so that the Stock accresced to the surviving Children as if the Defuncts had never existed and that their Assigneys or Creditors could not have affected the same and so found the Brother had no right as nearest of Kin to the two deceasing Children not attaining the Age mentioned in the Contract William Stewart contra Stewarts Ianuary 18. 1665. WIlliam Stewart pursues a Poynding of the Ground of the Lands of Errol upon an Infeftment of Annualrent granted to his Grand-Father by the Earl of Errol by his Bond and Infeftment following thereupon in which Bond there were Cautioners the Annualrent was for a Sum of 7000 merk and a Sum of 8000 merk Compearance is made for the Pursuers Brothers and Sisters who alleadged that as to the Sum of 7000 merks it became moveable and belongs to them as nearest of Kine In so far as their Father made Requisition for the same It was answered the Instrument of Requisition is null and being disconform to the Clause of Requisition in respect that the Original Bond was to the Husband and Wife the longest liver of them two in Conjunctfee and their Heirs c. And the Requisition bears expresly That if the Husband or his Heirs required with consent of the Wife then the Debitor shall pay ita est the Instrumenet bears no consent It was answered that albeit some Points of the Requisition were omitted yet seing the mind of the Defunct appears to take himself to his Personal Right and consequenly to prefer his Executor to his Heir it is sufficient The Pursuer answered non relevat because every Intimation of the Defuncts Intention is not enough but it must be haili modo and the ground whereupon the Sums become moveable is because the Requisition looses and takes away the Infeftment and therefore if the Requisition be null the Infeftment is valid and he Bairns can never have access The Lords found the Requisition null and preferred the Heir Stewart contra Stewart Ianuary 19. 1665. IN the foresaid Cause it was further alleadged for the 8000 merk that it was also moveable because as to it there was no Liferenter and the Fear himself did require It was answered for the Children that the Requisition is null because it mentions not the production of a Procuratory nor the production of the Right it self 2ly The Requisition is made to Bogie as Cautioner for the Earl of Kinnoul whereas he was Cautioner for the Earl of Errol granter of the first Bond. It was replyed oppones the Requisition bearing That the Procurators power was sufficiently known to the Notar 2ly non Relevat unless the Person required had called for the Procuratory or Right and had been refused 3ly The Procuratory is now produced with the Right and the Defunct acknowledged the Procuratory and Right because he raised horning thereupon The Lords sustained the Requisition and found the Sum moveable and preferred the Bairns thereto Shaw contra Lewens Eodem die WIlliam Shaw being a Factor at London and dieing there and having Means both in England and Scotland There falls a Competition betwixt his Executors nuncupative in England and his nearest of Kine Executors in Scotland Anna Lewens Executrix confirmed in England produces a Sentence of the Court of Probat of wills in England bearing That upon the Examination of Witnesses that Court found that William Shaw did nominat Anna Lewens his Executrix and universal Legatrix And that being asked by her what he would leave to his friends in Scotland He declared he would leave her all and them nothing because they had dealt unnaturally with him It was alleadged for the Defuncts Cusigns Executors Confirmed in Scotland that they ought to be preferred because as to the Defuncts Means and Moveables in Scotland the same must be regulat according to the Law in Scotland where a nuncupative Testament hath no use at all and albeit a Legacy may be left by word yet it cannot exceed a 100 lib. Scots It was answered that as to the Succession the Law of Scotland must regulat so that what is Heretable cannot be left by Testament though made out of Scotland As was found in the Case of the Successors of Col Henderson dying in Holland and in the Case of contra Meldrum yet as to the Solemnity of Acts to the Law and Custom of the Place where such Acts are done takes place as where an Act is done in Scotland albeit it be only probable by Writ or Oath of Parties yet being done in England it is probable by Witnesses though it were of the greatest moment and though the Law of Scotland in Writs of Importance requires the Subscription of the Partie before Witnesses or of two Nottars and four Witnesses yet Writs made in France and Holland by the Instrument of one Nottar are valid so here there being no difference from the Law of Scotland which always preferres Executors nominat before nearest of Kin and the difference only as to the Solemnities and manner of Probation that there it may be proven by Witnesses there was a Nomination and here only by Writ The Lords having considered the Reasons and former Decisions preferred the Executors confirmed in Scotland for they found that the Question was not here of the manner of Probation of a Nomination In which case they would have followed the Law of the Place but it was upon the Constitution of the essentialls of a Right viz. A nomination which albeit it were certainly known to have been by word yea if it were offered to be proven by the nearest of Kin that they were Witnesses thereto yet the Solemnitie of writ not being interposed the Nomination is in it self defective and null in substantialibus Lord Lour contra Ianuary 20. 1665. IN a Process for making arrested Sums furth-coming two Arresters viz. my Lord Lour and another Competing It was alleadged for Lour that the first Arrestment is null because the Partie was out off the Countrey when it was only made at his dwelling house which is not Legal seing all Summonds Intimations Premonitions Requisitions and all Denunciations against Parties out of the Countrey must be by Letters of Supplement from the Lords Execute at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh and Peir and Shore of Leith So must Arrestments against these who are out of the Countrey be there Which the Lords found relevant and preferred the second Arrestment Personal
Blank-bond had before the Arrestment seen the Blank-bond filled up and so had deponed or could depone that the time of the Arrestment the Debitor saw himself to be Debitor to another person filled up in the Blank than he for whose Debt it was Arrested for in that Case as the first Creditor that got the Blank-bond might have caused his Debitor retire that Bond and give a new one before any Arrestment so the showing of the filling up of the Blank was equivalent especially if the Debt could be proven no otherwayes but by the Deâ—â—tors Oath This Case was not debated nor was the hazard considered that the Debitors Oath might prefer one Partie to another nor was the case alike to a renewed Bond because a renewed Bond would bear a new date and different Witnesses that saw the new Creditors name filled up and would not depend upon the single Testimony of the Debitor Barbara Skeen and Mr. David Thors contra Sir Andrew Ramsay November 14. 1665. BArbara Skeen being provided by her Contract of Marriage with Umquhile David Ramsay to 18 Chalders of Victual or 1800 merks her Husband having acquired the Lands of Grange Muire worth 10 Chalders of Victnal she pursues Sir Andrew Ramsay as Heir to his Brother to make her up the superplus The Defender alleadged absolvitor because he offered him to prove that the said Barbara stood Infeft in the Lands of Grange Muire upon a Bond granted by her Husband which Bond bears In full satisfaction of the Contract of Marriage by Vertue of which Infeftment she having no other Right she had possest five or six years after her Husbands death and thereby had accepted that Right and had Homologat the same It was replyed that the Bond being a Deed of the Husbands a Clause foisted thereinto so far to the detrement of his Wife and the Infeftment not being taken by her but by an Acturney her possession cannot import Homologation thereof because Homologation being a Taâ—ite consent is not inferred but where the Homologator cannot but know the Right Homologat and can do the Deeds of Homologation no otherwayes but by vertue of that Right neither of which holds here because the personal oblidgement in the Contract was a ground for the Wife to have continued her Husbands possession and would have excluded his Heirs if they had quarrelled and not only the Clause must be presumed to be without the Womans knowledge but the Bond it self and the Infeftment especially considering the simplicity of Wives and their confidence in their Husbands who if this were sustained would easily deceive them It was duplyed for the Defender that he offers him to prove that the Pursuer did not continue her husbands possession but did begin Possession her Husband being never in possession before his death and that she set two several Tacks expresly as Liferenter and the third with consent of Mr. David Thors her Husband being an Advocat and so she cannot be presumed to have been ignorant but on the contraire she must bepresumed to have known the Right and could never denominat her self Liferentrix by a personal oblidgement to Infeft her in so much Victual and Money without mentioning any Land in particular and her acceptance though to her detriment may be the more easily presumed because she had two Children surviving her Husband in whose favour the Restriction did accresce and her Husband did secure her in all that he had but now ex post facto the Children being dead she could not return upon Sir Andrew her Husbands Brother contrare to her Homologation The Lords sustained the Defense and Duply for they thought albeit ignorance might be presumed in a Wife de recente intra annum luctus yet she having continued for so many years and doing so many deeds expresly as Liferenter and that the Bond was not clandistinely lying by her Husband but in a third Parties hand who had taken the Infeftment they thought in that case ignorance was not to be presumed but knowledge Wat contra Russel November 16. 1665. JEan Wat being provided by her Contract of Marriage to certain Lands and Infeft therein the Contract contains this Clause that she shall Aliment the Bairns of the Marriage after the Fathers death and in case she marrie again she shall restrict her self to six hundred merks and the superplus shal remain to the Bairns for their Aliment hereupon she pursues Robert Russel and the other Tennents for the Mails and Duties of the hail Liferent Lands who alleadged 1. That she was restricted to six hundred merks and could crave no more especially now being married to a second Husband compearance was also made for the only Child of the Marriage who claimed the benefit of the superplus by vertue of the Clause in the Contract It was alleadged further for the Defenders that they were Creditors to the Husband before the Contract of Marriage and in their Tacks had a Clause bearing That they should retain their Tack duties while they were payed and upon their Bonds they had also Apprized from the Child as lawfully charged to enter Heir all Right he had to the Lands So that if the superplus belong to the Child proprio jure it now belonged to the Defenders as appryzers They had also raised Reduction of the Clause of the Contract in favours of the Children as being granted by a Father in favours of his own Children after Contracting of their Debt and so was fraudulent and Reduceable by the Act of Parliament 1621. Against Bankerupts It was answered for the Child that as for the Appryzing and Decreet against him as charged to enter Heir he had Suspended and raised Reduction and craved to be reponed and produced a Renounciation offering to renounce all Right he could succeed to as Heir to his Father but prejudice of this Aliment which belonged to him proprio jure as a Restriction granted to him by his Mother and as to the Reason of Reduction upon the Act of Parliament There was here neither Fault nor Fraud their being no Law to hinder a Husband to give his Wife what Joynture he pleased which was never compted in defraud of prior Creditors nor is their any Restriction or proportion thereof but as the Parties agree which is always sustained in favorem dotium matrimonij and the Wife might take what Liferent the Husband was pleased to give her there was nothing to make her to restrict her self in favours of her Children for an aliment with restriction is no Deed of the Father but of the Mother It was answered for the Defenders that the reason of Reduction stood relevant seing in this case there was manifest Fraud in so far as this Liferent was exorbitant and unproportionable to the Fathers Estate whose hail Lands being only worth 1000. merks and having nothing but the Tocher which was 6000. merks he Infefts his Wife in the hail and yet restricted her to 600. merks and provided the rest to his Children and
granted a Bond to Livingstouns his Wife bearing that in respect he thought it convenient that they should live a part he oblieged him to pay her a certain Sum of Money yearly for her aliment and oblieged him never to quarrel or recal that Obligation being charged thereupon he Suspends on this Reason that it was donatio inter virum uxorem and so he might recal the same and now offered to Cohabite with his Wife and aliment her according to his Means It was answered that he had Renunced that priviledge in so far as he had oblieged himself never to Recal or come against this obliegment It was answered that though he had expresly Renunced that priviledge yet the Renunciation was donatio inter virum uxorem and he might therefore Recal and come against both The Lords found the Reason of Suspension and Reply relevant in time coming but not for the bygone time during which the Wife had actually lived a part and alimented her self Laird of Dury contra The Relict and Daughter of umquhil Dury his Brother Eodem die DVry being Served Tutor of Law to his Brothers only Daughter pursues her Mother for delivery of her to be Educat by her Tutors It was alleadged that he was to succeed her and so could not have the Custody of her Person 2. That she was but nine years old and her Mother unmarried and so she was the fittest person to Educate her especially seing she was the only living Child of many and so not likely to be lively It was answered that the Tutor insisted not for the custody of his Pupil himself but condescended on several Persons with whom she might be Educate and alleadged that she having 40000. pounds of Provision out of the Family there was no Reason she should be keeped by her Mother and Disposed of at the pleasure of her Mothers Friends The Lords Decerned the Child to be delivered to Mr. Alexander Gibson one of the Clerks to be Educate with him but superceeded Execution of the Sentence till Whitsonday come a year that she might be delivered to her Fathers Friends before she was eleven years old and could have any thoughts of Marriage Watson contra Fleming Eodem die THere being an Infeftment of Annualrent granted out of Lands and Teinds and an Assignation to the Teind Duties in so far as extended to the Annualrent The Teinds and Lands were thereafter appryzed from the common Author before the Annualrenter had obtained Possession by his Real Right of the Annualrent but only by his Assignation to the Teind Duties It was alleadged by the Appryzer that the Assignation to the Teind Duties could give no longer Right then the property thereof remained in the Cedents Person which Ceasing by the Appryzing the Assignation ceased therewith as is ordinarly and unquestionably sustained in Assignations to Mails and Duties of Land It was answered that there was great difference betwixt Lands which require Infeftment to transmit the same and Teinds which require none but are conveyable by an Assignation for if this had been by an Assignation to the Tack of Teinds protanto it would have been unquestionably valid and therefore being an Assignation to the Teind Duties it is equivalent as a Disposition to Lands which would carry the Right of a Reversion though not exprest and though there were no more to Dispone but the Reversion only It was answered that if the Assignation had been to the Teinds That is to the Right or if it had been to the full Teind Duty in the Tack or of certain Lands then the case might have been dubious but being not of the Teind Duties of any particular Lands but out of the first and readiest of the Teinds of several Lands it was not habilis modus Which the Lords found Relevant Town of Glasgow contra Town of Dumbarton Eodem die THere being mutual Declarators one at the Instance of the Town of Dumbarton for Declaring that they had Right by their Infeftments that all ships coming within Clyde should make their Entries at Dumbarton and that they should pay Anchorage for all Ships Anchoring in the River of Clyde being within their Infeftment even from the Water of Leven to the head of Lochluny within which bounds is the ordinar station of New-wark Potterig and Inchgrein and above which no Vessel above 24. Tuns goes up Clyde and likewise for the Measurage whereby all Ships casting Anchor there took the Firlots of Dumbarton and measured with payed 8. pennies of the boll therefore and Weightage which is a Duty for their Weights and also Tunage being so much out of every Tun of the Burden of each Ship And on the other part Glasgow pursues Declarator of their Liberty to Traffick freely in the River of Clyde and to make Entry at their Burgh and to be free of any such burden at Dumbarton The Lords before answer having ordained either Party to adduce such Writs and Witnesses as they will make use of in the Cause for instructing these Burdens the Possession thereof Interruptions of the same and Liberty therefrom which all being adduced Dumbarton produced their original Charter Erecting them in a free Burgh by King Alexander in Anno 1221. and another Charter also by King Alexander repeating their Priviledges of Burgh as free as Edinburgh or any other Burgh within the Kingdom cum custumiis teloniis and also a Charter in Anno 1609. Ratifying the former Charter and particularly expressing all these Burdens in question in the novodamus thereof and also produced their Entry Books bearing the Merchants of Glasgow to have Entred their Ships at Dumbarton and to have taken the measures of Dumbarton for measuring their Salt and to have payed the Duties thereof and obliging themselves to make use of no others these Voyages begining at the year 1616. and continuing till the year 1657. in the beginning whereof there was ordinarly one Ship every year and thereafter several Ships every year Glasgow did also produce their ancient Infeftments by King Alexander mentioning a prior Infeftment by King William Erecting them into a free Burgh with their Books of Entries of several Ships for divers years with an Interlocutor of the Lords in Anno 1609. wherein Dumbarton having charged for all the Duties now in question Glasgow Suspended and Dumton insisted for none of these in question but only for Entries and the Lords found that the Merchants of Glasgow might either Enter at Glasgow Dumbarton or any other free Burgh where the Kings Customers were and might break bulk there with a Contract between Dumbarton and Glasgow in Anno 1590. oblieging them to concur against unfree-men and not to break bulk upon the River but in their Towns and in case of any difference six of each Town to meet at Ranfrew and decide the same and thereupon alleadged that they being a free Burgh and having the precedence of Dumbarton both in Parliament and so acknowledged by the said Contract and enjoying equal and free
is preferable to the Rebels base Infeftment It was answered that the King or his Donatar needed no possession nor can be prejudged for want of Diligence The Lords found the Creditors alleadgeance relevant Iack contra Mowat Eodem die THE Lords found that Iack having obtained Decreet as Assigney by his Father it was relevant for the Debitor to alleadge and prove by the Assigneys Oath that the Assignation was without a cause onerous and by the Cedents Oath that the Debt was payed before Intimation Sir Henrie Hoom contra Sir Alexander Hoom. Iune 14. 1666. IN the Cause debated yesterday betwixt Sir Henrie Hoom and Sir Alexander Hoom. It was further alleadged for Sir Alexander Hoom that the Rebel had not only five years possession but was Infeft by an Infeftment holden of his Father which was cled with Possession before the Appryzers charge against the Superior in so far as the Infeftment bore a reservation of the Fathers Liferent and so the Fathers Possession was the Rebells Possession and was sufficient to validat the base Infeftment seing there could be no other Possession attained during his Fathers lifetime or at least there was reserved to the Father a yearly Rent and the Rebel gave his Father a Warrand in Writ to continue his Possession of such of the Lands for the same The Lords ordained the Donatar to condescend whether the Rebells Infeftment proceeded upon his Contract of Marriage And he declaring that it was by a distinct Right thereafter The Lords found the Possession of the Father not relevant it being betwixt Conjunct Persons privat and suspect For they thought if possession by such Reservation betwixt Father and Son were sufficient the Creditors would hardly be secure Dumbar contra Lord Duffus Eodem die THE Lord Duffus having obtained a Decreet of removing against Dumbar his Tennent and having execute the same by Letters of Possession The Tennents raises Suspension and Reduction of the Decreet and a Summons of Ejection the Reason of Reduction was that the Sheriff had done wrong in repelling and not expressing in the Decreet a relevant Defense 2dly That the Tennent could not be decerned to remove because he was already removed irregularly by Ejection and ought not to be put to defend in the removing till he were repossest spoliatus ante omnia est restituendus which he instructed by an Instrument taken in the hand of the Clerk of Court and where it was replyed before the Sheriff that he had not found Caution for the violent Profits He answered that he needed not seing the Pursuer himself was in possession by the Ejection It was answered that the Lord Duffus offered him to prove that all he did was to put in some Corns and Plenishing in an ouâ— house long after the warning of the Tennent that had taken the Roum and that he continued to possesse all the rest of the house and the whole Land by his Cattel till he was Legally removed and neither the Family nor Goods of the new Tennent came in till then It was answered that the alleadgeance was contrair to the Tennents Lybel of Ejection bearing that he was dispossest both from the house and Lands The Lords considering that the Tennents was only positive in Ejection from the House and had once acknowledged that he was not Ejected from the Land they Assoâ—lzed from the Reduction of the Decreet of Removing but they sustained the Action of Ejection and Repelled the Defenses as contrair to the Lybell Reserving to themselves the modification of the violent profits and the other party to debate whether after the Decreet of Removing the Tennent should have re-possession or only the profits or damnages George Tailzor contra Iames Kniter Junâ— 15. 1666. GEorge Tailzor having Appryzed some Lands in Perth set a Tack of a part of it to Iames Kniter who thereafter Appryzed the same Tailzor now pursues a Removing against Kniter who alleadged absolvitor because he had Appryzed the Tenement within year and day of the Pursuer and so had Conjunct Right with him It was answered that he could not invert his Masters Possession having taken Tack from him The Defender answered it was no inversion seing the Pursuer by Act of Parliament had Right to a part but not to the whole and the Defender did not take Assignation to any new Debt but to an old Debt due to his Father The Lords sustained the Defense he offering the expenses of the Composition and Appryzing to the first Appryzer conform to the Act of Parliament Alexander Stevinson contra Laird of Hermishills Eodem die ALexander Stevinson as Assigney by his Father pursues Hermishills for payment of a Bond who alleadged absolvitor because the Defender as Heir to his Father had right to a Bond due by the Pursuers Father before the Assignation after which the Assignation was a Deed infraudem Creditorum and so null It was answered non relevat unless the Cedent had been Bankrupt or at least insolvendâ— The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Answer The Defender furder alleadged Compensation upon the said Bond which was relevantâ— against the Pursuer both as Heir to and as Assigney by his Father It was answered non relevat against the Pursuer as Executor but for his fourth part being one of four Executors 2dly The Defenders Father was Tutor to the Pursuer nondum reddidit rationes The Lords found that Compensation being equivalent to a discharge taking away the Debt ipso facto it might be proponed against any of the Executors in solidum but in regard the Tutors accompts were depending the Lords sisted his Process till he Tutors Compts proceeded Sir Robert Sinclar contra Laird of Houstoun Eodem die SIr Robert Sinclar pursues a Poynding of the Ground of the Lands of Leni upon an old Annualrent of 20. merks Constitute above a 100. years agoe Houstoun alleadged absolvitor First Because he brooked these Lands past Prescription peaceably without any pursuit upon this Annualrent 2dly Because this Annualrent was base and never yet cled with Possession and his Infeftment was publick It was answered to both that the Pursuer produced a Decreet of Poynding the Ground in Anno 1608. Since which the Pursuers Minority being deduced it is not 40. years Likeas there is produced a Precept of Poynding for the said Annualrent It was answered that the Decreet in Anno 1608. was only against the Tennents and Possessors and so is null the â—eretor not being called It was answered First That albeit the Decreet had been defective for not calling the Master yet it was sufficient to interrupt Prescription 2dly It was sufficient to give possession and to validat a base Infeftment by a civil possession for as natural possession by the Tennents payment would have been sufficient though without their Masters knowledge or consent So a Decreet yea a citation against them is sufficient for a possession as being equivalent to a natural possession and albeit the Proprietar could not be
Pursuer after the Crime and he having pursued Argyl for compt and reckoning in anno 1655. does not constitute any new voluntarâ— Right nor can it be any way collusive being for an anterior cause and after a pursuit and therefore it must work this much to show that the 5 years was interrupted and in the Course thereof both the Pursuer and Forefaulted Person acknowledged this Right in question The Lords found the Reply relevant upon the Deeds of Interruption alleadged by the Pursuer joyntly to elid the Act of Parliament Mr. Iohn Harper contra his Vassall Iuly 25. 1666. MR. Iohn Harper pursues a Declarator of Non-entry against his Vassall who alleadged that he was only lyable for theretour Maills till the Decreet of general Declarator was obtained It was answered the common custome was that from the Citation in the general Declarator Mails and Duties were due in the special because the general Declarator declares the Non-entry since the date of the Summons and so the Mails and Duties are not due from the date of obtaining the Decreet but from the years decerned therein which is from the date of the Summons The Lords found the Mails and Duties due since the time of the Citation and not only since the time of the Sentence Earl of Southesk contra Marquess of Huntly Iuly last 1666. EArl of Southesks cause mentioned 23 Iuly last was this day advised as to another Defense viz. That my Lord Argyl had right to Beatouns Appryzing of the Estate of Huntly which was long anterior to the Pursuers Infeftment and whereunto Huntly hath right as Donatar to Argyl's Forefaulture This Coutract of the Cumulative Wodset being granted in Anno 1656. It was answered that Beatoun before he was Infeft upon that Appryzing had renunced all benefit of the Appryzing and discharged the same in so far as it might be prejudicial to the Pursuers Right which is presently instructed It was answered that Renunciation was but personal and was never Registrat and so could not be effectuall against any singular Successor much less against the Kings Donatar having a real Right It was answered that Appryzings are not of the nature of other real Rights but they may be taken away by Intromission Payment or Discharge of the Appryzer and there needs no Resignation nor Infeftment It was answered that albeit by the Act of Parliament 1621. Appryzings may be taken away by Intromission and that it hath been extended to payment yet never to such personal Back-Bonds The Lords found the Appryzing to be taken away by Beatons Back Bond renuncing the same in so far as concerns this Pursuer and found the same relevant against the Donatar Thomas Crawfoord contra Town of Edinburgh Eodem die THomas Crawfoord having Gift of ultimus haeres of a person to whom the Town of Edinburgh was Debitor pursues for payment thereof The Defender alleadged no Process till the Gift were declared The Pursuer answered no necessity of a Declarator in this case more then in a Gift of Recognition and Waird and that there was no person that could be particularly cited The Lords found the Defense relevant that this Gift behoved to â—e declared albeit it were but upon a Citation generally against all and sundry at the Mercat Cross. Sir Lodovick Gordon contra Sir Iohn Keith Eodem die SIr Lodovick Gordon being Assigned to a Sum due to Sir Robert Farquhar by Sir Iohn Keith pursues Sir John for payment who alleadged absolvitor because he had Right to the Sum himself as Donatar to Sir Roberts Escheat and that the Sum was Moveable albeit it bare Annualrent in so far as the Term of payment was not come It was answered that Sums were Heretable as to the Fisk by the Clause of Annualrent and the only exception was that if the Term of payment of the Annualrent was not come the Same was Moveable and nothing in relation to the Term of payment if the Annualrent was come due before the Rebellion The Lords found that the coming of the Term of payment of the Annualrents made the Sum to become heretable as to the Fisk and therefore repelled the Donatars defense Merchants in Dundee contra Spruce Englishman November 3. 1666. SOme Merchants of Dundee having sold a considerable quantity of Winesto one Spruce an Englishman they pursue him for the price and because he disappeared and no body came to receive the Wines they supplicat the Lords that they would give warrand to them to sell the Wines least they should perish and to be lyable only for the best price they could get for them they did also represent that Spruce had a Factor in Edinburgh who being cited by a Macer did not appear The Lords refused the Supplication and found that the day of the appearance of the Summons not being come and the Englishman neither being present nor oblidged to be present they could do nothing against him more then if he had not be in cited and so could not sequestrat nor appoint the Wines to be sold but they lowed the Partie to protest that they had done all diligenceâ— that the Wines might not perish whereof the Lords would take consideration in any Process that should occure Thomas Canham contra Iames Adamson November 7. 1666. JAmes Adamson having disponed a Tenement to Ioseph Iohnstoun who married his Daughter in Conjunct-fee and the Heirs betwixt them which failzing to devide between their other Heirs in the Disposition there was expresly this Clause providing that the said Joseph and his foresaids make payment to the said James Adamson or any he shall name the Sum of six hundred pounds wherein if he failzie the said Right and Disposition shall expire ipso facto In the Infeftment the former Clause was repeated but not the Clause Irritant This Canham appryses the Land from Joseph Johnstoun upon Joseph's debt and being Infeft did pursue James Adamson for removing who objecting the proviso was notwithstanding decerned to remove Now he pursues for the Maills and Duties during his occupation James Adamson alleadges that he ought to have the 600 lib. because he had disponed with that provision It was answered this was but personal to pay and could never oblidge a singular Successor and all the Pursuer could do was to proceed upon the Clause irritant by way of Declarator The Lords in the end of the last Session having only seen the Disposition containing the said Clause but not the Infeftment repelled the Defense but reserved the Declarator but now having seen that the proviso of payment was in the Infeftment the cause being so favourable a person disponing to his own Daughter and good Son and the Disponer yet in possession they did without multiplying furder Process sustaine it by exception George Shein contra James Chrystie November 15. 1666. GEorge Shein having pursued umquhil David Chrystie as charged to enter Heir to James Chrystie his Father for payment of a Debt of his Fathers David renunces to be Heir whereupon George
