are grantted where the persons live at a great distance and the matter is of Small moment By granting of which Commissions the Petitioners are frustrate of the Dues payable to them in case the Parties and Witnesses did come here and Depone before the Lords and therefore craving that they might have their Dues for Parties and Witnesses where they are Examined by Commission which being taken to consideration by the saids Lords they Ordain that in time coming where Commissions shall be granted by the Lords for Examining Parties or Witnesses that the Macers shall have the half of the Dues which are payed to them when Parties and Witnesses do compear before the Lords and Depone viz. twelve shilling scots for ilk Party to be Examined by Commission to be payed in manner following viz. where a Commission is granted for taking a Parties Oath that the Dues be payed to Francis Scot Keeper of the Minut-book within fourty eight hours after the Commission shall be put up in the Minut-book and in case the same be not payed within that space that the Commission shall be delet out of the Minut-book and not Extracted until the same be put up again and the Dues payed and that the saids Dues for Witnesses be payed at the return of the Report and Commission before an avisandum be put up thereof in the Minut-book And to the end the number of the Witnesses may be known that the Person to whom the Commission is granted shall set down upon the back of the Commission or Report a list subscribed by him of the Witnesses names and the Clerks are hereby Ordered to insert in the Commission a Warrant to the Commissioner to transmit that list with the Report of the Comission and that Francis Scot attest under his hand that payment is made to him of the saids Dues before an avisandum be put up of the Report in the Minute-Book ACT anent Seasins and Reversions of Lands within Burgh February 22. 1681. THE Lords of Council and Session considering that the Act of Parliament 1617. anent the Registration of Seasins and Revâ—rsions of all Lands and Annualrents there is an exception of Land and Annualrents lying within Burgh and within the Burgage Lands of Royall Burrows which is supposed to have been upon account of the Books of the Town Clerks of Royal Burrows wherein the Seasins and Reversions of such Lands might be found Nevertheless the Lords finds that not only Seasins within Burgh are sometimes omittâ—d and not found insert in the Town Clerk Books But that frequently Reversions of Tenements and Annualrents within Burgh and Assignations to and Discharges of Reversions and Bonds for granting such Reversions are not to be found in the saids Books to the great detriment of the Leidges and especially of the Inhabitants of the saids Royal Burrows For Remeid whereof the Lords do appoint and ordain the Magistrates of Royal Burrows and their Successours in Office to take good Caution and Surety of their Town Clerks that now are or shall be in Office that they insert in their Books all Seasins of Lands Tenements and Annualrents within their respective Burghs or burrow-Burrow-lands and of all Reversions Bonds for granting Reversions Assignations to and Discharges of Reversions Renounciations and grants of Redemption of any Tenements or Annualrents within their Burghs or Burgage Lands that shall be given at any time hereafter within the space of threscore dayes from the dates thereof respective in like manner as is prescribed by Act of Parliament anent the Registration of Seasins or Reversions of Lands without Burgh and that the said Surety be under the pain of the damnage that shall befall to any Party through the Latency of the saids Writes which shall be past by the saids Clerks or presented to them to be insert in their saids Books Likeas the Lords ordains the saids Magistrates to insert an Act hereupon in their Town Court Books and to cause publish the same by Tuck of Drum that none pretend ignorance And further the Lords do Declare that if any Party shall neglect to insert their Seasins Reversions Bonds for granting of Reversions Assignations to and Discharges of Reversions Renounciations and grants of Redemption in manner foresaid that the Lords will hold and repute them as latent and fraudulent Deeds keeped up of design to deceive and prejudge the Purchasers of Tenements and Annualrents within Burgh bona fide for just and onerous Causes and ordains the Provost of Edinburgh to intimate this Act to the Commissioners of the Royal Burrows at the next Convention of Burrows And ordains thir Presents to be Printed and Published at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh and other places needful CERTAIN DECISIONS Of several Debates Intented and Debated BEFORE THE LORDS OF COUNCIL SESSION IN Some Weighty and Important Affairs brought before them Beginning the 29. of June 1661. and ending in July 1681. Iames Talzifer contra Maxtoun and Cunninghame Iune 29. 1661. IOHN KER Merchant in Edinburgh having an Wodset-Right of some Tenements in Edinburgh William Clerk his Creditor Comprized the Wodset-Right from him and obtained Decreet of Removing against the Tennents of the Tenements Iames Tailzifer having Right to the Reversion of the said Wodset consigned the Sum for which the Wodset was granted in the hands of the Clerk of the Bills and thereupon obtained a Suspension of the Decreet of Removing and thereafter having obtained Right from William Clerk to his Appryzing did by Supplication desire the sum Consigned by him to be given up to himself 1. Because the Consignation was not orderly made conform to the Reversion And 2. Though it had been orderly yet before Declarator he might pass from the Consignation and take up his Money whereby the Wodset Right wouâ—d remain unprejudged 3. The Wodset-Right being now returned to himself by acquiring Clerks Appryzing he had thereby Right to the sum Consigned for Redemption of the Wodset Compearance was made for Maxtoun and Cunningham for whom it was alledged that the consigned Sum ought to be give up to them because before William Clerks Appryzing they and William Clerk had joyntly obtained from the King a Gift of the Escheat and Liferent of the said Iohn Ker who had been year and day at the Horn before Welliam Clerk Appryzed from him so that the sum Consigned being now moveable fell under Kers Eâ—cheaâ— and thereby they have Râ—ght to two third parts thereof and Clerk or Tailzifer by his Right can only have the other third and if the Sum were not â—ound to fall under Kers Eâ—cheat the Annualrent thereof during Kâ—rs 〈◊〉 would fall to the three Donators of his Liferent equally and the â—um ought to be given out in security to them for their Liferent and to Tailzifer as having Right to Clerks Appryzing in Fee except the third thereto Clerk had Right as joynt Donator with them neither could Tailzifer pass from his Confignation seeing thâ—y accepted thereof nor could he object against any informality in the
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
that the naked Office of Executry doth not compleat the Right in the Executors Person and doth not transmit yet it is as true that by the Law of God and of this Land which is cleared by the express Statute Parliament 1617. anent Executors Children surviving their Parents had always a distinct Right from the Office of Executry of their bairns part of gear which belonged to them without any Confirmation and could not be prejudged by the Defunct and was sufficiently established in their Person jure legittime if they survive their Defunct Parent especially if they owned the same by any Legal Dâ—ligence Therefore after which if a Child die the Child of that Bairn will come in with the Survivers and yet there is no Right of Representation because Iure legittime it was established in the Bairns Person by surviving and owning the same as well as the Goods are eâ—â—ablished in the Person of a Stranger Executor by executing the Testament and by the said Act of Parliament that benefit is extended not only as to the Bairns Part but to the Bairns in relation to Deads Part whereinto they succeed as nearest of Kine and therefore they have right to the Moveables not by vertue of the Conformation or Office of Executry which before that Act carried the whole benefit as is clear by the Act but by a several Right jure agnationis as nearest of Kine and therefore though the nearest of Kine be not Confirmed Executor but others be Nominat or Datives Confirmed the Executors are comptable to the nearest of Kine who may pursue them thereforâ— and therefore if the nearest of Kine do any Legal Diligence either by Confirmation or Process yea though they did none but only survive the Right of nearest of Kine ipso facto establishes the Goods in their Person and so transmits and whereas it was alleadged that the contrare was found by the Lords in Anno one thousand six hundred thirty six observed by Durie it is also marked by him that it being so found by Interlocutor it was stopped to be heard again and never discused neither can it be shown by Custome or Decision that the Executors of Children or nearest of Kine were excluded from recovering the part of their Parent which survived and owned the benefit of the Succession The Lords assoilzie from the Reduction and adhered to the former Decreet Kirktouns contra Laird of Hunthil Eodem die ISobel and Kirktouns pursues the Laird of Hunthill their Tutor for a Tutor Compt and payment of all that belonged to their Father who alleadged absolvitor because nothing alleadged nor produced to instruct his acceptance of the Office of Tutory The Pursuers opponned their Fathers Testament Confirmed bearing the same to have been Confirmed by the Defender and other three Tutors and that the Tutors gave their Oaths de fideli administratione in the Office of Tutrie The Defender answered non relevat to instruct that the Tutors made faith because this Confirmation is but the Assertion of a Nottour the Commissary Clerk without a warrant in writ subscribed by the Tutors and can prove in nothing but what is ordinary the Style of the Court in Judicial Process but the Acceptance and making Faith of Tutors is altogether Extranious and is neither necessar nor ordinar to be done by the Commissars The Lords sustained the Reply especially in respect that the Commissarie Clerk was this Defenders Uncle and there was no ground of Suspition that he would adject that point without warrant otherways this were a dangerous preparative Secondly The Defender further alleadged absolvitor from a Sum contained in the said Testament as due to him because there was nothing to instruct it but the Defuncts Assertion in his Testament giving up his Debts The Pursuer answered that the Defender hath Homologat by Confirming the Testament bearing the same and not protesting against it which is an acknowledgment thereof The Defender answered that there being four Tutors it could not be constant that they were all present at the Act of Confirmation and saw and knew the Inventar but as it is ordinar in such Cases they might have come at several times and made Faith The Pursuer answered that some of the four Tutors behoved to do it and these were thereby bound to have done Diligence for it and consequently all the Tuttors being lyable in solidum this Tutor is lyable therefore The Lords found the Reply and Triply relevant that the Testament so confirmed instructed the Debt Robert Lockheart contra William Kennedy February 13. 1662. RObert Lockheart pursues a Declarator of the Redemption of some Lands against William Kennedy of Achtefardel who alleadged absolivtor because before the order was used The Reversion was discharged and the Discharge Registrat The Pursuer Replyed ought to be repelled because the Granter of the Discharge was Interdicted before the granting thereof and the same not granted with the Interdicters consent The Defender answered non competit by way of Reply but only by way of Action of Reduction as is Ordinar in the Case of Inhibition and Interdiction The Lords sustained the Reply in respect that it was not proponed by defense to delay the Pursuite but by Reply which did only delay the Pursuer himself and also that they thought it hard to cause the Pursuer quite his Possession and then go to a Reduction Antonia Birnie contra Liferenters of Rossie Eodem die ANtonia Birnie as Heir appearant and having Right to the Fee of the Estate of Rossie and Fordel pursues her Mother and Grand-father Liferenters thereof for a modification of Aliment The Grand-father made no oppositionâ— It was alleadged for the Mother that the whole Inheretance was not Liferented The Pursuer Answered that what was not Liferented was affected with Apprizings for the Defuncts Debts led after his Death The Defender answered non relevat unless the Appryzings had been before the Defuncts Death but being against the Appearand Heir her self she ought to sell Land and pay the Debt and live upon the remainder The Pursuer offered her to prove the Appryzings and Debts equivalent to the Value of all the Landâ— not Liferented Which the Lords found Relevant Iames Maxwell contra Adam Maxwell Eodem die JAmes Maxwell pursues Adam Maxwell for declaring a Disposition of Lands granted by the said Iames his Wife to the said Adam to have been in trust to her behove and after her decease to her Husband and for adminicle lybelled a Bond granted by the said Adam some Moneths after the Disposition whereby he oblidged himself to grant a Back-bond to the Lady by the advice of Lawyers conform to the Disposition made to him and oblidged him to deliver the said Back-bond to the Lady or to the Ladyes Husband after her Death whereupon it was alleadged that the Back-bond being to be made by the Advice of both their Lawyers the Disposition behoved to be in trust The Defender opponned the Tickit bearing the Back-bond to be conform to the
which the Lords found Relevant and Repelled the Defense but superceeded Execution until some time that the Defender might use any means he could for making this Sum to affect the Land Farquherson contra Gardiner Eodem die MR. Iames Farquherson having obtained a Decreet of Spuilzie against Iohn Gairdiner and others Gairdiner Suspends on this Reason that he medled with the Goods in question as a Souldier in a Party in Arms being then in the Regiment of the Master of Forbes under the Command of the Earl of Midletoun and therefore is freed by the Act of Indemnity The Charger answered that he oppons the Act Indemnifying only these who Acted by Warrand of any Committee of Estates or Commander or other Authority so that it is not Relevant unless the Suspender alleadge that as he was a Souldier in Arms so he had such Warrand and did apply the particulars to the publick use under which he served And it is offered to be proven that he took the Goods lybelled to his own House and made use of them to his privat use The Suspenders answered that this Reason stands Relevant as proponed because it is clear by the Act of Indemnity that all things done under any pretended Authority or Command are Indemnified and therefore there is a special Exception of privat Thefts and Robberies which confirms the Rule as to publick Pilledging in any War and if there were a necessity to every person to instruct the Command or Warrand of his Officer which was not accustomed to be in Writ the whole Act would be elusory so that it is sufficient that the thing was done in the way of a publick War otherwise all that was taken or converted to privat use of those that were either with Montrose or Glencairn might ly open to Pursuits notwithstanding of the Act of Indemnity The Lords after serious Consideration of this as a leading Case found the Reason of Suspension Relevant that the Defender needed not to prove that he had Warrant but that the Warrant was presumed if he proved he Acted with a Party in War against which they would admit no contrary Probation unless it were offered to be proven by the Defenders own Oath that he did without any Warrant converted the Goods to his own privat use Margaret Inglis contra Thomas Inglis Eodem die MArgaret Inglis having obtained a Decreet before the Commissars of Edinburgh against Thomas Inglis for giving her Security of 1000. pounds in Legacy left in her Fathers Testament and for payment of the Annualrent of the said Legacy Thomas Suspends on this Reason that the Legacy being left to be payed the one half at the Chargers marriage and the other half at the Death of the Defuncts Wife buire no Annualrent as neither doth any other Legacy much less this being in diem incertum which is equivalent to a Conditional Legacy For if the Defuncts Wife had Survived the Legatar or if she never Marry nothing will ever be due The Charger answered that this Legacy was in effect alimentar though not expresly left eo nomine and therefore ought to be profitable and that the Lords had been accustomed to give Annualrent in such cases as in the case of the Lady Otter and her Daughters The Suspender answered that the case was far different these being lawful Daughters and their Provisions being in lieu of an Estate of Land and this Charger being but a Bastard and come to that age that she may serve for her Maintainance The Lords considering that the one half of the Sum was payable at the time of the Chargers Marriage being a Condition in her own power and that it was not favourable to put her to a necessity of Marry Therefore they sustained Annualrents for that half but not for the other Brown contra Lawson Iuly 6. 1664. ALexander Brown having obtained a Decreet against William Lawson as vitious Intrometter with the Goods of umquhil William Lawson of New-milns he Suspends and alleadges the Decreet was unjustly given because it beares that he excepted upon a Disposition made by the Defunct for an Onerous Cause and an Instrument of Possession of the Goods before his Death The Charger answered that the Decreet did bear that the Suspender did judicially acknowledge that there was no true Delivery of the Goods The Lords found this collourable Title sufficient to purge the passive Title of vitious Intromission providing the Defender Confirmed within four moneths for they thought the Defuncts Disposition in articulo mortis was rather as a Testament or Legacy in satisfaction of the defenders Debt then as actus inter vivos Iohn Miln contra Hoom. Iuly 7. 1664. JOhn Miln Mason having Charged Sir James Home of Eccles for payment of a Sum of Money due by Bond he Suspended and alleadged that he had the benefit of the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor as to personal Execution seing he had payed a years Annualrent and had consigned a Bond of Corroboration joyning the rest of the Annualrents to the principal The Charger answered the Suspender could not crave the benefit of the Act because he had not found caution for the principal and annual conform to the said Act for his naked Bond of Corroboration without Caution could not be interpret Security The Lords found the Suspender behoved to give security either by Caution or Infeftment Ogilbie and Grant contra Ker. Eodem die THere being a Charge in the Name of Iames Ogilbie and William Grant contra Mr. Andrew Ker Minister on this ground that by a minut of Contract of Alienation Ogilbie had sold to Ker certain Lands and Ker was expresly Bound by the minut to pay this Grant and others in part of the price of the Land certain Debts due by Ogilbie to them Ker Suspends upon this Reason that he had satisfied Ogilbie and obtained his Discharge Grant answered that by the foresaid Clause contained in the Minut he had acquired right to the Sum in satisfaction of his Debt which Ogilbie his Debitor could not take away without his consent especially seing the Minut took effect and the Suspender by his Missive Letters after the Date of this Discharge Writ to the Laird of Pitmeddin who was Cautioner to Grant that he would satisfie the Debt The Suspender answered that the Clause in favour of Grant who was no Contracter could not give him a Right First Because it was never a delivered Evident to Grant 2ly Because it was but a Mandat whereby Ogilbie the Contracter did order a part of the Sum to be payed to Grant which Ogilbie might recal at his pleasure as he might have annulled the Bargain and destroyed the Writ especially seing nothing had yet followed And as for the Letters they were not Written to Grant but to a third Party The Lords found that seing the Bargain took Effect the Clause in Grants favour was not a simple Mandat but a Delegation whereby Ogilbie constitute Ker his Debitor to be Debitor to Grant his Creditor which needed
Sandilands the Debitor and that the filling up of Geddes Name being but an Assignation did necessarly require to accomplish it to Denude the Cedent an Intimation for seing express Assignations do necessarly require Intimation to prefer them to arrestments much more ought indirect Assignations which are suspect of Fraud and by which a Debitor may keep all his Estate in the Cloud that none of the Creditors can reach the same by arrestment or otherwise And it being answered that the Bond being delivered blank there was no present Creditor but a power granted to the Receiver of the Bond to make Creditor whom he pleased at least there was no certain Creditor so that Samuel Veatch was never Creditor but had only the power to make the Creditor and so needed not to be Denuded nor was there any Law or custom requiring intimation of the Names filled up in blank Bonds and if any such thing were done upon the accompt of Expediency it ought only to be in time coming The Lords adhered to their former Interlocutor and found Veatch to have been the true Creditor and the filling up of the other Name to be a Transmission equivalent to an Assignation and required Intimation as well for Cases past as to come for they thought that if Veatch before the filling of the Bond had been Rebel it would have fallen within his Escheat Edward Edgar contra Colvills Decemb. 2. 1665. EDward Edgar pursues Colvil Success or Lucrative to his Father Mr. Alexander Colvil in so far as he accepted an Assignation of an Heretable Bond unto which Bond he would have succeeded as Heir It was answered that this passive Title was never extended to Bonds of Provision granted by a Father to his eldest Son and if in security and satisfaction of such a Bond of Provision an Assignation of a Debt due to the Father and his Heirs were granted could not infer an universal Title to make the Accepter lyable to his Predecessors whole Debt so neither can an Assignation to a Bond which is no more in effect and such odious passive Titles are not to be extended but the Pursuer may Reduce upon the Act of Parliament 1621. or at the farthest may crave by this Process the simple avail of what the Defender hath intrometted with by vertue of the Assignation The Lords found the condescendence Relevant as being preceptio haereditatis and as an Assignation to a Tack or a small Annualrent hath been found sufficient so there is like or more Reason for Assignations to heretable Bonds which may be more easily conveyed away from Creditors but they found it not alike as to Bonds of Provision whereby the Father became Debitor and in satisfaction and security whereof he might Assign and would only import single payment but not an universal passive Title Hugh Mcculloh contra Mr. Iohn Craig Eodem die HVgh Mcculloh having Right to an Apprizing of an Heretable Bond of 2000. merks due by Umquhil Mr Robert Craig to Patrick Wood pursues Mr. Iohn Craig as Heir by progress for payment thereof and produces a new Extract of the Appryzing by the Clerk of the Appryzing together with the said Appryzing but so spoiled that neither the Subscription of the Messenger nor Clerk could be known The Defender alleadged no Process till the Principal Appryzing by the Messenger were produced because it being in effect the Executions of the Messenger to whom more was trusted then to the Clerk The Extract by the Clerk without the Messenger was not sufficient It was answered that Appryzings of old were all direct to the Sheriffs of the Shire and were in effect Judicial Process wherein Parties were Cited Called and Decerned and now the Messenger being Constitute Sheriff in that part by the Letters of Appryzing he may choise his own Clerk and the Extract of that Clerk is sufficient as of all other Clerks and albeit for more security both Clerk and Messenger Subscribe yet it hath not been determined how far the Messengers Subscription is necessar And the Decreet of Appryzing is not the Executions of the Appryzing which are distinct therefrom and Instructions thereof The Lords thought that the new Extract behoved either to be astructed with the Letters and Executions and other Adminicles or that they would not sustain it alone But the question was whether it should be astructed hoc ordine or by a proving of the Tenor in a several Process which was carried by the plurality Thomson contra Henderson Decem. 4. 1665. THomson having granted a Bond to his Brother of a sum of Money the same was assigned to Henderson who thereupon Charged The Debitor suspends and produces a Discharge by the Cedent of the same Date and Witnesses with the Bond and alleadged that the Debt being Discharged before the Assignation excluded the Assigney It was answered That the Discharge was granted most fraudulently so that the fraud betwixt the two Brethren is manifest to have been contrived to deceive any Person should Contract with the Creditor whom they saw to have a Bond of a solvendo Person in his handâ— and so might be induced to lend him Money or Contract with him in Marriage or otherwise and the Charger having upon that accompt lent him Money and taken Assignation cannot be excluded by this Contrivance which was done pessimo dolo It was answered First That dolus was not competent by way of Reply 2ly That the Assigney took the Assignation on his own Peril and he should have asked at the Debitor before he took it The Lords though the matter was of small Importance were willing to take the matter of fraud to consideration by way of Reply and therefore ordained the Suspender to condescend upon some reasonable Cause of the granting of the Bond and taking back a Discharge thereof at the same time Beg contra Beg. Decem. 5. 1665. BEg having Disponed some Land to his Son Redeemable on a Rose-Noble and having married a second Wife he Disponed the same to her in Liferent and assigned her to the Reversion The Father having used an Order pursues Declarator The Son alleadges absolvitor because he was assigned to an Appryzing Which Appryzing carried the Right of the Reversion of that Wodset and thereby his Father was Denuded of the Reversion and could not redeem the Wodset till he Redeemed the Appryzing It was answered that the Father was not simply Denuded during the Legal During which time the Appryzing was but like a Right granted in Security which Denuded not the Fiar as if the Son for Security of a Sum had been assigned to the Reversion the Father was not Denuded but might use the Order by which the Security was not worse but better the same holds in this Case and therefore it is that he against whom an Appryzing is led may Redeem the first Appryzing albeit the second Appryzer has appryzed the Reversion otherwise no man could redeem an Appryzing unless he redeemed all his appryzings at once which have different legals and
have been used at the Old Paroch Kirk and particularly by the Defender himself The Lords Repelled the Defense simply unless the Erection were alleadged as aforesaid and found in that Case the Reply Relevant to elide the same Earl of Argile contra George Campbel Ianu 25 1667 THE Earl of Argile insisting in the Removing against George Campbel It was alleadged no Removing because the VVarning was null not bearing to have been Read at the Kirk Door either at the time Divine Service uses to be or at least before Noon It was answered that the VVairning bore that the same was affixed on the Kirk Door and lawfully Intimat there which does import the lawful time of the Day 2ly The Pursuer offered to mend the Executions at the Bar and abide by it as so done It was answered that the Defender accepted the Executions as produced after which they could not be amended and that lawfully could not supply that Speciality otherwise if the VVarning had only born that the Officer had VVarned the Party lawfully it would have been enough The Lords admitted the Pursuer to amend the Execution he biding thereby and Ordained the Defender to see the same Hercules Scot contra Gibb Ianuary 29 1667. HErcules Scot having given his Horse to John Gib Stabler in Brunt-Island to be kept pursues Gibb for the price of his Horse The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because he having put out the Horse to the Grass it being in the Month of July the Horse fell over a Rock and brake his neck and the Defender is not lyable pro casu fortuito It was answered that the Accident was by the Defenders fault because he put the Horse to Grassing above the Craigs of Brunt-Island and caused ty his Head and Foot together 2ly It is offered to be proved by Witnesses that the Pursuer directed him to keep the Horse in the Stable at hard Meat and not to put him out to Grass The Defender answered that he was not in culpa because he had put out the Horse in a place where ordinarly other Horses were put out and had tyed him no other way then the rest of the Horses 2ly The Command to keep is only relevant to be proven scripto vel juâ—amento and the emission of words without any Fact is not otherwise probable The Lords found the Defense and Duply Relevant to elid the Summons but found the Reply and Triply Relevant to elide the same and found it Probable by Witnesses in respect it was a part of the Bargain betwixt the Pursuer and the Stabler Henderson contra Henderson Ianu. 31. 1667. UMquhil Henderson grants a Writ in favours of Allan Henderson whereby he appoints the said Allan to be his Heir and Donatar to all his Lands and Estate and assigns him to the Rights and Evidences thereof with power to Enter by the Superiour But in the Narrative it bears the ordinar Narrative of a Testament and has a Clause subjoyned to all in case of his Return he may alter and annul the same there having nothing followed in his Life The said Allan pursues Henderson his appearand Heir to fullfil the former Writ and to Enter Heir and Resign in his favours conform to the meaning thereof The Defender alleadged Absolvitor First Because this Writ is no Disposition but a Testament or a Donation mortis causa in which no Disposition of Land can be valid 2ly Albeit this could be a Disposition yet it is not done habili modo there being no Disposition of the Right of the Land or any Obligement to Infeft neither can a Person be Constitute Heir but either by Law or Investiture or at least by an Obligement to grant Investiture 3ly This being donaâ—io mortis causa expresly Revocable by the Defunct at his return it is ambulatory and conditional Ita est he returned and granted Commissions and Factories whereby his mind appeared to be changed The Lords Repelled all these Alleadgances and sustained the Summons because though the Writ was unformal yet they found the Defuncts meaning was to alienat his Right from his Heirs to this Pursuer to take effect after his death and albeit he returned seing he did no Deed to annul or recal this Writ this was effectual against his Heir to compleat the same Creditors of Sir James Murray contra Iames Murray Feb. 1. 1667. THere being a Wodset of the Lands of Stirling granted by Sir Iames Murray to Iames Livingstoun of the Bed-Chamber containing a Clause of Requisition and Reversion on payment at London the Lands being Appryzed by Sir Iame's Creditors they having the Right of Reversion did use an Order at Edinburgh against Iames Murray as now having a Right to the Wodset and pursue a Declarator The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Order is not conform to the Reversion which is strictissimi juris and behoved to be done at London It was answered the place being adjected in favour of Iames Livingstoun who resided at London The Pursuers have done more having consigned at the present Wodsetters Domicile London being only appointed as it was the former Wodsetters Domicile wherein he hath benefit and can have no detriment It was answered he was not obliged to Debate his detriment for if his Money were in London he would get six of the hundreth of Exchange to Scotland The Lords sustained the Order the Pursuers making up what should be modified by the Lords for the Interest of the Wodsetters Earl Tullibardine contra Murray of Ochtertyre Eodem die THe Earl of Tullibardine having Wodset the Lands of Logie-Almond to Murray of Ochtertyre he did thereafter Discharge the Reversion and at that same time got a Back-bond bearing That for payment of 56000. merks with all other sums that should happen to be due to him by Tullibardine and all Expenses that he should Dispone the Lands back to Tullibardine or the Heirs or Assigneys of his own Body but with this provision that if he were not payed before Martinmass 1662. the Bond should be null without Declartor Tullibardine premonishes and after Premonition Dispones the Lands to Sir Iohn Drummond and they both joyntly Consign and now pursue Declarator It was alleadged for the Defender Ochtertyre First No Declarator upon this Order because the Back-bond is Personal to my Lord and to the Heirs or Assigneys being of his Body so that Sir John Drummond nor no Stranger can have Right thereby to Redeem 2ly The Back-bond is extinct and null by committing of the Clause Irritant in so far as payment has not been made before 1662. The Purswer answered to the first that albeit the Reversion had been Personal to my Lord only excluding his Heirs and Assigneys yet my Lord in his own Lifetime might Redeem and being Redeemed the Right would belong to any to whom my Lord had or should Dispone 2ly This Clause Irritant is pactum legis commissoriae in pignoribus which by the Civil Law and our Custom is void at least may be still purged
having Fraughted a Ship belonging to Bailly Guthry in Dundee to carry a Loadning of Wheat and Oats from Athol to Leith the Skipper did put in by the way at Dundee and there the Ship received a Crush by another Ship whereby the Salt-water entered amongst the Victual and thereupon the Owners and Skipper caused Disloaden the Victual and put it up in Lofts and Bailly Guthry the next day after the Crush gave notice to Robert Lesly in Dundee Lauchlens Correspondent and who made the Bargain for him to make it known to Lauchlen what had befallen the Ship and Loadning who within two dayes after came to Dundee and was required to Receive the Victual which he refused and by the Probation adduced in this Cause it was found that it was the Skippers Fault that he had put in to Dundee and so he and the Owners were found lyable for the damnage and interest of the Merchants and that the Merchants should be only obliged to take back that Part of the Victual that was unspoiled and the Owners should be lyable for the Price of the whole as it would have given at Leith if the Skipper had keeped his Course deducing the Price of the sufficient Victual as it now gives and a Commission being granted to certain Persons in Dundee to visit the Victual and to see what condition it was in they reported that 36. Bolls of it was sufficient Mercatable Wheat and that the Oats was damnisied in 20 Shilling the Boll and as to the rest two reported that it would yet be Brisket for Ships or Houshold Servants and two reported that it was spoiled but spake nothing further The question arose to the Lords upon the Commission at the Advising thereof whether the Owners and Skipper should be lyable for the damnage that was done before the Advertisement given to the Merchant or for the damnage that ensued thereafter because the Victual being laid together without separating the wet from the dry had het and spoiled thereafter and if it had been separat at first the damnage would have been very litle and so the question was whether the Owners and Skipper were obliged to have separat the wet from the dry and so to have offered it to the Merchant or if the offer in general to the Merchant to receive the Victual was sufficient though he did not desire them to separat the wet from the dry or that they did not offer satisfaction or security for the damnage of what was wet The Lords found that seing the damnage had fallen after and through the occasion of the Skippers delay he and the Owners were obliged to separat the wet from the dry and to have used diligence to prevent future damnage wherein having failzied they found them lyable for the whole damnage both before and after the offer the next question arose was whether the Skipper and Owners were obliged to take the spoiled Victual and pay the Price thereof as if it had been sufficient or if the Merchant was obliged to take it and the Owners to make up the damnage The Lords found that seing the Victual remained yet in specie and was not wholly Corrupted but by the report appeared to be useful for Ship Brisket and seing the property thereof still remained in the Merchant and the Owners were only lyable for damnage They ordained the Merchants to Receive the wet Victual and gave Commission to the same Persons to report what it was worse then the Price it would have given at Leith if the Voyage had held The Countesse of Cassills contra The Earl of Cassills February 22. 1670. BY Contract of Marriage betwixt the Deceast Earl of Cassills and his Lady he is obliged to Infeft her in certain Lands with absolute Warrandice and obliges him that the Lands did pay then and several years before 6000. Merks of yearly Rent beside Kanes and Customs and over and above Teinds and Feu-duties and if it shall please the Lady within six Moneths after the Earls Death rather to choise six thousand Merks of free Rent then to retain the Possession of the Land and to give a Tack to his Heirs and Successors of the Liferent-lands Then and in that case he obliges his Heirs and Successors to pay her 6000. Merks yearly Therefore the Countesse has made it in her option and offers to take and Pursues the Earl her Son to pay yearly the said Sum of six thousand Merks of free Rent who alleadged that albeit that Clause be mentioned to be free Rent yet he must have allowance of Cess Maintainance and other publick Burdens because by free Rent can only be understood free of Teinds and Feu-duties in respect that this being a Tack-duty for the Liferent-lands the Lady thereby can be no further free then if she enjoyed the whole Lands which the Earl is only obliged to make worth 6000. Merks of yearly Rent over and above Teind and Feu-duty but neither does it bear generally of free Rent much less of publick Burdens and therefore the subsequent Clause for the Tack-duty albeit it bear free Rent yet it can only be understood to be free of Teind and Feu-duty and not to be free of publick Burden which is further cleared by the Act of Parliament 1646. Ordaining all Liferenters to hear proportional Burden for any Annualrent or Tack-duty belonging to them in Liferent unlesse they were expresly freed of Maintainance It was answered for the Countess that she oppones the Clause of her Contract bearing free Rent without â—â—nitation and Contracts of Marriage are to be extended in favours of Women and as to the Act 1646. the same is Repealed and not Revived again The Lords found that by the Contract of Marriage the Countesse was noâ— free of Cesse and Maintainance which were the only Points at Inâ—â—â—â—cutor But if any Debate arose concerning the ordinarâ— Taxation or the Outrikes or allowance to Militia Horse the Lords would hear the Parties thereanent and accordingly the next day found the Clause did free my Lady of the ordinar Taxation Militia and so much of the Cesse as the Tennents of the Lands payed to my Lord. Murray of Achtertire contra Sir Iohn Drummond Eodem die THe Deceast Earl of Tulliâ—airn having Wodset the Lands of Logy-Almond to William Murray of â—chtertire by a Contract of Wodset in February 1656. by which the Earl Assigns Achtertire to the Mails and Duties of the Lands due for the Cropt 1656. at Whitsunday or Martimess or any other Term and obliges him to Deliver to him the Keyes of the House and to enter him in the Possession at Whitsunday 1656. The Earl having Sold the Lands to Sir Iohn Drummond whose entry was to be at Whitsunday 1668. and having used an order of Redemption in the Earls Name because the Reversion did not extend to the Earls Assignies and having obtained Declarator Decerning Achtertire to denude himself of the Lands who in obedience of the Decreet grants a Renunciation Reserving to himself the
would have been before the Bailzies when the Cause was Advocat at which time Cornelius Term of payment was not come The Lords found that the unwarrantable delay by the Advocation should not prejudge Charters and that the case should be considered as it was the time that the Advocation was raised and preferred Charles Charters upon his posterior Arrestment in respect the Term of payment of his Debt was come to the prior Arrestment laid on upon a Debt the Term of payment whereof was not come whereupon Citation was used before the Term came The Advocats having withdrawn from the House upon the Oath prescribed by the Regulation nothing was Called until the midle of December Murray of Achtertire contra Gray December 16. 1670. MVrray of Achtertire having pursued a Contravention against Gray upon several Deeds whereof one was that Achtertire having procured liberty from a Neighbour Heretor to make a Cast upon that Heretors Ground wherein some little Burns were gathered to a Head and thence were conveyed through Achtertires own Ground to his Miln Lade and that Gray had broken down that Cast whereby the Burns were divertedâ— Gray having compeared and proponed nothing the Libel was found Relevant and admitted to Achtertires Probation who by several Witnesses proved that the Defender had broken down that Cast of whom some Deponed simply but two of them Deponed thus that Gray had broken down the new Cast but that the Burns gathered therein in the time of Floods did water Grayâ—s own Lands and that by the new Cast they were keeped in and could not water the same whence it arose to the Lords consideration whether that Deed of Contravention was sufficiently proven or whether the Testimonies of the Witnesses being qualified that the Defender had done the Deed but in continuation of his former Possession of the watering of the Burns whether respect ought to be had to that qualification some thought not because the Fact as it was Libelled was found Relevant and proven and the qualification ought to have been proponed by way of Defense but it was found that the Testimonies being so qualified did not sufficiently prove to infer a Contravention for if the Contravention had been proven by Writ or Oath such a quality either in the Writ or Oath would hinder the same to prove sufficiently the Contravention But because the Testimonies were not to be considered by the Parties the Lords ordained the Sentence to expresse the foresaid Reason of it that the Pursuer before Extract might alleadge any thing thereanent he thought fit Nicol Langtoun contra Robert Scot Decem. 17. 1670. JOhn Graham of Gillesby having Set a Track of his Lands of Graystoneflat to Nicol Langtoun and being at that time at the Horn Robert Scot obtains a Gift of his Escheat and Liferent from Annandale his Superior and thereupon obtains general and special Declarator Decerning Langtoun to pay the Duties to him as Donator Langtoun Suspends and raises Reduction on this Reason that the Gift was simulat to the behove of Graham the Rebel procured by his own Means and Moyen and it being answered by Scot that he being a lawful Creditor of the Rebels might lawfully accept and make use of this Gift for his own security albeit the Rebel had procured the same and Scot the Donator having Deponed anent the simulation of the Gift did acknowledge that the Rebel had procured the Gift and that he had it blank in the Donators Name and that he did fill up Scots Name and delivered it to him The Lords found the Oath to prove the simulation of the Gift and that it having been in the Rebels own hands blank in the Donators Name it was equivalent to an Assignation from the Rebel and that Scot accepting of it so from him could not justly or bona fide make use of it even for security of a just Debt in prejudice of the Tacks-man who had before gotten his Tack from the Rebel Alison Kello contra Kinneir Ianuary 5. 1671. ALison Kello as Heir to her Mother Margaret Nisbet having pursued a Reduction of an Apprizing of the Lands of Paxtoun Led at the Instance of Mr. Samuel Hume against the said Margaret in Anno 1622. and Assigned to Mr. Alexander Kinneir in Anno 1623. upon this Reason that the said Mr. Alexander was satisfied by his Intromission within the Legal this pursuit being against Mr. Alexander Kinneirs Son who is Minor and being stopped upon his Minority quid Minor non tenetur placitare de hereditate paterna The Lords did upon the Pursuers Petition grant Commission to Examine Witnesses upon the Intromssion to remain in retentis till the Cause might be Determined in respect the Witnesses might die in the mean time which being reported the Lords remitted to an Auditor to state the Compt of the Intromission according to the Probation that the stated Accompt might remain in retentis The Defender being heard again before the Lords did alleadge that the Accompt could not be stated upon this Probation but that there being yet no Litiscontestation in the Cause neither can be through the Defenders Minority and this Probation being but before answer to remain in retentis and taken by Commission the Defender not being present at the Examination and the matter being very ancient fifty years agoe the Lords ought to give the Defender the sole or conjunct probation of this alleadgeance viz. That he offered him to prove that during the years of the Legal the Lands were Possest by several Persons by Dispositions or Tacks both under Reversion for certain Sums of Money due by the said Margaret Nisbet which Rights were granted by her and were now produced by the Defender which with the saids Rights produced is much more pregnant nor the Pursuers Probation by some inconsiderable Countrey People without any Adminicle in Writ It was answered for the Pursuer that the alleadgeance was no way Relevant being contrare to her Libel and founded super jure tertij for this Defender hath no interest in the Wodset Rights nor doth any Person appear for them or own them and if this were sustained it would afford a current evasion in all kind of Pursuits upon Intromission by offering still to prove that the Defender did not but that a third Party did Intromet and therefore the Lords have never Sustained such a Defense upon the Defenders sole Probation and in no case have allowed a conjunct probation It was answered that in a matter so old and where the sole probation of a thing of so great Moment was to be by Witnesses the Lords ex officio might Examine Witnesses for either Party and have oft so done especially the same ought to be done here where the probation is by inconsiderable Persons and so suspect and exorbitant proving â—â—nneirs Intromssion to be before he had any Right and the quantities to be much higher then the written Tack of the Lands produced The Lords found that they could not admit a Probation for the