obtained Decreet cognitionis causa and David being now dead he pursues James Chrystie as now appearand Heir to his Debitor for Adjudication of an Annualrent as belonging to the Defunct Debitor out of the Lands of Bassilie It was alleadged for the Defender absolvitor because that Annualrent was but base never cled with possession and the Defender stands validly Infeft singulari titulo The Pursuer answered that the Defense is not competent hoc loco when the Pursuer is but suo periculo craving Adjudication of his Debitors Right and cannot be forced to dispute the same till after Adjudication he use diligence for getting of the same but this Defense will be Competent whensoever upon his Adjudication he shall pursue The Defender alleadged a Pratique betwixt Sâ—haw of Sornbeg and the Lord Forrester wherein Forresters publick Infeftment was excepted in the Adjudication Yet the Lords shewed no Inclination to follow that Pratique and therefore Repelled the Defense and Adjudged Mr. Iohn Abercromie contra Anderson Eodem die MR. Iohn Abercromie as Assigney having pursued Anderson as Debitor for the Debt Assigned he alleadged no Process because the Assignation was posterior to the date of the Summons and Executions so that the Assignation being his sole Title the Process could not be sustained It was answered that the Defender had no prejudice and that the Cedent concurred It was answered that the Summons was not in the Cedents name and so his Concourse could operat nothing so that the Decreet thereupon would be null For in the like case the Lords last Week in the Cause betwixt David Hamiltoun and Iohn Kennedy and Symintoun Reduced an Appryzing led tvventy years since because the Appryzing proceeded upon a Charge to Enter Heir and some of the Debts vvere Assigned to the Appryzer after the date of the Charge As to which the Lords found the Appryzing null The Lords sustained the Defense and found no Process and had respect to the said Decision of Reduction of the Appryzing which they found to be as is râ—aâ—ed though it was alleadged that after so long time an Appryzer was not oblieged to produce the Letters of Appryzing or Charge to Enter Heir or Executions yet seing de facto these were produced and deduced in the Appryzing and mentioning the dates as aforesaid the same was Reduced pro tanto but there was no debate reported whether it should stand pro reliquo or how far it should extend seing the Appryzer as to the rest offered to prove it satisfied by Intromission Alexander Downy contra Robert Young Nov. 17. 1666. UMquhil Alexander Downy granted an Assignation to his Oye Alexander Downy of tvvo Bonds vvho finding that after his Goodsires Decease Mr. Iohn Hay vvas Confirmed Executor to his Goodsire and had given up these bonds in his Inventar but had not recovered payment He Confirms himself Executor ad non Executa to his Goodsire and pursues the Debitors for payment of the Bonds Compearance is made for Robert Young who alleadges that he is Executor Daâ—ive to Mr. John Hay vvho Execute Downies Testament by obtaining Sentence for payment of their Bonds so that the Bonds vvere no more in bonis of Alexander Downie but of Mr. John Hay and that the Testament being Execute by Decreet there could be no Executor ad non executa to Downie the first Defunct It was answered that the Testament was not Execute by a Decreet unless the Executor had obtained payment especially where the Executor was a meer stranger and was neither nearest of Kin Creditor nor Legatar The Lords found the Testament of Downie Execute by Hay by the Sentence obtained in Hayes Name and therefore found that Alexander Downie the Oye his Confirmation as Executor ad non executa null It was further alleadged that Downie being not only Executor but Assigney by his Goodsire the Assignation though it had been but a Legacy would have been sufficient against Mr. Iohn Hay who is the Cedents Executor and therefore is also sufficient against Young who is the Executors Executor and so represents the first Defunct Downie the Cedent It was answered that Young was not only legitimo modo the Executor but he is also Creditor of the first Defunct Downie in so far as he is Donatar of the Escheat of Iohn Hilstoun and thereupon has obtained Declarator and so is in the place of Iohn Hilstoun to whom umquhil Alexander Downie was Debitor by his Ticket produced whereby Downie acknowledges that he had in his hands Goods worth 6000 pounds belonging to him and Hilstoun in Copartinary and obliged him to be comptable therefore which is anterior to the Assignation granted to Downies own Oye for Love and Favour whereupon he hath Reduction depending against the Assignation as in fraudem Creditorum It was answered that the Ticket in relation to the Copartinary was not liquid bearing only an Obligment to be comptable with express Exception of desperat Debts and others The Lords found that in respect the Debt was not liquid Downie the Assigney ought to be preferr'd and get payment but Ordained him to find Caution that in case Young prevailed he should refound William Blackwood contra Adam Purves Nov. 20. 1666. ADam Purves pursues Reduction and Improbation of two Bonds alleadged granted by him to Ianet Baxter and of an Appryzing led thereon against certain Tenements in Edinburgh belonging to him and craved Certification contra non producta William Blackwood to whom by progress the Right is now come produces the Appryzing and the Extract of one of the Bonds whereupon it proceeded and alleadges no Certification against the Letters and Executions of the Appryzing after so long time the Appryzing being led in Anno 1621. and no Process of Reduction Rais'd till after the year 1650. Which the Lords found Relevant Likeas he further alleadged no Certification for not production of any of the principal Bonds because they were Registrat in the Registers of Session and the Principals were lost The Pursuer answered that there were pregnant Points of Falshood viz. Purves having gone and left the Kingdom in Anno 1618. And having been a Souldier Abroad till the year 1630. and these Bonds and the Appryzing thereon both in one Month and the Bonds granted to a Woman who had no such Estate but the Servant of a Waiter of an evil Fame and one Blair a Witness who was hang'd for Falshood The Lords refused Certification for not production of the principal Bonds but prejudice to the Pursuer to insist in his Improbation by these or other Evidences by the direct manner but they admitted Certification against that Bond the Extract whereof was not produced yet conditionally to a time that the Defender might upon the Adminicle of the Appryzing Insist to prove the Tenor. The Parochioners of Port Supplicant Decem 4 1666 THe Parochioners of Port having built a Manse upon the Gleib to their Minister where there was no Manse before and having valued the same according to the late Act
far as his Fathers Liferent was reserved thereby and his Father Possessing by vertue of the Reservation did validat his Infeftment 2ly Albert the Fathers own Possession could not be sufficient yet the Father having Transmitted his Right to Watson and Watson Possessing the Suspicion of â—â—mulation ceased and there is a Disposition produced by the Father to Watson which though it bear to be of the Fee yet can import no more but to be of the Liferent seing the Father had no more neither needs it have an Infeftment seing it hath but the effect of an Assignation to a Liferent It was answered that if the Father had expresly assigned his Liferent reserved in the base Infeftment it might have been the ground of a question whether the Assigneys Possessing so would have validat the base Infeftment But since the Father has not taken notice of the Reservation but Dispones as Heretor it clears that he did not Possess by the Reservation but by his own prior Right The Lords found the Reason of Reduction and Reply Relevant and that the Fathers Possessing by himself or Watsons Possessing by himself could not validat the base Infeftment Charles Cass contra Mr. Iohn Wat. Eodem die DOctor Cass having taken Infeftment of an annualrent out of the Lands of Robertland in name of Cockpen and Adam Wat Charles Cass as Heir to the Doctor pursues Mr. Iohn Wat as Heir to his Father for Compt and Reckoning of the Mails and Duties and Charges him with the hail Rental being intrometted or ought to have been intrometted with by him and his Father by vertue of the Trust in their Person and also Adam Wat took a gift of Tutory to the Pursuer and so is lyable as his Tutor The Defender answered that his Fathers Name being borrowed on Trust could lay no Obligation on him to do any Diligence but what he thought fit seing by his Back-bond he was obliged to denude himself whenever the Doctor pleased and the Pursuer has reason to thank him for what he did and not burden him with what he omitted seing he had no allowance therefore and as for the Tutory there was a multiple Poinding all the time thereof depending among five or six Parties pretending Right by the dependence whereby the Tutor was excluded The Pursuer answered that the Defenders Name was not borrowed without his knowledge but that he accepted thereof and entred to Possession and as an Appryzer is not obliged to Possess but if he Possess must be answerable for the Rents of the Lands conform to the Rental so must the Defender The Lords found the Defender not lyable to Diligence by vertue of the Trust albeit he did Possess but Ordained him to Compt for his intromission and to condescend what Diligence his Father did as Tutor that if he be found deficient therein there might be an additional Accompt to what he intrometted with Mr. Iames Cheap contra Mr. Iohn Philip. Decem. 19. 1666. MR. Iames Cheap charges Mr. Iohn Philip to fulfil a Minute of Alienanation of the Lands of Ormestoun sold by Mr. Iames to Mr. Iohn whereby Mr. Iohn was obliged to pay 25500 merks as the price or to assign sufficient Bonds therefore He Suspends and offers to Consign Bonds and amongst the rest a Bond of 8000 merks due by the Town of Edinburgh The Charger alleadged that he was not obliged to accept that Bond because at the time of the agreement and Subscription of the Minut the Charger particularly excepted the Town of Edinburghs Debt and the Suspender declared that it should be no part of the price which he offered to prove by the Writer and Witnesses insert in the Minute The Suspender answered that Witnesses were not competent in this Case where the words of the Minute are not dubious but clear and general of any sufficient Debt for if this were sustained the alteration of the price as well as the manner of payment might be proven by Witnesses It was answered that it was no way alike nothing being here in question but the manner of payment and not the quantity of the price The Lords Ordained the Writer and Witnesses to be Examined before answer Ianet Thomson contra Stevinson Eodem die IN the Reduction on Minority at the Instance of Ianet Thomson contra Stevinson The Lords Ordained the Pursuers Mother to be received Witness of her Age cum nota there being a Testificat already produced and there being 30 or 40 years since the Pursuers Birth after which time it was not likely that others would remember but she was ordained to Deponâ— who were Witnesses at the Birth and Baptism and these to be Examined Corstorphin contra Martines Decem. 21. 1666. JAmes Corstorphin pursues a Reduction of a Disposition made by his Fathers Sister in lecto It was alleadged by Martines to whom the Disposition was made that he could not quarrel the same because his Father to whom he is Heir and the other Brethren and Sisters of the Defunct had approven whatsoever Testament Legacy or Disposition made or to be made by the Defunct of her Goods and Gear Debts and sums of Money and others whatsoever that she had or should have the time of her Decease so that she having made this Disposition he cannot quarrel the same The Pursuer answered First That the Ratification in the Terms foresaid could not be extended to Lands or Annualrents Constitute by Infeftment there being no mention of Lands Annualrents or Heretage therein 2ly It could not be extended to any Disposition but Legally made and therefore not to Dispositions on Death-bed The Defender answered that the Ratification bearing expresly sums of Money did comprehend all sums although Infeftment of Annualrent were granted for security thereof which being but accessory to the sum follows the same 2ly There could be no other effect of the Ratification if it were not to exclude the Heir from quarreling thereof as being in lecto for if the same was made by the Defunct in her leige poustie it were valide and unquarrelable in it self and albeit it bear not mention of Death-bed yet it expresses Disposition of all Goods she should happen to have the time of her Death so that if she had acquired Rights after her sickness contracted she might Dispone the same validly by this Ratification and yet behoved to be on Death-bed The Lords found this Ratificatiou not to extend to sums whereupon Infeftment of Annualrent followed which was carried but by one Vote and so they came not to the second Point William Yeoman contra Mr. Patrick Oliphant Eodem die WIlliam Yeoman having apprized the Lands of Iames Oliphant Son to Sir Iames Oliphant and Mr. Patrick Oliphant having also appryzed the same William insists on this reason that Mr. Patricks appryzing was satisfied by Intromission within the legal Mr. Patrick alleadged that his whole Intromission could not be countable to satisfie his Appryzing because the two part thereof did only belong to his Debitor and the third
in before but superceeded Execution in the Removing as to the House and Mains Possest be Milntoun till Martimass that in the mean time he might Insist in his Reprobators as he would be Served Countesse of Carnwath contra Earl of Carnwath February 22. 1667. THe Countess of Carnwath Insists in her Action of Poinding the ground It was alleadged for the Defender that the Countess Seasing was null not being Registrate conform to the Act of Parliament It was answered that nullity cannot be proponed either be the Granter of the Infeftment or any Representing him or by any person who is obliged to acknowledge the Infeftments but the Earl is such a Person that albeit he Brooks by a Disposition from his Father yet his Infeftment containes this Express Provision that his Father at any time during his Life may Dispone the Lands or any Part thereof and grant Infeftments Tacks or Annualrents thereof so that this being unquestionably an Infeftment he cannot quarrel the same upon the not Registration but if his Father had granted an Obliegment to Infeft the Defender could not have opposed the same much more the Infeftment being Expede It was answered that the Provision did not contain an Obligation upon the Defender to Dispone Ratifie or do any Deed but left only a Power to his Father to Burden the Lands which can only be understood being done legitimo modo and therefore the Infeftment wanting the solemnity of Registration is in the same Case as if there were no Infeftment and so is null The Lords Repelled the Defense and found the Seasine valide as to the Defender in respect of the foresaid Provision in his Infeftment Earl of Southesk contra Lady Earls-hall Eodem die THe Earl of Southesk being Infeft in certain Lands upon the Water of Eden and the Salmond Fishing peruse Declarator that Earls-hall hath no Right thereto The Pursuer produces an Infeftment in Anno 1558. in which after the Land is Disponed there followes a Clause una cum Salmonum in piscationibus in aquâ de Eden with a novo damus it was alleadged for the Defender that he hath the â—like Declarator against the Pursuer which he repeats by way of Defense and produces an infeftment of the same year of God bearing in the dispositive Clause una cum Privilegio piscandi in aqua de Eden solito consuet and alleadges that by vertue thereof he hath good Right to Fish in the Water and that he had been in Immemorial Possession by vertue thereof It was answered First That this Clause cannot carry Salmond Fishing which is inter Regalia and must be specially Disponed 2ly The Defenders Right though in the same year of God is yet some Moneths Posterior to the Pursuers and as to the Defenders Immemorial Possession it cannot consist nor give Prescription without a sufficient Title by Infeftment and it hath been frequently Interrupted by the Pursuer It was answered by the Defender that he and the Pursuer and the Laird of Reiris having three Thirds of one Barony all lying Rin-ridge the Kings granting the Pursuer his Third cum Salmonum piscationibus added to the Lands as a Pendicle thereof it cannot be understood exclusive of the other two Third Parts of the same Barony likeas Reiris hath the same Clause in his Infeftment and albeit Earls-halls Clause be not so express yet it not being the common Clause in the Tenendas cum piscationibus but in the Dispositive Clause of this special Tenor it must needs comprehend Salmond Fishing or otherwise it would have no Effect verba autem interpretanda sunt cum effectu and albeit the Clause were dubious yet it hath been in long possession Immemorial which sufficiently Instructs the Accustomed Fishing to have been before the same 2ly As to the Anteriority of the Pursuers Infeftment the Defenders offers to prove that his Predecessor was Infeft before him with this Clause that is in his own Infeftment produced 3ly Albeit the Defenders Right were Posterior yet it is sufficient to give him a Joint Right to the Salmond Fishing with the Pursuer because he offers him to prove that he hath fourty years peaceably Possest the Salmond Fishing as the Pursuer hath when ever they were in the River The Lords found that the Clause in the Defenders Infeftment albeit it had been prior to the Pursuers could not give Right to the Salmond Fishing in prejudice of the Pursuers expresse Infeftment of Salmond Fishing unlesse the Defenders Infeftment had been clede with Immemorial and fourty years peaceable Possession which being so alleadged by the Defender the Pursuer offered to prove Interruption and therefore a Term was granted to either Party to prove Mr. Iohn Elies contra Wishart and Keith Eodem die MAster Iohn Elies having Inhibit Elizabeth Keith his Debitor she did thereafter acquire a VVodset of certain Lands within the Shire where the Inhibition was published and thereafter upon payment of part of the Sums the VVodset Right was Renunced pro tanto and the rest being Consigned there is now a Process of Declarator of Redemption wherein Mr. Iohn Elies Compears and produces a Declarator at his Instance for declaring the Sums of the VVodset to belong to him and alleadges no Declarator of Redemption till the whole Sums contained in the VVodset Consigned be given up to him without respect of the payment or Renunciation of a part because it being done after his Inhibition it was null and so is craved to be declared by his Declarator It was answered First That Inhibitions can reach no further then to the Lands the Person Inhibit had the time of the Inhibition but not unto Lands he should happen to acquire after the Inhibition because the Inhibition bearing that the person Inhibit should not Sell or Alienat to the prejudice of the User of the Inhibition albeit she should Sell what thereafter he acquired the User of the Inhibition were in no other case then when the same was published the Land being both gotten and gone thereafter and if that were the effect of Inhibitions every provident person would Publish and Registrat them in all the shires of the Kingdom because they can only reach Lands lying in the shire where they are Registrated which was never done neither was it ever Decided that Inhibitions reached Lands acquired thereafter 2ly Inhibitions can never hinder persons having Right of Reversion to pay the Sums and the Wodsetter to Renunce because Inhibitions only Restrain Debar and Inhibit to Sell c. But doth not hinder him to pay his Debt or upon payment of the Wodset Sums to Discharge the Sums and Renunce the Lands these being Deeds necessar to which he might be compelled and if this hold no man might saflie pay an Heretable Band having Infeftment of Annualrent without searching the Registes which the most cautious man never did and for this alleadged the expresse Opinion of Craig that Inhibitions hinder not Discharges of Heretable Sums or Renunciations of VVodsets It was
the annus deliberandi be most ordinary in such Cases yet it is not limited thereto but must take place also in all Cases where the reason of the Law holds viz. where the Defender must be either absent and suffer Sentence or if he compear must found himself upon the Defuncts Right and so behave himself as Heir as in this case the Defender cannot alleadge Articles of Deduction or Discharge but upon the Defuncts Right for finding out of which Right the Law giveth him a year to inquire and use Exhibitions ad deliberandum ne incidat in damnosam haereditatem and therefore during that year he cannot be prest contestare litem The Lords sustained the Defense It was further alleadged by the Pursuer that now the annus deliberandi was past It was Duplyed for the Defender that albeit it was now past the Citation was used within the year so that that Citation cannot be sustained The Lords refused to sustain the Citation and found no Process till a new Citation but here the day of compearance filled in the Sâ—mmons was also within the year which if it had been after the year us like the Summons would have been sustained especially seing the Decision of this case extending the year of Deliberation to Declaratorie Actions in Custom had not occurred nor been decided Minister of Dalrymple contra Earl of Cassils Iune 27. 1667. THe Minister of Dalrymple having Charged the Earl of Cassils for his Stipend he Suspends on this Reason that he offered payment of the Bolls in the Ministers Decreet conform to Linlithgow Measure which was the common Measure of Scotland by the Act of Parliament and is by Act of Parliament the measure of Ministers Stipends It was answered that the Ministers Decreet of Locality was indefinit and mentioned no measure the meaning thereof was sufficiently cleared because it was offered to be proven by the Earls Oath that he payed ever since the Decreet of Locality being 15 years conform to the measure of Air and that he knew it was the common Custom of that Countrey to pay all Ministers with that measure The Suspender answered that his use of payment either by mistake or benevolence of more then what he was due could not oblige him to the future especially where the Minister did not found upon his decennalis triennalis possessio but upon a Decreet of Locality wherein though the measure be indefinit it cannot be understood to be any other measure then the common measure of Scotland seeing the Act of Parliament anent Ministers Provisions bears expresly that they shall have eight Chalders of Victual Linlithgow measure The Lords having considered the Decreet of Locality and that it did not extend to eight Chalders of Victual but to three Chalders of Victual and 400 pounds which is the rate of four Chalders of Victual at 100 pounds the Chalder as is ordinarly Rated by the Commission in that place of the Countrey they found the use of payment and common Custom of the Countrey sufficient to declare it to be the measure of Air seing by that measure it would not come up to eight Chalders of Victual Mr. Iames Dowglas contra William Leisk Iune 28. 1667. MR. Iames Dowglas as Donatar to the Liferent Escheat of William Leisk pursues a special Declarator against the Tennents for Mails and Duties It was alleadged for William Leisk that the Lands in question were Appryzed from William Leisk the Rebel and the Superiour granter of this Gift Charged to Infeft the Appryzer long before the Rebellion to which appryzing William Leisk has Right during his Life so that the Charge being equivalent to an Infeftment as to the time and to the anteriority of the Infeftment and by drawing it back to the Charge doth prefer the Appryzer from the time of the Charge It was alleadged for the Donatar that albeit a Charge against the Superiour be equivalent to an Infeftment in some cases Yet in other things it is not equivalent as it is not a Right sufficient for the Appryzer to Remove Tennents and therefore the Vassal is not denuded thereby otherwise the Superiour could have no Casuality after such a Charge because the Appryzer not being Infeft his Liferent could not fall It was answered for the Defender that albeit this consequence should follow it is the Superiours own fault that did not receive the Appryzer It was answered non constat it was his fault for he might have just reason to Suspend and albeit it were his fault the Law hath not determined this to be his Penalty to lose his Casualities The Lords Repelled the Defense and found the charge on the Appryzing did not denude the former Vassal but his Liferent fell and affected the Ground Sir Alexander Hume contra Creditors of Kello Eodem die SIr Alexander Hume being Donator to the Forefaulture of Iohn Hume of Kello did obtain a Warrand for Retouring the said Iohn five years in Possession of certain Lands before the Forefaulture but the Inquest served Negativeâ— and now he pursues a Reduction of the Retour on this Reason that it is contrary the Testimonies of the Witnesses adduced It was alleadged no Process because the Reduction of Retours is only competent by a Summons of Error in Latin under the quarter Seal It was answered that is only in the Case where the Assizers are insisted against for their Error and the constant Custome of the Lords has been to sustain a Summons of Reduction before themselves of this method The Lords sustained the Defense and refused Process albeit it was known to them that the Custom has been contrary of a long time before Sir Iohn St. clair contra Iohn Cowper Iuly 2. 1667. UMquhil Mr. Iohn Rae having two sisters and Heirs portioners the one married to Robert St clair and the other to umquhil Alexander Cowper the said Alexander and his Spouse as Heir portioner assigns to Robert St. clair a number of her Brothers Bands And likewise as Heir assigns him to the Maills and Duties of a Tenement of Mr. Iohn's for such Terms and in time coming Sir Iohn St. clair having appryzed Robert St. clairs Right pursues Iohn Cowper as Representing his Father to hear it declared that this perpetual assignation to the Mails and Duties did import an absolute Disposition of the Lands and did carry in consequence an obligment and all things to make the Disposition effectual and so to renew it into a legal Form containing a Procuratory and Precept The Defender alleadged absolvitor because his Father had granted no Disposition but only an Assignation and so the Defender could be obliged to do no further The Pursuer answered that this assignation behoved to be understood cum effectu and to be done to denude the Granter and to settle the Right of the Duties in the Purchaser and therefore whosoever gives the Right gives all necessaries in his power to accomplish it and the Informality of a Clerk ought not to Evacuat the Pursuers Right The