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
lay so much marked upon the Precept received in name of Composition Earl of Lauderdail contra Tennents of Swintoun Ianuary 7. 1662. EArl of Lauderdail as having Right to the Forefaulture of the Barony of Swintoun pursues the Tennents for Maills and Duties George Livingstou one of them alleadges that he must be assoilzied from one Years Dutie because he offers him to prove That it is the Custom of the Barony of Swintoun at least of a distinct Quarter thereof That the Tennents do always at their entry pay half a years Rent and are free of Rent at the Term they remove and so do all a long pay a Year at the least half a Year before the hand and subsumes that he has payed accordingly to Swintoun himself for a Terms Maill due for the Crop which is after the pursuers Right The Pursuer alleadged non Relâ—â—at against him a singular Successor or against the KING his Author because that Partie that hath Right to the Land hath Right to the Fruits and so to the Rents which is payable for the fruits which were extent upon the Land or growand after that Parties Rightâ— and no payment before the hand can liberat the Possessor from the Pursuite of a Singular Successor Therefore it hath been frequently found that payment before the hand is not Relevant against an Appryzer yea even against an Arrester so that the KING and his Donatar since their Right was established and known cannot be excluded by payment before the hand to a partie who had no Right to the Land or to the Fruits that Year otherwayes both the KING and Creditors might be defrauded by Fore-maills or by Tacks appointing the Fore-mail to be payed the first Term whatsoever length the Tack be Secondly Any such alleadgances were only probable scripto vel juramenio The Defender answered that the Case here is not like the Fore-maills instanced because every Year is payed within it self and so the first Year the half at the beginning thereof and the half at the middle thereof and subsequent Years conform which must be sufficient to the Tennent otherways Tennents paying at Whitsonday and Martinmess should not be liberat because the whole Year is not run out or a Tennent paying his Ferms at Candlesmass should not be secure against Singular Possessors for the profit of Grasse thereof till Whitsonday The Lords found the Defense Relevant and the Custome of the Barony to be proven by Witnesses and likewise the payment of the Dutie in so far as in Victual and also for the money not exceeding an hundred pounds Termlie Iames Stewart contra Feuars of Aberbadenoch Ianuary 8. 1662. JAmes Stewart as being Heritably infeft in the Milne of Aberbadenoch pursues the Feuars of the Barony for abstract Multures of their Corns growing within the Barony or which tholed Fire and Water within the same The Defenders alleadged absolvitor because they are Infeft in their Lands feu of the KING long before the Pursuers Infeftment which Infeftment bears cum Molendiuis Multuris in the tenendas The Pursuer Replyed that albeit that Clause were sufficient Liberation amongst Subjects yet this is a Milne of the KINGS Propertie whereunto Thirlage is sufficently Constitute by long Possession of coming to the Milne and paying in Towns Multures and Services as is Craig's opinion and hath been so found by the Lords February 5. one thousand six hundred thirty five Dog contra Mushet The Defender answered That albeit Thirlage to the KINGS Milnes may be Constitute without Writ yet cannot take away an expresse Exemption granted by the KING The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply because they thoughâ— that this Clause being but in the tenendas past of Course and when Sigâ—aâ—â—â—â— are past the KINGS hand or Exchequar's they bear only tenâ—ndas c. without expressing the Particular Clause which is afterwards extended at the Seals The Defenders alleadged further absolvitor from the Multure of the Teind because that was not Thirled nor had the KING any Right thereto when he granted the Infeftment of the Milne The Pursuer Replyed the Defense ought to be Repelled in respect of the long Possession in Molâ—ndo Regio because the Defenders and their Tennents past fourty years payed Multures of all their Corns promiscuously without exception of Teind likeas there are several Decreets produced for abstract Multures of all the Corns without exception The Defender answered That the Reply non Relevat for albeit long Possession may make a Thirlage of the KINGS own Baronie yet that cannot be extended to other mens Rights of their Lands and Teinds which cannot be Thirled without their own Consent or Decreets against themselves called nor do the Decreets bear Teind per expressum The Lords found the Defeuse Relevant notwithstanding of the Reply except such Teinds that thole Fire and Water within the Barony and likewise sâ—staiâ—â—ed the Defense for the Corns eâ—ten by the Defenders upon the Ground in the Labouring c. Earl of Murray contra Laird of Grant January 9. 1662. THE Earl of Murray Pursues the Laird of Grant to Re-dispone him certain Lands which the Earls Father had Disponed to the Defender and had taken his Back-bond that if the Earls Friends should find it prejudicial to the Earl then upon payment of 2800. merks precisely at Whitsonday he should Re-dispone ita est the Earls Friends by a Testificat produced found the Bargain to his loss therefore he offered the sum to the Defender in his own House which he refused and now offers to Re-produce it cum omni causa The Defender alleadged Absolvitor First Because the Back-bond is pactum de retro vendendo And so a Reversion which is strictissimi juris and not to be extended beyond the express Terms thereof which are that if Iames Earl of Murray should re-pay the Sum at Whitsonday 1653. precisely the Defender should Re-dispone But there is no mention of the Earlsâ— Heirs and so cannot extend to this Earl though he were Heir as he was not served Heir the time of the offer The Pursuer answered that when Reversions are meaned to be Personal and not to be extended to Heirs they do bear That if the Reverser in his own time or at any time during his life c. or some such Expression but there is nothing such here and the Pursuer was Retoured Heir to his Father who died shortly before the Term of Redemption and having used all Diligence he cannot be excluded by such an accident which he could not help The Lords Repelled both the Defenses albeit there was only an offer without Consignation seeing the Back-bond did not bear Premonition or Consignation but only payment which the Pursuer now offered Baird contra Baird Eodem die BAird in Saint Andrews having taken the Gift of his Brothers Escheat upon his Adultery Pursues Declarator thereupon The Defender alleadged no Processes till the Crime were Cognosced in the Criminal Court or at least he were declared Fugitive and
is special enough bearing the Ware of the Shop to be Silks Stuffs and others worth 4000. merks and the Confirmation alone Constitutes the Property unto the Executor because he is Haeres mobiliâ—m and the Property being before in hereditatae jacentâ— ipso facto by the Confirmation it is Established in the Executor Secondly by the constant practice of this Kingdom there could no second principal Confirmation but only ad oâ—issa and she could never Confirm that which the first Executor had Confirmed The Defender answered that by Act of Sederunt of the Judges in the Usurpers time all Executors Confirming within six Moneths after the Defuncts Death were ordained to come in together and therefore it was then the Custom that all Confirmed principally the same things seeing they could get no more then what was in their Confirmation And the Defenders Confirmation being at that time must be sustained The Pursuer answered that the Defender cannot have the benefit of that Act of Sederunt because she Confirmed not within six Moneths after the Defuncts Death The Defender answered she Confirmed within six Moneths or six or seven Dayes more which is an inconsiderable difference The Lords preferred the first Executor to the Goods in the Shop Mr. Iohn Veach contra Byel of Bassinden Eodem die MR. Iohn Veach as Assigney by Iohn Edgar of Wedderlie to a Reversion pursues Declarator against Byel of Bassinden the Wodsetter who alleadged Absolvitor because the premonition is null being by a Procurator and not bearing the Procuratory produced neither the Pursuers Assignation to the Reversion The Pursuer answered non relevat unless it were alleadged that they had been demanded at that time and had not been shown Secondly If need beis he offers him to prove by the Defenders oath that the Procuratory was then shown The Defender answered the Procuratory is not yet produced and the Pursuer was oblieged to have shown it then albeit not called for The Lords sustained the Order the Pursuer reproducing the Procuratory and proving by the Defenders Oath that the Procuratory was then shown Alexander Colquhoun contra his Creditors Eodem die ALexander Colquhoun in Glasgow pursues Liberation supercessione bonorum The Defenders alleadged Absolvitor because they offer them to prove that the Pursuer did wittingly deceive them in borrowing sums and taking of Ware from them after he knew that he was insolvendo and Bankrupt The Pursuer answered nonrelevat against Liberty which is a favourable Cause and can be stopped by nothing but fraudulent Deeds since the Incarceration or offering of Aliment The Defenders craved that if the Lords inclined to grant Liberty that the Pursuer might be decerned to sit upon the Dyver-stone and wear the habit The Pursuer answered that was long since out of Custome The Lords before answer ordained the Pursuers oath to be taken upon the Defense whether he did contract these Debts after he knew himself insolvent and bankrupt and they resolved if it was so found they would not grant him Liberty without sitting upon the Dyver-stone and wearing the Habite Laird of Polwart contra Hooms Ianuary 21. 1662. THe Laird of Polwart pursues a Declarator of Redemption against Hooms who alleadge Absolvitor because the Reversion was not fulfilled which bore the sum of a 1000. merks and a Tack for 19. years after the Redemption The Pursuer answered the Alleadgence ought to be Repelled because the Lands Wodset is worth 400. merks by year and the Tack-duty is only four pounds and so it is an Usurary Paction whereby the Wodsetter will have much more then his principal sum and his Annualrent and so it is null by the common Law and by special Statute Par. 1449. cap. 19. bearing that when Wodsetters take Tacks for long time after the Bond be out quite such Tacks shall not be keeped after Redemption unless they be for the very Mail or near thereby The Defender answered First That Statute is but an Exception from the Immediat preceeding Act of parliament in favours of Tennents that their Tacks shall not be broken by singular Successors buying the Land and therefore is only understood in that case when the Wodset Lands are bought from him that hath right to the Reversion by a singular Successor but this Pursuer is Heir to the granter of the Wodset 2ly That Act is long since in desuetude 3ly Whatever the Act might operate amongst strangers yet it is clear by the Contract of Wodset produced that the Wodset was granted by the Laird of Polwart to his own Brother and so must be Repute to be his Portion Natural and the eldest Brother might well grant a nineteen years Tack to his youngest Brother albeit there had been no Wodset Likeas in the Wodset there is Reserved the Liferent of a third Partie who lived thirty six Years thereafter during which time the Wodset got no Rent The Lords found the Defense and Reply relevant and Ordained no Declarator to be extracted till the Tack were Produced and given up to the Wodsetter Laird Balvaird contra Creditors of Annandail Eodem die THE Laird Balvaird As Heir of Tailzie to David Viscount of Stormont in the Lands of Skun Pursues the Heirs of Line of the said David and Mungo Viscount of Stormont and several their Creditors Lybelling That by an Infeftment of Tailzie of the saids Lands made by the said David Viscount of Stormont It is expresly Declared and Provided That none of the Heirs of Tailzie shall do any Deed prejudicial to the Tailzie or contract Debt whereby the Tailzie may be altered otherwayes the Debt so Contracted shall be null and the Contracter shall ipso facto lose his Right of Propertie which shall belong to the nearest Person of the Tailzie and subsumes that the late Earl of Annandail last Heir of Tailzie Contracted Debts which might effect the saids Tailzed Lands and concludes that it ought to be Declared that thereby he incurred the Clauses itritant in the Tailzie and lost his Right of Propertie and that all the Bonds Contracted by him and Appryzed upon are null quoad these Lands and that the Pursuer as nearest Heir of Tailzie may enter Heir in these Lands to David and Mungo Viscounts of Stormont and enjoy the same free of any Debt Contracted since the Tailzie The Creditors alleadged no Process to Annul their Bonds and Apprysing hoc ordine by way of Declarator but the Pursuer must via ordinaria Reduce in which Case the Creditors will have Terms granted them to produce the Writs called for to be reduced which Priviledge being in their favour ought not to be taken from them in this extraordinar unformal way The Lords repelled the Defense and sustained the Summons in respect there was no Bond craved to be produced or simplie reduced but only that any Bonds granted to the Defenders since the Tailzie are null and all following thereupon as to the Lands in Tailzie which is no more then that they affect not the Lands in the Tailzie
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
First That the foresaid Priviledge which sometime did belong to all Monestries was by Pope Adrian the fourth limited to the Cistertian Order Templars Hospitillars and that for such Lands only as they had before the Lateran Counsel So that the Suspender cannot injoy that Priviledge First because he cannot instruct the Lands to have belonged to the Abbacy before that Counsel 2ly That being a Priviledge granted to Church-men is Personal and cannot belong to their Successors being ley men and albeit the said Decreet be in favours of the said Lord Newbotle yet he was Comendator of the Abbacy and so in the Title of the Order The Lords found the Reason relevant and instructed by the said Decreet and Suspended for such part of the Lands aâ— were in the Suspenders own hand Mr. William Colvill contra the Executors of the Lord Colvill his Brother Eodem die MR. William Colvill pursues the Executors of the Lord Colvill his Brother for payment of 2000. merk of Portion Contracted to him by his brother incase his Brother wanted Heirs Male It was alleadged for the Defender absolvitor because the Contract is null there being no Witnesses designed therein to the Lord Colvills Subscription but only two Witnesses expresly subscribing as Witnesses to Mr. William Colvils Subscription and other two undesigned subscribing as Witnesses but not relating to any particular Subscription The Pursuer answered that he offered to designe the other two Witnesses which was always found sufficient to take away that nullitie It were answered for the Defender that albeit the Designation were sufficient in recenti where the Witnesses were on life because use may be made of these Witnesses to improve the Write which could not hold in re antiqua where both Witnesses were dead The Lords formerly found that the Designation was not sufficient without instructing the Write by Witnesses or Adminicles for which effect the Pursuer produced several Writs subscribed by the Lord Colvill and by one of the two Witnesses that comparatione literarum might instruct the truth of their Subscriptions and alleadged further that this being a mutual Contract and unquestionably Subscribed by the one Contracter and being of that nature that he whose Subscription was unquestionable did ingadge for a more onerous cause then the other The Lords compared the hand writs and found them both alike sustained the VVrite The Pursuer making faith that it was truely subscribed by both Parties Hospitall of Glasgow contra Robert Campbel Iuly 19. 1664. THe Hospital of Glasgow having Appryzed the Lands of Silvercraige they thereupon obtained Decreet which beingâ— Suspended compearance is made for Robert Campbel in Glasgow who alleadged that he has Appryzed the Estate of Lamont from the Laird of Lamont and that the Lands of Silvercraige are a Part and Pertinent of the Lands Apprized by him whereby he stands in the Right of the Superior and offers to prove that the Lands in question are Waird and that the Appearand Heir from whom the Hospitall hath Appryzed is yet Minor and therefore the Hospitall coming in his place can be in no better Case nor the Minor but the Course of the Waird must run during the Appearant Heirs minority The Charger answered that the Course of the Waird cannot now run because the Lands are full by the Infeftment of the Appryzer who stands Infeft being received by a prior Appryzer of the Superiority without any Exception or Reservation of the Waird Duties It was answered for Robert Campbel that George Campbels Appryzing of the Superiority was extinct by Satisfaction with the Males and Duties before he received the Hospitall and so there is now place to the Second Appryzer neither can the filling of the Fee by the Appryzer stop the Course of the Waird which began before the Appryzing albeit the Appryzer be Infeft simply seing all Infeftments on Appryzings are in obedience which never imports a passing from any Right of the Superiors albeit he do not reserve the same and therefore he may make use of any Right in his Person not only as to the Casualities of the Superiority but as to the Property and his receiving in obedience is only to give the Appryzer Anteriority of Diligence Which the Lords found Relevant Sir Laurence Scot contra Lady Shenaltoun Eodem die IN an Act of Litiscontestation betwizt Sir Laurence Scot and the Lady Shenaltoun a Defense of Payment being found Relevant Scripto veljâ—ramento for Sir Laurence and not having cited the Lady to give her Oath nor produced any Write the Term was craved to be circumduced The Lords did not circumduce the Term but found that the Pursuer should have been still ready to produce his Client to Depone if the Defender made choise of his Oath Elizabeth Douglass contra Laird of Wadderburn Eodem die ELizabeth Douglass as Heir to her Goodsire and Sr. Robert Sinclar of Locâ—ermacus her Husbands pursue a Spuilzie of Teynds against the Laird of Wadderburn who alleadged absolvitor because he had Tack of the Teynds of the saids lands from the Earl of Hoom and by vertue thereof was bona fide Possessor and behoved to bruik till his Tack were reduced 2ly That he had Right from the Earl of Hoom by the said Tack which Earl of Hoom albeit his Right which he had the time of the granting of the said Tack was reduced yet he has sincepresently in his Person the Right of the Teynds of the lands from Iohn Steuart of Coldingham which being jus superveniens authori must accresce to the Defender and defend him in this Pursuit The Pursuer answered to the First Defense that the Defenders bona fides was interrupted by Process against him long before the Years lybelled 2ly Albeit there had been none yet this Author the Earl of Hooms Right being reduced in Parliament his bona fides being sine omni titulo is not sufficient neither needed the Tacks-man to be called to the Reduction but his Right fell in consequentiam with the granter of the Tacks right The second Defense It was answered that the general maxime of jus Superveniens has its own fallancies for the Reason of the maxime is that when any thing is disponed for a cause onerous equivalent to the Value thereof It is always understood that the Disponer dispones not only what Right he hath already but whatever Right he shall happen to acquire seing he gets the full Value and therefore sixione juris whatever Right thereafter comes in his Person though it be after the Acquirers Right yet it is holden as conveyed by the Acquirers Right without any new Deed or Solemnity but where that Reason is wanting it holds not as first if it appear that the Cause of the Disposition is not at the full Value then it is presumed that the Disponer only disponed such Right as he presently had or if the Disponer deduce a Particular Right as an Appryzing or Tacks c. and either Dispons but that Right per expressum or at least dispones
the Relicts part especially if their be no Heretable Debt due to the Defunct or if the Heretable Debts due by him exceed these due to him The Lords found that seing the Relict could have no benefit of Heretable Debts due to the Defunct being excluded by the Act of Parliament 1641. renewed 1662. Therefore she would have no detriment by such Heretable Debt due by the Defunct whether they exceeded the Heretable Debts due him or no. In this report it falling into consideration whether the Ann would only belong to the Wife there being no Children or half to the Wife and half to the nearest of Kin they thought it would devide equally betwixt them though it was not resâ—lvâ—d whether it needed to be confirmed or would be lyable to the Defuncts Debt Lady Clerkingtoun contra Stewart Iuly 20. 1664. THe Lady Clerkingtoun pursues the Heirs of Umquhile David Stewart Son to the Laird of Blackhall for the Sum of 2000 merks due to her Husband It was alleadged for Walter Stewart Brother to the Defunct Defender no Process because the Heir of Lyne of the Defunct David Stewart was not called in so far as David being the only Son of the second Marriage and having neither Brother nor Sister of that Marriage his Heir of Lyne could not be Walter Stewart youngest Son of the first Marriage but the Heir of the Eldest Son of the first Marriage according to Craigs Opinion de successionibus The Lords found that in this case Walter as the next immediat preceeding was both Heir and of Conquest and not the eldest Brother In this Process it was also alleadged that this Sum was a Clandestine Fraudulent Paction contrare to the Contract of Marriage betwixt the Defunct David Stewart and the Defenders Daughter whereby 10000 merks being Contracted with her in Tochar and Blackhall granted a proportionable Liferent thereto yet under hand without Blackhalls knowledge his Son was induced to give Bond for this 2000 merk to take away 2000 merk of the Tochar and it was remembred by some of the Lords that in the like Case a discharge of a part of a Sons Provision granted to his Father contrair to his Contract of Marriage was found Fraudulent and null by exception The Lords did not decyde but rather desired the Parties should agree but thought this was an unfavourable Act of dangerous consequence Petrie contra Paul Eodem die PEtrie pursues a Removing against Paul who alleadged absolvitor because she possessed by vertue of her Infeftment It was replyed the Infeftment was null by exceptionâ— as following upon a Contract of Marriage which Marriage was dissolved within year and day It was duplyed that the Infeftment behoved to stand valid being in recompence of her Tochar untill her Tochar was repayed Which the Lords found relevant unless it were alleadged that the Tochar was not payed to the Husband but in her own hands or her Debitor Scot of Braid-meadow contra Scot of Thirlstoun Iuly 21. 1664. SCot of Braid-meadow pursues Scot of Thirlstain his Curator for Compt and Reckoning who alleadged absolvitor because the Pursuer having conveened the Defender before the Sheriff to compt and Reckon and to Renunce his Curatorie he was â—hen decerned to Renunce the Office and did Compt for bygones The Pursuer answered no respect to that Decreet because it was during his Minority In which time the Defender had a competent defense that he was not comptable and for the Renunciation of the Office It was a great Lesion to the Pupil which the Curator should not have yeelded to but proponed a Defense against the same that he could not pursue his Curator to Renunce unless he had condescended and instructed malversation The Defender answered that he had just Reason to suffer Sentence because his Pupil was Irregular and medled with his own Rents by force and mispent the same The Lords Notwithstanding of the Decreet ordained Compt and Reckoning and found that the Decreet could not liberat the Curator even for his Omissions after but reserved to the Defender before the Auditor to condescend what deeds the Pupil had done before as being relevant pro tanto Alexander Livingstoun contra Heirs of Lyne and Daughters of the Lord Forrester Iuly 22. 1664. ALexander Livingstoun as Assigney to a Debt awand by the deceist Lord Forrester having charged his Daughters and Heirs of Lyne and they Renunced whereupon he pursues Adjudication Compearance is made for the Lord Forrester who produced his Infeftment and alleadged the Lands therein comprehended could not be Adjudged because the Defunct was denuded thereof before his Death and as he could stop the Apparant Heirs if they were craving themselves to be entered Heirs to their Fathers so the Adjudger in their place could not crave Infeftment The Pursuer answered the Defense was not Competent hoc loco and the Defender would not be prejudged by any Infeftment or Adjudication if he had sufficient Right And therefore as in an Apprysing he might Appryse omne jus that the Defunct had and thereupon be Infeft So he hath the like benefit in Adjudication which hath been ordinarly sustained periculo petentis The Lords sustained the Adjudication as to all Right the Appearand Heirs could have had in the Lands but not as to the Property and therefore would not decern the Puâ—â—uer to be Infeft but sustained the Decreet of Adjudication that thereby he may have Right to Reversions and Clauses resolutive or other Personal Clauses which they thought would be sufficiently carried by the Decreet of Adjudication without Infeftment and would not be prejudged by another Adjudger obtainer of the first â—nfefment but this was besyde the Ordinar Course wherein Adjudications use always to be granted periculo petentis that thereby omne jus may be carried and as in Appryzings it hath been ordinarly found that the Superior must Infeft the Appryzer to compleat his Legal diligence albeitâ—he Superior instruct that himâ—elf hath a Right to the Lands Because his receiving of the Appryzer in obedience will not prejudge his Right and it were unreasonable to force an Appryzer or Adjudger to dispute the Poynt of Rightâ— when all the Writs and Evidences are in their Adversaries hands and the Creditors being meir Strangers who upon their Appryzings or Adjudications can only have Title to exhibition of the Rights and afterward be oblidged to dispute but here the Case was notour to many of the Lords being near the Town of Edinburgh that the Lord Forrester had Infeft his Goodson in his Estate Lord Loure contra Lady Craig Eodem die LOrd Loure being Infeft in the Estate of Craig pursues for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for the Lady Craig Liferenter who alleadges she stands Infeft and in Possession of the Lands The Pursuer answered that any Infeftment as to that part thereof that was not for fulfilling of the Contract of Marriage was Fraudulent and in Prejudice of lawful Creditors and so null by exception conform to the Act of Parliament
Wines at that time gave 20. pound Sterling and not the second because it was an exception of Compensation and relative to Writ The Lords sustained the first member of the quality but rejected the second and found it relevant to be proven by way of exception Goldsmiths of Edinburgh contra Robert Haliburton December 10 1664. THe Goldsmiths of Edinburgh having obtained Decreet against Haliburton as Heir to his Father He suspends upon this Reason that the Goldsmiths confirmed themselves Executors Creditors to his Father and must allow the Inventar which either they have in their hand or at least should have done Diligence therefore It was answered for the Executors that they being Executor Creditors are not lyable for Diligence having Confirmed but to their own behove for their payment and as Creditors may arrest apprize and do all Dilligence severally the one but prejudice of the other so may they Confirm 2ly They found that having Confirmed in Edinburgh whereas the Defunct lived and died within the Diocie of Glasgow that therefore their Title was null and therefore did not proceed And lastlie oppons their Decreet in foro The Suspender answered that they can never object against the nullity of their own Title 2ly All that time there was no Commissioriat Constitute for the Shire of Air where the man died and so Edinburgh was communis patria The Lords having Debated the general case whether Executor Creditors were lyable for Diligence waved the same but found that in this Case in respect of the questionableness of a Title they would not find them lyable upon their negligence Lyon of Muirask contra Sir Robert Farquhar Eodem die MVirask having pursued a Declarator of Redemption of the Lands of Balmellie against Sir Robert Farquhar Litisâ—ontestation was made in the Cause wherein the Order was sustained proceeding upon an Adjudication against Sir Iohn Vrquhart as Heir to his Goodsire and it was offered to be proven that he died in the Right of the Reversion of this VVodset which was but base and holden of the granter for proving whereof his Charter was produced bearing the Barony of Craigfintrie and Balmellie per expressum At the advising of the Cause It was alleadged that the Defender having protested for Reservation contra producenda It is now instantly verified that the Grand-Father died not in the Right of the Reversion but that he was denuded by Disposition to his Son instructed by his Charter produced The Pursuer answered that he opponed the state of the Process And if such a Defense were now competent it ought to be Repelled because he hath Right from Sir Iohn Vrquhart who is Heir Served and Retoured to his Father in whose favours his Grand-father was Denuded and has declared that he consents to the Declarator upon that Ground and Renounces all other Right The Defender answered that the order having been only used upon the Adjudication from Vrquhart as Heir to his Grand-father if that be excluded albeit the Pursuer have another Right he must use the Order de novo and redeem thereupon 2ly Sir Iohn Vrquharts Right produced Renounces but does not Dispone any Right to the Pursuer The Lords having considered the state of the Process found that a Reply instantly verified is receiveable post conclusum in causa unless it were alleadged to have been known to the Proponer and dolose omitted by which the Pursuer might be put to a Duply suffering new Probation But the Lords found that the Charter produced bearing the Grand-father to be Denuded did not instantly verifie because it expressed not Balmellie and would not allow a Term to prove part and pertinent It was further alleadged by the Defender no Declarator till the Sums consigned were reproduced at the Bar especially seing it was offered to be proven that the Pursuer lifted them himself and he being at the Bar it is instantly verified The Lords sustained the same and Declared the Sums being Reproduced before Extract and that the Pursuer shall be lyable for Annualrent or the Wodsetter shall retain the Duties effeiring thereto Lord Rollo contra His Chamberland December 13. 1664. THe Lord Rollo having pursued his Chamberlain for Intromissions conform to a particular accompt libelled The Defenders have compeared offered to prove he was Discharged which was found relevant and now producing the same it proves but for a part whereupon the Pursuer craved Sentence for the rest It was alleadged for the Defender that there was nothing produced to instruct the Intromission The Pursuer answered that the Defender having made Litiscontestation upon a Discharge without denying the Intromission he has acknowledged the Libel and the Pursuer cannot be put to prove the same without inverting the Order and making two Litiscontestations in the same Cause The Defender answered that this being but an omission of the Advacats or Clerks of a thing palpable the Lords might repone the Defender The Lords adhered to the Act of Litiscontestation but referred to some of their number to move the Parties to what was equitable and it was thought that if the Defender would alleadge that he was not Intrometter for these particulars but that they were in the Pursuer or his other Chamberlains hands and were instantly verified by his oath it were receivable Bishop of the Isles contra Iames Hamiltoun Eodem die THe Bishop of the Isles pursuing Hamiltoun a Merchant in Edinburgh for his Teind Fish taken in the Isles which is a part of the Bishops Patrimony The Defender alleadged â— that he being a Merchant and not a taker of Herring cannot be lyable for the Teind thereof no more then if one should buy Corns in the Mercat or out of the Barn-yard he could be conveened for the Teind It was answered for the Pursuer that it was the immemorial custom that the first buyer from the Fishers should be lyable to the Bishop of the Isles for the Teind of the Fish bought and for proving thereof produced a Decreet at his Predecessors instance against some Merchants in Edinburgh which Decreet did bear that in a former Decreet betwixt the same Parties the Bishops had proven immemorial Possession against the Merchants 2ly The instance holds not of buying Corns in the Mercat or Barn-yeard but if any body should buy the whole Cropt when it was upon the Land untaken off being in the Sheaves or Stoucks he would undoubtedly be lyable as Intrometter for the Teind so if any Merchant bought not upon the place where the Fishes were taken he was not lyable but buying the Fish fresh as they were taken in whole Boat-fulls and selling them there themselves such Merchants must be liable as Intrometters The Defender answered that the Immemorial custom was indeed Relevant but a Decreet against some few Persons could not prove it against others being inter alios actum But here there was only a Decreet bearing that there was a former Decreet in which that was proven The Lords sustained that member against these who bought the hering
that the Liferent of the whole was given in satisfaction of the third and all The Pursuer answered that this could not be presumed unless it had been so exprest no more then a Terce is excluded by a provision of Liferent unless it bear in satisfaction of a Terce The Lords found the Defense Relevant that the Pursuer could not both have her third and the Liferent of the rest but gave her her option either of the third provisione legis or of her Liferent of the whole provisione hominis Earl of Athol contra Iohn Scot. Eodem die THe Earl of Athol having obtained Decreet against Iohn Scot before the Commissar of Dunkeld for the Teinds of the said Iohn his Lands He Suspnds and raises Reduction on this Reason that albeit the Decreet bear a Defense proponed that the Teinds in question are Mortified by the King to a Kirk and that the same was found Relevant and that the said Iohn succumbed in proving thereof yet he offers him to prove that before the Term elapsed he produced the Mortification before the Commissar and thereupon took Instruments which is produced Which the Lords found Relevant Mr. George Norvel Advocat contra Margaret Sunter Eodem die MR. George Norvel pursuing for Mails and Duties upon an Appryzing Compearance is made for Margaret Sunter who alleadged absolvitor because she was Infeft in Liferent before Mr. Georges Right which being found relevant for instructing thereof she produced her Seasine Which the Lords found not to instruct without an Adminicle and therefore sustained the Decreet The said Margaret raised Reduction of this Decreet on this Reason that now she produced an Adminicle viz. her Contract of Marriage 2ly That the Decreet is null because the quantities are not proven The Charger answered to the first that the Lords having found the Exception not proven the Pursuer could not be admitted in the second instance against a Decreet in foro upon production of that which she should have produced at first As to the second he needed not prove the quantities seing her exception was total without denying the quantities The Lords found the Decreet valide but ordained some of their number to deal with Mr. George to show favour to the poor woman Doctor Ramsay contra Mr. William Hogg and Alexander Seton December 22. 1664. THese three Parties having appryzed the same Lands the first Appryzer being Infeft the second not being and the third being Infeft The first Appryzer declared he would not insist for the Mails and Duties of the whole but only possessed a part The question came whether the second Apprizer not having Charged should be preferred to the third who was Infeft It was alleadged for the second Appryzer that he needed not be Infeft because the first Appryzer being Infeft in all he had the only jus proprietatis and there was nothing remaining but jus reversionis which the Appryzing alone carryed and as the second Appryzer might redeem the first as having the right of his Reversion so he might force him either to possess the whole whereby his Appryzing might be satisfied or give warrant to the second to Possess the remainder so likewise he might use Redemption It was alleadged for the third Appryzer that if the question were of the Redemption of the Land the second had good Right but the question being for the Mails and Duties a right of Reversion could never carry these without a Seasine The Lords considering the Point in Law and the great disadvantage the Leiges should sustain if all Appryzers were necessitat to take Infeftment They prefered the second Appryzer Cornelius Inglis contra Mr. Rodger Hog Eodem die MR. Cornelius Inglis being Infest upon an Appryzing pursues a Removing compearance is made for Mr. Rodger Hog who alleadged that he is also Infeft and had charged the Superiour though after the first Appryzer and had possessed seven years by lifting the Mails and Duties and therefore craved the benefit of a Possessorie Judgement The Lords having considered the Case amongst themselves whether an Appryzing and Charge without Infeftment could give the benefit of a Possessorie Iudgement They were equally divided in their Votes and the President resolved before he gave his Vote to settle the Parties contra Edmistoun of Carden Ianuary 6. 1665. EDmistoun of Carden being pursued by a Creditor of his Fathers as Lucrative Successor to his Father by accepting of a Disposition of his Fathers Lands after contracting of the Pursuers Debt alleadged absolvitor because being pursued beforeby another Creditor of his Fathers he did then alleadge that his Disposition was not Lucrative but for a Cause onerous equivalent to the worth of the Land which he proved by instructing the Rental and Rate of the Land at the time of the Disposition by Witnesses and the Sums undertaken for it by Writ whereupon he was Assoilzyed and can never be again conveened upon that ground nam obest exceptio rei judicatae for if he had been condemned as Lucrative Successorâ— upon the other Creditors Probation It would now have proven against him and therefore his beng Assoilzied must be profitable to him against others unless Collusion were alleadged and Instructed The Pursuer answered that this absolvitor was res inter alios acta and albeit a Condemature would have been effectual against the Defender non sequitur that an absolvitor should also be effectuall for him because he was called to that Condemnature but this Creditor was not at all called to the absolvitor 2. Even in a Condemnature if the Defender had omitted any thing that he might have alleadged in the one case competent and omitted would not hinder him to propone the same against another Creditor Therefore the Defender can only repeit the grounds of that absolvitor which if he do the Pursuer will alleadge That whereas in the absolvitor the Defender was admitted to prove the Rental The Pursuer omitted to crave the benefit of Probation which he would have gotten and this Pursuer offers him to prove that whereas the Rental was proven to but 18. Chalders of Victual the true Rental was worth 30. Chalder 3dly A part of the onerous Cause was the Portion of the Defuncts Children which would not Prejudge the Pursuer being an anterior Creditorâ— The Lords found that the absolvitor could not prejudge this Pursuer as to these points omitted and that it could not have effect inter alios except it had been in re antiqua where the Witness had died that in that case the Testimonies out of the former Process might be repeited but as to the Rental the Lords would not give the Pursuer the sole Probationâ— being so lubrick a point as not only what it payed but what the Lands were worth and it might have payed and ordained Witnesses to be examined hinc inde and found that the Bairns Portions not being payed bona fide before the intenting of this Cause could not prejudge the Creditor but ordained the Defender to Suspend on double