priviledged The Lords Repelled the Defense and found the Donatar lyable for the Rent in so far as ilk years intromission would extend to the Rent of that year George Schine contra Iames Christie Eodem die GEorge Schine having Adjudged an Annualrent and having Charged Iames Christie his Superiour to receive him He Suspends and alleadges he had Appryzed the same Lands before and that his Author was only Infeft base never cled with Possession The Lords Repelled the Defense hoc loco and ordained him to Infeft Reserving his own Right as accords Schaw contra Tennents Eodem die SChaw pursues certain Tennents for their Duties who produced several Discharges against which it was alleadged that the Discharges were null wanting Witnesses and were not Written with the Dischargers own hand and so were null by the Act of Parliament It was answered that Custome had introduced several exceptions from that Act as Bills of Exchange of the greatest importance which are valid being Subscribed without Witnesses albeit not holograph And in like manner the Discharges granted to Tennents which by long Custom through all the Kingdom use only to be subscribed by the Landlords without Witnesses and writen with another hand The Lords sustained the Discharges and would not put the Tennents to prove that they were truely subscribed unless they were offered to be improven in which case though the indirect manner was wanting they might be improven by comparison of Subscriptions and other Adminicles wherein less would serve then in other Improbations Sir Henry Hume and other the Creditors of Kello contra Sir Alexander Hume Iuly 6. 1667. SIr Henry Hume and others being both Creditors to Alexander Hume of Kello And Iohn Hume his Son Appryzed the Lands of Kello in anno 1649. And in anno 1653. Charged the Superior in anno 1661. Iohn Hume is Forefault upon the Treasonable Crimes committed in anno 1651. Sir Alexander Hume is Donatar to the Foresaulture the case of Alexander Humes Right before the Appryzing was that by Contract of Marriage Alexander Hume had Disponed several Husband Lands to Iohn reserving his own Liferent of certain Husband Lands The Father continued to possesse the Lands Reserved and the Son of the rest The Question is now concerning the Lands Reserved whereanent the Competition is betwixt the Creditors Appryzers and the Donatar It was alleadged for the Donatar that he ought to be preferred because any Right the Creditors had is but an Appryzing and a Charge without Infeftment which Charge albeit it be equivalent to an Infeftment in the Competition betwixt Con-compryzers yet it is no way equivalent as to the King for after the Charge all Casualities of the Superiority would fall to the Superior and so must the Casuality of Forefaulture fall to the King 2ly Though the Appryzers had been Infeft when they Charged their Infeftment would have been long after the committing of the Crime and there was nothing before the Crime but the naked Appryzing which was no real Right so that the Forefaulture devolving the Fee to the King with the burden only of such real Rights as the Superiour had consented to before the Cryme which cannot extend to this Appryzing which is no real Right or to the Charge and Infeftment thereon because after the Crime 3ly Albeit the Infeftment of the Son who was Forefault was base holden of the Father yet it coming in the Person of the King or his Donatar can no more be a base Right but becomes publick so soon as it is devolved to the King which was at the committing of the Crime before the Appryzers Infeftment or Charge It was answered for the Creditors that they ought to be preferred upon their legal Diligence for satisfaction of the lawful Debt contracted before the Crime because they had Appryzed before the Crime and had Charged the Superiour before the Sentence of Forefaulture Which Charge is equivalent to an Infeftment and the King succeeding in the place of the Forefault Person utiâ—ur jure privato and albeit noâ— voluntar Deed after the Committing of the Crime would be effectual against the King or his Donatar Yet an Appryzing before the Crime and a Charge before the Sentence or Process of Forefaulture is sufficient in favours of the Creditors especially seing the Superiority being unquestionably in their Father they might Charge him when they pleased and having Charged him they become in his place and cannot Charge themselves as Superiours of the Forefault Person The Lords preferred the Appryzers in respect of their Appryzing before the Crime and the Charge after before the Forefaulture It was further alleadged for the Appryzers that the forefault Persons Right being only base never cled with Possession their Appryzing against the Father who was not forefault was preferable It was answered for the Donatar that the Forefault Persons Right was cled with Possession in so far as the Forefault Person possest a great part of the Lands Disponed lying all together and of the rest the Fathers liferent being reserved the Fathers Possession was the Sons Possession It was answered that Possession of a part cannot be sufficient for the whole where there is an express Reservation hindering the Natural Possession of the rest and where the rest are actually possest by another Party neither can the Fathers Possession be the Sons because it is ordinarly found that Dispositions by a Father to his eldest Son and Infeftments thereon reserving the Fathers Liferent are not thereby cled with Possession And albeit in Reservations in favours of Wives the Husbands Possession be the Wifes Possession yet that is a special priviledge favore matrimonij dotis and is not competent to any other It was answered for the Donatar that a Reservation in favours of a Father in any gratuitous and clandestine Infeftment granted to the Son does not validate the same yet the Infeftment being for a Cause onerous viz. a Marriage which is a solemn and publick Act the Infeftment following thereupon is void of all suspition of Simulation and as an Infeftment to a Stranger reserving the Disponers Liferent would be valid by the Disponers Possession So must a Sons upon a Contract of Marriage otherwise great prejudice will follow Sons being frequently Infeft in their Fathers whole Estate reserving their Liferent of a part and ordinarly but basely Infeft to secure the Property being more desirous to Enter themselves as Heirs to their Fathers after their death if no posterior prejudicial deeds be done which is more honourable for the Family all the Infeftments would be overthrown being upon Debts contracted after the Infeftment The Lords being of different Iudgements in this Point were loath to decide them because the Case was decided by the former Vote Stevin contra Iohn Boid Iuly 9. 1667. IN a Tutor Compt at the Instance of Stevin against Iohn Boid these Queries were Reported by the Auditor and determined by the Lords 1. How soon a Tutor was obliged for Annualrent of the Defuncts Bonds that
that an Annualrent hath not the benefit of a possessory Judgement against a prior Annualrent The Laird of Glencorsse younger contra his Brethren and Sisters Ianuary 10. 1668. THe Laird of Glencorsse having Married his eldest Son and having Disponed to him his whole Estate with Warrandice after the Disposition he did Deliver certain Bonds of Provision in favours of his other Children unto these Children whereupon they Appryze the Lands Disponed to his Son in this Contract there was a Liferent reserved to the Father and nine thousand Merks of Tocher payed to the Father The Son pursues a Reduction of the Bairns Infeftment and Bonds in so far as might be prejudicial to the Disposition granted to him upon this Reason that the Bonds were no delivered Evidents before his Disposition It was answered that they were valide though not Delivered because the Fathers Custody was the Childrens Custody especially they being in his Family both at the time of the Subscribing of the Bonds and of the making of this Disposition and it was â—ever contraverted but that Bonds granted by a Father to his Children though never Delivered during his Life but found amongst his Writs after his Death were valide both to affect his Heirs and Executors The Pursuer answered that his Reason of Reduction stands yet relevant notwithstanding the answer because albeit it be true that Bonds Dispositions and Provisions in favours of Children are valide when they are Delivered by the Parents in their Life or if they have remained uncancelled in their Hands till their Death yet till Delivery or Death they are still pendent Ambulatory Rights and may always be recalled at the pleasure of the Granter and any Deed done by him expresly recalling them or clearly inferring his mind to recall them doth annul them before Delivery ita est the Pursuers Disposition bearing expresse Warrandice against all Deeds done or to be done by the Father granter of these Bonds doth evidently declare his mind that his purpose was not that these Bonds should affect these Lands otherwise he would either reserve the Bonds or a power to burden the Lands and if this were Sustained no Contract of Marriage Disponing the Fee to a Son could be secure it being easie to grant such Bonds and to keep them up above the Sons Head and therewith to affect the Fee yea it would be sufficient against any Stranger unlesse it were for an Onerous Cause 2kly There is not only a Revocation but these Provisions were no Debt of the Fathers prior to the Sons Disposition or Delivery for albeit the date be prior yet the time of their becoming a Debt is only Death or Delivery and therefore all Debt contracted or Deeds done by the Father before his Death or Delivery of the Bonds are prior as to the Obligation thereof to the Bonds so that the Sons Disposition is truly prior as to its Obligations to these Bonds The Defender answered to the first that albeit such Bonds be Revocable before Delivery yet here there is no expresse Revocation but only presumption inserred from the Fathers giving a posterior Disposition which is no sufficient ground either â—rom the Disposition or the Warrandice for the Fathers mind might have been that he would endeavour out of his Liâ—erent or Moveables to Portion his Children and so would not absolutely Burden the Fee but yet in case he should Die or not be able to do it he would not Revock the Bonds even as to that Right which is much rather to be presumed as being much more rational and probable seing there is not any Provision or power of Provision reserved in the Contract neither is there any competent way alleadged for providing of three Children but if this Sole presumption be sufficient though a Father should Dispone his whole Estate without any Reservation of Children or to be so inconsiderat as not to except his Aliment all prior Provisions for his Life-rent undelivered should cease and become ineffectual contrair to that Natural obligation of Parents to provide their Children against which no presumption can be prevalent As to the other ground Provisions though not Delivered can be in no worse case then Bonds delivered with a Condition that the Father might recall the same which would be valid from their Date if they were never actually recalled and so must Bonds of Provision be at least as to gratuitous Deeds after their Date though before Delivery as if a Father should grant Bonds of Provision to many Children at once and should Deliver some of them before the rest if he had not Means sufficient to pay all the Bonds first Delivered could not be thought to exhaust his whole Means and exclude the other Bonds of Provision but all would come in pari passu according to their Dates except their Diligence alter the Case The Lords notwithstanding of what was alleadged found the Reason of Reduction relevant and that the undelivered Bonds of Provision though prior in Date yet posterior in Delivery could not affect the Fee interveening Here there was much alleadged upon the Onerosity of the Pursuers Disposition which came not to be considered in the Decision Grant contra Grant Ianuary 11. 1668. WIlliam Grant of Markinsh pursues a Tutor Compt against Iohn Grant of Ballandallock his Tutor in which these points being reported to the Lords whether the Tutor were lyable for the value of Services of the Pupils Tennents by Harrowing Plowing and Shearing c. And for which the Tutor received no Money but the Services in kind The Lords found the Tutor not Comptable therefore because he could not force the Tennents to pay any price for the same And as to that point the Tutor being super-expended the Pupil might be Decerned upon the Pupils own Process against the Tutor without a distinct Process at the Tutor instance The Lords found he might Parkman contra Captain Allan Ianuary 14. 1668. CAptain Allan having obtained a Decreet against Parkman a Swede Adjudging his Ship Pryze upon these Grounds that she was Sailed with three persons of her Company being Hollanders and Danes being then the Kings Enemies and because she had carried of the Enemies Goods from Bergen in Norway to Amsterdam from whence having gone to France with Ballast and being Loaden there with Salt she did also carry in to France six Barrels of Tar which was sold in France as appears by an Accompt betwixt the â—kipper and his Factor in France bearing so much to be payed of the Kings and Towns Custom of the Tar which necessarly Imports that it was sold there likewise she carried in Stock-fish being Commeatus and Counterband Goods so that having sold several Lasts of Tar in Holland and these Barrals and Stock-fish in France which are clearly Counterband Goods and being taken in her return from France having in her the product of these Counterband Goods whereupon she was jâ—â—tly declared Prize conform to the Lord Admirals Commission ordaining Ships of Allies to be taken having
returns and therefore ordered an other Letter to be written to the Secretary to know the Kings Mind and the Custom of England in that point before answer and ordained the opinion of some Merchants to be taken whether Parkmans Ship Fraught in Norway to Holland and Disloaden there and thence going to France with Ballast not upon the account of the former Fraught but the Owners if it should be accounted one Voyage or two so that the return from France might be accounted the immediat return of the Voyage to Holland In this Processe the Lords by a former Interlocutor had found the taking on of the Men as they were qualified and proven to be no ground of seasure Dowgal Mcferson contra Alexander Wedderburn Eodem die DOwgal Mcferson having Charged Alexander Wedderburn of Kingennie Provost of Dundee for payment of a Sum of Money he Suspends on this Reason that the Sum was payable to Dowgal and his Wise in Liferent and contained a Clause of premonition and Requisition and the Sum to be Consigned in the Hands of the Dean of Gild of Dundee which was Consigned accordingly The Charger answered that he offered to prove by the Suspenders Oath that he took up the Money from the Dean of Gild and therefore he must re-produce the same with the Annualrents thereof since the Consignation It was answered that it being the Chargers fault that the Suspender was put to Consigne because he had not a Discharge granted by his Wife judicially that therefore he could not be lyable for Annualrent in that he uplifted the Soum unlesse it were proven he had made Profit thereof but he offered to Depone that he had all the Money still lying by him and got no Profit of the same and that he ought to have uplifted in regard he was lyable for the hazard of the Consignation The Lords found the Suspender lyable to produce the Money Consigned with the Annualrent since seing he uplifted the same without difference whether he made Profit or not The Baillie of the Regality of Killimure contra Burgh of Killimure Eodem die THe Heretable Baillie of the Regality of Killimure having Conveened and Amerciat a Person in the Burgh they Suspend on this Reason that the Burgh being a Burgh of Regality having its own Magistrats Inhabitants are only lyable to the Jurisdiction It was answered that the Burghs Jurisdiction being granted by the Lord of Regality is only cumulative and not exclusive of the Lord of Regality or his Baillie in the same way as the Jurisdiction of all Vassals is not exclusive of their Superiors Jurisdiction for the Burgh are Vassals Holding of him and therefore est locus preventioni and the first Citation without negligence is preferable Which the Lords found Relevant Earl of Argyle contra George Campbel Ianuary 15. 1668. THe Earl of Argyle pursues George Campbel to Remove from a Tenement of Land in Inerera who alleadged no Processe because the Pursuer produces no Infeftment of this Burgh or Tenement therein The Pursuer answered that he produced his Infeftment of the Barony of Lochow and offered him to prove that this is part and pertinent of the Barony The Defender answered that this Burgh cannot be carried as part and pertinent but requires a special Infeftment first Because by the late Marquess of Argyls Infeftment in anno 1610. produced this Burgh is exprest and not in the Pursuers Infeftment 2dly Because in the Pursuers Infeftment there is exprest particulars of far lesse moment 3dly Because a Burgh of Barony is of that nature that cannot be convoyed without special Infeftment The Pursuer opponed his Infeftment of the Barony of Lochow which is nomen universitatis and comprehends all parts of the Barony although there were none exprest and therefore the expressing of this particular in a former Charter or lesse particulars in this Charter derogat nothing it being in the Pursuers option to expresse none or any he pleases and albeit in an Infeftment of an ordinary Holding without Erection in a Barony Milns Fortalices Salmond Fishings and Burghs of Barony cannot be conveyed under the name of part and pertinent yet they are all carried in baronia without being exprest The Lords Repelled the Defence in respect of the Reply and found that this being a Barony might carry a Burgh of Barony as part and pertinent though not exprest albeit it was exprest in a former Infeftment and lesser Rights expressed in this Infeftment The Defender further alleadged no Processe because the Pursuers Infeftment is qualified and restricted to so much of the Estate as was worth and payed yearly fifteen thousand Pounds and the superplus belongs to the Creditors conform to the Kings Gift likeas the King granted a Commission to clear the Rental and Set out the Lands to the Pursuer and to the Creditors who accordingly did Establish a Rental wherein there is no mention of the Lands of Innerera and therefore they cannot belong to the Pursuer It was answered for the Pursuer that he oppones his Infeftment which is of the whole Estate and whatever Reservation be in Favours of the Creditors it is jus tertij to the Defender It was answered that the Defenders Advocats concurred for a number of the Creditors whom they named and alleadged that they would not suffer the Defender to be Removed seing they only can have Interest to these Lands in question The Pursuer answered that the Creditors Concourse or Interest was not Relevant because they have no Real Right or Infeftment but only a personal Provision that this Pursuer shall dispone and Resigne the superplus of the Estate in their Favours or otherwise pay them eighteen years purchase therefore at his option whensoever they shall insist Via actionis the Earl shall declare his option but they having no Infeftment cannot hinder the Donatar to Remove Parties having no Right which is the Creditors advantage and cannot be stopped by a Few of them likeas the whole Barony of Lochow is Set out by the said Commission to the Pursuer himself conform to their Sentence produced The Lords did also Repel this Defence and found that the Provision in Favours of the Creditors could not stop this Removing Earl of Kinghorn contra the Laird of Vdney Eodem die THe Earl of Kinghorn pursues the Laird of Vdney as representing his Father to Denude himself of a Wodset Right granted by the late Earl to the Defenders Father conform to the Defuncts Missive Letter acknowledging the Receipt of the Sums of the Wodset and obliging himself all written with his own Hand and craved that the Defender might Enter and Infeftâ— himself in the Wodset and Resigne in Favours of the Pursuer that the Lands might be purged thereof and insisted against the Defender first As lawfully Charged to enter Heir who offered to Renunce to be Heir The Pursuer answered he would not suffer him to Renunce because he offered himâ— to prove that he was lucrative Successor by the Disposition of the
Lands of Vdney whereunto their is an expresse Reservation in Favours of his Father to Dispone Wodset and grant Tacks and therefore any Deed done by his Father behoved to affect him at least the Fee of the Estate so that albeit this Letter be posterior to the Disposition of the Estate it must Burden the same and the Defender quoad valorem 2dly The Letter produced acknowledges a Wodset and payment made and it is offered to be proven that the Letter was anterior to the Disposition of Vdney so that by the Receipt of the Wodset Sums the Defunct was by the Nature and Tenor of the Rights of Wodset obliged to Resign in Favour of the Pursuer and therefore the Defender Succeeding to him by this Disposition after that obligement to Denude himself upon payment is obliged as Successor titulo lucrativo post contractum debitum to Denude himself and that the Wodset was prior to the Disposition of Vdney was offered to be proven The Defender answered that the provisions in his Infeftment could never affect him nor the Estate because there was nothing in the provision that the Estate should be lyable to the Debts contracted by the Defunct thereafter but only that he might Dispone or Wodset or Redeem for an Angel and it cannot be subsumed that the Letter produced doth import any of these but at most a personal obligement 2dly Albeit it were notour that there had been such a Wodset before the Defenders Disposition of his proper Estate yet it behoved to be also instructed that it was payed before that Disposition but his Fathers Missive after his Disposition could never instruct that it was payed or payed before and yet the Defender offered to Renunce all Right he had to the Wodset Lands or to suffer an Certification and Improbation to passe against the same seing they are not extant or produced or to consent that the Lords would declare upon the Letter that the Wodset thereby was Redeemed and Extinct which last the Pursuer would have accepted providing the Defender would give a Bond of Warrandice for his Fathers Deed and his own which the Defender refused The Lords proceeded to determine the Point in jure and as to that Point anent the provision in the Defenders Infeftment some were of opinion that any Debt contracted by the Father would affect the Estate others thought not there being no provision to contract Debt but to Wodset or Dispone which was not done and all agreed that the Case being new and now very frequent required a more accurat Debate but the Lords found that the Defenders Father having by his Letter acknowledged the Wodset and the payment thereof to which Wodset the Defender had no Right that any grant of Redemption by the Father after his Disposition to his Son was probative against the Son and that the Letter being proven Holograph did instruct the Wodset to be payed and therefore sound it relevant to the Pursuer to prove that the Wodset was before the Defenders Disposition and that it did import a conditional obligement that the Father should Resign upon payment and that the Sons Disposition being after the Wodset he was lucrative Successor after that obligation contracted by the Wodset Captain Strachan contra George Morison Ianuary 17. 1668. CAptain Strachan having obtained Decreet before the Admiral against George Morison for wrongous Intromission of a Loadning of Wine belonging to the Pursuer in anno 1638. which was brought home by him in the Ship called Stulla whereof he had an eight part and the Defenders the rest and the Pursuer being Skipper did upon his own Credit buy the Wine and having brought it home the Ship was broken at Newburgh and Loadning was medled with by the Defenders whereupon they are Decerned to pay conjunctly and severally George Morison raises Reduction on two grounds first That the Decreet was unjust in so far as the Defenders were Decerned in solidum each for the whole 2dly That there was no probation of any of their Intromissions but upon the Testimony of one Witnesse and Captain Strachans own Oath taken in Supplement It was answered to the first Reason that the whole Intrometters were justly Decerned in solidum first Because this was in it self a Spuilzie and albeit the Defender did not insist within three years yet he ought not to be excluded because he was in the Kings Service all the time of the trouble and fled the Countrâ—y at the time of this Intromission 2dly Because the prescription of the priviledge of Spuilzie is only in relation to violent profits and the Oath in litem and these are only lost if pursute be not within three years but the Parties being all lyable in solidum is not lost for the Intromission remaines still a wrongous Intromission and is not in the same case as a Vindication and Restitution of Goods in the Defenders hands without Violence or Vice and in many cases correi are lyable in solidum as Tutors or where the Intromission is joynt or promiscuous for it were against reason if there were many vitious Intrometters that the particular Intromission of each of them behoved to be proven which oft times is impossible as in the same case and likewise socij are lyable in solidum and here was a co-partnery betwixt these Parties It was answered for Morison that there was three years elapsed since the Kings Restauration before any pursute and though that had not been there is nothing that can stop that short prescription and therefore infancy or minority hinders not the course thereof and in this case the Decreet in question restricts to wrongous Intromission As to the second all the priviledges of Spuilzie are lost by the prescription and it was never found at any time that in wrongous Intromission the Parties were all lyable in solidum especially where the thing Intrometted with was divisible as Wines and as to the alleadged co-partinery there was nothing Lybelled thereon The Lords did not consider the poynt of co-partinery but found that in wrongous Intromission each Intromettor was not lyable in solidum but a joynt Intromission proven against many did inâ—er against each of them an equal share unlesse the Pursuer proved that they Intrometted with a greater share and found not a necessity to prove against each of them the particular quantity of their Intromission Walter Stuart contra Robert Acheson eodem die WAlter Stuart as being infeft in the Baronie of North-Barwick and being charged for the whole Taxation thereof Charges Robert Acheson for his Proportion according to the Stent Roll who Suspends on this Reason that his Interest is only Teinds which is only applyed to the Kiâ—k whereof he produces the Bishops Testificat and therefore by the exception of the Act of Convention he is free The Charger answered non relevat because the Suspender ought to have conveened at the Dyet appointed by the Act of Convention for making of the Stent Roll and there have instructed that his