this Case is as favourable because the Reversion was only to the Father in his own life and therefore the Son endeavoured to hinder him to Redeem by taking Right to this Appryzing It was answered that the Case was not alike in a Conventional Reversion as in a legal And that the Appryzing led against the Father in his life would perpetuat the Reversion and that this Case was unfavourable where the Father intended to frustrate his Heir in favours of the Wife of the second Marriage to whom he had assigned the Reversion The Lords having upon the first report considered the favourableness of the Sons Case sustained the Defense but afterward upon Bill ordained them to be heard again in presentia and having heard them The Lords were of different opinions so that that came not to a Vot But the Lords before answer ordained the Wife to insist upon her Right who alleadged that she might Redeem ad hunc effectum to enjoy the benefit of her Liferent Right after her Husbands Death It was answered First That she wanted the concourse of her Husband 2ly That her Assignation was not intimat It was answered First Her Assignation was Registrat in the Register of Reversions conform to the Act of Parliament Which Registration being publicandi causa needed no intimation 2ly That she had a Disposition in Liferent by her Contract of the Lands which carried omnejus in the Disponer as to the Liferent Right during her Life and so carried the Reversion though not exprest and her Seasine being registrat it was equivalent to the Registration of the Assignation The Lords sustained the Wifes Interest and declared in her favours for her Liferent use and found the Disposition with the Seasine Registrat and the Assignation also Registrat sufficient Cheisly contra Cuthbert Eodem die CHeisly Charges Cuthbert for his Prentis-fee Who suspends and alleadges that he was set Prentise to him as Apothecary and that he deserted that Employment and became a Drogeist and thereupon the Suspender left him It was answered that the breeding of him as a Drogeist was sufficient and that he now practised as Apothecary and Cherurgeon The Lords found this answer not Relevant the Suspender being set to him as Apothecary to make Drogs and not as a Drogeisi that buyes Drogs as to the time after he changed But the Charger having further offered to prove that he constantly in his Chamber makes as well as sell Drogs the Lords found it Relevant Richard Cunninghame contra Duke of Hamiltoun Eodem die RIchard Cuninghame pursues the Duke and Dutches of Hamiltoun for payment of a Bond granted by the late Duke which being produced appeared to have been blank in the Sum Date and Creditors Name The Defenders alleadged the Bond was null as wanting the Designation of the Writer It was answered that they did now Design him which has been alwayes allowed by the Lords It was answered that though the Lords have done so ex officio Yet in a case of this nature where the Debt is so old never mentioned before and the Bond in the substantials blank in which case the Lords ought to keep by the express words in the Act of Parliament that such Writs are null and not to be supplyed by an equivalent The Lords Repelled the Defense and admitted the Designation Hellen Hill contra Maxwels Eodem die IN an accompt and reckoning between Hellen Hill Relict of Iohn Maxwel in Glasgow who was one of the Tutors named by Iohn to his Bairns and Mr. Robert and George Maxwels his brethren who succeeded the Daughters being dead Iohn by his Testament leaves his two Daughters and failing of either of them by Decease to the other his universal Legatars one of the Daughters dyed Pupil and the other shortly after her age of 12. years nominat the said Hellen her Mother universal Legatrix whereby Hellen craved the universal Legacy of both the Daughters It was alleadged that the last Daughter not having Confirmed her self Executrix to the first the first share was never established in her Person and so could not be Transmitted by her Testament but belonged to the nearest of Kin of the first Daughter viz. The saids Maxwells It was answered That this being a Substitution of each of the two Daughters to other nominatim by the death of the one it accrest into the other ipso facto without Confirmation as in the case of Bonds of Provision payable to the Father and by Decease of him to such a Bairn named albeit the Father be Fiar and the Bairn but Heir substitute it needs not Confirmation but the Bairn may summarly charge or pursue The Lords found no need of Confirmation but that it did accresce to the second Daughter upon the death of the first and so was carried by the seconds Testament In this account Mr. Robert as Heir pursuing for the Heretable Bonds The Tutrix answered that she ought to have allowance of what was wared out upon repairing of the Tenement in Glasgow It was answered that she as Tutrix ex officio was oblieged to exhaust the Moveables first one Person being both Heir and Executor and not to exhaust the Heretable Bonds that bore Annualrent and to let the other lie unprofitable and now to apply it to her own use by her Legacy It was answered That it was employed upon the Heritage and so was profitable to the Heir only being employed upon the House and that by a Warrand the Heir being then under Tutors to repair it out of the first and readiest of the Defuncts Estate The Lords found that Article Relevant to be deduced out of the Heretable Estate Elizabeth Anderson contra Andrew Cunninghame December 7. 1665. ANdrew Cunninghames Wife having left a Legacy to Elizabeth Anderson It was alleadged by the Husband that his Wifes share of the moveables was exhausted It was answered That he having confirmed his Wifes Testament and given up the Debts due by him therein and made Faith thereon he cannot now be admitted to adduce any other Debts especially being so recent before the Testament within three or four years It was answered that he had only made Faith upon the Inventar of the Goods belonging to him but not of the Debts due by him which were only given up to abaite the Quot and albeit it may be presumed that he knew and remembred his own Debt yet presumptio cediâ— veritati seing the Creditors now produce their Bond instructing the Debt and crave preference Which the Lords found Relevant vid. Iune 9. 1666. Katharin Smith and William Duncan contra Isobel Robertson Eodem die KAtharin Smith and William Duncan having apprized from Isobel Robertson and Iohn Wilson all Right they had to a Tenement under which fell the Liferent-right of Isobel Robertson his Wife jure mariti Pursues the said Isobel for payment of the Mails and Duties that she had uplifted and of a part of the Tenement that she dwelt in her self She alleadged first that her Husbands
offered to be proven that he broke up Iohn Ramsays Celler and took them out 3dly The Colonel Impignorat them by Writ and so the Presumption of allienating them ceased because he went immediately out of the Countrey and never returned It was answered that there is no difference of Jewels more than any other Moveables which use to passe without Writ from Jewellers that sell them and the Pursuer having possest them these 10. or 12. Years without question has right thereto by usucapion The Lords found the alleadgeances joyntly relevant to elied the presumption and that there is no usucapion in Moveables in Scotland by Possession in less then 40 years but only a presumptive Title which is altogether eleided by the Answers Duke of Hamiltoun contra Laird of Clackmanan December 14. 1665. THe Duke of Hamiltoun as Collector of the Taxations 1633. charges the Laird of Clackmannan who Suspends and produces Discharges of the first three Terms It was alleadged these discharges could not liberat because they were granted by Iohn Scobie who was neither Sheriff Baillie nor Clerk nor does it appear that he had any Warrand or Commission nor does his Discharges mention any Commission or Warrand It was answered that by the Discharges produced it appears that Ormistoun and Humbie deputed for the Duke had granted Discharges to this Iohn Scobie and offer to prove that he was in use of uplifting the Taxations during the Terms themselves and was commonly repute as Collector thereof which must be sufficient post tantum tempus It was answered that that ground would not oblidge the Sheriff and so both the Heretor and Sheriff being free the King looseth his Right Yet the Lords sustained the Reason Monteith contra Mr. John Anderson December 15. 1665. IN a Reduction at the instance of Monteith against Anderson a Reason of payment being found relevant Mr. Iohn produced an Incident at the first Terme and a Diligence against Witnesses for proving the having of the Writs at the second Term. Which Incident the Lords sustained and would not restrict the Terms of probation in the Incident to Horning against the Witnesses and Caption but allowed four Terms and ordained the same to be shorter Mr. John Elies contra Keith Eodem Die THere was a Bond of 6000 merks granted by Wiseheart Parson of Leith and Keith his Spouse to Mr. Iohn Elies containing an oblidgement to Infeft him in an Annualrent out of any of their Lands with a Procuratorie The Wife had then the Lands of Benholm belonging to her Heretablie lying in the Mairns Mr. Iohn having Inhibite her Husband and her she sold the the Lands before the Inhibition was published at the head Burgh of the Mairns and having thereafter right to a Sum of 10000 merks for which she was Infeft under Reversion in other Lands an order of Redemption was used and the Money consigned Mr. Iohn Elies pursues a Declataror to hear and see it Found and Declared that the said Keith was oblidged to infeft him in an Annualrent out of her Lands which she had fraudulently Disponed contraire her obligation and therefore was now oblidged to Infeft him in other her Lands or to pay the Sum as damnage and interest and that therefore any other Lands or Rights belonging to her might be affected for his payment and particularly the Wodset now in question Compearance was made for the Defenders Grand-child who had a Right from her Grand-mother to the Wodset who alleadged First That the Bond bearing an oblidgement for Debt granted by the Wife stante matrimonio was null It was answered that albeit the Personal oblidgment were null yet the oblidgment to Infeft in an Annualrent granted by a Wife is valid either against her Heretage or Liferent and alleadged several Dicisions therefore It was answered that the Wife might do so if she had borrowed money for her own use or were principally bound to Infeft in an Annualrent but this oblidgment being in security of her Personal obligatigation with her Husband the principal obligation being null the accessory is also null The Lords repelled the alleadgeance and found the oblidgement to Infeft valid albeit accessory because Deeds and Obligations of Wyfes not to affect their Persons but Estates are valid and albeit she had not been bound for the principal Debt she might either have effectually disponed an Annualrent or which is all one oblidged her self to Infeft in an Annualrent out of her Heretage utile per inutile non vitiatur It was further alleadged that this Wodset or Sum disponed to her Oy could not be affected because her Oy was the youngest of many Oyes and did no wayes represent her The Lords sustained this Member of the Declarator also upon the Act of Parliament 1621. against Dispositions between Conjunct Persons without a cause onerous which they found might either be a ground to reduce the same or to declare the same to be affected as if the Right were in the Disponers Person Herein it was also lybelled That this Wodset albeit acquired after the Inhibition yet seing it lay in the same Shire where the Inhibition was published the Grand-child's Right were Reduceable upon the Inhibition The Lords thought so because Inhibitions being Personal Prohibitions reach both acquisita and acquirenda by the Person Inhibit in the Shires where it is published Laird Kilbocho contra Lady Kilbocho December 20. 1665. THE Lady Kilbocho by her Contract of Marriage being provided to certain Lands with this provision further that she should have the Liferent of all Lands Conquest during the Marriage whereupon she obtained a Decreet in the English time which being now under Reduction It was alleadged the Clause of Conquest could only give her the Lands Conquest with the Burden of the Annualrent of a Sum due by the Defunct to a Person from whom he bought the Land as being a part of the Price of the Land especially seing by a writ under the Defuncts hand he acknowledged that this Bond was granted for a part of the Price It was answered First That a Personal oblidgement cannot affect the Land neither can it affect the Ladies Person but if the Defunct had pleased he might have granted an Annualrent out of the Lands Conquest which then would have affected it which not being done his declaring that this Sum was a part of the price cannot be effectual nor can infer a Probation against his Wife in prejudice of her anterior Right Secondly This alleadgeance might be proponed as well against the Heir of Conquest as Liferenter thereof and yet it was never found that the Heir of Conquest behoved to accept the Land with the Burden of the Sums borrowed to buy it nor yet to relieve the Heir of Lyne thereof but on the contrair the Heir of Conquest has relief against the Heir of Lyne for Personal Debt though borrowed for acquiring the Right The Lords found that the Case was not alike with the Heirs of Conquest whom Defuncts do Infeft
obtained that that Decreet should be transferred against him and it should be declared that the Adjudication should proceed against the next Appearand Heir It was alleadged for the Defender that the former Appearand Heir having dyed before Adjudication and so the Diligence being incompleat there could be no Process thereon till this Defender were again charged to enter Heir to the first Defunct especially seing he had Annum deliberandi competent to him of the Law which would be taken from him if this order were sustained and as an Appearand Heir charged though the dayes of the Charge were run before his death the same would be void if no Decreet had followed thereupon And the obtainer behoved to obtain his Diligence thereupon renewed so it ought to be in this Case It was answered the Case was not alike for here there is a Decreet obtained upon the Heirs Renounciation and there is no reason to put the Creditor to do diligence again especially now since the late Act of Parliament whereby if he get not Adjudication within a year he will be excluded and there are other Appryzings already deduced The Lords Sustained the Process hoc ordine with this provision that if this appear and Heir entred and Infeft himself within year and day the Adjudication should be redeemable to him within the Legal Reversion of 10. years by which neither the Creditor was prejudged of his diligence nor the Heir of his Priviledge Lord Rentoun Justice Clerk contra Fewars of Coldinghame Eodem die MY Lord Rentoun as being Infeft in the Office of Forrestrie by the Abbot of Coldinghame containing many special servitudes upon the whole Inhabitants of the Abbacie as such a dutie out of Waith Goods and out of all Timber cutted in the Woods of the Abbacie with so many Woods Hâ—ns and a Threave of Oats out of every husband Land yearly pursues Declarator of his Right and payment of the bygones since the year 1621. And in time coming both Parties being formerly ordained before answer to produce such Writs and Rights as they would make use of and these being now produced The Pursuer insisted primâ— Loco for Declaring his Right as to the Threave of Oats It was alleadged for the Defenders absolvitor because they had produced their Fews granted by the Abbots of Coldinghame prior to the Pursuers Infeftment free of any such burden It was answered The Defense ought to be Repelled because the Pursuer has not only produced his own Infeftment but his Predecessors and Authors Infeftments and his progresse to them viz. The Infeftment granted to David Evin of the Forrestrie containing all the Duties a foresaid which is before any of the Defenders Infeftments produced It was duplyed for the Defender that the Infeftment granted to the said David Evin is no original Infeftment but bears to be granted on his Mothers Resignation and has no special reddendo but only relative to the former Infeftments And therefore unless the former Infeftments were produced or it were instructed that the Resigner had Right the Infeftment upon Resignation can operat nothing especially never being cled with Possession as to the Threaves of Oats in questionâ— for there is great odds betwixt Infeftments granted by Kirkmen who are but administrators of the benefices and others who have plenum dominium so that Infeftments upon Resignation of Kirkmen are to be understood to confer no more Right than the Resigner had and not to constitute any original Right where there was none before in the same way as Infeftments granted by the King upon Resignation are but periculo petentis and give no Right further then the Resigner had even against the King It was answered for the Pursuer that his Reply stands relevant and he produces sufficiently to instruct his predecessors Right for there is no Law nor Reason to compell Parties to produce the old Original Feus granted by Kirkmen but Infeftments upon Resignation are sufficient neither is the Case alike as to the King and Kirkmen because things passe not by the King ex certa scientia which no other can pretend but in this Case declaring a Right granted by an Abbot with consent of the Convent it must be considered what made a Right the time that it was granted when there was no more required then his Concession with consent foresaid which is sufficient against him and his successors neither can they pretend that such grants are salvo jure suo And if in matters so Ancient Original Infeftments from Kirkmen behoved to be produced that neither Precepts of clare constat nor Infeftments upon Resignation were sufficient Few rights of kirk-Kirk-lands in Scotland would be found valid The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and found this Infeftment upon Resignation sufficient Iohn and Ioseph Heriots contra James Fleming Messenger and Cautioners January 19. 1666. JOhn and Joseph Heriots having obtained Decreet before the Lyon against James Fleming Messenger and his Cautioners depryving the Messenger upon Malversation in so far as being imployed to execute a Caption he had taken the Debitor and had Denounced and Appryzed his Lands and suffered the Debitor to escape and would not subscribe the Decreet of Appryzing whereupon he was depryved and decerned to pay 500. merks conform to the Act of Parliament 1587. cap. 46. And both he and his Cautioners were decerned to pay the Sum as Damnage and Interest to the Pursuer They Suspend and alleadge that the Decreet is null in so far as it was pronounced by the Lord Lyon without the concourse of the Heraulds which is required by the said Act. 2dly Albeit the Lyon be impowred to deprive Messengers by the said Act yet their Cautioners are not under his jurisdiction nor the damnage and interest of Parties by Messengers malversation which is only competent to the Judge ordinary It was answered to the first oppons the Decreet wherein the Cautioners compeared and so acknowledged the Lyons Jurisdiction as he then sat likeas the Decreet it self bears to be by the Lyon with the Heraulds To the Second The Cautioners having enacted themselves in the Lyons Books they have made themselves lyable and for the damnages they are consequent to every Jurisdiction and the Lyons have been constantly in use to determine the same as to this Point The Lords were of different judgements for they thought that by the Act of Parliament the Lyon had no such power but as to long Custom some thought it was sufficient to give that power and there was no inconveniencie seing his Decreets might be Suspended Others thought that Custome being clandestine and without the contradiction of Parties who might voluntarly submit themselves to any Authority could not be sufficient The Lords Ordained before answer the Lyons Books to be produced to see if there were such a Custome before it were decided and how far that Custome would work Christian Braidie contra Laird of Fairney January 20. 1666. CHristian Braidie having pursued a Reduction of a
Disposition ex capute inhibitionis against the Laird of Fairney of all Dispositions made by John Glasfoord to him after her Inhibition he produced a Disposition Holograph wanting Witnesses of a Date anterior It was alleadged that the Holograph writ could not prove its own Date contra tertium The Lords before answer ordained Fairney to adduce Witness and adminacles for astructing the Date he adduced foâ—â— the Town Clerk who deponed he dyted the Disposition and a Town Officer who saw it subscribed of the Date it bears and a third who deponed he saw it subscribed on a Mercat day at Coupar which as he remembred was in March or Apryl 1652. Whereas the Date bears the first of August 1652. But that Glasfoord when he wrot it layed it down upon the Table beside himself and saw it not delivered and it being alleadged that the first of August 1652. fell upon a Sunday The Lords considering that Infeftment was not taken upon the Disposition for three years and that there was no Witnesses deponed upon the delivery found the Witnesses adduced not to astruct the Date of the Disposition and therefore reduced the same Clappertoun contra Laird Tarsonce Eodem die CLappertoun raises a Declarator against Tarsonce for declaring an Appryzing at his Instance against the Pursuer to have been satisfied within the legal by payment of the sums by the Debitor or by Intromission with the Mails and Duties either within the seven years of the first legal or within the three years thereafter during which by the late Act of Parliament Appryzings not expired in Anno 1652. were declared Redeemable or by Sums received from such as bought from the Appryzer a part of the appryzed Lands It was alleadged absolvitor from that member of satisfaction by the intromission during these three last years because the Act of Parliament does not expresly prorogat the Reversion but declares the Lands Redeemable within three years but does express nothing to whom the Mails and Duties shall belong which cannot be imputed against the Appryzer to satisfie the Appryzing because he enjoyed them as his own the Apprizing by the Law then standing being expyred bona fide possessor facit fructus consumptos suos and therefore a subsequent Law cannot be drawn back to make him compt for that which he might have consumed the more lavishly thinking it his own It was answered that Appryzings were odious being the taking away the whole Right of Lands for a sum without proportion to the true value and therefore all Acts retrenching them ought to be favourably interpret especially where the Appryzer gets all his own and therefore the Act declaring them Redeemable must be understood in the same case as they were before and that was either by payment or intromission The Lords Repelled the Defense and sustained the Declarator both as to payment and intromission and as to the sum the Appryzer got for a part of the Land sold by him Irredeemably after the seven years legal was expyred And seing the Acquirer of that Right was called they found it also Redeemable from him upon payment of the pryce payed for it cum omni causa and he to be comptable for the Rents unless the Pursuer would ratifie his Right as an irredeemable Right in which case the price should be accounted as a part of the sums appryzed for Lord Rentoun contra Feuars of Coldinghame Eodem die THe Lord Rentoun insisting in the Declarator of his Right of the Office of Forrestry and of a Threave of Corn with the Fodder whereof mention is made Ianuary 17. The Defenders proponed a second Defense viz. That the Pursuer shewed no sufficient progress from David Ellen but only an Infeftment granted by Ianet Ellen Davids Daughter and so the Pursuers Goodsir upon Ianets own Resignation and albeit there was a Precept of clare constat produced by the Abbot in favours of Ianet yet no Seasine followed thereupon so that Davids Infeftment was not established in the Person of Ianet and consequently could not belong to this Pursuer and the Defenders having gotten their Fews immediatly after Davids Right free of this Burden the Right could not be declared till it were established in the Pursuers Person and if he should now infeft himself the Interruption on the Act of Prescription upon the Summons lybelling upon Davids Right and the progress produced from David would fall It was answered that the Abbot having granted the Infeftment to Ianet upon her own Resignation yet bearing to be expresly to her as heir to David It was equivalent to a Precept of clare constat which does not necessarly require the ordinar form but a Charter infeâ—ting such a Person as heir to such another who was before infeft would be as valide so that in this infeftment of Ianets all being materially included to establish Davids Right in her Person she being acknowledged heir to David albeit it be upon her own Resignation utile per inutile non vitiatur The Defenders further alleadged absolvitor because by several Acts of Parliament infeftments of Kirk-lands before the Reformation are required to be Confirmed by the Pope or the King thereafter Ita est this is Confirmed by neither before the Feuers Right And by another Act of Parliament it is declared that the first Confirmation with the last Feu shall be preferred Ita est the Defenders has the first Confirmation It was answered that no Law nor Act of Parliament required Confirmation of an Office neither was any Confirmation absolutely necessar before that Act of Parliament but the Kirk-men might always have Feued without diminution of the Rental of the Lands as they were the time of the feu but that Act was made in regard that at the time of Reformation the Kirk-men being out of hopes of preserving of Monasteries and Kirk-lands did Feu them to their nearest Friends and therefore the foresaid Act as being correctory of the common Law ought not to be extended to any thing but what is exprest in the Act which is only Feues of Kirk-lands and so would neither extend to an Office as a Baillirie Forrestrie c. nor yet to a Pension or Annualrent neither would it extend to Infeftments by Kirk-men Ward such as most of the Infeftments of this Abbacy and many others are And seing Confirmation was not requisit but the Feu it self was sufficient alone the last Act preferring the first Confirmation takes no place which can only be understood where Confirmations are necessar It was answered for the Defenders that albeit an Office requires no Confirmation where there is nothing given but the Office and Casualities thereof Yet where there is a burden upon Lands given therewith such as this Threave of Oats out of every Husband-land being far above the proportion of a suitable Fee for the Office there being above 111. Husband-lands in the Abbacie and some Forrester-lands following the Office besides other Casualities Confirmation is necessar or else the Abbots might have eluded the
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
over-rule his Deputs for whom he was answerable and therefore was oblieged to Reside that albeit he did not constantly sit yet he might advise with his Deputs in important Cases and the Lieges might have access to him to complain in case of the Deputs Malversation and as to the power of Deputation it self and the Injunctions The Lords found that the Defender was in bona fide to enjoy these Priviledges till it was declared notwithstanding he was required to the contrair but as to the future they found that he ought to reside and make use of no Deputs without the consent of the Archbishop but whether that should be only pro re nata or by a warrand for such Persons not only upon necessar occasions mentioned in the injunctions but also in others that the Deputs might ordinarily sit and advise with the Commissars in Cases of importance The Lords were of different judgements and recommended to the Bishop in common to consider what was fit in that Case but declared only according to the Injunctions without interpretating how far the Deputation should reach Children of the Earl of Buchan contra Lady of Buchan February 23. 1666. THe six Children of the Earl of Buchan pursue their Mother for Aliment It was alleadged absolvitor because their was neither Law Statute nor Custome of this Kingdom oblidging a Mother to Aliment her Children 2ly Albeit there were she offers her to admit them in her Family and to entertain them according to her means but can never be oblidged to pay a modification in Money out of the Family for in all Cases of Aliment of Wives or Children against Parents the offer to accept and Aliment them in the Family according to the Parents Means doth alwayes exclude Modification as was lately found in the Case of Sir Andrew Dick and his Son It was answered that the Law of Nature is a part of the Law of this and all other Civil Kingdoms and according thereto the Lords do alwayes decide in Cases now occurring where there was neither Statute nor Custome and if Aliment be due the manner and measure is in arbitrio judicis who may justly ordain their Children to be bred from their Mothers seing she hath miscarried and Married a deposed Minister It was answered that the Law of Nature without our Custome is no sufficient Law to us and does not induce obligationem civilem but only pietatem affectum upon which ground it is that there was necessity of this Statute to appoint an Aliment for Heirs against the Wairdatars and Liferenters which insinuats that there was no such Law before and if the Law of Nature be the adequat Rule we are oblidged to entertain the Poor and all in distress and therefore they might pursue us thereupon 2dly There is no Reason to put it in arbitrio judicis whether a Child should be Educat with the Parent who must Aliment him even upon pretence of the Parents miscarriage for that being the indispensable Right of Parents to educat their Children as they see cause especially who demand Aliment of them it ought not to be in the arbitrament of any Judge unless it were a Parliament and this arbitriment would lay the Foundations to encourage Children to desert their Parents and to claime Aliment out of their Family and to pretend the Parents miscarriages as unfit Persons to be bred with and not breeding them in a fit way which accusations were prohibit by the Civil Law and never admitted by our Custome for albeit the Lords may appoint the way of Education of Pupils their Parents being dead yet Tutors have no such interest as Parents The Lords found the Mother oblidged to Aliment the Children jure naturae which was sufficient to infer this Civil Obligation and Action but found that the offer of Alimenting them in her Family was sufficient according to her means and they could demand no Aliment nor Modification extra familiam For they found that the Lords had thus sustained Aliment to Children against theîr Fathers not upon the Act of Parliament which is competent against all Liferenters and Donatars without consideration of their being Parents but super jure naturae which they found would not extend to the obligation of Charity and which had no definite rule but at the discretion of the giver and was not allowed as a civil obligation by any Nation Grant contra Grant February 24. 1666. GEorge Crant having Appryzed a Wodset Right from Grant of Mornithe and thereupon obtained a Decreet of Removing and Mails and Duties against Grant of Kirkdails Reduction was raised thereof and of the ground of the same viz of the Wodset Right on this Reason that the one half of the Sum was payed and the Wodset renunced pro tanto long before the Appryzing It was Replyed that there was an Inhibition for the Sum whereupon the Appryzing proceeded after which Inhibition if any payment was made or Renunciation granted the samine was reduceable ex capite Inhibitionis It was answered that all that the Inhibition and Reduction thereupon could work was in so far as might extend to the satisfaction of the Sum and now they were willing to satisfie the whole Sum cum omni causa It was answered that no satisfaction could now be accepted because Appryzing having followed upon the samine and being expired and no satisfaction being offered within the Legal or the time of the Reduction it cannot now be admitted It was answered that the Inhibition could not only work that nothing done after the same should be prejudicial to the Sum but altered not the Case as to the Appryzing led long thereafter unless the Inhibition had been raised upon the Appryzing The Lords found that Inhibition could not be taken away or satisfied by payment of the Sums after the expiring of the Apprizing wherein the President remembred of a former Case that even in the obtaining of the Reduction ex capite Inhibitionis the offer to satisfie the Sum whereon it proceeded was repelled In respect an Appryzing thereupon was expired Sir Robert Sinclar contra Laird of Waderburn Eodem die JOhn Stewart Son to the Earl of Bothwell being Abbot and Commendator of Coldinghame the Earl being Forefaulted in Parliament his Son was dishabilitat to brook any Lands or Goods in Scotland whereby Iohn fell from the Right of Provision of the Abbacie Thereafter the King annexed the Abbacie of Coldinghame which was excepted from the general Annexation 1587. to the Crown excepting the Teinds and gave Right of Reversion both of Lands and Teinds to the Earl of Hoom who gave a Tack of the Teinds of Kello and Cumerjame to the Laird of Wedderburn Thereafter Iohn Stewart was by Act of Parliament restored and the former Act of Dishabilitation rescinded whereupon Iohn Stewart demitted his temporal Provision in the King's hands and got it Erected in an Heretable Right he thereupon Infeft Dowglas of Ivleck for relief of Sums Sir Robert Sinclars Lady as Heir to him
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
Lands for far less then the true price The Lords found the Act not to extend to Appryzers unless the sums were a competent price for the Land Appryzed and therefore found the Letters orderly proceeded Isobel and Margaret Simes contra Marrion Brown Ianuary 5. 1669. BY Contract of Marriage betwixt umquhil Thomas Sim and Marion Brown Iohn Flowan Marions Master is obliged to pay 300. Merks of Tocher and Thomas Sim is obliged to imploy the said 300. Merks and 200. Merks further for the said Marion her Liferent use the said Thomas having two Daughters Isobel and Margaret Sims he lends a sum of 400. Merks to Thomas Brown and takes the Bond on these Terms to be payed to him and the said Marion Brown the longest liver of them two in Liferent and after their Decease to Margaret and Isobel Sims The said Isobel and Margaret having pursued the said Marion before the Commissars for Delivery of this Bond as belonging to them after their Fathers Death The Commissars Assoilzied the said Marion from Delivery of the Bond and found it did belong to the said Marion her self not only as to the Annualrent but as to the Stock because her Husband having no other Means but this Bond and not having fulfilled her Contract she had Confirmed her self Executrix Creditrix in this sum and behoved to Exclude her Husbands two Daughters of a former Marriage who were provided and Forisfamiliat before Of this absolvitor the Daughters raised Reduction on this Reason that this Sum could not be Confirmed not being in bonis defuncti the Father being but Liferenter and the Daughters Feears and though they were but as heirs substitute they exclude Executors and need no Confirmation 2dly The Husband being but obliged to Employ this Tocher and 200. merks more the Pursuer must instruct that the Tocher was payed 3dly The Wife intrometted with as much of her Husbands Goods as would satisfie her Provision It was answered that the Wife not being obliged for her Tocher but another Party who was solvendo and neither being obliged nor in capacity to pursue therefore could not now after so long a time be put to prove that the Tocher was payed and for her Intromission she had Confirmed and made Faith and the Pursuers might take a dative ad omissa if they pleased but could not hoc ordine Reduce or stop her Decreet upon compearance The Lords found that albeit in Form the Bond should have been Reduced as being done in fraudem of the Wife as being a Creditor and thereafter Confirmed yet now the matter being before the Lords and the Parties poor they found the Husbands Substitution of two provided Daughters by a former Marriage null as to the Wifes provision by the Act of Parliament 1621. without necessity of Reduction the matter being but a personal Right and found the Wife not obliged to instruct the Tocher payed and therefore assoilzied from the Reduction but prejudice to the Pursuers to Confirm a dative ad omissa William Zeoman contra Mr. Patrick Oliphant and Dam Giels Moncrief Eodem die IN a Compt and Reckoning betwixt these Parties anent the satisfaction of an Appryzing the Auditor in respect that Mr. Patrick Oliphant and Dam Giels Moncrief were Contumacious and compeared not did Decern conform to William Zeomans Summonds finding the Sum satisfied and ordained them to Remove whereupon William Zeoman obtained Possession and having been several years in Possession Mr. Patrick Oliphant obtained himself and the said Dam Giels to be Reponed against the said Decreet for his Contumacy and a Writer to the Signet past Letters of Possession in his favours against William Zeoman but without a Warrant from the Lords which were found null and this Writer Deposed but Mr. Patrick having attained Possession by these Letters William Zeoman insists against him as an Intruder to quite the Possession It was alleadged for Mr. Patrick that William having obtained Possession unwarrantably by Decreet upon his pretended Contumacy and he being now restored there against he is in statu quo prius before that Decreet at which time he was in lawful peaceable Possession which only should stand and neither of the unwarrantable Possessions be regarded It was answered that William Zeomans Possession was by vertue of a Decreet then standing autore pretore and so was not vitious but Mr Patricks was without Warrant of the Lords and so was most vitious It was answered that Mr. Patrick was instantly content to Debate his Right frustra petitur quod mox est restituendum It was answered that spoliatus ante omnia est restitâ—endus and is not obliged to Dispute any Right till first he be Restored Which the Lords Sustained and ordained William Zeoman instantly to be Restored to the Possession My Lord Balmerino Supplicant Ianuary 7. 1669. MY Lord gave in a Bill to the Lords Representing that his Uncle was Dead and that he is nearest Heir-male to him in whose favours his Estate is provided and therefore desired that Commission might be granted to certain Persons in the Countrey to Inventar Seal and Secure his Charter Chist and to make patent Doors in his Houses Coffers and Cabins for that effect and to take my Lady his Relicts Oath where the Evidents were to the effect foresaid Compearance being made for my Lady desiring a sight of the Bill till the next day and alleadging that it was notour to the Lords that my Lady had a Disposition to the whole Estate whereupon Resignation had past in Exchequer and that the Evidents ought to be left open to the effect my Lady may instruct her Charter conform to the Disposition The Lords refused to give up the Bill it being their ordinar Course to grant such Commissions without calling or hearing Parties and that a short delay might prevent the effect of the Commission and therefore granted Commission to certain Noblemen and Gentlemen or any one of them to Inventar Seal and Secure the Evidents and to open Doors Coffers and Cabinets for that effect but refused to give Warrant to take my Ladies Oath Captain Newman contra Tennents of Whitehil and Mr. Iohn Prestoun Ianuary 8. 1669. CAptain Newman having Appryzed the Lands of Whitehil from Prestoun of Craigmiller his Debitor and being thereupon Infeft pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for Mr. Iohn Prestoun who produces a Disposition from Craigmiller his Brother of the Baronies of Craigmiller Prestoun and Whitehil Which Disposition relates this Debt of Captain Newmans and many other Debts and for satisfaction thereof Dispones these Lands to Mr. Iohn Reserving the Disponers and his Ladies Liferent containing a Reversion upon ten merks and containing a provision that it should be leisom to Craigmiller during his Life and after his Decease to Mr. Iohn to pay any of the Creditors contained in the Disposition they pleased without contributing the price proportionally to the rest of the Creditors and also produces a Renunciation by Craigmiller whereby he Renunces the
Article of the Libel whereby Iohn Bosewel craved Repetition of what he was stented for for Charges of Commissions to the Convention of Burrows upon this Ground that the Convention of Burrows was authorized by Acts of Parliament and Commissioners is ordained to meet yearly thereat which being a burden arising from the Authority of Parliament these who have Tenements in the Town or Lands in the Burghs Lands are lyable pro rata and did again resume the Debate anent the second Ministers Stipend and being heard thereupon in presentia The Lords adhered to their former Interlocutor anent the Teinds and found nothing could make Iohn Bosewel lyable for any part of the second Ministers Stipend except what was due by Law out of his Teinds or what was due by his own consent or by custom of 40. years and found him not lyable for Charges of Commissioners of Burrows which though authorized by Parliament yet the intent thereof was Trading and though the Convention might equalise the proportion of Taxations amongst Burghs which did concern all having Land therein Yet that being a case meerly contingent they would not upon consideration thereof put any part of the burden upon these who had no Trade Iohn Boswel contra Lindsay of Wormistoun February 3. 1669. John Bosewel being appointed Commissar of St. Andrews by the King and before the Restitution of Bishops after their Restitution the Arch-bishop named Lindsay of Wormistoun Commissar and agreed him and Iohn Bosewel on these Terms that Iohn should have the half of the profit of the place whereupon Wormistoun grants a Bond to Iohn Bosewel to Compt and Reckon for the Profits of the half and to pay the same to Iohn Bosewel termly and quarterly and if any question should arise betwixt them in the Accompt that he should submit himself to the Arch-bishops determination and acquiesce therein Iohn Bosewel Charges upon his Bond. Wormistoun Suspends It was alleadged for Wormistoun that his Bond did contain a Submission to the Arch-bishop who is thereby the only Judge Constitute in these Accompts It was answered that this Bond was only Subscribed by Wormistoun himself and a Submission must be Subscribed by both Parties and that it behoved to be understood to last but for a year and not to import a Liferent Submission neither could it be exclusive of the Lords to decline their Authority The Suspender answered that this Submission being a provision in the Bond Charged on Which Bond being accepted by the Charger his acceptance makes his consent to the Submission in the same way as if he had Subscribed the same And there is no Law to exclude a Submission for two years or a Lifetime more then for one and it is not a declining of the Lords Jurisdiction it being most ordinarly sustained no Process because there is a Submission standing The Lords found that there is here a Submission not ending by a year and accepted by the Charger and that thereby the Arch-bishop in the first place ought to give his Sentence which if he refused or if it was iniquous the Lords would cognosce thereupon as in the case of other Arbiters and Assigned therefore to the Arch-bishop the first of Iune to determine thereupon Kilburnie contra Heirs of Tailzie of Kilburnie Eodem die THe Laird and Lady Kiburny did insist in the Declarator against the Heirs of Tailzie Dispute the 20. of Ianuary and according to the Interlocutor then given gave in a condescendence of Kilburnies Debt amounting to fifty one thousand pound and that the Rent of the Land did not exceed thirty six hundred merks It was alleadged that the Annualrents were here accumulate for five years after Kilburnies Death which ought not to be the Lady having Possession of the Lands and ought to have payed the Annualrent and the Clause impowering her to Sell is only for satisfying Kilburnies Debt due the time of his Death which cannot extend to Annualrents due after his Death and that these Annualrents were truly payed by the Lady and so could not come in as a Debt upon the Estate 2dly The Moveable Debts ought to be satisfied by the Executory which must first be Exhausted the Lady her self being Executrix and so cannot burden the Heirs of Tailzie or the Estate for if they had been Distrest they could have craved payment from her quoad vires inventarij so that the principal Sums not extending to 40000. Pounds and the Lands being Bought by Greinock at the Rental of 4000. Merks and 20000. Merks being gotten more for the Lands then the Debt the power of Selling granted to the Lady in the Disposition can never extend to so vast a difference albeit a small difference of the price would not be noticed and lastly it was offered to find a Party who would take a Wodset of the Lands in satisfaction of all the Defuncts Debts so that the Lady cannot in prejudice of the Heirs of Tailzie Sell where Wodsetting may do the turn and the Wodset should contain a Reversion and no Requisition and whereas it might be pretended that the matter was not intire because the Lands were actually Sold to Greinock he offered to Consent and Renunce his Bargain It was answered that this Clause de non alienando being against the nature of Property was odious and not to be extended and the faculty of Selling or affecting being suitable to the nature of Property was favourable and not to be restricted further then the Defuncts own Words and Termes who having given full power to his Daughter to Sell or affect the Lands named for payment of his Debts and not having said to Sell or burden so much of the Land as were equivalent to the Debt neither having said so much of the Debt as exceeded his Moveables or his Moveables being first exhausted it is most rational and to be presumed to be his meaning that as to his Moveables he did not burden her at all and that this part of his Lands he set apart for his Debt for he understood his Debt to be about the value of it otherwise he could have set apart less Land or could have more limited the Faculty 〈◊〉 Disposing but the principal Sums of this Debt being 40000. Pounds and the Rental not being pretended to have been above 4000. Merks the principal would amount to the value of the Land at 15. years Purchase and there being unquestionably a latitude to the Feear to Sell at such a Price as in discretion he thought fit though he had sold at twelve years purchase or not under the lowest Rate of Land neither could the Buyer be quarrelled nor the Seller as incurring the Clause irritant and therefore the Lady having Sold at a far greater Rate then the ordinar Greinock and the Town of Glasgow being both dealling for the Land they to make a Harbour there and he not to suffer them in prejudice of his Town and Harbour in Greinock there is no reason to exclude the Lady from the benefit of her