or out of any other the Canons Portions of this Kirk George Shein contra Iames Christie Eodem die G Christison of Bassallie gave an Infeftment to his eldest Son of the Lands of Bassallie and to his second Son of an Annualrent of 86. merks forth thereof both of one date and both reserving the Fathers Liferent Iames Christie hath Right by Appryzing led against the eldest Son in his Fathers life to the Lands George Shein hath Right by Adjudication against the second Son to the Annualrent and pursues a poinding of the Ground It was alleadged for Iames Christie that Sheins Authors Right was base never cled with Possession and so null whereas his Right was publick by an Appryzing and had attained to Possession It was answered that the Fathers Liferent being reserved the Fathers Possession was both the Sons Possession and did validat both their Rights It was answered that a Disposition by a Father to his own Children reserving his own Liferent though Infeftment follow is alwayes accounted simulat and never accounted cled with Possession by the Fathers Possession as hath been frequently decided It was answeredâ— that albeit in Competition betwixt base Infeâ—tments granted to Children and Infeftments granted to Strangers upon onerous Causes the Childrens Infeftment though prior and though reserving the Fathers Liferent uses to be preferred yet here that holds not for both Infeftments are granted to Children both of one date and neither of them to Strangers or upon onerous Causes and therefore the Reservation here is without suspition of Simulation and the Fathers Possession must both validat the second Sons Annualrentâ— and the eldest Sons property Which the Lords found Relevant and that the Fathers Possession by this Reservation did sufficiently validat both the Sons Infeftments and that the Possession of one after his Death or of any succeeding in his Right did not exclude the other or his singular Successor Mr. Robert Burnet contra Swane Eodem die MR. Robert Burnet Tutor of Lâ—yes pursues for Mails and Duties of a Tenement in Aberdene It was alleadged for Swane the Defender Absolvitor because he stands Infeft in the Lands and by vertue of his Infeftment in Possession and albeit the Pursuers Infeftment be prior it is null neither being Registrat in the Register of Seasins nor in the Town Clerks Books of Aberdene according to the custom of all Burghs but hath been latent many years and no vestige of it in the Town Books so that the Defender was in bona fide to Contract with the common Authour and Apprize thereafter It was answered that the Act of Parliament excepted Seasins within Burgh and the Pursuer having the Town Clerks Subscription was not answerable for his keeping a Prothecal or Record Which the Lords found Relevant and sustained the Seasine Colquhoun and Mcquair contra Stuart of Barscub Iuly 1. 1668. THe Laird of Barscub having seued certain Lands to Colquhoun and Mcquair to be holden of himself in the Contract of Alienation there is a special Clause that because the Lands are holden Ward of the Duke of Lenox therefore Barscub is obliged to relieve these Feues of any Ward that shall fall in time coming Thereafter Barscub Dispones the Superiority of these Lands and by the Death of his singular Successor his Heir falls in Ward whereupon Sentence was obtained against the Feuars for the Ward Duties and the avail of the Marriage and they now pursue relief against Barscubs Heir upon the Clause of Warrandice above-written The Defender alleadged that the Libel was no ways Relevant to infer warrandice against him upon the said Clause because the meaning thereof can only be that he as Superiour and so long as he remained Superiour shall relieve the Feuars which ceases he being now Denuded of the Superiority otherwise it behoved to have imported that he should never sell the Superiority without the Vassals consent which no Law doth require or if the Lands had been Appryzed from him he could not be lyable for the Ward of the Appryzers Heir which is cleared by the ordinary Custom there being nothing more frequent in Charters than Clauses of absolute warrandice and yet none was ever overtaken thereby after they ceased to be Superiours The Pursuer answered that his Libel was most Relevant because this being an Obligement conceived in their favours by Barscub not qualified as Superiour no Deed of Barscubs without their consent can take it from them unless Barscub when he sold the Superiority had taken the new Superiour obliged to receive the Vassals with the same warrandice but now the new Superiour not being obliged by this personal Clause Barscub the old Superiour must remain obliged especially in a Clause of this nature which is express for all Wards to come The Lords Repelled the Defense and Sustained the Libel and found the Superiour albeit Denuded lyable for Warrandice Thomas Rue-contra Andrew Houstoun Iuly 3. 1668. ANdrew Houstoun and Adam Mushet being Tacksmen of the Excize did Imploy Thomas Rue to be their Collector and gave him a Sallary of 30. pound Sterling for a year thereafter he pursued Andrew Houstoun upon his promise to give him the like Sallary for the next year and in absence obtained him to be holden as confest and Decerned Which being Suspended he obtained Protestation and therefore raised Caption and apprehended Andrew Houstoun at Wigtoun who gave him a Bond of 500. Merks and got a Discharge and being Charged upon the Bond of 500. Merks he Suspends on these Reasons that Thomas Rue had granted a general Discharge to Adam Mushâ—t who was his Conjunct and coâ—reus deâ—endi afâ—er the alleadged Service which Discharged Mushâ—t and consequently Houstoun his Partner 2dly The Decreet was for Sallary and it was offered to be proven that Rue for his Malversation was by warrand from Ceneral Monk excluded from Collection that year and by the Discharge of the Decreet and this Bond both of the same Date and VVitnesses it did appear that this Bond was granted for the Decreet and if the Decreet were Reduced by the Reduction thereof depending the Bond would fall in consequence as granted for the same Cause The Charger answered that he was now not obliged to Dispute in relation to the Decreet First Because the Suspender had Homologat the same by taking a Discharge thereof and giving a Bond therefore 2dly There was not only a Homologation but a Transaction upon a Reference made by the Parties to â—aldone conform to his Attestation produced so that that Transaction cannot be recalled upon any pretence but is the most firm and Obligatory Contract of any The Suspender answered that his payment making and taking Discharge was no Approbation nor Homologation but that he might reduce the Decreet and repeat if he had payed or been poynded and so may retain especially seing it was done metu Carceâ—is he being taken with Caption and as to the Transaction he denies the same neither can it be instructed by Baldones Attestation but by the
Appryzing to be led ten years after his Commission and now having taken Right to the Appryzing himself he cannot therewith Exhaust the price especially against this singular Successor having acquired bona fide after a Decreet of Suspension in foro contradictorio when the Defender had Right to the said third Appryzing and alleadged nothing thereupon The Defender answered that he cannot be Excluded from his Defense by the Decreet of Suspension as being competent and omitted the time of that Decreet because Competent is only Relevant against Decreets in ordinary Actions but neither in Reason nor Custom is the same Relevant against Decreets of Suspension there being this evident difference that in Decreets of Suspension the Reasons must be instantly verified but in ordinary Actions there are Terms assigned for proving Defenses and so it hath ever been practised by the Lords The Pursuer answered albeit it was anciently the Custom to admit Competent and omitted only against Decreets upon ordinary Actions Yet by an Act of Sederunt in Anno 1648. or 1649. the same was extended to Decreets of Suspension and albeit through neglect of the Clerks the Act hath not been Booked The Session being interrupted by the War shortly thereafter ensuing yet it is notorly known and was in practice Anno 1653. when the Decreet was obtained against this Defender whereupon the Appryzing proceeds and that practice was both just and necessar for if Decreets might be Suspended as oft as the Suspender can produce another Writ the most solemn Sentences should be made Insignificant for the ground of Excluding things Competent and omitted is not only that publick Sentences upon compearance are as valid as Transactions which upon no pretence can be Rescinded that Pleas be not perpetual but also because they are omitted dolo animo protrahendi litem which is ever presumed unless another Cause be assigned wherefore they were omitted as noviter veniens ad notitiam which is Sustained even as to Decreets in ordinar Actions and if in no case competent and omitted be allowed in Suspensions we shall have no more Decreets in ordinar Actions but the Defenders will still be absent and will Suspend as oft as they can find different Grounds as if of one Sum one have twenty or thirty several Receipts he will raise as many subsequent Suspensions which will at least serve for as many Sessions and though it should be alleadged quod dolo omisit it would not be Relevant so that if the Suspender can purge his Fraud either as not knowing of the Writ whereon he hath again Suspended or as not then having it presently in his power to instruct it would be sufficient which clears the difference betwixt Decreets of Suspension and other Decreets to operat no further than that in Suspensions the Fraud is purged by showing that the Writ was not ad manum which is not so in ordinar Actions where Terms would have been assigned to get the Writ and albeit the Lords might by modifying great Expences bar the multitudes of Suspensions they could hardly do it justly if of the Law it were no fault and it is known the Lords are neither in use of nor have time for such modifications The Lords superceeded to give answer as to this Point till the Compt proceeded as to the Particulars but the Lords had no respect to the alleadgance upon the Inhibition seing no Decreet followed nor upon the Decreet Arbitral which they found not Equivalent to an Assignation or Precept but the Lords found the Commission contained in the minute not to oblige the Defender as to any Diligence and therefore found that as to that Point he might acquire the third Appryzing which would have excluded him albeit he might have prevented it by Diligence Mr. Robert Swintoun contra Iohn Brown December 18. 1668. MArgaret Adinstoun being Infeft in Liferent in certain Roods of Land near Hadingtoun she and her second Husband grants a Tack to Iohn Brown thereof for certain years and thereafter till he were payed of 400. merks owing to him by the Husband after that Husbands Death she being Married to a third Husband there is a Decreet of Removing purchast at her and that Husbands Instance against Iohn Brown but the Husband did not proceed to obtain Possession by vertue thereof but brevi manu Ejected Brown whereupon Brown obtained a Decreet of Re-possession now the said Margaret Adinstoun having assigned the Decreet of Removing to Mr. Robert Swintown he Charges Iohn Brown to Remove who Suspends on this Reason that he having obtained Decreet of Re-possession after the Decreet of Removing upon the Husbands violence cannot now be Removed without a new Warning The Charger answered that the Decreet of Re-possession bearing to be ay and while this Suspender was legally Removed and that in respect he had been put out Summarly and not by the preceeding Decreet of Removing which having now taken effect he being in Possession the Charger may very well Insist that he may now legally Remove by vertue of the Decreet of Removing The Lords Repelled this Reason in respect of the answer and found no need of a new Warning The Suspender further alleadged that he cannot Remove because he bruiks by vertue of a Tack granted by Margaret Adinstoun and her second Husband The Charger answered First That the Tack being only for four years specially and an obligement not to Remove the Tennent while the four hundred Merks were payed which is not a Tack but a personal obligement which cannot defend the Suspender against Mr. Robert Swintoun the singular Successor 2dly The Tack is null being Subscribed but by one Nottar The Suspender answered that a Right of Liferent not being Transmissible by Infeftment but only by Assignation the Assigney is in no better case nor the Cedent except as to the Probation by the Cedents Oath 3dly The Tack is Ratified judicially by the Wife in the Court of Northberwick which is more nor the concourse of any Nottar 4ly If need beis it 's offered to be proven by the Wifes Oath that the Subscription was truly done by the Nottar at her command The Charger answered that the judicial Ratification cannot supply the other Nottar because the same Nottar who is Nottar in the Tack as also Nottar in the judicial Ratification which is but done in a Baron Court So it is but assertio ejusdem notarij no stronger nor it was neither can it be supplyed by Margaret Adâ—â—stouns Oath de veritate facti because her Oath cannot be received in prejudice of her Assigney and though her self were Charger the Law requiring two Notâ—ars till both Subscribe the Writ is an unsubscribed Writ and in all matters of this nature parties may resile before Subscription The Lords found the Tack valid against the Wife Subscriber thereof and her assigney ay and while the sum thereof were payed but found the Tack was null as being but by one Nottar notwithstanding of the judicial Ratification being by the same Nottar
Decreet of modification and locality and albeit the Minister had Discharged his whole Teind yet as to the superplus which is the Tacksmans part the Discharge was meerly gratuitous and was not upon payment made and the Pursuer was willing to allow what he truely payed the Defender answered that in all Benefices and Tacks use of payment importing a verbal Tack is sufficient per tacitam relocationem till it be interrupted so that if the Minister had granted a Tack in Writ but for one year and the Defender had continued in Possession per tacitam relocationem he was bona fide Possessor fâ—cit fructus consumptos suos even albeit the Minister had no Right so his use of payment for so long a time must work the same effect neither can it be made appear that the Defender or his Predecessors payed more then what they now pay The Lords Sustained the Defense and found the Defender only lyable for use of payment until Citation or Inhibition Mr. George Johnstoun contra Sir Charles Erskin Lord Lyon Eodem die UMquhile Richard Irwing having Died Infeft in the ten Merk Land of Knok-hill his Son had a Son and four Daughters his Son being his appearand Heir and being Addebted a Sum to Mr. Iames Alexander he Charged him to enter Heir in special to Richard his Grand-father and Apprized the Lands from him whereunto Sir Charles Erskin has now Right the said Son being now Dead and never Infeft Mr. George Iohnstoun takes Right from the four Female Grand-children and Serves them Heirs to their Grand-father but before they were Infeft there was an Infeftment or Charge upon the Apprizing at the instance of Mr. Iames Alexander and in a former competition Sir Charles was preferred upon Mr. Iames Alexanders Right as denuding the Male Grand-child appearand Heir for the time in the same manner as if he had been Infeft now Mr. George Iohnstoun upon the Femals Right raises a Declarator to hear and see it found and declared that Mr. Iames Alexanders Apprizing was satisfied and extinct by Intromission before the legal was expired It was alleadged that the Pursuers as Heirs Served and entered to Richard their Grand-father had no interest to Redeem the Apprizing led against Robert their Brother unless they were also entered Heirs to their Brother which Robert if he were alive might Redeem the Apprizing against himself so that the legal Reversion being in his Person cannot belong to his Grand-fathers Heirs but to his own Heirs and as he or his Heirs could only Redeem so can they only declare the Apprizing to be satisfied by Intromission neither can the Reversion belong to two both to the Heirs of Robert who was Charged to enter Heir and to the Heirs of the Grand-father who Died last Infeft It was answered that Robert never having in his Person any real Right as never being Infeft albeit fictione juris the Act of Parliament gives the Creditors like Right upon his disobedience to enter being Charged as if he had entered yet that is a meer passive Title and could give no active Title to Robert or any representing him either to Redeem or to call the Apprizer to an accompt till they were entered Heirs to the person last Infeft for albeit the Creditor Apprizer has a real Right yet the disobedient appearand Heir has none and albeit the Lords might suffer the disobedient appearand Heir or his Heirs to Redeem the Apprizing because the Apprizer had no interest to oppose the same being satisfied much less can the Apprizer now oppose the Pursuers who being Infeft as Heirs to Richard have the real Right of Fee in their Person and consequently the Right of the Reversion of the Apprizing led against Richards appearand Heir which being a minor Right is implyed and included in the Property Which the Lords Sustained and found that the Heirs of the person last Infeft being Infeft might Redeem or declare against an Apprizer who Apprized from an appearand Heir lawfully Charged albeit they were not of that appearand Heir The Creditors of James Masson contra Lord Tarphichan Eodem die SEveral English-men Creditors to Iames Masson who lately broke being Infeft in several Annualrents out of Lands of his pursue Poinding of the Ground compearance is made for the Lord Tarphichan Superior and his Donator to the Liferent Escheet of James Masson who alleadged that James Masson being Ribel year and day before these Infeftments of Annualrent the Ground could not be Adjudged but the profits behoved to belong to the Superior and his Donator It was answered that the Superior or Donator had no Interest by the Rebellion of James Masson because before the Rebellion James Masson was Denuded in favours of his Son and he Received as Vassal so that the Vassal for the time not having fallen in Rebellion the Superior can have no Liferent Escheat The Superior answered that the Creditors of Masson having been once Vassal and as Vassal constituting their Annualrents they could not object upon the Right of his Son unless they had derived Right from his Son 2dly The Superior is also Creditor and hath Reduced the Sons Right as fraudulent in prejudice of him a lawful Creditor It was answered that the Superiors Right as a Creditor upon the Reduction doth not simply annul the Sons Fee neither doth it at all restore the Father again because it being but a Reduction to a special effect viz. that the Creditor may affect the Lands by Apprizing upon his Debt anterior to the Sons Infeftment notwithstanding of his Infeftment the Sons Fee stands but burdened with that Apprizing so that upon neither ground the Superior can have the Right of a Liferent Escheat of him who once was his Vassal but was Denuded before Rebellion and which is most competent to the Pursuers as well as if the Superior had been Denuded and another Superior Infeft if he or his Donator had been pursuing for a Liferent any person Infeft in the Land might well alleadge that he had no Interest as Superior being Denuded The Lords found that in neither case the Superior or Donator could have interest in the Liferent Escheat Mr. John Hay contra the Town of Peebles January 20. 1669. MAster John Hay the Clerk having pursued a Reduction and Improbation against the Town of Peebles of all Right of Ascheils belonging to him in Property containing also a Declarator of Property of the saids Lands of Ascheils and that certain Hills lying towards the Town-lands of Peebles are proper Part and Pertinent of Ascheils He insists in his Reduction and Improbation for Certification or at least that the Defenders would take Terms to produce The Defenders alleadged no Certification because they stand Infeft in these Hills in question per expressum and the Pursuer is not Infeft therein The Pursuer answered that he offered to prove that they were proper Part and Pertinent of the Lands of Ascheils whereof he produces his Infeftment The Defenders answered that till the samine were
of Inglistoun who had Married one of his Daughters and the Heirs of that Marriage whereby he Disponed his Estate of Crawfoordstoun to them with a Bond of 20000. pounds the intent whereof seems to have been that they might have Appryzed to make the Disposition effectual and she and William Lowrie having Deponed acknowledged that the Writs and Charter-Chist were carried out of Crawfoordstoun to Englistoun but Deponed that they knew not whether thir Writs were amongst them or not or whether they were formerly delivered to Inglistoun himself who is now dead There was in the Exhibition Libelled a Declarator that the Writs were null as not delivered and that being unwarrantably taken out of the Defuncts Charter-Chist after the Lords Order to the contrair they ought to be put back and Sequestrat till the Rights of Parties were Discust The Pursuers did now insist in this last member to the which it was answered that the Writs being Exhibit to the appearand Heirs ad deliberandum and they having seen them they could have no further interest but the Lady Crawfoordstoun Tutor to her Oy Inglistoun ought to have them up again who produced them neither is it nor can it be instructed that these Writs were unwarrantably taken out of the Charter-Chist after the Lords Warrand seing their Oaths bore that they knew not whether these were in the Charter-chist or not and therefore being a Pupils Writs in his favours produced by his Tutrix they cannot be taken from him or Sequestrat unless the unwarrantable medling therewith were proven 2dly By a Disposition of the Moveables to the Lady produced granted by the Defunct it bears a Delivery of the Keys of the Charter-Chist to her to be Delivered to Inglistoun with the Charter-Chist which is equivalent as if they had been Delivered to Inglistoun himself and she was content to be Enacted to produce them when ever the Lords found cause It was answered that the Lords Warrand being anticipat and the bulk of the Writs in the Charter-Chist carried away it must be presumed that these Dispositions and that Bond was amongst the rest and so must be returned in statu quo The Lords found this alleadgance Relevant unless the Defenders would instruct that these Writs were not in the Charter-chist the time of the Order but out thereof in Inglistouns hands and yet they allowed the Parties presently to Dispute whether albeit these Writs were in the Charter-Chist Inglistoun or his Tutrix should have them up or if they should remain Sequestrat Mr. Iames Drummond contra Stirling of Ardoch Ianuary 23. 1669. MR. Iames Drummond being Donator to the Escheat of the Laird of Glenegies pursues Exhibition and Delivery of a Bond granted by George Mushet to Iames Henderson containing 2000. merks principal and by him Assigned to umquhil Glenegies and thereby falling under his Escheat and the Bond being produced by Ardoch the Donator craves the same to be Delivered to Ardoch It was answered by Ardoch that the Bond ought not to be Delivered to the Donator because it cannot belong to him in respect that Mushet who by the Assignation became Debitor to Glenegies had two Bonds granted by him to Glenegies containing 3000. merks wherein Ardoch is Cautioner whereby this Bond of 2000. merks due to Glenegies was compensed long before Glenegies Rebellion It was answered for the Pursuer that Compensation is not Relevant unless it had been actuallie proponed in Judgement or Extrajudiciallie stated by the Parties offering and accepting the Compensation 2dly That the alleadgance is no wayes Relevant against the Donator who has Right to the Debts due by the Rebel 3dly Ardoch had no Interest to alleadge the Compensation which could only be proponed by Mushet the Creditor and not by Ardoch who is Cautioner to him The Defender answered that Compensation is Competent ipso jure from the time that the sums be mutuallie due by the Debitor and Creditor in the same way as if they had granted mutual Discharges each to other and therefore when an Assigney Pursueth or Chargeth Compensation is always Sustained against him upon Debts due by the Cedent before the Assignation albeit the Compensation was not actually stated before the same neither is the Donator here in better case then an Assigney so that when he pursues Mushet Debitor to the Rebel Mushet may alleadge Compensation upon the like Debt due to him by the Rebel before the Rebellion and the Defender hath good Interest to propone the Compensation because he is Cautioner to Glenegies for Mushet and if Mushet be forced to pay the Donator without allowing Compensation Ardoch will be necessitat to pay Mushet to whom he is Cautioner and therefore hath good Interest to propone that by the concourse of the two Debts they are both extinct and he is not obliged to Deliver up to the Donator the Bond Constituting Mushets Debt The Lords found the Alleadgance proponed for Ardoch Relevant and Competent and that Compensation was Relevant against the Donator upon Debts due by the Rebel before Rebellion Sir Iohn Weims contra Farquhar of Towley Eodem die SIr Iohn Weims having Charged Farquhar of Towley for the maintainance of his Lands deu in Anno 1648. He Suspends on this Reason that by the Act of Parliament 1661. appointing this maintainance to be uplifted by Sir Iohn Weims singular Successors are exeemed ita est in one part of the Lands he is singular Successor to Sir Robert Farquhar of another part he has a Disposition from his Father for Sums of Money particularly exprest in the Disposition It was answered to the first That the Exemption is onlie in favours of singular Successors who had bought Lands the time of the Act ita est Sir Robert Farquhars Disposition is after the Act neither doth it appear that a competent price was payed therefore and as for his Fathers Disposition though prior to the Act yet the Narrative thereof betwixt Father and Son will not instruct the Debts unless it be otherways instructed nor can it be made appear to be a just price The Lords found that the Exemption could not extend to singular Successessors acquiring after the Act for if at that time the Lands were in the hands of him who was Heretor in Anno 1640 or his Heirs nothing ex post facto done by them can prejudge the Right Constitute by the Act which doth not bear an exemption to singular Successors who should acquire but only to these who had acquired They did also Ordain the Defender to instruct the Cause onerous of his Fathers Disposition but would not put the Suspender to Disput the Equivalence of the price unless it were instructed that the Dispositions were Simulat there being a great latitude in prices according to the pleasure of Parties Alexander Chisholme contra Lady Brae Ianuary 26. 1669. ALexander Chisholme having apprized certain Lands from the Heirs of Sir Alexander Frazer of Brae and thereupon insisting for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for the Lady Brae Sir
Simulate in so far as it is offered to be proven that Wishart the common Author did allow to the Donator in the price of the Lands not only the sum whereupon the Horning procceded but also the Expences of the Gift so that it is purchased by the Rebels Means whence the Law presumes it to be to his behove It was answered that this Condescendence cannot infer Simulation to the Rebels behove because it was lawful to Hamiltoun of Corse finding that his Right was not secure to fortifie the same by this Gift and in his account of the price of the Land upon the Warrandice he might require Retention not only of the sum in the Horning but of his Expenses in necessarly purchasing the Gift and might apply the same for the Security of the Lands bought from the Rebel only which is to his own behove but if he were extending the Gift to other Lands of the Rebels that might be presumed to the Rebels behove because the Donator had no anterior interest of his own to these Lands It was answered that if the Rebel had given the Mony to purchase the Right before it was purchased it would infer unquestionable Simulation and it is wholly equivalent that having then the Rebels Mony in his Hand the Rebel ex post facte allowed the Expences of the Gift 2dly Albeit such an allowance ex post facto would not be sufficient where the Donator acquired the Right to the Lands bona fide and then ex necessitate behoved to purchase the Gift to maintain his Right but here the Donator was in pessima fide and most unfavourable because if need beis it is offered to be proven by his Oath or Writ that he knew of George Hamiltouns Right and that the same was compleat before he bought from the common Author and so is particeps frandiâ— with his Author in granting double Rights contrary to Law and therefore the presumption of Simulation and Fraud ought to proceed against him upon the more light Evidence The Lords found the Ground of Simulation not Relevant upon taking allowance from the Rebel of the price if it was done for the maintaining of a Right bona fide acquired but found that it was sufficient to infer Simulation if the Right was mala fide acquired and that the Donator at or before he bought the Land knew of the other Parties Right Pearson of Balmadies contra The Town of Montross Iune 23. 1669. PEarson of Balmadies being Collector of two of ten and the sixteen penny imposed by Parliament anno 1633. and the Magistrates of the Town of Montross having Written a Letter to him promising Compt and Payment in anno 1637. Some few dayes after the Letter he made Compt with Orbistoun general Collector and Charged himself with the whole Taxation of Montross as received And in anno 1654. obtains a Decreet against the then Magistrates holding them as confest upon the quantities of Taxation of their Burgh They now Suspend on this Reason that the Decreet was in absence and the Magistrates only holden as confest and they are now content to Depone that they never had any Stent Roll of the said Taxation and by the Chargers Compt produced he acknowledges the proportion of Montross received And further alleadges that there being neither Warrand from King nor Parliament there should be no Charge or Pursuit Sustained for these old Taxations especially of Mony where the most part of the Monyed Persons lyable then are now insolvent and the Town cannot get their Relief But as for the Land Taxation the King has given Warrand to lift it and it is still secure being debitum fundi The Charger answered that he being neighbour to the Town did upon their desire delay to distress them and held Compt for them as appears by their Letters produced and therefore it will not infer that Charges may be used upon the Act of Parliament only unless Parties had given Writ therefore and the Magistrates were obliged by the Act of Parliament to have uplifted the Taxation debito tempore and payed it to the Collectors and it must be presumed they did so or if they did not it was their fault in the Discussing of this Cause It occurred to the Lords that this Taxation not being imposed upon the Towns Common-good but upon the Inhabitants severally for their Mony and that the Magistrates were not countable to the Town for the Taxation of Mony nor were they lyable for their Magistrates who had not this power of Collection by their Office but by the Commission of Parliament therefore The Lords found the Town and present Magistrates not lyable but prejudice to the Pursuer to insist aganist the then Magistrates their Heirs and Executors Robert Fairie contra Iames Inglis Eodem die RObert Fairie having Charged Iames Inglis younger of Mordistoun for 1000. merks due by Bond he did Suspend and raised Reduction upon Minority Lesion and Circumvention Litiscontestation was made upon the Reason of Minority and the Term was Circumduced and he Decerned He Suspends again and insists upon the second Reason of Reduction upon Circumvention and qualified it thus That albeit the Bond bear borrowed Money yet he offers to prove by Fairies Oath that the true Cause was the Boot between a Horse and a Mare interchanged betwixt the Parties and albeit the Suspender gave as good as he got yet he was induced to give this Bond of 1000. merks to Boot so that he is lesed ultra dimidium justi pretij which in Law is a sufficient Ground alone to dissolve the Bargain and restore either Party actione redibitoria quanti minoris and next in so gross inequality ex re praesumitur dolus The Charger answered that the Reason is no way Relevant because our Law and Custom acknowledges not that Ground of the Civil Law of annulling Bargains made without Cheat or Fraud upon the inequality of the Price neither can there be any Fraud inferred upon the account of the Price of an Horse which is not quantitas but corpus and has not a common Rate but is regulat secundum praetium affectionis and now the Horse and the Mare not being to be shown in the condition they were in the Suspender cannot recal the Bargain 2dly The Reason ought to be Repelled because by a Ticket apart with the same Date of the Bond the Suspender declares upon his Soul and Conscience that he should never Impugn the Bond and thereafter by his second Bond produced he Ratifies the same and passes from any Revocation thereof or quarrel against the same The Suspender answered that he was content to refer to the Chargers own Oath whether in the Chargers own esteem of the Rate the Suspender was not lesed above the half and as for the two Tickets the first was obtained when he was Minor and both laborant eodem vitio the inequality still remaining without satisfaction The Lords in respect of the Tickets and Ratification after Majority and that there
Maybol for the time to the Lord Ochiltrie which came by progress in the Person of Ballimore having then in his Person Barganies Tack so that Ballimores taking that Right acknowledges the Parsons Right and passes from his former Tack unless in his Right he had expresly reserved his former Tack so that neither Ballimore nor these Assigneys can now make use of Barganies Tack it being a certain Ground that the taking of a posterior Tack having a greater Tack Duty or a shorter Term evacuats a prior Tack in that same Person It was answered that the alleadgance is no wayes Relevant Ballimore not having immediatly taken a second Tack but only finding another Tack by progress in the Person of the Lord Binnie to remove that impediment and shun his trouble he purchased Right thereto but never brooked thereby The Lords found that the taking Right to another Tack did not infer a passing from the former Tack unless it were proven that the posterior Tack had a greater Duty or shorter durance and that Ballimore had paid the said greater Duty to Bonar or bruiked expresly by the later Tack June 29. 1669. CAptain having taken at Sea obtained him to be declared Pryze upon this ground that he carried Clapboard which is expresly mentioned as Counterband in the Commission of the Admiral of Scotland given to the Caper and was the same Stile with the Commission Recorded in the Books of Admirality given in the time of War in the year 1628. The Strangers raised Reduction of the Admirals Decreet on this Reason that Clapboard being a general Name comprehending many kinds of Boards that Clapboard could be only understood Counterband which had not a promiscuous use in Peace and War but was instrumentum bellicum carried by the Kings Allies to his Enemies to be Sold to them for assisting of the War which this Loading could not be because it consisted all of Knappel cutted all at three Foot and an half length the proper use whereof is for Barrelis and is no wayes instrumentum bellicum The Lords having given Commission to some of their number to visite the Knappel and to Examine Sea-wrights whereupon they did Examine a number whether this Timber in question was useful for War or Shipping and most Deponed that it was not and some Deponed that it might be made use of to be Pins or Tubs but that it was not ordinarly made use of for Shipping but common Oak which was far cheaper The Lords did also before answer ordain either Party to adduce such Testificats and Evidences as they could from the Admiralties of Neighbouring Nations what was the Custom of Nations whether upon such Timber as this the Ships of Neuters or Allies were made Prize The strangers produced several Testificats one from the Custom-House of Amsterdame bearing that such Timber was not accounted Counterband in Holland and one from the Spanish Admiralty at Ostend bearing that they knew not that by their Custom and the Custom of other Admiralties such Timber was Counterband one from a Deputy who served in the French Admiralty at Dunkirk declaring that in that Admiralty such Timber was not accounted Counterband one from the Kings Auctorney and another Lawer who served in the Court of Admiralty of England bearing that during the War none had been declared Prize upon that account The Privateer produced no Testificats but alleadged that there ought no respect to be had to the Testificats produced it being easie to impetrat such and there should a Commission been direct by the Lords to the several Chief Admiralties of the Neighbouring Nations to express what was their Custom in this Point Notwithstanding the Lords found the Ship Prize as carrying this Clapboard being contained in the Admirals Commission a great part of the most able of the Lords being of the contrary Judgement Earl of Argile contra His Vassals Iune 30. 1669. THe Earl of Argile being Donator to the Forefaulture of the late Marquess of Argile his Father Pursues an Improbation of the Vassals Rights and craved Certification The Vassals alleadged no Certification against their Rights because any Right the Earl had was qualified by the Kings Gift that he should only have Lands paying 15000. pounds and that the rest should be conveyed to the Creditors and the Creditors thereupon claiming the Property of the Vassals as falling within the Forefaulture His Majesty Wrot a Letter Declaring that it was not His meaning by the Gift that the Creditors should have any more Lands conveyed to them then the remainder of the Property belonging to the late Marquess over and above this Earls part and that the Superiority should entirely belong to the Earl and his Successors by which His Majesties Mind and Pleasure is evident that the Earl should only have the Superiority and not the Property of the Vassals 2dly The Vassals offered to produce what Rights they had flowing from the House of Argile but there could be no Certification as to what they had not in respect of the Troubles especially no Certification for want of Confirmation of the Vassals Rights by the King because several of the Vassals continued Loyal to His Majesty during all the Troubles and some of them losed their lives in His Service opposing the said late Marquess himself So that it can never be thought to be His Majesties purpose or pleasure so to restore this Earl the Marquess Heir appearand as thereby to Forefault the Vassals who adhered to His Majesty and who durst not in time of these Troubles have fought Confirmations His Majesties Exchequer being then in the manadgement of these who were in opposition to Him It was answered for the Pursuer to the first that neither by the Pursuers Gift from His Majesty nor by the foresaid Letter there is nothing granted to the Vassals in opposition to the Earls Right but in opposition to the Creditors that they should have no hand in the Vassals Estates Likeas His Majesty by His last Ratification and Charter under the Great Seal produced hath most distinctly and clearly exprest His meaning and pleasure that by the foresaid Gift or Letter His Majesty did only Exclude the Creditors from the Estates of the Vassals but thereby Declares that not only the Superiority and Casualities thereof should belong to the Earl but the Property of all these who had not sufficient Rights from the House of Argile and Confirmations from the King and that the Earl might Intent all Actions competent of Law for that effect It was answered for the Vassals that if their true condition and adherence to His Majesty had been understood His Majesty would not so have Declared and that post jus quaesitum to them by the Kings Gift and Letter no posterior Declaration impetrat from His Majesty should prejudge them at the least they humbly craved that the Lords according to their former Interlocutor would Represent the Case to His Majesty that His Pleasure might be known and that His Majesty might interpose with my
young Garner was then an Infant in his Fathers Family and albeit the Right be granted by his Uncle yet it is necessarly inferred to be Acquired by the Fathers Means because it bears not for Love and Favour but for Sums of Money and the Uncle had Bairns of his own It was answered that albeit the Right had been Acquired by the Fathers Means yet its anterior to the Apprizing and Sums on which it proceeds whereupon nothing can be taken away but what is posterior thereto albeit there were a Declarator and Reduction intented for that purpose as there is none The Lords Sustained the alleadgeance and Reduced the Apprizing as to these Tenements 2dly The Pursuer alleadges the Apprizing as to Lady-kirk must be Reduced because the Pursuers produce a prior Infeftment granted by Iohn Garner to his Wife in Liferent and his Bairns in Fee it was answered that the said Infeftment was base never cled with Possession The Pursuers Replyed that the Fathers Liferent not being Reserved the continuation of Possession was as lawful Administrator to the Pursuers Bairns and if need be 's its offered to be proven he had a Factory from them The Defender answered that a Fathers Possession being continued was never found to validate a base Infeftment granted to his Children albeit his Liferent were expresly Reserved but it s ever accounted a latent fraudulent Deed and a Factory can be of no more force then a Reservation otherwise it were impossible to obviat fraudulent conveyances betwixt Fathers and Children The Pursuer answered that albeit such Reservations are not valide in Rights freely granted by Fathers yet it meets not this case especially where there was an anterior Onerous Cause Iohn Garner being obliged by his Contract of Marriage that what Lands he should Acquire should be to his Wife in Liferent and to the Bairns of the Marriage The Lords found that the Bairns Infeftment granted by their Father albeit he had Possest by a Factory from them was not cled with Possession or sufficient to exclude a posterior publick Infeftment and that the Clause in the Contract was but to substitute the Children Heirs to their Father in the Conquest Here it was not alleadged that the Factory was made publick by Process founded at the Fathers Instance or otherwise in this Process The Defender to satisfie the Production of an Assignation upon which the Apprizing proceeded which the Pursuers offered to improve as false in the Date and the Defender now produced another Assignation of the same Date and declared he abade by the same as of that Date and that it being a missing he had caused the Cedent to Subscribe another of the same Date with the first which did expresly bear Reservation of another Assignation formerly Subscribed which he did also bide be as truly Subscribed but not of the Date it bears but of the Date of the true Assignation insert therein The Lords Sustained the Assignation now last produced and did not quarrel the other Assignation though another Date was insert then when it was Subscribed for the Cause foresaid Alexander Glasse contra Iohn Haddin Eodem die ALexander Glasse and William Reid having a proper Wodset of the Lands of Alairtnenie and Iohn Haddin being also Infeft in an Annualrent forth thereof some days prior compet for the Maills and Duties Haddin alleadged that both infeftments being base from the same Author his Infeftment of Annualrent is preferable because prior and first cled with Possession It was answered any Possession he had was by a Factory from Glass It was replyed that he offered to prove Possession before that Factory It was duplyed that by Haddins back Bond produced bearing expresly that Glasse had had a valide Right to the Maills and Duties of the Lands and that he was in Possession thereof and that Haddin had accepted a Factory from him and was obliged to compt to him for the Maills and Duties without any Reservation of his own Right this was an unquestionable Homologation and acknowledgement of the Right and equivalent to a Ratification thereof The Lords found by the back Bond produced of the Tenor foresaid that Haddin had so far acknowledged Reid and Glasses Right that he could not quarrel it upon his own Right but he proponing that there was a Reservation of his own Right related to in the back Bond the Lords found the same Relevant he proving Possession before the other Party and before the Factory The Old Colledge of Aberdeen contra the Town of Aberdeen Iuly 13. 1669. THe Principal and the remanent Members of the old Colledge of Aberdeen having Set a Tack to Doctor Dun of his Teinds during the Principals Life and five years thereafter and bearing an Obligement to renew the like Tack from time to time for ever The Doctor Mortified the same to the Town for plous uses after the Death of that Principal many years The Colledge now pursues the Possessors of the Lands upon an Inhibition for the full value of the Teinds and the Town Defends upon the foresaid Tack It was answered for the Colledge that the Tack is only for the Principals Life and five years after which is expired and as for the new Obligement to renew such Tacks for ever It was answered First Albeita Tack were conceived in these Terms it would be null as wanting an ish 2dly Obligements of the present Incumbents in Universities are not obligator but where there is an equivalent Cause Onerous Received for the good of the University It was replyed for the Town that an Obligement to grant a Tack by them who can grant it is equiparat to the Tack it self which requires no other solemnity as an obligement to grant an Assignation is equivalent to an Assignation and that there is here a Cause Onerous of the Universities Obligement because the Tack bears expresly 300. Merks of grassum and that the former Tack-duty was only ten Merks which by this Tack is made 50. Merks and albeit it want a desinit ish yet it must be valide for a Renovation during this Principals Life and five years after and it is Homologat by the Colledge who have received the same Duties several years since the first Tack expired It was duplyed for the Colledge that this Tack is not valide for any time after the first ish because by the Act of Parliament 1617. Tacks by beneficed Persons under Prelats are prohibit for longer time nor their own Life and five years after and these Teinds are a part of the benefice Mortified to the Colledge and they must be accounted as beneficed Persons and albeit the Teinds were augmented to 50. Merks yet they are worth 200. Merks and for the Receipt of the Duties after the first Tack it is per tacitamrelocatiâ—nem and no Homologation of the Obligement to renew the Tack The Lords found that the Colledge was not comprehended under beneficed Persons but found that there was no sufficient Cause Onerous alleadged for this Obligement of Renewing
proportional to the remainant Lands lying in that Shire so that where the other Lands are generally highly Retoured it is evidently presumed that the Property was so Retoured and seing the Property did of old pay no Taxation it were strange now to make it bear more then the other Temporal Lands about it The Lords found that the Property of the Shires had the same abatement with the rest of the temporality in these Shires Earl of Marishal contra Leith of Whitehaugh Eodem die IEan Keith having a Right to a Wodset of the Mains and Miln of Troup and being Married to Iohn Forbes she Disponed the Heretable Right to his Brother which Right is now by progress in the Person of Leith of Whitehaugh Isobebs Brother raised a Reduction in Anno 1628. of the Right granted by her to her Husbands Brother and now his Right and an Assignation to the said Process coming to the Earl of Marishal and by him to Lesmore they insist in their Reduction upon the Reason of Minority and Lesion It was alleadged for the Defender First No Process because prescription is past since the Right was granted by Isobel Keith which cannot be interrupted by the Reduction in Anno 1628. because it is evident by inspection of the Reduction that it is but filled up of late and that the Executions there of are new so that it signifies no more nor blank Paper or a blank Summonds till the Reasons be filled up and insisted in before which prescription was compleat 2dly Absolvitor because the Right granted by Isobel Keith to her Husbands Brother was to the Husbands behove Likeas there was a blank Bond granted by the Brother to the Husband so declaring and there being no other Contract of Marriage this Disposition must be understood as granted to the Husband in contemplation of the Marriage and being but the Right of 10000. Merks which was but a competent Tocher it was no Lesion to Dispone the same to the Husband or any to his behove and offered to prove by the Brothers Oath that there was such a back Bond and that yet there is a back Bond by him to whom the Brother Disponed The Pursuer answered to the first that interruption is sufficient by any Act whereby the Party having Right may follow the same so that Summonds albeit not legally Execute would yet make an interruption though no Sentence could follow thereupon and a Summonds being blank must be presumed as comprehending all the Grounds and Reasons that might have been filled up therein but here the Lybelling of the Interest which is not with new Ink bears expresly that the Pursuer as Heir to his Sister has good interest to Revock and Reduce Deeds done by her to her prejudice which doth imply the Reason of Minority and Lesion To the second albeit the Disposition by the Wife had been to the Husband yet it is simply Reduceable upon Minority there being no remuneratory Obligation upon the part of the Husband providing her to a Jointure in which case if the Provision had been suitable there would have been no Lesion and if not suitable the Lords might Reduce it in part or Rectifie it if done in the Wifes Life but here she having nothing from the Husband and being Dead she cannot now receive a Jointure and so the Right is Reduceable in totum especially seing the said Iohn Forbes did violently carry away the said Isobel Keith and Married her without her Friends Consents and must be presumed by the same means to have purchased the same Disposition from her without any remuneratory Provision to her 2dly There is not nor cannot be known any such back Bond and it were absurd that the Husbands Brothers Oath alone should prove the same in favours of his Brother The Defender answered that albeit there was no Jointure provided yet the Law provides a Terce which ofttimes is better nor the Jointure The Pursuer likewise answered that the Law did provide the jus mariti and the courtesie so that either Party ought either to acquiesce in the provision of Law or the Provision of Parties must be mutual The Lords Repelled the first Defense especially in respect of the manner of Libelling the Title and found not the Executions of the first Summonds to appear new and therefore Sustained them unless the Defender would improve the same they found also that alleadgeance that the Disposition was to the Husbands behove was not to be Sustained especially seing no back Bonds were produced or offered to be proven and that the manner of Probation offered was no way sufficient that there was no Provision for the Wife Duke Hamiltoun contra the Laird of Blackwood Eodem die THe Duke of Hamiltoun pursues the Laird of Blackwood that it may be declared that he is his Vassal in his Lands of Blackwood on this ground that the late Marquess of Hamiltoun having Disponed to the King the Abbacie of Arbroth did in consideration thereof in Anno 1636. get a Charter from the King of the Barony of Leshmahago a part of the Abbacie of Kelso of which the Lands of Blackwood were holden Waird which Lands having been Apprized and the Apprizers Infeft holden of the King the Laird of Blackwood having thereafter Disponed them to Major Ballantine by his Contract of Marriage with Blackwoods Daughter and the Major having purchased a Right from the Apprizers both upon Blackwoods procuratory of Resignation and the Apprizers he Resigned the Lands in the Marquess Hand and did take his Infeftment holding Waird of him likeas this Blackwood who is Heir of Provision to the Major as procreat by Marion Weir Blackwoods Daughter with William Lowry hath no other Right but as Heir of Provision to the Major and yet he hath taken Infeftment holding of the King likeas the said William Lowry his Father as lawful Administrator and taking burden for him has obliged himself by his Bond that so soon as the Marquess should obtain a Right to the Superiority he should take his Infeftment from him Waird and by the Act of Parliament 1661. Ratifying the Act of Annexation 1633. It is expresly provided that any Right to the Superiority of Kirk Lands granted by the King yet notwithstanding the annexation shall be valide as to such Vassals who have or shall consent to the Rights of the Persons obtainers of the saids Superiorities so that Major Ballantine having consented by taking Infeftment in manner foresaid he and his Successors must continue the Dukes Vassals The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because any Right the Duke has or the Marquesse had to the Superiority is absolutely null by the saids Acts of Parliaments annexing the Superiority of Kirk Lands to the Crown so that unless there had been a Dissolution in Parliament no Right of these Superiorities is valide but null and the exception of the said Act 1661. is only in the case of the Vassals consenting to a Right of Superiority Ita est there can be no Right but
who bona fide continued the same seing the Father continued in Possession of the Lands and built thereupon and gave an Infeftment of Annualrent to the Merchants after the Infeftment granted to his Son and likewise raised a Poinding of the Ground upon his Infeftment of Annualrent whereupon he now insists It was alleadged for the Son and the Lord Tarphichen that the Sons Right being publick and Registrat in the publick Registers prior to the Pursuers Annualrent for the Bonds whereupon the same proceeds it doth fully exclude them from Poinding of that Ground The Merchants repeat their Declarator by way of reply To which it was answered that whatsoever may be said of Latent and Clandestine Rights betwixt Fathers and Children and other confident Persons yet there is no Law hindering a Father to give an publick Infeftment to his Son unlesse it be in prejudice of the Creditors to whom he was due Sums at that time which being a valide pubick Right no Deed or pretence of fraud of the Father thereafter can prejudge the Son in his Right who being an Infant was not capable to be partaker of fraud neither can fraud be presumed as to Creditors who are but to Contract thereafter nor can a publick Right Registrat and a publick Seising which all the World may and all Concerned ought to know be esteemed a contrivance or fradulent Right and as to any Commerce betwixt these Merchants and the Father which began before the Sons Right no respect can be had thereto because the Pursuers Bonds are lately for a Sum of Money and must import that the former Debts by Traffick were past from or Discharged and if need beis offered to prove that they were actually Discharged 2dly The making up a Debt to be prior to take away the Sons Infeftment can only be probably by Writ or Oath of Party and not by Witnesses who cannot prove above 100. Pounds 3dly Though the cause of the Bond were proven to be a Correspondence and Traffick begun before the Sons Infeftment it is no ways relevant against any Provisions gotten after the Infeftment for such can have effect but from their own Date and the effect is cut off as to what is posterior to this publick Infeftment seing the Merchants did either follow Massons Faith upon their hazards or else they should have had a Procurator here and taken advice how they might have been secured of Massons Estate by the Law of Scotland who would have taken notice by the Registers that Masson was denuded by a publick Infeftment which nothing he could do thereafter could prejudge and would have certified the Merchants thereof and their failing therein is on their own peril and albeit their payment and acting bona fide is sometimes good though made to these who had not a valide but a colourable Right by these who knew not a better Right and might have been compelled to pay upon the colourable Right yet other Deeds though bona fide done are upon the peril of the Actor To which it was answered that by the common Law and Custom of this Nation all fraudulent Deeds are Reduceable and there can be no Deed more fraudulent then this of a Father to his own Infant Son for whom he is legal Administrator and must accept the Right he gives himself and so colludes with himself to make a snare to intrap Merchants and Strangers in the midst of a course of Trade with them which is a common ground of Law whether the Debt be prior or posterior to the Sons Infeftment and albeit the Merchants Bond be posterior yet seing it bears to be for Ware Witnesses according to the ordinar custom are Receiveable for astructing the Writ to prove what the Ware was and when Received which will not be prejudged though there had been a Discharge of the Ware granted the time of the Bond unlesse there had been a real and true payment of the Money for there being nothing then payed this Bond ceases not to have a true anterior Cause as if it had been granted on Death-bed upon a Discharge then given it would be valide as being upon an anterior Cause before the Sicknesse neither is there any difference to be made of the Parts of the Traffick after the Sons Infeftment but seing the Correspondence began before and is once continued as a constant Correspondence and Traffick it must all be drawn back to its beginning as if the Merchants on both sides had Contracted when they began their Correspondence that they should faithfully pay what either of them Received from other till the Correspondence was given up The Lords found that this Bond although posterior to the Sons Infeftment not bearing borrowed Money but Merchant Ware that the quantity and times of furnishing thereof might be proven by Witnesses and albeit there had been a Discharge of the Ware yet so much thereof as was furnished before the Sons Infeftment would affect the same but found that the Sons Infeftment being publick and Registrat no posterior Deed of the Fathers by continuing Traffick or Correspondence nor no pretence of fraud of his could annul or burden the said Infeftment for any Debt contracted posterior thereto Executors of Mr. Thomas Ridpeth contra Iohn Hume Eodem die IN a Competition betwixt the Executors Creditors of Mr. Thomas Ridpeth about a Sum due to Mr. Thomas by Bond and by him Assigned to Iohn Hume who not having Intimat it in Mr. Thomas his Lifetime did thereafter get payment of a part of the same and a Bond of Corroboration for the rest thereafter Toredlie for a Debt due to him by Mr. Thomas Ridpeth Confirms himself Executor Creditor to Mr. Thomas and alleadges that he ought to be preferred because the Assignation made to Iohn Hume was an uncompleat Right wanting Intimation so that the Sum remained in bonis of Mr. Thomas Ridpeth and that he had followed the only legal way to affect it by Confirming himself Executor Creditor to Mr. Thomas and albeit the Assigney may force any other Executor to pay to him yet not an Executor Creditor who is Executor to his own behove for satisfying his Debt It was answered that the Assignation though not Intimat being a special Assignation albeit it cannot have Execution by Horning yet it is the undoubted ground of an Action even after the Defuncts Death against the Debitor and no Executor Creditor can have Right thereto Which the Lords found Relevant and preferred the Assigney Duke Hamiltoun contra Weir of Balckwood Iuly 28. 1669. THe Duke of Hamiltoun insisted in his Declarator against the Laird of Blackwood for declaring that he had Right to his Superiority by the Act of Parliament 1661. bearing That whosoever should get Right from the King to the Superiority of the annexed Kirk Lands the same should be valide as to these Vassals who had Confirmed or should Consent And alleadged that Major Ballantine to whom Blackwood is Heir had taken an Infeftment of the Estate of Blackwood