to inâ—er seasure of the Ship and Goods which is valide though a Priviledge derogator to the Law of Nations but speakes nothing whether the carrying of Enemies Goods shall make the Ship Prize so that that Priviledge not being granted by the Articles the Law of Nations takes place and the Ship may be declared Prize likeas in the case of Overvails Ship Decided in the last Session all that is there alieadged being here alleadged Overvail not instructing any Flandrian Concession to sail with Hollanders his Ship was Declared Prize upon that same very ground and the Testimony of the Skipper at Linlithgow is most unsuspect it being taken before the Skipper was otherwise prompted to Depone neither had the Clerk any interest but the most that can be pretended is that he had relation to some of the Owners which signifies nothing and the Skipper by his Office being the person Commissionat by the Owners who by his Office may Sell or Burden the Ship without a special Commission his Oath makes a full probation against the Owners who Intrusted him especially here where the Merchant and most part of the Company by their own confession are Hollanders which proves sufficiently for the Privateer unless they instruct that the Ship and Goods belonged to free men and them only which they have not done evidently and surely by all that they have produced but the Skipper who is the main Man to be trusted is contrary therefore it may be and is presumed to be a Contrivance to carry on the Trade of de Rivier a Hollander under the name of Clepaâ— in Bruges his Brother in Law The Lords upon the whole matter declared the Ship and Goods Prize butâ— found not that the want of a Passe alone was sufficient neither did they put it to the Vote by it self whether the sailing by Hollanders alone would have been sufficient notwithstanding of the Treaty and the Kings Order Extracted out of the Council of England which though it related not to Scotland some of the Lords thought it was sufficient unless it did appear that the King had given contrair Order others thought not unlesse that Concession could be otherwise showen Thereafter the Srangers offered to prove positively that there was a Concession which the Lords would not Sustain in regard that the last Session the first of Iune was given before answer to prove the Concession and the Term was now circumduced for not proving thereof Scot contra Langtoun Iune 19. 1669. IOhn Graham of Gillesby having Wodset certain Lands to Iames Langtoun he did thereafter with consent of Earl of Annandail Superior Eike twelve hundreth Merks to the Reversion and the Earl Ratified the former Wodset and Graham with his Consent of new Disponed again the Lands for the Sums in the first Wodset and Eike and Added some other Clauses the first Wodset was before the Act between Debitor and Creditor and by vertue thereof the Wodsetter was in Possession the second Wodset was after the said Act the Superior Consented only to the second wodset and of the same Date gave a Gift of Grahams Liferent to Robert Scot whereupon Robert having obtained general Declarator pursues now special Declarator for the Mails and Duties of the Wodset Lands as falling under the Liferent of Graham the Granter of the Wodset It was alleadged for Langtoun the Wodsetter that he ought to be preferred to the Donator not only for the first Wodset which was constitute before the Rebellion but for the second Wodset comprehending the Bike because the Superior by his Consent to the second Wodset without any Reservation had Communicat all Right in his Person and consequently the Liferent Escheat of Graham the granter of the Wodset in the same manner as if he had given the Wodsetter a Gift thereof and so no Gift no being anterior to the other could prejudge the Wodsetter It was answered for Scot the Donator that the alleadgeance is no way Relevant to exclude his Gift unlesse the Wodsetter could alleadge a Deed Denuding the Superior anterior to the Pursuers Gift but here the Superiors Consent is not anterior but of the same days Date and may be posterior and therefore the Gift which is the habilis modus must be preferred unto the Superiors Consent to the Wodset which is but indirect and consequential to infer the Right as Liferent at least both must be conjoined and have equal Right as done simul semel It was answered for the Wodsetter that the Superiors Gift must not be preferred to the Consent though of the same Date because he was then in Possession of the Wodset Lands and needed no Declarator and the Gift is but imperfect until a general Declarator which is the Intimation thereof no Declarator being requisite to the consent of the Superiour to the Wodsetter and so is preferable The Lords preferred the Wodsetter It was further alleadged for the Donator that the Wodsetter must restrict himself to his Annualrent and be countable to him for the superplus seing now he makes an offer to find the Wodsetter Caution and so he must either quite his Possession or restrict conform to the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor The Wodsetter answered that his second Wodset bearing not only a Ratification of the first Wodset in all points but a Disposition of the same Lands falls not within that Clause of the said Act of Parliament which Regulates only Wodsets prior to that Act and the new Disposition makes the old Wodset as extinct and innovat The Donator answered that there being a jus quaesitum conform to the Act as to the former Wodset the posterior Ratification cannot derogat therefrom or take it away unless it had been exprest and in meritis causa it was alleadged that the Wodsetter had near the double of his Annualrent The Lords preferred the Donator as to the Superplus more nor the Annualrent of the first Wodset and ordained the Wodsetter to Restrict The Wodsetter further alleadged that the Gift was Antidated and Simulate to the Rebels behove and so accresced to the Wodsetter Which the Lords Sustained and found the Simulation probable by the Oath of the Superiour and the Witnesses insert in the Gift Hamiltoun of Corse contra Hamiltoun and Viscount of Frendraught Iune 22. 1669. WIshart of Cowbardie having Wodset his Lands of Bogheads and others to George Hamiltoun from whom the Viscount of Frendraught has now Right he did thereafter sell the same Lands to Iohn Hamiltoun of Corse who took the Gift of Wisharts Fischeat and having thereupon obtained general Declarator pursues now in a special Declarator for the Mails and Duties of the Wodset Lands Compears George Hamiltoun and the Viscount of Frendraught and produced the Wodset Right and alleadged that the Liferent Right cannot reach the VVodset Lands because the Gift is Simulate to the behove of Wishart the Rebel and common Author and so is jus supervenient authorâ— accrescens successori to defend this VVodset Right and condescends that it is
Disposition bears and under Reversion of a Rosenoble to Sir Robert in his own Life Mr. John Drummond Sir Roberts appearand Heir grants a Bond to Lowrie of Blackwood whereupon he Adjudges the Land from the appearand Heir and pursues a Reduction of the Disposition as done on Death-bed In which Pursuit Witnesses were appointed to be Examined hinc inde concerning Sir Roberts condition when he made the Disposition and thereafter till his Death the sum of the Probation was that before the Disposition Sir Robert had contracted an Apoplexie whereby he remained senseless for a time but by Cure there remained a Palsie in his Tongue and a Vertigo in his Head which continued till his Death and about a year after that the sickness affected his Brain so that he lost the remembrance of Names of things and most of the Witnesses Depones that he was not found thereafter in his Judgement but that he keeped on his Cloathes and was not affixed to his Bed and went frequently and walked in his Garden and to the Court-hill half a pair of Butts off and one of the Witnesses Deponed that he came to his House alone a quarter of a mile off but that he went never to the Kirk nor Mercat nor any publick place Whereupon it was alleadged for the Defender that the Defunct continued in health at and after the Disposition and that his going so frequently abroad was equivalent to his going to Kirk and Mercat which was sufficient to eleid the Reason of Death-bed and that the Palsie being but in his Tongue albeit he misnamed things it did not import his being on Death-bed especially seing he Disponed for payment of his Debt equivalent to the worth of the Land his Disposition being to a Friend of his Name who Relieved him of his Debt his Heir not being his Son nor Descendent and uncapable to Relieve him of his Debt It was answered that the contracting of his sickness being sufficiently proven to be before this Disposition and the continuance thereof to affect his Brain in that case nothing could purge the same but his going to Kirk and Mercat which were the acts required in Law and could not be supplied by his going privatly abroad and not to any popular publick meeting and as to his Debts they could not validat the Disposition by exception though the Defender might by way of action affect therewith the Estate or Burden the Heir on whose Bond it was adjudged especially seing the Disposition buir for Love and Favour and Redeemable for a Rose-noble The Lords found the Reason of Death-bed sufficiently proven and that his private going abroad though unsupported was not equivalent to going abroad to Kirk and Mercat or publick meeting where the Disease continued to affect the Brain But they found the paying of Debts equivalent to the worth of the Land Relevant by way of exception in regard the Disposition buir to be for payment of his Debt Mr. Iohn Wat contra Campbel of Kilpont Feb. 8. 1671. SIr Archibald Campbel being Debitor to Adam Wat in a Sum of Money he did thereafter Contract his Son Mr. Archibald in Marriage with Thomas Moodies Daughter and by the Contract Thomas Moodie acknowledges the Receipt of fourty thousand Pound from Sir Archibald and is obliged for twenty thousand Merks of Tocher all to be imployed for Mr. Archibald in Fee but Thomas Moodies Daughter Dying and leaving no Children behind her Thomas Moodie did restore the Sums and there is a Discharge granted by Sir Archibald and his Spouse and Mr. Archibald bearing them to have Received the Sums and to have Discharged the same Whereupon Mr. Iohn Wat as Heir to Adam pursues Mr. Archibald to pay him the Sum due to his Father upon this ground that he having Received fourty thousand Pounds of his Fathers Means after Contracting of the Debt ought to make so much of it forthcoming as will pay the Pursuer which Action was founded upon the Act of Parliament 1621. whereby all Deeds done by Debitors in prejudice of their Creditors without a Cause Onerous are declared null and all Parties that by vertue thereof Intromets are declared lyable to restore to the Creditors It was answered for the Defender First That the Libel was not Relevant there being no part of the Act of Parliament 1621. that Incapacitats Debitors to Gift or Dispone Sums of Money or Moveables especially if the Disponer at that time be not insolvent but have a sufficient Estate for satisfying his Debt and it is offered to be proven that Sir Archibald had at the time of this Contract a sufficient Estate for all his Debt in the hands of the Earl of Argile and Glenorchie and albeit by the superveening Forefaulture Argiles Debt be insufficient it was a good Debt the time of the Contract so that there can be no ground to make a Child lyable to Restore a Portion given by a Father who was solvent 2dly Albeit the Defender could be lyable if it were clear that he had the Sum foresaid by his Father yet remaining to the fore yet if it had been lost or spent before the Intenting of this Cause he or any subsequent Estate acquired aliunde is not lyable ita est anything he has is a Wodset of fourty thousand Merks on Kilpont and the two Tochers he had viz. twenty thousand Merks from Thomas Moodie and ten thousand Merks of Legacy and twelve thousand Merk of Tocher with Sir William Gray's Daughter was sufficient to acquire the Right of Kilpont without any thing from his Father 3dly The Discharge produced cannot instruct that Mr. Archibald Received the Money because it bears indefinitly that payment was made to Sir Archibald and his Spouse and to Mr. Archibald and all of them do Discharge The Pursuer answered that the Libel was very Relevant for whatsoever might be alleadged of Bairns Portions by a solvent Father yet this being so considerable a Fortune provided to the only Son and appearand Heir if it did not make him lyable to satisfie the Fathers Debt pro tanto it were a patent way to defraud all Creditors and elude the Act of Parliament for the Father might Sell his Estate and provide the Moneys in this manner and as to the Discharge albeit it be indefinite yet it must be presumed that Mr. Archibald Received the Sums because they belong to him in Fee by the Contract of Marriage The Lords found the Libel Relevant and that the Discharge produced did presume that Mr. Archibald the Feear did Receive the Money but seing the Probation was not expresse but presumptive they allowed Mr. Archibald to condescend upon what Evidences he could give that the Money or Surety thereof was Delivered to his Father Iohn Will contra The Town of Kirkaldy Feb. 11. 1671. JOhn Will pursues the Magistrats of Kirkaldy for paying the Debt of a Person Incarcerat in their Tolbooth who was letten escape by them It was alleadged for the Town that the Person Incarcerat had escaped vi
majore and that they had not failed in their duty having had a sufficient Tolbooth having four Doors and the inmost an Iron Door and that all being Locked the Person Incarcerat having gotten secretly conveyed in some Mason or Wrights Tools had in the night broken all the Locks and escaped It was answered that the Defense was not Relevant neither had the Magistrats done their duty and diligence for they ought to have had Chains and Cat-bands upon the utter-sides of the Doors with Locks thereon unto which the Incarcerat Person could not reach and it was alike how many Doors they had upon the Tolbooth with their Locks inward for the same means that would break up one would break up twenty and if such a pretence should liberat the Magistrats it were an easie way to elide all Captions and let all Persons for Debt free It was answered for the Town that the having of Cat-bands without Closed and Locked was not the custom of their Tolbooth who past all memory did never Lock the outward Chains but upon Malefactors and such is the custom of Edinburgh and other Burghs of Scotland The Lords having before answer ordained Witnesses to be Examined on both parts anent the condition of the Tolbooth and finding thereby that there was no Cat-bands or outward Chains Locked when this Prisoner escaped they found the Magistrats had not done their duty and so Decerned against them Alexander Naper contra The Earl of Eglintoun Feb. 14. 1671. THere was a Bond granted by the Laird of Minto as principal Lugtoun Iames Creichtoun and the Earl of Eglintoun Cautioners in Anno 1641. to Adam Naper and his Spouse in Conjunct Fee Alexander Naper as Heir to his Father pursues this Earl of Eglintoun as Heir to his Father for payment who alleadged Absolvitor because Minto having Disponed his Estate to his Son under express Provision to pay the Debt the same was satisfied by Minto younger and was retired lying by him a long time or by Robert Vrie who had the Trust of Minto's Affairs and Writs and Minto younger being lapsus bonis and Robert Vrie being dead the Pursuer had either practised with Minto upon his necessity or upon Robert Vries Friends to give him back the Bond and for evidence that the Bond has been satisfied and retired First It had lyen dormant above this thirty years without either payment of Annualrent or any Diligence 2dly The late Earl of Eglintoun being Forefault by the Usurpers his Creditors were appointed to give in their Claims or else to be excluded and yet no Claim was given in for this Debt and therefore craved that Witnesses might be Examined ex â—fficio for proving of the points foresaid The Pursuer answered that it was an uncontroverted principle in our Law that Witnesses could not prove payment of any Debt due by writ nor take the same away and as to the pretences adduced by the Defender they import nothing for the delay of seeking payment or Claiming the Sum was because the said Adam Naper was with Montrose in the War and his Heir remained a Minor and his Wife was Married to another Husband The Defender answered that the Wife was Liferenter of the Sum and she and her second Husband would certainly have sought her Annualrent or Claimed the Sum which takes off the excuse of the Pursuers Minority and albeit Writ be not taken away by Witnesses ordinarly yet where the matter is so ancient and the Evidences so pregnant the Lords uses not to refuse to Examine Witnesses ex officio The Lords ex officio ordained Witnesses to be Examined anent the being of the Bond in the Custody of Minto or his Doers being a matter of Fact but would not Examine them anent the payment made thereof George Bain contra The Bailzies of Culrosse Eodem die GEorge Bain pursues the Bailzies of Culrosse for payment of the Debt of a Rebel whom they had suffered to go free up and down their Streets whereupon he had taken Instruments against them and protested that they should be lyable for the Debt seing squalor carceris is justly introduced against Debitors that will not pay their Debt and the Magistrats of Burghs may not take it off in whole or in part and produced a Practique observed by Durie upon the 27. of March 1623. Smith against the Bailzies of Elgine where the Prisoner being suffered to walk freely upon the Streets till he obtained a Charge to set to Liberty the Magistrates were found lyable The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because he offers to prove that this Prisoner's going out was necessary viz. He being a Person altogether Indigent was permitted sometimes to go and mendicat his Bread and once to go to the Burial of a Child of his own and immediatly thereafter the Pursuers having taken Instruments the Rebel was put in Waird and continued there till he Died. Which the Lords found Relevant to Liberat the Burgh Apilgirth contra Locarbie Eodem die IN a Compt and Reckoning at the instance of Apilgirth for declaring two Apprizings Led by Lockerbie satisfied this Query was moved by the Auditor whether a Sum Consigned by umquhile Apilgirth for Redeeming a part of the Lands Wodset to Lockerbie conform to the Reversion in the Wodset might be proven to be uplifted by Apilgirth from the Consignator by the Oath of the Consignator and of the Clerk of the Process who Received the Money or only by Writ Apilgirth the Consignator being Dead The Lords considering that it was ordinar to take up Sums Consigned for Redemption of Wodsets being upon the peril of the Consigner did appoint the Oath of the Consignator and Clerk to be taken for proving that the Money was taken up by Apilgirth from the Consignator and that Apilgirth and not the Consignator put it in the Clerks hands and that the Clerk gave it up again to Apilgirth The Earl of Argile contra The Laird of Mcnaughtan Feb. 15. 1671. THe Earl of Argile pursues the Laird of Mcnaughtan to Remove from the Lands of Benbowie as being a part of the Earls Barony of Loâ—how The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because he prâ—duces a Seising dated in Anno 1527. proceeding upon a Precept of clare constat from the Earl of Argile in favours of Alexander Mcnaughtan as Heir to Giller Mcnaughtan of the four Merk Land of Benbowie by vertue whereof the said Alexander and his Successors to this day have Possessed and so have a sufficient Defense upon prescription by the Act of Parliament 1617. anent prescription The Pursuer answered that the Defense is not Relevant as it is founded upon the naked Seising only because by the said Act of Parliament there is required to all prescriptions of Land a Title in Writ preceeding the 40. years Possession which Title is dâ—stinguished in two cases First In relation to Rights acquired titulo singlari whereunto is required not only a Seising but a Charter which although they may be excluded by an anterior or better Right yet