his own and was not in his Family and albeit he were not eager to put his Father out of Possession of his House and Lands yet his continuance of Possession is not Relevant unless it had been to his death or for a longer time but any delay that was is because it is but of late that the Doctor hath obtained special Declarator till which he was not in capacity to discontinue his Fathers Possession Neither can Members of Court be admitted to prove that the Father wared out the Expence and procured the Gift because the Doctor at the passing of the Gift gave a Back-bond that he being satisfied of the Debts due to him and the Expences thereof there should be place for the Rebels Creditors and did make Faith at the passing of the Gift that it was to his own behove after which no Winesses can be admitted against him nor any other presumptive Probation of the simulation of the Gift Which the Lords found Relevant and found also the Pursuers Reply upon the Back-bond alleadged granted by the Doctor to his Father Relevant to be proven by the Doctors Oath only Sir Iohn Vrquhart Supplicant December 7. 1669. SIr Iohn Vrquhart gave in a Supplication to the Lords bearing that he being Cited before the Council upon several alleadged Riots and fearing that he might be excluded from appearing in his own defense by hornings against him therefore desired that the Lords would grant Suspension of all Hornings against him ad hunc effectum only to give him personam standi in judicio but prejudice to the Creditors of all other execution Which desire the Lords granted as to all Hornings he should condescend upon Pittrichie contra Laird of Geight December 15. 1669. MAitland of Pittrichie having obtained the Gift of Recognition from the King of certain Waird-lands held by the Laird of Geight of His Majesty pursues Declarator of Recognition upon Geights Alienation of the Lands wherein compearance was made for the Purchasers thereof who alleadged Absolvitor because the time of their Alienation by the Law and custom in force for the time Such Alienations without consent of the Superiour were valide The Pursuer answered that any Law or Custom that then was is now Annulled and Rescinded as from the beginning The Defender answered that no Laws of whatsoever Tenor can be drawn back by invalidat Deeds done by the Law and Custom for the time especially as to Matters Penal such as Recognitions so that Parties having acted bona fide according to any thing they could know for a Rule cannot fall in the Penalty and certification of Recognition which imports a contempt of the Superiour and cannot be inferred by any Deed legal for the time The Pursuer answered that the contempt is the same when the Vassal alieâ— natâ— his Fee without the Superiours consent and when such Alienations being by Law become void and the Superiours Right of Recognition revived the Vassal did not after that time crave the Superiours Confirmation as Heir so he Laird of Geight having never sought Confirmation from the King since His Restauration it is no less contempt than if since the Kings Restauration he had Alienat especially seing the King refuses Confirmation to none who demand it It was answered for the Purchasers that the Vassal being Denuded in their favour according to the Law standing for the time his fault cannot lose their Right for though he should collude against them yet that ought not to prejudge them and there being no obliegment upon the Vassal to seek a Confirmation to the behove of the Purchasers they cannot be prejudged for not obtaining the same The Pursuer answered that the Purchasers might have craved the Kings Confirmation of their Right both for themselves and in name of Geight the immediat Vassal which Geight neither would nor could oppose The Lords Repelled the Defenses in respect of the Reply that no Confirmation was craved neither by the Vassal nor Purchasers his Sub-vassals which they might have done if they had pleased and therefore declared the Lands to be Recognosced Innes contra Innes Ianuary 5. 1670. Innes having granted an Assignation of an Heretable Bond of 6000. merks 4000. merks thereof to Robert Innes his eldest Son and 2000. merks thereof to William and Ianet Inness his younger Children and in case of Roberts Decease providing his part amongst the rest equally Ianes having died before Robert her Heirs and Roberts Heirs compet for the sum for Robert died without Children and William as Heir to Robert claimed the whole sum upon this Ground that Ianet being substitute by the Father to Robert without any mention of Ianets heirs Ianet having died before Robert she had never right and her Substitution became absolutely void and her Heirs not being exprest this Substitution cannot extend to them because though ordinarly Heirs are comprehended though not exprest qui acquirit sibi acquirit suis yet here is no Acquisition but a voluntary Substitution whereby it may be rationally conjectured the mind of the Defunct was that he would prefer Ianet to Roberts Heirs of line not being Heirs of his Body but not that he would prefer Ianets Heirs which were a degree further from his own other Bairns And the case of Substitutions in the Roman Law was urged that if the Substitute died before the Institute the Substitutes Heirs have never place It was answered that Institutions and Substitutions with us do far differ from the Roman Substitutions whereby if the Institute succeed the Substitute has never place as Heir to the Institute but the Institutes Heirs whatsomever which failing the Institute is there interpret so that if the Institute never be Heir then the Substitute has place as Heir of Tailzie and provision to the Substitute so that here Ianets Heirs are Heirs to Robert who had no Heirs of his Body and do exclude William his Brother and though Ianets Heirs be not mentioned yet they are understood and comprehended because in Tailzies and Provisions there uses never to be an Institution or Substitution of a single person without the Heirs of their Body And though there be some singular Cases in which Heirs not being exprest are not comprehended this is none of them It was further alleadged for William that William and Ianet being Substitute joyntly Ianet deceasing before Robert her share accresces to him jure accrescendi ex conjuncta substitutione It was answered that there is here only substitutio conjuncta verbis but disjuncta rebus for the sum is declared to belong to William and Ianet equally so that each of them has but Right to a half The Lords preferred the Heirs of Ianet and found that they had Right as Heirs of Provision to Robert and that they ought to be served to him and not to Ianet who had never Right her self having died before she was or could be Heir to Robert Elizabeth and Anna Boids contra Iames Boid of Temple Ianuary 6. 1670. JAmes Boid of Temple in his
Artrachy and others proceeding from Con in favours of Iohn Stuart Advocat William Neilson Mr. Iohn Alexander and Marjory Iameson his Relick or Andrew Alexander Brother to Mr. Iohn wherein there was produced an Apprizing against Con at the instance of George Stuartâ— Likewise a Liferent-seising of Helen Kinaird Relick of Con with a Liferent-tack to her of the Lands contained in the Seising and also of other Lands and another Tack of two nineteen years of the same Lands There is also produced a Disposition of the Apprized Lands by George Stuart to William Neilson and because William Neilson failzied in payment of four thousand Merks of the price George Apprized the Lands again from William Neilson and upon all these Rights there is publick Infeftments there is also a second Apprizing at the instance of Andrew Alexander long after George Stuarts Apprizing from Neilson but no Infeftment thereon and there is produced a Disposition by George Stuart as returning to the Right by the second Apprizing made to Mr. Iohn Alexander Advocat and by him to Marjory Iameson his Spouse and publick Infeftments on these and there is a Decreet of Cerification Extracted contra non producta And now the Doctor insists on this Reason of Reduction that George Stuarts first Apprizing against Con the common Debitor was satisâ—ied by Intromission within the Legal and so is extinct and all the subsequent Rights depending thereon fall therewith in consequence It was alleadged for the Defenders that George Stuart having in his Person the Apprizing and finding Helen Kinaird Cons Relick in Possession of a great part of the Lands by Liferent infeftment and a Liferent and two ninteen years Tacks which would have excluded him he purchased Right and Assignation thereto from the Relick and continued her Possession thereby and did ascrive his Possession to the Liferenters Right and not to the Apprizing so that his intromission being by another and more valide Title could not be ascrived to the Apprizing to extinguish it The Pursuer answered that the Defense ought to be Repelled because he had obtained Certification against the Defenders of all Rights not produced and albeit the Liferenters Seising be produced yet the Warrand thereof the Charter or Precept was not produced so that it is now declared as false and feinzied and the Seising being only the Assertion of a Nottar without a Warrand is no Title to which the Intromission can be ascrived and therefore it must be ascrived wholly to the Apprizing The Defenders answered First That albeit the Charter be now improven for not production yet it being a true Evident and now produced the effect of the Certification cannot be drawen back to make George Stuart countable who Possessed bona fide cum titulâ— which though now improven yet the effect of the improbation can only be a sententia lite contestata aut â—â—ta before all which the Liferenter was Dead and the intromission ended unless the Charter being produced had been by Witnesses or otherwayes proven to be false 2dly Albeit Certification be obtained against George Stuart and Marjory Iameson yet the Certification is not against Andrew Alexander from whom Marjory hath purchased Right after the Certification and produced the Appryzing at Andrews instance against Neilson and alleadges that albeit the Certification could take away George Stuarts Right in so far as concerns Marjory Iameson or her Authors yet that being no annulling of their Right by being Transmitted in favours of the Pursuer but only as being void through want of the necessary Evidents it cannot impede Andrew Alexander against whom no Certification is obtained to Defend George Stuart his Authors Right and to ascribe George his Possession to the Liferent Infeftment whereof he now produces the Charter The Pursuer answered that he was not obliged to take notice of Andrew Alexanderâ— Right because it was incompleat no Infeftment following thereon and because it was null being deduced against Neilson after Neilson was Denuded by the Appryzing led against him by George Stuart and Infeftment thereon so that the Pursuer having prevailed against George Stuarts Right which is the only valide Right and did exclude Andrew Alexander by the Rule vinco vincentem c. and if this were otherwise Sustained no Improbation could be effectual unless all the invalid and imperfect Rights were particularly improven which cannot be known and was never done 3dly Certification being Extracted against George Stuart himself all Subaltern Rights flowing from him fall in consequence and so Andrew Alexanders Right which is but incompleat and latent The Defender answered that albeit Andrew Alexander was not called or Certification taken against him as a party necessar yet before Conclusion of the Cause he has a good interest to produce his Appryzing and to alleadge that the Certification against George Stuart his Author who neglected to produce the Liferenters Charter could not prejudge him as deriving Right from George Stuart as a singular Successor much less could the neglect or Collusion of Marjorie Iameson prejudge any other but her self and therefore craved that if the Lords would Sustain the Certification of the Liferent Charter against Marjorie Iameson that it should be without prejudice to Andrew Alexander as to his Right of the said Liferent or to George Stuarts Right of the Liferent in so far as the same is Derived to Andrew Alexander The Lords adhered to the Certification in so far as concerned Marjory Iameson reserving Andrew Alexanders Right and his Authors in so far as concerned Andrew Alexander as accords This Cause being again Called the 9. of Iune the Defenders ascribed their Possession to the Liferent and two nineteen years Tacks against which there was no Certification The Pursuer answered First That the Liferenter having bruiked by a Liferent Infeftment and having ascribed her Possession to it it being improven she could not ascribe her Possession to the Tacks quia ex pluribus titulis ejusdem rei nemo fit Dominus 2dly George Stuart the Appryzer having both the Appryzing and these Liferent Rights in his Person and not having declared his mind by what Title he possessed his Possession must be attribute titulo nobilioti to the Apprizing and his intromission imputed thereto duriori â—orti as the Lords use ordinarly to do in â—dium of Appryzings if the Appryzer adhere to the expyring of the Legal but if the Defender will grant the Lands Redeemable the Pursuer is content that the Intromission be ascribed to the Liferent Right primo loco The Defender answered that though George Stuart Declared not by what Title he Possessed yet his intromission must be ascribed potiorâ— juri to that Right which was preferable and so to the Liferent which would undoubtedly exclude his Appryzing and therefore he acquired Right from the Liferenter being then in Possession and it is unquestionable that any party who hath many Titles though they first make use of one if that be Reduced they may make use of the rest and
the Contract may be yet Examined to clear the meaning of the Clause 2dly Albeit the Clause could not exclude her from a third of Money which is expresse therein yet not from a third of Moveable Goods and Geir which is not exprest and albeit the Clause bears and others it can only be understood of Rights due by a stated Security and the intent of the Clause has only been to substitute the Bairns of this Marriage Heirs of the Conquest and to exclude the Bairns of any other Marriage but did neither exclude the Father but that he might dispone on his Moveables albeit the Clause expresseth him but Liferenter thereof neither does it exclude the Mother from the third thereof And there was adduced a Decision in the Case of the Lady Oxenfoord wherein albeit by her Contract of Marriage she accepted certain Lands in full satisfaction of her Terce and third of all Lands Annualrents and others yet that was not found to exclude her from a third of Moveables but only from a Terce or third of Heretable Rights It was answered for the Children that their Mother having consented by the Contract of Marriage that all Conquest during the Marriage should be provided to their Father in Liferent and to them in Fee she had excluded her self as clearly and effectually as if she had Renunced her third thereof or accepted of her Jointer in full satisfaction neither is there a necessity that these words must always be used nor is this alleadged as a consequential Renunciation but as an expresse Obligation or Destination of the Husband consented to by the Wife which must have its native effect and so the Children must be Feears of the whole Conquest and therefore the Wife cannot be Feear of a third of it and albeit moveable Geir be not exprest the generality others must necessarily comprehend them being of the same nature with Sums which are exprest and may be Moveable and of less importance then they and the case wholly differs from that of the Lady Oxenfoord wherein nothing but Heretable Rights are exprest and it is an unaccustomed Clause amongst Persons of that quality to exclude Ladies from a third of Moveables but here Sums are exprest and it is most ordinar for Merchants to exclude their Wives from their Merchant Goods which is the greatest part of their Estate as to the meaning of the Parties clear Clauses cannot be enervat upon that ground and as for any thing exprest by the Husband It was on Death-bed in a great Fever whereof he Died and no Testament followed The Lords found that the foresaid Clause in the Contract did exclude the Relict from a Terce of Moveable Sums or Moveable Goods during the Marriage which could be understood to be meaned to be put upon Security at any time but that it did not exclude her from a third of the Houshold Plenishing Charles Casse contra Sir Robert Cunningham Ianuary 26. 1671. CHarles Casse having Sold to Sir Robert Cunningham his Right to the Lands of Achinhervy in his Minority pursues a Reduction of the same Disposition upon Lesion and condescends upon his Lesion thus that being Infeft for security of fourty thousand Merks and in an Annualrent effeirrand thereto whereof there were many bygone years Annualrent resting and yet he got only fourty thousand Merks for all The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Pursuer was satisfied of all his bygone Annualrents in so far as he having Apprized for five years Annualrents preceeding the Apprizing which was in Anno 1655. he had entered in Possession by vertue of the said Apprizing of the whole Lands of Achinhervie and so is Comptable therefore according to the Rental untill he cease to Possesse the same which will fully satisfie all his bygones so that he will have no Lesion 2dly He had not only in his Person the said Apprizing but the Infeftment of Annualrent upon which he being preferred in a double Poinding and excluding other Parties having also real Rights he is thereby obliged to do Diligence and be Comptable not only for what he intrometted with but for what he ought to have intrometted with The Pursuer answered that he was content to Compt for what he had Intrometted with but upon neither ground was he obliged to Compt for any further especially as to his Apprizing albeit Law and Custom had oblidged him to Compt for the whole Rental till the Apprizing were satisfied yet he could not be Comptable but for his Intromission after he was satisfiedâ— for then he had no title in his Person and it is clear that any Intrometter without a title is only lyable for his Intromission and all Parties having Interest might have hindred him to have Intrometted after he was satisfied and albeit a Tennent or Factor after the expiring of the Tack or Factory may be Comptable for a full Rental yet that is because they have a title per tacitam relocationem or tacitam commissionem but after the extinction of the Apprizing then no title remains and neither is he lyable as an Annualrenter even though he did exclude others to do any Diligence because all the effect of an Annualrent can only be to distresse the Ground or Poind the Tennents for as much of their Rent as is equivalent to the current Annualrents after which any other Party having Right may liâ—t the superplus and in this case the Annualrenter hath not been preferred as to any bygone Rents but only in timecoming and for his current Annualrents and the bygones are appointed to be brought in Accompt which was never determined The Defender answered that it were against all Reason that an Apprizer after he is satisfied should be in better condition then before he is satisfied and so as long as he meddles he must Compt by the Rental and it is his proper part who knows when he is satisfied to relinquish the Possession which other Parties cannot know till by a long Process of Compt and Reckoning it be determined and it were most absurd that in the mean time he should continue in Possession and though the Rents did in a great part perish he should not be Comptable therefore but only for what he actually lifted The Lords found the Pursuer as Apprizer Comptable according to the Rental not only for Intromission but Omission both till the Apprizing be satisfied and thereafter for all years of which he lifted any part but found not the Annualrenter lyable for Diligence albeit he did exclude others but the Case came not to be Determined if the Annualrenter had by a Personal Action insisted for more years Annualrent past to be preferred to the whole Rents till these bygones were satisfied that not being the case here in question In this Cause it had been formerly alleadged that the Pursuer after his Majority had Received a part of the price of the Lands in so far as having in his Minority granted a Commission to Mr. Iohn Smith one of his Curators
to uplift all Sums due to him and he having uplifted a part of the price of the Land from the Defender and bonds for the rest the Pursuer after his Majority had by his Discharge produced Received from his Curator and Factor the said Money and Bonds and Discharged him thereof and acknowledged that he and the remainent Curators had acted faithfully in all their Intromissions whereby the Pursuer hath approven and Homologat the Disposition of the Land made by him and his Curators which he now quarrels The Pursuer answered First That the Defense is not Relevant for Homologation being a presumed or conjectured Consent not by Word or Writ but by Deeds done which import the adhering to the Disposition quarrelled it cannot be inferred by any Deeds but such as can have no other intent or purpose consistent with the Rejecting or disapproving the Disposition but here the Receiving of the Money and Bonds from the Factor hath a consistency and congruity with this Reduction for the Pursuer knowing that he could not be restored against his Disposition unless he did restore what was Received by his Warrand might justly take up the same from his Factor that he might be in capacity to Consign the same at the Bar as if a Minor having Bought Lands to his Lesion and having Wodset a part of the same he might after his Majority Redeem the Lands Wodset by himself which although it behoved to proceed upon the Disposition as his Title yet it being a Deed necessar to purge the Wodset and repone the Disponer to his own Land free thereof it would never importan Homologation or if he had in his Minority excambed Lands and Wodset a part of the Lands he acquired thereby the Redeeming or purging of the Wodset after his Majority would import no Homologation so neither can any Deed import Homologation which upon any account can be consistent with the annulling of the Right quarrelled upon Minority 2dly This Dicharge does bear expresly relation to Mr. Iohn Smiths Accompt of Intromission Subscribed at the same time and bears that the Discharge should be alse sufficient as if the Accompt were insert Ita est in the Charge of the Accompt wherein only mention is made of the Sums payed by the Defender there is an express Reservation that the Accompt shall be but prejudice to the Pursuer to insist in his Reduction of the Disposition And as to that Clause in the Discharge that the Curators and Factor had done faithfully It relates only to their Intromission and not to their Omission and albeit it had born simply that they had acted faithfully that can only import that they had not acted Fraudulently and that they had done for the Minor what they conceived best but does not import that they had acted providently and skilfully so that the Minor may still Reduce their Deed. The Defender answered that his Defence was most Relevant being founded upon the Pursuers consent after his Majority for consent may be Adhibite not only by Word or Writ but by any Deed importing the consent as if a Minor giving a Bond in his Minority should pay a Terms Annualrent thereof after his Majority Or if a Minor intrometting with his Fathers moveable Heirship or Rents of his Lands in his Minority should continue to intromet for one Term or one Point further after his Majority in neither case would he be restored and yet such Deeds might be consistent and might be done to other intents as if his payment of the Annualrent did bear leâ—t before his Reduction he might be Distressed or that he continued his Possession lest the Rents or Goods might perish to the dammage of his party Yea though these were expresly mentioned in his Discharge and his Reduction were reserved it would be protestatio contraria facto and would not free him so neither can the Reservation in this accompt though it were repeated in the Discharge be sufficient especially seing he might have caused the Factor Consign the Money in the Clerks hands that it might be restored at the Discussing of the Reduction So that inconsistent Reservations or Protestations operate nothing 3dly The charge of this Accompt wherein only the Reservation is mentioned is a louse sheet of Paper subscribed with another Hand than the Discharge and has neither Date nor Witnesses and so cannot instruct that this is the very Accompt mentioned in the Discharge The Lords did not determine the Point of Homologation but before answer ordained the Curators and Witnesses in the Accompt to be Examined upon Oath whether the Charge produced be the same that was subscribed abinitio bearing the said Reservation But they inclined that the Reservation would take off the Homologation and would not be void as contraria facto Keir contra Nicolson Ianuary 28. 1671. JOhn Keir as Assigney by the Earl of Mar to some Feu-duties pursues a Poinding of the Ground against Nicolson of Tillicutrie who alleadged no Process because the Earl of Mar his Cedent had no right to thir Feu-duties which were due in his Fathers Lifetime whose Liferent was reserved â—whereupon compearance was made for Scotscraig's Heir who was Donator to the old Earl of Mar's Escheat and Liferent and concurred The Defender answered that the concourse could not be effectual because their bygone Feu-duties being moveable belonged to Scotscraigs Executor and not to his Heir and though the Concurrer was both Heir and Executor yet thir bygones belonging to Scotscraig as Donator being for years wherein Scotscraig lived they are moveable and ought to have been contained in the Inventar of his Testament as they are not It was answered that a Liferent-Escheat having tractum futuri temporis belongs not to the Executor even as to the bygones before the Donators Death unless they had been liquide and established in his Life but the Gift and all following thereon belongs to his Heir The Lords found that the bygones of the Liferent preceeding the Donators Death did belong to his Executor albeit in his Life he had obtained no sentence therefore Dowglas of Kelhead contra The Vassals of the Barony of Kelhead and others Ianuary 30. 1671. THe Earl of Queensberry being Superiour to certain Vassals of the Barony of Kelhead who did Dispone the Feu Duties and whole Casualities of the Superiority to Kelhead his Brother to the effect that Kelhead might be his immediat Vassal and that the Feuars might hold of Kelhead whereupon Kelhead was Infeft holding of Queensberry and thereupon pursues a Declarator of Non-entry both generally and specially in the said Summons It was alleadged for the Defenders absolvitor because they were not the Pursuers Vassals for albeit he was Infeft holding of Queensberry to the effect he might become their Superiour yet that Infeftment was null because no Superiour could interpose any Person betwixt him and his immediate Vassals Likeas the Non-entry could only infer the Feu Duty till Decreet or Declarator were pronunced which used to be per se but here
or Brybing the Witnesses it is most Relevant and express in Law l. 33. ff de re judicata bearing testibus pecunia corruptis conspiratione adversariorum c. which being pessimi exempli in odium corrumpentis not only are the Witnesses punishable but the Sentence annullable which is confirmed toto titulo Codicis si ex falsis instrumentis and that without regard whether they undertake or Depone falsly or not as is observed by Bartol l. in princ ff de falsis adict l. divans 33. de re judicata Num. 7. and Covaruvias in repet C. quamvis fol. 57. Col. 3. which he attests to be the common opinion and which is likewise attested by Boss. in tit de falsis num 1608. and by Will. 66. com opin fol. 2991. and especially by Hartman tit 15. de testibus observ 16. where he doth expresly maintain that it is not so much a lawful to instruct a Witness excitandae memoriae causa non si subito deprehendatur haesitet titubet in respect any such instruction is subornationis velamentum and which Opinion hath been likewise Confirmed by the Decisions of the most eminent and famous Courts of Justice as may appear per Capell tholos deces 2804. and others And which is likewise the Opinion of Clarus viz. That the foresaid Acts of Corruption are disjunctive and separatim Relevant as may appear by Fassum Num. 12 13. quâ—st 53. de exceptionibus quae contra testes opponi possunt And to the last alleadgeance against the Probation by Witnesses that it would infer an endless course of Reprobators It was answered that by the same Reason Reductions might be taken away because the Decreet Reductive might be Reduced and that Decreet by another Reduction without end But Reprobators have every where been Sustained and no such inconvenience ever found neither can it be imagined that every Pursuer of a Reprobator will prevail which this infinite progress must suppose only it may infer that Witnesses in Reprobators ought to be more unquestionable than the Witnesses called in question thereby The Lords found that Reprobators were competent albeit the Witnesses upon Oath Deponed upon their own Hability at the desire of the Party and albeit the Party Protested not for Reprobators seing he was not admitted to compear and found that Member of the Reprobators upon the poverty not Relevant in this Clandestine Crime neither that Member upon their alleadged Infamy unless it were alleadged that they were infamous infamia juris by any Deed which the Law expresly declares to infer Infamy or were declared infamous sententia judicis and found that Member of the Reprobators upon instructing or prompting the Witnesses Relevant without necessity to alleadge the Witnesses undertaking or Deponing conform and that in odium corrumpentiâ— without inferring any blemish upon the Witnesses so prompted who consented not or swore falsly and found that Member Relevant of Corrupting the Witnesses by giving or promising of good Deed more than might be suitable to the Witnesses for their Charges but as to the manner of Probation by Oath or Witnesses The Lords superceeded to give answer till a Practique alleadged upon were produced Pringle contra Pringle February 1 1971. PRingle of Soutray having only three Daughters does in his Testament done upon Death-bed Dispone his whole Lands to his eldest Daughter and Constitute her universal Legator with this provision that she pay 10000. merks to the other two Daughters the Disposition as to the Lands being Reduced as being in Testament and on Death-bed the universal Legacy was Sustained to give the eldest Daughter the Right of the Deads part whereupon it was alleadged for the other two Daughters that if the eldest insisted for the universal Legacy she behoved to have it with the burden of the ten thousand merks which was a burden both upon the Land and Moveables and doth no more relate to the one than the other so that albeit the Right of the Land be Evicted the Moveables remains burdened as if a Father should Dispone certain Lands to a Son with the burden of Portions to the other Children albeit a part of the Lands were Evicted the Portions would be wholly due without abatement It was answered for the eldest Daughter that in latter Wills the mind of the Defunct is chiefly regarded not only as to what is exprest but to what is implyed or presumed and here it is evident that the mind of the Defunct was that his two younger Daughters should only have ten thousand merks in satisfaction to all Rights of Lands or Moveables Now seing they have gotten two third parts of the Land which is much better than ten thousand merks It cannot be thought to be his meaning to give them any share of his Moveables also but that the half thereof which was at his disposal should belong to the eldest Daughter without burden Which the Lords found Relevant and declared the same to belong to the eldest Daughter without burden of the Provisions Alexander Ferguson contra Parochioners of Kingarth Eodem die ALexander Ferguson being one of the Prebands of the Chapel-Royal by His Majesties Presentation and Collation pursues the Heretors of the Paroch of Kingarth for the Teinds as being annexed to the Chappel-Royal as appears by the Books of Assumption and three Presentations from the King produced Compearance is made for the Minister of Rothsay who alleadged that he had Presentation to the Kirk of Kingarth from the King and Collation thereupon and so had best right to the Teinds of his Paroch because de jure communi decima debentur pâ—rocho and as for the Pursuer he shews no Right by any Mortification of these Teinds to the Chappel-Royal Neither can he make it appear that ever he or any other Prebander were in Possession civil or natural thereof 2dly Albeit the Prebanders had had a Right the same is now taken off by Prescription because it is offered to be proven that the Minister hath been 40. years in peaceable Possession before the Pursuers Citation which not only takes away the bygones but the whole Right and establishes the same in the Ministers person The Lords found the Books of Assumption and the three Presentations from the King sufficient to instruct the Pursuers Title and found the Defense of Prescription Relevant as to the bygones before the Citation but not to Establish the Right in the Minister or to take it from the Chappel-Royal as to years after the Citation and in time coming in respect of the Act of Parliament providing that the Kings Interest shall not be prejudged by the neglect of His Officers Blair of Bagillo contra Blair of Denhead February 3. 1671. BLair of Bagillo having granted Bond to Blair of Denhead he did Assign the same to Guthrie of Collistoun Bagilio raised Suspension against Collistoun as Assigney in Anno 1632. and now Collistoun insists in a Transferring of the old Suspension and Decreet Suspended against Bagillo's Heirs to the effect
in the Letters that ought not to have been granted because Appryzings should only be in the head Burgh of the Shire or in communi patriâ at Edinburgh but especially seing the Warrand was obtained from the Lords of course among the common Bills without being Read or considered and so is periculo petentis and cannot prejudge the more formal Diligence of other Comprizers especially seing Lundy Appryzed of new for the same sums which will come in pari passu with the rest being within year and day It was answered that it is inherent in all Jurisdictions to continue Processes to new Dyets having keeped the first Dyet and that the Messenger by the Letters is Constitute Sheriff and there is no question but Sheriffs might and did prorogate Dyets in Appryzings and the Letters bears Warrand to fix Courts one or more and for the continuation it was but to the next day in regard of a great Speat the Appryzing being upon the hill in the open field the time of Rain and it being mâ—dica mora to the next day which will give no Warrand to an Arbitrary continuation by Messengers to what Interval they please And as for the place The Lords by Dispensation may appoint what place they see convenient and albeit the Dispensation had been of course and that therein the Clerks had failed yet the Parties obtainers of such Dispensations are secure thereby and ought not to be prejudged The Lords Sustained the Appryzing and found the Requisition now produced sufficient and found that the continuing of the Dyet for so short a time to be no ground of nullity unless the Competitors could alleadge a special cause that they did or might alleadged whereby they were prejudged by leading the Appryzing the second day rather than the first The Lords did also Sustain the Dispensation of the place and having perused the Practique produced at the Instance of the Lady Lucia Hamiltoun anent an Appryzing led at Glasgow by Dispensation They found that the Lords did not annul the Appryzing on that Ground But the Lords ordained that no Bill bearing Dispensation should pass of Course in time coming but upon special Reasons to be conâ—idered by the Lords or the Ordinary upon the Bills and that Messengers should not continue the Dyets in Appryzings but upon necessar Causes and ordained an Act to be insert in the Books of Sederunt for that effect Adam Gairns contra Isobel Sandilands Eodem die ADam Gairns pursues Isobel Sandilands as Representing her Father to pay a Debt of his and specially as behaving as Heir by uplifting the Mails and Duties of a Tenement wherein the Father Died Infeft as of Fee in so far as by Contract of Marriage betwixt Thomas Sandilands her Father and Iohn Burn and Isobel Burn his Daughter The said Iohn Burn provided the said Tenement in thir Terms viz. after the Obligements upon the Husbands part it follows thus For the which Cause the said Iohn Burn binds and obliges him to Inseft Thomas Sandilands and the said Isobel Burn the longest liver of them two in Conjunctfee or Liferent and the Heirs between them Which failzying the said Isobel her Heirs and Assigneys whatsomever By which Provision her Father being Feear and Infeft the Defender is lyable The Defender alleadged absolvitor because by this Provision of the Conjunctfee of this Tenement Isobel Burn the Defenders Mother was Feear and her Father was but Liferenter in respect the Termination of the Succession is to the Mothers Heirs yea and to her Assigneys which necessarly imports that she had power to Dispone And it is a general Rule in Succession of Conjunct-Feears that that Person is Feear upon whose Heirs the last Termination of the Tailzie or Provision ended especially in this Case where the Right of the Tenement flowes from the Womans Father So that if there were any doubtfulness it must be presumed that the Fathers meaning was to give the Fee to his Daughter having no other Children Neither is this Land Disponed nomine dotis And the Defender stands Infeft by Precept of Favour as Heir to her Mother and thereby bruiks bona fide and her Infeftment must Defend her till it be Reduced The Pursuer answered that by the provision the Husband was Feear and the Wife was only Liferenter because though the last Termination doth ordinarly rule the Fee yet this is as favourable a Rule that in Conjunct Provisions potior est conditio masculi and though the Termination be upon the Wifes Heirs whatsomever yet they are but Heirs of Provision to the Husband and he might have Disponed and his Creditors may affect the Land which holds in all Cases except the Lands had been Disponed by the Wife her self without a Cause onerous But here the Husband is first named and it is but a small parcel of Land beside which there is no other Tocher So that though it be not Disponed nomine dotis Yet being Disponed for the which Causes it is equivalent and in the same Contract the Husband is obliged to provide all Lands that he shall Acquire or succeed to to himself and his Wife the longest liver of them two in Conjunct-fee or Liferent and to the Heirs between them Which failzying the one half to the Husbands Heirs and the other half to the Wifes Heirs and their Assigneys and it cannot be imagined that the meaning of these Clauses was that the Fee of the Mans Conquest and Succession should not be all Constitute in himself but that the Wife should be Feear of the half And in like manner the Fathers meaning is clear because the Clause bears not only in Contemplation of the Marriage but for sums of Money received by the Father which albeit left blank in the Contract yet it cannot be thought that in such a Narrative he intended to make his Daughter Feear And as for the adjection of her Assigneys it is only ex stilo for Assigneys is ever added after the last Termination of Heirs and does always relate to all the Feears and would extend to the Heirs of the Marriage their Assigneys as well as to the Wifes Heirs failing them Likeas Assigneys isin the same way adjected to the Clause of Conquest wherein there is no ground to imagine that the Wife is Feear and both bears the Husband and Wife to be Infeft in Conjunct-fee or Liferent The Lords found that by this Provision and Infeftment thereon the Husband was Feear and the Wife only Liferenter and found no necessity to Reduce the Defenders Infeftment as Heir to her Mother not proceeding upon a Retour but a Precept of Favour But they found that the dubiousness of the case was sufficient to free her from the passive Title of Behaviour but only for making forthcoming her intromission quoad valorem But it was not Debated nor Considered whether as bonae fidei Possessor by a colourable Title being Infeft as Heir to her Mother she would be free of the bygones before
Appryzing on the Bairns Portion though prior Iuly 22. 1668. Iohnstoun of Shems contra Arnot Vide Children Ianuary 16. 1676. Erskines contra Râ—ynolds A BOND bearing borrowed Money was found not Reduceable upon the Act against Bankrupts but that the Bond it self did sufficiently instruct the borrowing of the Money as the cause onerous Iune 28. 1665. Moâ—teith contra Aâ—derson A Bond was found Heretable as bearing annualrent though it was but 5. per cent in a Bairns Portion Iune 28. 1665. Pâ—tcairn contra Edgar Bonds bearing Annualrent are moveable till the first Term of payment of Annualrent and fall within single Escheat Iune 26. 1668. Dick contra Keir A Bond by a Father to a Son though bearing borrowed Money yet was presumed to be for love and favour and the same with an Appryzing thereupon was Reduced at the instance of anterior Creditors who obtained Decreets after the Bond for Bargains which were proven by Witnesses to have been contracted before the Bond Ianuary 21. 1669. Creditors of Pollock contra Pollock his Son A Bond by a Father to his Son after he was Married and out of his Family payable after the Fathers death was found not Reduceable at the instance of posterior Creditors of the Father by the Act of Parliament 1621. against fraudful Alienations though it were Reduceable upon evidence of Fraud ex jure communi which were appointed to be condescended upon Ibidem A Bond taken by a Father from a Son after Contract of Marriage Vide Contract BARONS Decreets are valide in Vaccance time by their priviledge without dispensation and they are competent to Iudge the Multures due by their Vassals February 14. 1662. Nicolson contra Forbes of Tillicutriâ— A BARONY was found to include a Burgh of Barony as Pâ—rt and Pertinent though not exprest in a donators Infefâ—ment albeit it was exprest in former Infeftments and particulars of less moment were exprest in this Infeftment as comprehended in the Barony Ianuary 15. 1668. Earl of Argile contra Campbel A BASE INFEFTMENT of Annualrent was sound valide against a posterior publick Infeftment because thereupon there was a Decreet of poinding the Ground though it could take no effect for a long time till the entry to the Annualrent which was not till after the Constituents death 26 and 27. of February 1662. Creditors of Kinglass competing A base Infeftment by a Husband to his Wife on her Contract was validate by and preferred upon the Husbands Possession though the Wiâ—es Infeftment was of annualrent and the Husbands of property November 23. 1664. Lady Grangâ— contra Murray where it was found that from the very date it was validate and preferred to any other though prior and base but apprehending Possession upon a Citation before Candlemas it being Ferm Land and a Decreet thereon in March thereafter Two base Infestments of annualrent competing one to a Wiâ—e the other to a Creditor the Wife was preferred being cled with Possession by the Husbands possession which was not found competent to the Creditor though his Infeftment was prior and though he used Inhibition before the next Term after the Wifes Infeftment and alleadged the Husband could have no Possession after the Wifes Infeftment before his diligence which the Lords Repelled because the Husband was in a present current Possession and nor in acquirenda possessione but the Wifes Infeftment was only sustained in prejudice of this Creditor in so far as it had an anterior Cause to his debt The Husbands Possession was also found sufficient to validate the Wifes Infeftment of annualrent though he possessed the property which includes eminenter all other Rights November 23. 1664. inter cosdem An Infeftment of Warrandice Lands being in the same Infeftment with the principal Lands and both holden base was preferred to a posterior publick Infeftment of the same warrandice Lands though cled with long Possession and that upon an action of Mails and Duties upon the Distresse without Reduction Ianuary 9. 1666. Brown contra Scot. A base Infeftment by a Father to a Son reserving the Fathers Liferent was found not validate by the Fathers continuing his Possession but the Fathers Creditors appryzing were preferred to the Donator of the Sons Forefaulture founding upon the Sons Infeftment Iune 14. 1666. Hume contra Hume A base Infeftment of annualrent was preferred to a posterior appryzing and charge before the Term at which the annualrent begane to be payable in respect the annualrenter was in Possession of the Land out of which the annualrent was payable intus habuit viz. his annualrent proportionally from the date of his Right Iune 30. 1666. Stevinson contra Dobbie A base Infeftment by a Father to a Son Reserving the Fathers Liferent was found not validate by the Fathers possession albeit the Father disponed the Lands reserved to a third Party who did possess but the Disposition was of the Fee and no mention of the Liferent reserved December 18. 1666. Lord Newbeath contra Dumbar of Burgy A base Infeftment was excluded by the Liferent Escheat of the granter albeit the base Infeftment was before the Rebellion seing it was not cled with Possession in cursu rebellionis within year and day February 21. 1667. Miln contra Clerkinson A base Infeftment by a man to his Wife was preferred to a posterior publick Infeftment albeit the base Infeftment was not cled with Possession of the Husband himself but by others deriving Right of Wodset or other Temporary Right from the Husband or his authors which was compted as the Husbands Possession to validate the Wifes base Infeftment Iuly 18. 1667. Lady Burgy contra Strachen A base Infeftment of annualrent was found to be validate by receipt of a part though far within a Terms annualrent and not relative to the Infeftment but to the Bond whereupon it followed and though there was no annâ—alrent due before the Infeftment yet seing the Receipt bear in part of payment of bygone annualrents the Annualrenter was allowed to ascribe it to the annualrents due after the Infeftment to exclude an Infeftment on an Appryzing which appryzing was led before the Receipt but the Infeftment thereupon was after and the Receipt was proven by an Apocha under the Debitors hand Iuly 23. 1667. Hume contra Hume and the Tennents of Kello A base Infeftment of annualrent on a Bond bearing 3000. merks of borrowed Money and 3000. merks of Portion the one half of the whole Sum and annualâ—ents thereof was Suspended till the Fathers death Yet payment of the annualrent of the other half not suspended was found sufficient to validate the whole Infeftment and to prefer it to a posterior publick Infeftment February 5. 1668. Keir contra Keir A base Infeftment in warrandice granted by a Husband to his Wife holden of himself ex intervallo after the principal Infeftment was found valide against a posterior publick Infeâ—tment of the â—ame warrandice Lands as being cled with the Husbands Possession in the principal Lands and that these needed no
principally but by a third party Iuly 5. 1662. Drummond contra Campbel A DESIGNATION of a Gleib by way of Instrument of a Nottar was not Sustained without Production of the Testificate of the Ministers Designers December 17. 1664. Paterson contra Watson Designations of Gleibs must first be of Parsons before Bishops Lands though they were Feued before the Act anent Manses and Gleibs and built with Houses so that the Feuar must purchase as much ere the other Kirk Lands be affected Ianuary 25. 1665. Parson of Dysart contra Watson Designation of one to be Tutor Testamentar by his own acknowledgement was found not to prove against him where by the Testament the contrary appeared Iune 10. 1665. Swinâ—â—â—n contra Notman Designation of a Manse was Sustained by Intimation out of the Pulpit or at the Kirk door warning the Heretors thereto as being the constant custom though some of the most considerable were ouâ— of the Countrey Ianuary 28. 1668. Minister of Hassendene contra Duke of Bucclâ—â—gh Designation of a Gleib was Sustained though done but by two Ministers the Bishops Warrand being to three without 〈◊〉 Quâ—runâ— unless weighty reasons upon the prejudice of parties were shown February 7. 1668. Minister of Cockburnspeâ—h contra his Parochioners DEVASTATION total was found to Liberate from publick Maintainance February 20. 1663. Baxters of Edinburgh contra Heretors of Eastlouthian DILIGENCE was not required of a Person whose Name was not intrusted in the Infeftment of Annualrent to make him Comptable for ommisâ—ion but only for intromission December 18. 1666. Cass contra Wat. A DISCHARGE to one of more Contutors was â—ound not to Liberate the rest except in so far as satisfaction was given by the Party discharged or in so far as the other Contutors would be excluded from Recourse against the Party Discharged December 19. 1668. Seatoun contra Seatoun A Discharge of Rent not designing the Writer thereof was found null unless the user thereof designed the Writer because it was of 80. pounds of Annualrent yearly and that thereby an Infeftment of Annualrent would be cled with Possession and preferred to another Annualrent Iuly 14. 1665. Scot contra Silvertounâ—il A Discharge being general was found not to extend to a Sum Assigned by the Discharger before the Discharge albeit it was not intimate before unless it were proven that payment was truly made for this sum February 3. 1671. Blair of Bagillo contra Blair of Denhead A DISPOSITION of Moveables was preferred to an Arrestment on an horning anterior to the Delivery seing the Disposition was before the Horning and the delivery before the Arrestment Iuly â— 1662. Bouse contra Baillie Iohnstoâ—â— A Disposition was Reduced on the Act of Parliament 1621. as in fraudem creditorum though the Disponer was not Bankrupt and that he had reserved the power of a considerable sum to sell Land to pay his debt which the Creditors might affect seing the Creditors ought to have Preference according to their Legal diligence on the whole Estate till payment February 6. 1663. Lord Lour contra Earl of Dundee Dispositions of Heretable Rights are only Reducable upon the Act of Parliament against Bankrupts and not by exception or reply though betwixt Father and Son in re parvi momenti viz. 100. pounds Iune 19. 1663. Reid contra Harper A Disposition by a Husband to his Wife of an additional Ioynture she being sufficiently provided before was found Reduceable at the instance of anterior Creditors albeit the Husband was no Bankrupt but because he had no Estate un-liferented or affected albeit the Reversion was much more worth nor the Creditors Sums but the Relick offering to purge the prejudice by admitting the Creditor who had appryzed to possess Lands equivalent to his Annualrent he Assigning to the Relick what he was satisfied by the Ioynture Lands and with this provision that if the Legal expired she should not be absolutely excluded The Lords found the offer sufficient February 10. 1665. Lady Craig and Greenhead contra Lord Loure A Disposition omnium bonorum without any cause onerous and without delivery was found not sufficient to exclude the necessity of Confirmation and paying of the Quote Iune 23. 1665. Procurator-fiscal of the Commissariot of Edinburgh contra Fairholm A Disposition omnium bonorum though with possession was â—ound not to exclude the Quote and Confirmation seing it bear a â—eversion to the Disponer during his Life to dispone of the Goods notwithstanding Iuly 4. 1665. Commissar of Saint Andrews contra Laird of Bousie A Disposition of Land was found to carry all Right that was in the Disponers Person and to import an Assignation to a Reversion which needed not intimation seing the Seasine was Registrat in the Register of Seasines December 5. 1665. Beg contra Beg. A Disposition of Lands was found imported by an Assignation to the Mails and Duties in all time coming against the Heir of him that granted that Right and that the Heir was obliged to renew a compleat legal Disposition with a Procuratory of Resignation and Precept of Seasine Iuly 2. 1667. Sinclar of Hirdmanstoun contra Cowper A Disposition by one Brother to another of his whole Estate bearing for satisfying of his debts enumerat and containing a power to the Purchaser to satisfie what debts he pleased and to prefer them was found valide and not fraudulent in so far as extended to the Purchasers own Sums due to him and for which he was Cautioner for his Brother as if it had born these to be paid primo loco and thereupon one of the Creditors whose debt was enumerat in the Disposition was postponed to the Acquirers own debt and cautionry till they were first satisfied Ianuary 8. 1669. Captain Newman contra Tennents of White-hill and Mr. Iohn Prestoun A Disposition was Reduced because given by a weak person to him who was lately her Tutor ante redditas rationes and done of the same date with a Contract of Marriage whereby she was married to his Nephew who got the Disposition and died ere he was Married albeit he who got the Disposition was her Mothers Brother who Educat and Alimeâ—â—ed her and the Pursuer of the Reduction was her Grand-Fathers Brothers Son who had not noticed her but she was an ignorant person half deaf February 18. 1669. French contra Watson A Disposition of Moveables in Writ bearing onerous causes expressing a Sum and others generally was fouâ—â— not to prove the cause onerous by the Narrative being 〈◊〉 dulent leaving nothing to other Creditors nor 〈…〉 by the Acquirers Oath but also by the Oaths of the 〈◊〉 whom payment was made November 18. 1669. Henderson contra Anderson A Disposition of Lands bearing the Buyers Entry to be at Whitsonday and to the Cropt of that year was found not to extend to the Cropt of Corn that was Sowen and standing on the Ground that year the time of the Buyers Entry or to any part of the Rent payable for the Land fâ—om the Whitsunday before
as the rest of his children or else to pay a Modification for his aliment albeit the Father was indigent seing the Son had no Means or Calling to aliment himself Ianuary 13. 1666. Dick contra Dick. A Father was sound to be lawful Administrator to his Son in his Family not only in his Pupillarity but Minority as curatorâ— honorarius not lyable to oâ—â—mission or exclusive to other Curators but deeds done without his consent were found null albeit his Son resided not in his Family but followed the Law living still on his Fathers charges and having no Calling or Patrimony to maintain himself neither was his Fathers Subscribing with him found a sufficient authorizing of him seing he subscribed with him as Cautioner for him December 7. 1666. Menzeis contra Fairholme A Father taking a Bond blank in the Creditors Name and filling up his Brothers Name therein and obtaining an Assignation from him to his daughter was not found as a Bond of Provision Revockable by the Father in respect the Bond was Registrate in the Brothers Name November 20. 1667. Executors of Trotter contra Trotter A Father was not found obliged for Annualrent of a Legacy uplifted by him belonging to his Son as being his Tutor of Law the Son being Alimented by the Father and in his Family December 15. 1668. Windrham contra Eleâ—s A Father granting Bond to a Bairn in satisfaction of her Portion Natural was found thereby to increass the Bairns part of the rest of the Bairns and not to apply that Bairns part to the Heir Executor or universal Legator as they who were obliged for the Bond of Provision comprehending the Bairns part February 17. 1671. Megil contra Viscount of Oxenfoord A FEW containing a clause irritant expreslyâ— to be null upon the Failzle was found not to be purged at the Bar where offer of payment was made in which it differs from a Feu not having that clause February 13. 1666. Laird of Wedderburn contra Wardlaw Feus of Ward-lands granted before the Act of Parliament 1666. against Feus was found valide albeit granted by these who held Ward of Subjects without consent of their Superiour Iune 24. 1668. Steuart of Torrence contra Feuers of Ernoch A Feu was found to be Renunceable by a Feuer to free him of the Feu-duty albeit it was constitute by a muâ—ual contract obliging the Feuer and his Heirs to pay the Feu-duty yearly seing by a Back-bond of the same date he was allowed to Renunce when he pleased which was found effectual to take away that personal obligement being extrinsick to the Feu though in the Feudal Contract against a singular Successor in the Feu February 1. 1669. Brown contra Sibbald A FEW-Dâ—VTY was found personally to affect a Liferenter for these years only whereof she lifted the Rent Iuly 19. 1665. Windrham contra the Lady Idingtoun FOREFAVLTVRE of a Paricide as having killed his own Mother being gifted by the King and Infeftment thereon was found to have no effect unless there had been a doom of Forefaulture pronunced by the Iustices but not upon the ordinary course against absents declaring parties Fugitives for not underlying the Law which can only reach their Moveables Iuly 30. 1662. Zeaman contra Oliphant Forefaulture having with it dishabilitation of the Forefault persons Children declaring them incapable of Lands or Estate in Scotland whereby the Sons Estate fell in the Kings hand and was disponed to a donatar who set Tacks and the Son being restored by Sentence of Parliament as an Infant not accessory to the Crime The Infeftment and Tack thereon were found to fall without calling the Persons interressed before the Parliament notwithstanding of the Act 1584. Prohibiting Restitutions by way of Reduction and declaring Rights granted medio tempore by the King to be valide which was not found to extend to dishabilitation of the Children but to the principal Forefalture February 24. 1665. Dowglas and Sinclar her Husband contra the Laird of Wedderburn Here both the dishabilitation and remission thereof proceeded without citation Forefalture and five years possession of the Forefalt person before the Forefalture makes a valide Right notwithstanding of the posterior Act of Parliament for registration of Seasines and Reversions c. Yet interruption within the five years was found to elide the same by Inhibition and granting a new Corroborative Right especially where citation was used immediatly before the five years albeit the corroborative Right was post commissum crimen Iuly 23. 1666. Earl of Southesk contra Marquess of Huntly Forefalture and five years possession was found not Relevant by exception or reply without a reâ—our by an Inquest Iune 13. 1666. Hume contra Hume Forefalture gives the King or his Donator five years Rent of any Land the Forefalt person was in possession off the time of the Sentence whether by Tack or not Ianuary 24. 1667. Inter eosdem In Forefalture a donatar was found excluded by Appryzing at the instance of the Creditors of the Forefalt person who had comprized before the committing of the Crime and had charged the Superiour after the crime but before the Process of Forefalture Iuly 6. 1667. Creditors of Hume of Kâ—llo contra Hume The Donatar of Forefalture pursuing Removing was found not to be excluded by an Inâ—eâ—tment on an Appryzing granted by the King being then immediate Superiour before the Gift which was not found equivalent to a Confirmation but past in Exchequer of course without notice December 9. 1668. Earl of Argile contra Stirling Forefalture was found to exclude a Creditor founding upon a clause in the disposition made to the Forefalt Person by his Father reserving a power to himself to affect and burden the Lands disponed by Wodset or Annualrent for such a sum though the Father had granted a Bond to the Pursuer declaring the sum to be a part of the Reservation seing there followed no Infeftment by Resignation or Confirmation by the King Iuly 12. 1671. Learmoâ—th contra Earl of Lauderdail Forefalture Vide Gift Hague contra Moscrop and Rutherfoord FRAVD of Creditors being insisted on to Reduce an additional Ioynture after the debt appryzed on the Liferenter offering access to the Appryzer for his Annualrent and to be totally excluded if it were not Redeemed within the Legal it was Sustained Relevant here the Husband was neither bankrupt nor insolvent but there was no ready execution because of the additional Ioynture February 10. 1669. Lady Greenhead contra Lord Lour Fraud of Creditors upon the Act of Parliament 1621. was not found Relevant by Reply without Reduction though of a disposition by a Father to a Son in a small matter Iune 19. 1663. Red contra Harper Fraud of Creditors was not inferred by a clause in a Contract providing a Ioynture to a Wife with condition of restricking her self to a part that the superplus might belong to the Bairns for their Aliment the whole Ioynture being only proportionable to the condition of the parties November 16.
a better Rent February 23. 1665. Iack contra Pollock and Rutherfoord IN MERCHANTS ACCOMPTS taken off by persons intrusted and converted to the persons use was â—ound to make them lyable to the Merchand unless the party prove that they pâ—yed the price to the Party intrusted but if they knew the perâ—on intrusted took off the Ware not on their own Credite and Name but the Constituents and from what Merchant then they should have called for the Merchants Discharge else though they payed the person instrusted if they payed not the Merchant it is on their peril who knew the Merchants interest but not so when they payed and knew not who was Merchant or in whose Name and Credit the Ware was taken off February 20. 1669. Bruce Merchant contra Laird and Lady Stanhope METVS CAVSA was found Relevant thus That a Wife shew her unwillingness at the subscribing by the Witnesses insert and other Witnesses and that the Husband was a fierce man accustomed to beâ—t her and that he did particularly threaten her to consent to quite a part of her Liferent Iune 24. 1664. Woodhead contra Nairn Metus was sustained to take away a Bond given for fear of Caption the Party being sick when he was taken Prisoner Iune 22. 1667. Maire contra Steuart of Shambelly A MILN being built by a Husband upon his Wifes Liferent Lands wherein she was Infeft cum â—olendinis in the tenâ—â—dar was found to belong to the Wife for her Liferent uâ—e but not any Thirle Mulâ—ures of others of the Defuncts Lands February 16. 1666. Laird of Otter contra A Miln once going 28. houâ—es may not be Deâ—olished as novum opus via factâ— being a Common-good but by civil inâ—erruption via jurâ—s though it was but a walk-miln Iune 24. 1667. Hay of Struie contra Feâ—ers A Miln was found to be in the same condition as Land in relation to Heirs and Executors Liferenter and Feâ—ar so that the Heâ—etoâ— surviving Whitsonday his Executor hath the half and surviving Martiâ—mas the whole Rent though the conventional Terms were Candlesmas for the first and Whitsonday for the second Term the Entry being at Whitsonday Iuly 20. 1671 Guthrie contra Mckerstoun A MINISTERS Stipend by Decreet of Locality was found not to be understood the measure of Linliâ—hgow but the meaâ—ure of the Shire where the measure was indefinite and the Stipend not eâ—ght full Chalders of Victual and was usually payed by the measuâ—e of the Shire 15. years before Iune 27. 1669 Minister of Dalrymple contra Earl of Casâ—ilâ— A MINOR was not restored who gavâ— a Bond bearing expresly he was Major unless it were proven the Minor knew he was Minor or did induce him to insert that Clause or that by inspection he might have known him Minor not being near Majority February 23. 1665. Kennedie of Auchâ—ifordâ—â— contra Weir A Minor during his Minority having obtaiâ—ed Decreet against his Curator to renunce his Office the Curator was not â—ound liberate thereby even of omissions after the Decreet but it being alleadged that the Minor was irregular and had forcibly intrometted with his Rents The same was sustained pro tanto Iuly 21. 1664. Scot of Broad-meadows contra Scot of Thirlestoun A Minors Bond was found null by Exception because it was not with his Fathers consent as lawful Administrâ—tor to him unless it did appear he had an Estate of his own and mannaged it apart December 22. 1665. Leslie contra Sinclar of Dun. A Minors Disposition of Land was found vâ—lide unless Lesion appeared though it wanted the authority of a Iudge â—hich is only requisite to the Dispositions of Pupils and though the Minor had no Curators December 13. 1668. Thomson contra Stevinson A Minor was restored though he waiâ—ed on the Tolbooth as a student at Law but was intertained by his Father and though the Father Subscribed the same Writ seing the Son subscribed as Cautioner for him and so his Authorizing was to his own behove Decâ—mber 5. 1666. Mckenzei contra Fairholm A Minors Bond having Curators not authorized by them was found null and extended to a Son and a Father as lawful Administrator as Curator to him and that his Sons Subscribing with him as Cautioner for him or with him for any other principal Conjunctly and severally was not thereby sufficiently authâ—rized neither as Cautioner for his Father nor the other â—orrâ—i debendi his obligation as to both being to the Fathers behove as giving his Father thereby Relief and so the Son could not be authorized by the Father to the Fathers own behove Iuly 25. 1667. Inter eosdem A miâ—or having Transacted with consent of his Curators for a Right and after his majority having received the Bonds delivered to the Creditors upon the Transaction and having discharged the Curators as having Faithfully acted and having in the Curators Accompts reserved Reduction of that Transaction upon Minority and Lesion which then was raised was not found thereby excluded from the Reduction but 〈◊〉 being doubtful whether that Reservation was in the accompt when it was first Subscribed the Writer and Witnesses were appointed to be examined ex officio thereâ—nent Ianuary 26. 1671. Carâ—â— contra Cunninghame MINOR NON TENETVR PLACITARE was found not Relevant in a Recognition February 19. 166â— Lady Carnagy conâ—ra Lord Cranburn Minor non tenetur placitare super hereditaâ—â— paâ—erna was found to have no place where the Father had only a Disposition and was not Infeft but if his Infefâ—ment were instructed the Minor was found not obliged to produce â—aâ—der or to Dispute the Reason of Reduction albeit it was not upon priority or Solemnities of the Rights but super dolo aut meâ—â— yet the Pursuer was admitted to produce Witnesses for any point of Fact to remain in reâ—entis least they might dye medio tempâ—re Ianuary 31. 1665. Kello contra Pringle and the Laird of Wâ—dderburn Minor non tenetur placitare was found not to defend a Liferenter whom the Minor Feear was obliged to warrand and that her Right being Reduced did not accresce to the minor Feear nor did his â—ollerance defend her Possession Iuly 5. 1665. Borthwick contra Skein Minor non tenetur placitare was found valide though the Reduction was against the Fathers Authors Right as not being infeft Ianuary 18. 1667. Chapman contra Wâ—ite Minor non tenetur placitare super harâ—dâ—taâ—â— paterna was found not Relevant to stop a Process of Recognition of Ward Bands upon the Vassals alienation of the major part thereof although the Subâ—vassal who was also cited was minor seing the Vassal who was major his Right was principally in question and the Sub-vassal minor his Right fell in consequence February 22. 1668. Cochran contra MINORITY AND LESION was found Relevant to Reduce a Womans Contract of marriage in so far as it came short of the ordinary conditions in â—avours of such persons in their Conâ—racts of marriage which was not â—ound to annul the provisions of
by the Seasine but deponed it was in Summer where the Seasine bear in Winter was improven though the Nottar offered to abide by it but the Lords refused to Examine him or any extrinsick Witness in respect the Seasine had no Warrand in writ Ianuary 9. 1669. Wallace of 〈◊〉 contra â—lâ—kerrel A Seasine propriis manibus by a Father to his Son reseving his Fathers Liferent was found valide against a second Wifes Infeftment in the same Lands though granted for a competent Tocher albeit the Seasine had but two Witnesâ—es and had no Disposition or Precept to Warrand it but an Adminicle viz. a Bond by the Father of the same date obliging him to warrand the Seasine and that it was not a fraudulent â—atent deed it being Registrate nor was it alterable by the Father as a Bairns portion February 11. 1669. Buchan contra Taits SERVICE of Harrage and Carriage in a 〈◊〉 was â—ound not due but when demanded within the year Iune 27. 1662. Watson contra Eleis SERVITVDE of Fail and Divot Clay and Stone granted in a Muire definitely where there was no pasâ—urage therewith was found not to hinder the Proprietar of the Muire to Plew and rive out a parâ— where there was more leâ—t then was like to serve the use of the Servitude â—or ever yet so as if it should happen at any time thereafter not to suffice a part of that riven out should be laid â—ee for the same purpose in this respect was had to the publick utility the whole Muire being otherwayes improfiâ—able and the restriction was not allowed till the Muire was actually riven out and plâ—wed Iune 21. 1667. Watson contra Feuers of Dunkeir A Servitude of putting over a Miln Damn upon other mens ground was â—ound not constiâ—ute without his consent though he shew no detriment to him thereby Iune 22. 1667. Hay of Strowiâ— contra Feuers A Servitude of common pasturage though if ordinarly carry Fail and Divot yet if by cuâ—â—ome Fail and Divot be excluded and hindered it is â—ot excluded February 15. 1668. Laird of Haining contra Town of Seâ—kirk SIMVLATION of a Gift of Eâ—cheat was inferred upon the Act of Parliament 1592. because the Rebel was suffered to possess four or five years in which 〈◊〉 were patent albeit the Donatar obtained gâ—neral declarator long before and was himself a lawful Creditor and that the Lands were appryzed before the Rebellion seing the Appryzer possessed not but the Rebel Ianuary 9. 1666. Oliphant contra Drummond Simulation of a gift of Liferent Escheat was â—ound probable by the Superiour and Witnesses insert in the gift their oathes that it was to the Rebels behove Iune 19. 1669. Scot contra Langtoun Simulation of a gift of Liferent taken by a party who had bought Lands for securing himself in respect the Sellers Escheat was â—â—llen was not inferred by allowing the Expenses of the Gift in the price of the Land which the Seller was obliged to warrand seing he did not extend the gift any further than to the Lands bought to himself unless it were proven he knew of the other party competing his Right that it was perfected before he took the other Disposition of the same Lands and thereby was particeps fraudis with the Seller who granted double Dispositions 22. 1669. Hamiltoun of Corsse contra Hamiltoun and Viscount of Frendraught Simulation of a Gift of Escheat and Liferent was not inferred because it was granted to the Rebels Son who was not in his Family but had means of his own nor that the Father continued in possession for sometime after Declarator nor were the members of Exchequer admitted to prove that the Gift was procured by the Fathers means and moyen seing the Son gave Back-bond that being satisfied of the debt in the Horning his own debt and expenses of the gift there should be place to the Rebels Crediâ—ors and did make Faith at the passing of the Gift that it was to his own behove December 4. 1669. â—â—ffrey contra Doctor 〈◊〉 Simulation of a Giâ—t of Liâ—erent was inferred from the Rebels obtaining the gift bâ—ank in the Donatars Name which being in his hand and delivered to a Creditor for security of a just debt the same was found null even as to him December 17. 1670. Langtoun contra Scot A SINGVLAR SVCCESSOR was not found lyable for publick burdens imposed by Committees of Parliament Ratified in Parliament Iuly 13. 1664. Grahame of Hiltoun contra Heretors of Claâ—kmannan Shire SLANDER Vide Commissaries IN A SPECIAL DECLARATOR of Escheaâ— the payment of the debt before denunciation was â—ound relevant upon the Creditors Oath but Nullity of the Horning upon informality of Process was found not relevant seing these purged not the Contempt and Disobedience in not paying or suspending February 10. 1663. Montgomrie contra Montgomrie and Lawder in this case the alleadgeaâ—ce on the Back-bond granted to the Thesaurer by the Donatar in favours of the Creditors was not found relevant without a second gift or warrand from the Thesaurer SP VILZIE was elided by Disposition and Instrument of possession though it was omnium bonorum and no natural possession â—ollowed for two years seing there was no forcible resistance Ianuary 29. 1662 Irwing contra Mâ—kartnay In a spuilzie many persons being called as accessory there being on others whereby the Defender might prove his Defense The Lords declared if the pursuer insisted against them all they would ordain him first to insist against the accessories that such as were assoilzied might be Witnesses February 24. 1662. Inter eosdem Spuilzie of Teinds was not elided by ther 15 and 17. Acts of Parliament 1633. Declaring the Teinds to be the fifth part of the Rents and that every Heretor shall have their own Teind until valuation be intented December 18. 1662. Lord Balmerino contra the Town of Edinburgh Spuilzie noâ— being pursued â—ithin three years can only be pursued thereafter as wrongous intromission and the parties are not lyable in solidum but if all be proven intromettors they are lyable equally as being all presumed to have equally intrometted unless the greater intromission of some of them be prove m Ianuary 17. 1668. Strachan contra Morison A Spuilzie was not elided by a poinding though one offered to make Faith the Goods were anothers then the debitors not being offered by himself his Servant or by his Commission seing that partie had a Disposition with an instrument of possession and several Acts alleadged oâ— his natâ—ral possession from whom the Goods were poinded Iuly 6. 1666. Corbet contra Stirling Spuilzie of Oxen the Pursuers had in the Pleugh four moneths was elided because the Defenders had intrometted with them by an order of the Sheriâ—â— execute by his Officers as being stollen Goods though there was no citation of paâ—â—ies for obtaining the warrand which might be summarly used for recovering of Goods notwithstanding of 4. moneths peaceable possession unless with the possession the pursuer should instruct a lawful and onerous
Title as having bought the Oxen in which case Sentence was found necessary before the possessors were dispossessed Iuâ—y 7. 1671. Strachans contra Gordouns STIPENDS of Ministers affect the Teinds as a real burden and all intrometters even these who buy as Merchands buying the whole Teind of a Mans Land for a year so that they cannot pretend payment made to the Heretor bona fide seing they should know that real burden Iune 24. 1662. Vernor contra Brown Stipends quoad Intrants were found to divide in two Terms that the Intrant before Whitsondâ—y hath â—oth Terms but after Whitsonday and before Michalmass only one Term Iuly 24. 1662. Wâ—yms contra Cunninghame Stipends were not found to burden and Heretor where there is a Liferenter living Iune 24. 1663. Menzeis contra Laird of Glenâ—rchie Stipend of a Minister reponed shortly after Michalmass as having Presentation Collation and Possession before and wrongously put out was found not to prefer him to that years stipend against the lncumbent possessing and serving the Cure 〈◊〉 Michalmas bona fide Iuly 9. 1663. Kirkaldy contra Balcanquel A Stipend whereto a Stipendiar was presented at Lambass and served from thence and was admitted shortly after Michalmass reached not the whole stipend but the half though the Presentation was before Michalmass and the actual service seing the Admission was shortly after Iune 7. 1664. Hay contra Collector of Vaccand stipends A stipend was found to affect the whole Teinds unbought where there was not a Locality and so the Minister might take himself to any Hereâ—or for his whole free Teind and not pro rata without prejudice to him to pursue for Relief December 3. 1664. Hutcheson contra Earl of Casâ—â—ls A Stipend was found instructed by seven years possession without any Title in Writ so as to give a possessory judgement November 25. 1665. Petrie contra Mitchelson A stipend was found to belong to a Minister Transported in Ianuary who continued preaching till April and not to his Successors who was presented before Whitsonday but not admitted till Lâ—mbass none compearing for the Collector of the vaccand stipends Ianuary 26. 1670. Mcquâ—en contra Marquess of Dowglass and Purves STOLLEN GOODS were â—ound recoverable by the owner by warrand from the Sherifâ— summarly without citation of the possessors though they had peaceably possessed the Gooods four moneths in that pleugh unless they had acquired possession by an onerous Title Iuly 7. 1671 Strachanâ— contra Gordounâ— and others Vide Spuilzie SVBMISSION betwixt Commissars to the Bishop without any determinat Ish or time determined to be filled up or blank but generally referring all controversies that should arise to the Bishop was found valide and not determined by a year but a Term was affixed to determine what differences are now occurring February 3. 1669. Bosewel contra Lindsay of Wormisâ—oun SVBSTITVTION Vide Clause SVCCESSOR LVCRATIVE was not inferred by a Disposition by a Father to a Son having an elder Brother living or so presumed as lately before gone out of the Countrey and so not then alioqui successurus February 28. 1662. Hamiltoun contra Mâ—farlane of Kirktoun Successor lucrative being alleadged by a Disposition of Land by a Father to his Son in his contract of Marriage for a Tocher payed to the Father and debts and Bairns Portions far within the value of the Land he was not found lyable in solidum nor yet the pursuer put to a Reduction but the passive Title was sustained personaliter in so far as the onerous Cause was less then the ordinary price at that time with annualrent since the intenting of the Cause Iune 17. 1664. Lyâ—n of Muâ—resk contra 〈◊〉 Successor Lucrative was not inferred by a Disposition being only to a Nephew the brother being alive who was not â—ound alioqui successurus as in the case of an Oye November 22. 1665. Scot contra Bosâ—wâ—l of Auchmâ—eck Vide Lucrative Successor A SVMMONS whereof the Executions appeared visibly new and the user would not abide by it was found not to be transferred but whether an Inhibition raised on that summons would thereby fall or if warrand might be granted to use new Executions on that Summons though year and day was past and that by special priviledge to validate the Inhibition was not decided Ianuary 12. 1665. Wilson and Callender her Spouse contra Summons not being execuâ—e within year and day from the date thereof no process was sustained thereon Iuly 22. 1665. Row contra Viscount of Stormont Summons on an Assignation libelled at the Assignays instance was not sustained seing the date of the Assignation was posterior to the date of the summons albeit the Cedent concurred Novembâ—r 15. 1666. Abâ—rcrombâ—e contra Andersons A SVPERIOR not being called to a Cognition of Marches by Arbiters or legally cited doth not annul the same but it is but prejudice to the superiour when the Fee shall be in his hand February 8. 1662. Lord Torphichan contra A Superiour by receiving an Appryzer was found not to derogat from the Right of Ward in the Superiour though he made no reservation seing it was a necessary Act for him to receive Iuly 19. 1664. Hospital of Glasgow contra Campbell A Superiour bound in absolute warrandice against Ward having a gift of his own Ward to his own behove was found not to distress his Vassals thereby farder then for a proportional part of the composition and expenseâ— February 15. 1665. Boid of Penkil contra Tennents of Carsâ—uth A Superiour was decernâ—d to receive an Adjudger though the superiour himself had appryzed and alleadged a better right but the Infeftment to be salvo jur◠〈◊〉 sâ—o Iuly 4. 1667. Chein contra Christie A Superiour giving a disposition of his Vassals superiority reserving their property and which disposition bear that the Aâ—quirer should hold of the superiour himself The said disposition with the Infeftment thereon was found null as interponing the Acquirer betwixt the superiour and his vassal but was sustained as a gift of Non-entry in respect it bear an assignation to all the casualities of the superiority and the general declarator thereon was found to extend to the feâ—-duties after citation Ianuary 30. 1671. Dowglas of Kâ—â—head contra his Vassal A Superiour being charged to receive an Adjudger was â—ound to have his option either to receive him for a years rent or to pay his sums getting assignation to the adjudication but â—o that the Land should be redeemable from the superiour for the sums princâ—pal and annualrent contained in the adjudication without any sum for composition of Entry and that the adjudication was in this as an appryzing by the 36. Act King Iames 3d. Iune 10. 1671. Scot of Thirlâ—stane contra Lord Druâ—laâ—rig SVPERIORITY of Kirk Lands annexed to the Crown Anno 1633. reserving the Feu-duties to the Lords of Erection who consented to the surrender was â—ound not to be a ground for the Vassal to force the superiour to instruct his consent but that it is presumed
Iohn Eleis contra Inglishtoun Eodem die CRichtoun of Crawfordstoun having only one Daughter Disponed his Estate to Iohn Brown of Inglishstoun in contemplation of the Marriage betwixt him and Crawfordstouns Daughter and to the Heirs-male of the Marriage which failzying to certain other Heirs Substitute bearing a power to Burden the Estate with 5000. Merks to whom he pleased and containing a Clause that the Disposition should be valide though not Delivered in his Lifetime and after Inglistouns Marriage Crafordstoun grants a Bond relating to his former promise of 20000. Pounds to Inglistoun and the Heirs of the Marriage which failzying After which words there follows a blank of a Line and a half and the Sum is payable at the first Term after Crawfordstouns Death the intent of which Bonds seems to have been that thereupon Apprizing might proceed to Denude the Heirs of Line and to compel the Superior 〈◊〉 Receive Inglistoun Thereafter Crawfordstoun made a second Tailzy wherein Inglistouns Son with his Daughter being then Born is Feear and several Members of the Tailzy altered and after that he made a third wherein his Daughter Inglistouns Wife is Feear and the Substitutions much like the former After his Death these Papers being Exhibit at the Instance of two of his Daughters Heirs of Line Married to Mr. Iohn Eleis and Alexander Tran upon a Process ad deliberandum and being craved up again from the Clerks by the Tutor of Inglistouns Son It was alleadged for the Heirs of Line that the saids Writs could not be Delivered up because they not having been Delivered by the Defunct in his leige poâ—stie could not prejudge his Heirs of Line and albeit his first Disposition contained a dispensation for not Delivery which ordinarly is accounted sufficient yet where it appears the Defunct altered his purpose both by the posterior Dispositions of a different Tenor and several Missive Letters showing a resolution after all to alter the same the said Clause cannot be effectual and there is no pretence for Delivering the Bond and the two other Dispositions seing they want that Clause It was answerd that the Dispensation with Delivery is in all cases equiparat with the Delivery it self and that the remanent Writs ought also to be Delivered though they bear not that Clause because the Heirs of Line being absolutely excluded by the first Disposition they have no interest to quarrel the other Dispositions and albeit it the posterior Dispositions were to different effects the want of Dispensation therein might make them ineffectual yet where they are but qualifications of the first Tailzy they are accessory thereto and must be Delivered therewith seing the Defunct so long as he keeped the Writ in his own Hand might still alter the same at his pleasure It was answered that the posterior Dispositions wanted the Clause reserving power to the Defunct to leave to whom he pleased the 5000. Merks and it is like he hath left it to his other Daughters and the Bond may be made use of to overturn his whole intent and alter the Tailzy The Lords found that seing the first Disposition contained a Dispensation with Delivery and the rest being accessory thereto and only altering in somethings the Tailzy but still to the first Heir of Tailzy being the Son of Inglistouns Marriage they ordained them all to be Delivered up and the Bond also but with this Declaration that the Provision anent the 5000. Merks in the first Disposition should be holden as repeared in the rest that the Heirs of Line might be in no worse Case then by the first and that the Bond should only be made use of according to the Substitutions and Clauses of the Tailzies Crawford contra Anderson Iuly 24. 1669. IOhn Fleeming having made a Disposition of his Lands to William Anderson Provost of Glasgow sometime thereafter William grants Back-bond Declaring the Disposition was upon Trust to the behove of Fleemings Creditors Young being one of the Creditors uses Inhibition and Apprizing against Fleeming and is thereupon publickly Infeft after which William Anderson makes payment to the other of the Creditors the said Alexander Young and Crawford his Spouse Insists for Mails and Duties of the Apprised Lands Anderson excepts upon his prior Infeftment from Fleeming the common Author upon the said Disposition Crawford replys upon the Back-bond that the said Infeftment is on Trust to the behove of Fleeming Anderson duplys that it is a qualified Trust to the behove of Anderson himself in so far as any Debt was Due to him and next to the behove of Fleemings Creditors and condescends and instructs that he has made payment to several of these Creditors so that payment made by him bona fide must give him Right to the Trust pro tanto and any Inhibition or Infeftment at Youngs Instance was only against Fleeming and not against Anderson against whom there was never any Action It was answered that the Trust being for payment of Fleemings Creditors cannot be interpret at the option of Anderson which would be a most fraudulent conveyance to exclude the more timeous Diligence of Fleemings other Creditors but it must be understood to pay the Creditors legitimo modo and not to make voluntar payment to these who had done no Diligence and prefer them to these who had done Diligence and albeit the Inhibition and publick Infeftment upon the Apprizing be only against Fleeming yet Anderson who was Intrusted for Fleeming might and ought to have known the same by searching of the Registers appointed for publication of Rights and if he had neglected the same Sibi imputet for he being Trusty for Fleeming could no more prefer Fleemings Creditors then Fleeming himself could do The Lords Repelled the Defense and Duply and found that voluntary payment made by Anderson to Fleemings Creditors after the Inhibition or publick Infeftment of other Creditors did not give him any Right by his Infeftment in Trust to exclude the more timeous Diligence of the other Creditors Street contra Masson and Lord Tarphichen Iuly 27. 1669. IAmes Masson being Debitor to the Lord Tarphichen does Infeft his Son an Infant in his Lands publickly holden of the Superior and being a Merchant there was a correspondence betwixt him and Mr. Street and other London Merchants whereupon he gave them Bond mentioning to be for former Accompts and Provisions betwixt them and thereupon followed an Infeftment of Annualrent The Lord Tarphichen obtains Decreet of Reduction of the Infeftment granted to the Son as being posterior to his Debt and granted by a Father in defraud thereof The London Merchants raise also a Declarator that the Infeftment granted by Masson to his Son then an Infant ought to be affected with their Debt in the same condition as it were yet standing in the Fathers Person or otherwise ought to be declared void as a fraudulent Deed by the Father in favours of his Son the Father being then in tract of Correspondence and Traffick with these Merchants