to an Appryzing of the Lands led before that Term seing Infeftment followed not thereon before the Term Iuly 2. 1667. Luster contra Aitone and Sleigh Arresters Competing the â—irst Arrestment and first Citation before the Lords and compearance sine mora was preferred to a posterior Arrestment and Citation before the Sheriff though obtaining the first Decreet in absence the Arrester not being in that Shire November 23. 1667. Montgomery contra Rankine Arrestments were found not to reach the Fie of a Servant in so far as was necessary for the Servants Aliment conform to the condition of his Service but only as to the Superplus Iuly 9. 1668. â—oog contra Davidson Arrestment was found to Reach the next Terms Rent after it was laid on though it was not due when it was laid on Iuly 20. 1669. Lâ—ssy contra Cunninghame Arresters Compeâ—ing the posterior Arrestment by four dayes was preferred to the prior in respect the Term of the Sum for satisfying of which the Arrestment was laid on was not come the time of the Citation or Competition before the Baillies though by an Advocation raised by the prior Arrester without a just Reason of Advocation the Term was past before the Competition before the Lords Iuly 29. 1670. Charters contra Neilson AN ASSIGNEY was not excluded by payment made to the Cedent after Intimation albeit the Assignation was to the behove of the Cedents Son without a Cause onerous Ianuary 3. 1662. Ross of Earles-milns contra Campbel of Caddel An Assigney constitute by a Tutor who took Assignation to his Pupils Bond was found to have no Process against the Pupil till the Tâ—tor Compts were made unlesse the Assigney foâ—nd Caution for the Tutor Ianuary 24. 1662. Ramsay contra Earl of Wintoun An Assignation omnium bonorum by a Father to his Son was Sustained to give Processe against the Debitors albeit not Intimate in the Fathers Life and so in bonis defuncti Iune 25. 1663. Hallyburtoun contra Earl of Raxburgh An Assigney may be prejudged by the Cedents Oath before Intimation or if the Debitor pursue the Assigney ad hunc eâ—â—ectum to take away the Bond before Intimation by the Cedents Oath and his being so called and producing the Assignation will not exclude the Cedents Oath February 15. 1662. Laird of Pitfoddels contra Laird of Glenkindy An Assigney was found to have interest to pursue albeit his Assignation was not Intimate before the Cedents death without necessity of Confirmation Iuly 27. 1664. Muirhead contra 〈◊〉 Intimation November 18. 1664. Guthrie contra Sornbeg An Assignation being gratuitoâ—s the Cedents Oath was found sufficient against the Assigney Iune 16. 1665. Wright contra Sheils The like Iune 13. 1666. Iack contra Mowat An Assignation to a Reversion being Registrate in the Register of Reversions and a Liferent Infeftmeâ—â— of the Wodset Land Registrate in the Register of Seasines was found sufficient to give the Wife interest even in her Husbands time to Redeem that she might Redeem the Wodset Land for her Liferent use and to be preferred to an Appryzer of the Reversion after the Wifes Right Registrate as said is without necessity of any other Intimation December 5. 1665. Beg contra Beg. An Assignation to a Gift when it is incompleat and before it passe the Exchequer doth not exclude the Donators Back-bond at passing thereof even as to the Assigney Ianuary 13. 1666. Dollace contra Frazer of Streichen An Assignation to such a sum yearly out of the first and readiest of the Teinds of such Lands found not preferable to a posterior Appryzing of these Lands and Teinds as an Assigâ—ation to the Tack or whole Tack-duty of the Teinds would have been preferred as habilis modus February 6. 1666. Watson contra Fleming Assignation Vide Compensatione Cockburn contra Laird of Craigivar An Assigney to a Tack which is Transmitted by Assignation was not found as a singular Successor to Lands passing by Infeâ—tment so that what is competent against the Cedent in Tacks is competent against the Assigney except as to the manner of Probation by the Cedents Oath December 18. 1668. Swintoun contra Brown Assigneys were found to have Right to an Annualrent granted by a Father to his Daughter and her Heirs without mention of Assigneys though her Brothers and Sisters were substitute failing the Heirs of her Body and though the Assignation was granted without a cause onerous to another Brother Iâ—â—e 24. 1669. Steuart contra Stâ—uart An Assignation without Intimation was preferred to an Executor Creditor of the Cedent even as to the Executors own debt Iuly 27. 1669. Executors of Redpeth contra Iohnstoun AN ATTESTER of a Cautioner in a Suspension declaring that the Cautioner was sufficient being conveened Subsidiarie was found to be no further lyable than that the Cautioner then was holden as sufficient for the Sum Charged for December 17. 1667. Paterson contra Hume A BAILLIE of Regality amerciating Parties for a wrong committed in the thrusting out of others out of a Seat in the Church in time of Divine Service and beating of them his Decreet was Sustained though it extended to two hundred pounds half to the Party and half to the Fiscal Ianuary 30. 1663. Steuart contra Bogglâ— and Matthie A Baillie of a Barony of Kirkland being Infeft by the Abbots with full Iurisdiction Civil and Criminal with power to Repledge and with power to apply the whole amerciaments and Casualities to his own behove his Right was found not to be derogate from or prejudged by the Kings Erecting a part of that Barony in a Burgh Royal and giving them power of Heading and Hanging and all Iurisdiction unless they extinguished the Baillies Right by Prescription albeit it did not appear that these Kirklands were Erected in a Regality no mention being made thereof in the Infeftment of Bailliarie nor was it commonly known under that Title February 27. 1667. Lord Colvil contra Town of Culross A Baillie of Regality was found to have power to amerciat the Inhabitants of a Burgh of Regality though having Baillies of their own in the Burgh in respect the Burgh being Vassals to the Baron their power is cumulative and not exclusive of his Iurisdiction but there is place for prevention to the first Attatcher doing diligence Ianuary 14. 1668. The Baillie of Regality of Killimuire contra Burgh of Killimuire BAIRNS Provisions being upon Bond subscribed by their Father but not delivered till he had disponed his whole Estate to his eldest Son with Warrandice from his own deeds done or to be done and reserving his Liferent of a part which was found sufficient to Reduce the Bonds of Provision and Appryzing thereupon as not obligator till delivery or the death of the Father and Revocked indirectly by the Sons Disposition Ianuary 10. 1668. Laird of Glencorse contra his Brothers and Sisters A Bairns provision posterior in date and delivery to a Creditors debt the Creditors Appryzing though posterior was preferred in a Reduction to the Appryzing
Drummond contra Stirling of Airdoch Compensation of a Bond by Rents was sustained to take Effect not only from the date of the Decreet Liquidating the Rents but from the time the Rents were thereby proven to â—e due February 5. 1669. Cleiland contra Iohnstoun COMPETENT AND OMITTED was â—ound Relevant as to Decreets of Suspension since the Act of Sederunt 1649. and that a reason then past from in a Suspension pro loco tempore could not in eodem statu be repeated against that Decreet or Appryzing thereon especially seing the Appryzing was not expyred and might be Redeemed Iuly 17. 1664. Laird of Tulliallâ—â—â— and Coâ—die contra Crawfâ—ord Competent and omitted was not Sustained against Strangers in Decreets against them before the Admiral Iuly 23. 1667. Iâ—rgan contra captain Logan A COMPâ— sitted and bearing at the foot such a Sum resting not mentioning the Instructions of the Accompt or delivery thereof was found not to make the Debitor lyable to produce the Instructions or compt again unless it were proven by Writ or his Oath that the Instructions were in his hand albeit a considerable Article of the Accompt was general bearing paid for the Pursuer to his Creditors 20000. pounds and though the foot of the Accompt was â—xhausted by debts paid upon Precepts from the Creditor after that Accompt December 17. 1667. Lord Abercrombic contra Lord Newwaak A COMPT BOOK of a Factor in Campheir being proven â—o be unvitiate or Written by the Factor or a known Book-keeper and Sequestrat before any question was found to prove against the Factors Brother and Assignay even quo ad datam being instructed by the oaths of the Debitors who paid conform to the Articles in the Book Iuly 19. 1662. Skeen contra Lumbsdean Renewed Ianuary 9. 1663. Inter eosdem A Compt Book Written by the hand of a person of discretion was found sufficient to prove payment of his Rent against his Executor Creditor but the Tennent being on Life was ordained to depone on the Truth of the payment November 20. 1662. Wardlaw contra Gray AFTER CONCLVSION of the Cause a Reply instantly verified and not putting the Defender to prove was admitted but a duply doâ—ose omitted before Lâ—tiscontestation and not being instantly verified the same was repelled albeit there was a Reservation contra producenda this alleadgeance was upon part and pertinent of the Lands contained in the Infeftment produced December 10. 1664. Lyon of Murâ—aâ—k contra Farquhar After conclusion of the cause in a Reduction the same was found not to be advised till some representing some of the Authors who died pendente liâ—e were called Iuly 14. 1666. Leâ—th contra Laird of Lessemore Troup and others CONFESSION to the Church and standing a year was found not to prove Adultery to 〈◊〉 infer the parties Escheat Ianuary 9. 1662. Baird contra Baird Here the Defender had taken Remission CONFIRMATION of Exchequer to a particular effect in so far as concerned the obtainers base Infeftment granted by him who was Infeft but not confirmed was found valide only ad istum effectum and not to accresce to any other Ianuary 16. 1663. Tennents of Kilhattan contra Laird of Kelhattan Major Campbel and Baillie Hamiltoun Confirmation and paying of the Quote was found necessary though there was a Disposition omnium bonorum without a cause onerous or any delivery Iune 23. 1665. Procurator Fiscal of of Edinburgh contra Fairholm Confirmation and Quote was not excluded by a Disposition omnium bonorum with a Reservation to the Disponer that he might dispose thereupon otherwise during his life Iuly 4. 1665. Commissar of Saint Andrews contra Hay of Bousie Confirmation of a Scots-mans Testament who lived animo remanendi in Polland was found necessary in Scotland by the Commissars of Edinburgh Iuly 18. 1666. Brown contra Duff and Bisset Confirmation of a Testament wherein the division of the whole Inventar was tripartite and yet much of it was Sums bearing annualrent wherefrom the Relict is excluded was found to need no Reduction as to that division but that notwithstanding thereof the Relict was excluded by Reply Ianuary 18. 1670. Doctor Balâ—oure and his Spouse contra Wood. Confirmation Vide Homologation Confirmation of an Annualrent granted by a Vassal to be holden of the Superiour was found not to take away any casuality belonging to the Superiour but that the same might be made use of against that Annualrent as communicating only a part of the Vassals Fee but no interest of the Superiority Ianuary 14. 1670. 〈◊〉 of Kirkaldy contra Duncan CONFVSION was found not sufficient to take away an Adjudication against an appearand Heir on his own Bond assigned to himself and so simulate which was found a Ground to Reduce by but not to annul the Bond or Adjudication or make the Defender lyable as Heir Ianuary 22. 1662. Earl of Nithisdail contra Glendoning CONIVNCTFEEARS Vide clause in a Contract of Marriage Iuly 12. 1671. Gairns contra Sandilands CONQVEST VIDE CLAVSE CONSENT of parties to a Decreet judicially was found not sufficiently instructed by the Decreet in respect there was a Minute of Process by which it appeâ—red that the said consent was not Minuted de recenti but half a year thereafter upon remembrance of the Iudges Iuly 24. 1661. Laird of Buchannan contra Osburn Consent of a Minister to quite so much of his Stipend to an Helper was found not proven by an Act of Presbytery without a Warrand subscribed by him Iuly 26. 1661. Ker contra Minister and â—arochioners of Carrin Consent to a March and building a Park-dyke thereon was found not sufficiently proven by the building of the dyke and silence of the other Heretors Ianuary 8. 1663. Nicol contra Hope Consent was inferred by subscribing as Witness to a Writ on death-bed to take away the Reduction on death-bed which the Witnesses could not but know seing the sick man subscribe without Importing his consenting to the contents as in other cases Iune 25. 1663. Steuart of Ashcog contra Steuart of Amholme The like Iuly 24. 1666. Halyburtoun contra Halyburtoun Consent of a dumb Man was not inferred by his Subscription of a Discharge given to his Sister whereunto he put the initial Letters of his Name seing nothing was adduced to instruct that he knew what he did Iuly 9. 1663. Hamiltoun contra Ethdale Consent of a Wodsetter in a Disposition with the Reverser was found not to carry his Right seing he assigned no part of the Sums and that it only imported the Restricting of his Wodset to the remanent Land and Renuncing the rest Iuly 4. 1665. Boyd contra Kintor Consent was not inferred by knowledge and silence in that a future Husband knew his future Spouse had disponed a part of her Ioynture and yet went on in the Marriage Ianuary 5. 1666. Heretors of Iohns-miln contra the Fewers Consent to a Diiposition of a Wodset Right which Dis-Position disponed the Lands but neither exprest under Reversion or Irredeemable which consent was found
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 to
the Whitsâ—nday at which the Buyer was to Enter February 22. 1670. Murray of Auchtertyre contra Drummond A Disposition of Lands and universal Legacy both contained in one Infeftment in which there is a Sum provided to Children not being particularly annexed either to the Disposition of Legacy the Disposition of Lands being found null as being in a Testament the universal Legacy was found burdened with no part of the Provision seing by the Nullity of the Disposition the Children had Right to their Portion of the Lands which exceeded the Sum they were provided to February 1. 1671. Pringle contra Pringles A Disposition granted by a Person who was insolvent and thereafter notoriously Bankrupt was not reduced as not proceeding upon a necessary cause or as being a preference of one Creditor to another none having done diligence in respect the Disposition was granted for a Bargain of Victual sold and delivered a Month before the Disposition in question whereby the Disponer was alleadged to become Bankrupt but it was not decided whether a notorious Bankrupt could after he was so known prefer one Creditor to another when none of them had done diligence Iuly 20. 1671. Laird of Birkenâ—â—g contra Grahame of Craig A Disposition of Lands was found to imply an Assignation to the Reversion of a former Wodset and that it needed no intimation the Infeftment on the Disposition being Registrate though a posterior Assigney had first redeemed November 18. 1664. Guâ—hrie contra Idem December 5. 1665. Beg contra Beg. DIVISION of Lands and a Muire betwixt Co-heirs was reduced upon a considerable inequality though not near the half value and though the division proceeded upon the Reducers oâ—n Brief of division December 2. 1669. Monteith of Corruber contra Boid A DONATION was not presumed by a Mother to her Child by giving out Money in her Name with power to uplift and re-imploy in so far as she was debitor to the Child but pro reliquo December 20. 1661. Fleming contra her Children Donation of Aliment by a Mother to her Son who had no other means was presumed to Liberate him from Repetition but was not found so against his Step-Father for the years after his Marriage Iune 25. 1664. Melvil contra Ferguson Donatiâ— inter Virum uxorem was found Revockable albeit it was not a pure donation but in lieu of another quo ad excessum seing it was notabilis excessus November 20. 1662. Children of Wolmet contra Lady Wolmet and Dankeith her Husband Doâ—atio inter virum uxorem was sustained to recal the acceptance of an Infeftment in satisfaction of the Wifes Contract February 12. 1663. Relict of Morison contra his Heir Donation betwixt Man and Wife Revockable was found not to extend to a Contract of Marriage though made up during the Marriage there being none before November 22. 1664. Mâ—gil contra Ruthven of Gairn Donatio inter virum uxorem was found not revockable if it were granted upon consideration of what fell in by the Wife after her former Provisions though that would also have belonged to the Husband jure mariti yet might be the ground in gratitude of a Donation Remuneratory November 23. 1664. Halyburtoun contra Porteous Donatio inter virum uxorem being in question where there was no Contract of Marriage but an Infeftment of all that the man then had and after a second Infeftment but stante matrimonio The Lords found that the first was valide there being no Contract before but they reduced the second finding no remuneratory provision of the Wife to answer both November 23. 1664. Inter eosdem Donatio inter virum uxorem was found not to reach an Infeftment of Lands to warrand and make up the principal Lands in the Contract such a Rent albeit there was but a personal Obligement in the Contract and that the Obligement to Infeft in Warrandice was therein satisfied and extinct November 24. 1664. Nisbit contra Murâ—ay A Donation was presumed of Aliment by a Goodfire to his Daughters Child who was long in his House and after the Mothers death continued still without any agreement with the Father Iuly 21. 1665. Ludquharn contra Geight Donatio inter virum uxorem was found relevant to recal a Bond granted by a Hâ—â—band to his Wife bearing that he thought it convenient that they should leave a part and therefore obliged him to pay a Sum yearly for her aliment albeit it bear also that he should never quarrel or recal the same as importing a Renunciation of that priviledge February 6. 1666. Living stoun contra Beg. Donation betwixt Man and Wife was found to extend to a Charter bearing Lands and a Miln where the Contract of Marriage bear not the Miln and that it was not as an Explication of the parties meaning and so was revocked by a posterior disposition of the Husband to another February 5. 1667. Countess of Hume contra the Tenents of Oldâ—aâ—â—us and Hog Donation betwixt Man and Wife was found not to extend to a donation by a Husband to his Wifes Children of a former Marriage of her Goods belonging to him jure mariti and so was not revockable as done to the Wife though to her Bairns at her desire Ianuary 15. 1669 Hamiltoun contra Baynes A Donation by a Husband to his Wife by a Tack of his whole Lands not Liferented by her and bearing for Love and Favour and for enabling her to Aliment her Children and bearing a small duty in case there were Children and the full Rent if there were none was found valide as being remuneratory to make up the defect of the value which by Contract her Liferent Lands were obliged to be so much worth Superceeding to give answer wheither the Tack would be null at the instance of Creditors lending Sums after the Tack as latent and fraudulent if it were not proven remuneratory or wheither a donation betwixt Man and Wife is null and pendent as a Bairns Portion till the Husbands death and if the borrowing thereafter would prejudge the same there being no Lands left un-liferented thereby Ianuary 26. 1669. Chisâ—holm contra Lady Braâ— Donation betwixt Man and Wife revockable was found not to extend to Wife Subscribing her Husbands Testament by which her Liferent Lands were proâ—ided to their Daughter which was not â—ound alike as if it had been in favours of the Man himself who is naturally obliged to provide his Daughter Iuly 12. 1671. Murray contra Murray Donation by a Man to his Wife by a great additional Iointure where she was competently provided before was found not to be taken away by a posterior Testament made in lecto providing a less additional Iointure without mention of the former and being conditional that the said last addition should be at the Testators Fathers disposal if he returned to Scotland and he having returned and having Ratified the fiâ—st additional Ioynture the same was Sustained Iuly 18. 1671. Countess of Cassils contra Earl of
24. 1668. Gray contra Howison and Gray Recognition was found not to be incurred by an Infeftment taken upon a Tutors Precept being no Act of lawful Administration and done under the Vsurpation when Recognitions were not allowed on that ground Iuly 15. 1669. Iack contra lack Recognition was found not inâ—erred by a Disposition not subscribed nor delivered till the granter was on death-bed and that death-bed was competent by exception against the Recognition as not being a possessory but a peâ—itory judgement Iuly 20. 1669. Barclay contra Barclay Recognition was found inferred by Infeftment of Ward Lands when the Disposition contained a Precept of Seasine and was delivered in leige poâ—stie without reservation albeit the Seasine was taken when the Disponer was on death-bed Ibidem Recognition was incurred by Alienation of Ward Lands holden of the King though done when the Superiours consent was not required before the Kings Restauration seing neither after the Vesâ—al nor Sub-vasâ—al â—ought Confirmation not being refused by the King to these who sought it December 15. 1669. Maâ—tland of Pâ—â—trichiâ— contra Gordâ—un of Geight In a Recognition the Donatar was found only obliged to produce the Kings Gift as his Title without necesâ—ity to instruct that the King was Superior of the Lands Ward Law presuming these if the contrary be not proven and a Term was assigned for obtaining the Infefâ—ment to be produced whereby Recognition was incurred February 17. 1671. contra Mâ—â—ulloch DECLARATOR OF REDEMPTION was not stopped because the Reversion was not produced the Pursuer being an appryzer and offering to prâ—ve by the Deâ—enders oath that it was in his own hand February 18. 1662. Children of Wolmet contra Ker. Redemption was sustained at the instance of a singular Successor albeit he shewed not the Reversion at the time of the order nor now but offered to prove that it was in the defenders own hands February 14. 1663. Collonel Montgomery contra Halyburton In a Redemption the sums were not ordained to be given up till a Wodsetters apparent Heir was Infeft as Heir and that the Declarator without Resignation was not sufficient February 10. 1665. Campbel contra Bryson Redemption was sustained upon Consignation of a liquid debt due by the Wodsetter to the Reverset upon a Clause in the Contract of Wodset Ianuary 2. 1667. Hâ—g contra Hog REDVCTION of a Retour was found sufficient to reduce a Decreet against the party as Heir albeit the Decreet was obtained before the Reduction of the Retour and the obtainer of the decreet was not called to the said Reduction Iuly 24. 1661. Mitchel contra Hutchesâ—n Reduction of a Decreet upon the Reduction of the Retour whereupon the Decreet proceeded was sustained albeit the Obtainer of the Decreet was not called to the Reduction though after his Decreet as not being a party necessary Ibidem Reduction of a Decreet obtained against Infants charged to Enter Heir was â—ustained though not raised inter annoâ— utiles seing it lay over and was not insisted in all that time since it was not known till anni utiles were past Iuly 17 1661. Fleming contra Forrester Reduction was not found necessary where all was produced that was craved to be annulled and the rest only in consequence but that a Libel by Declarator of nullity was competent February 26. 1662. Viscount of Stormont contra Creditors of Annandail In a Reduction and improbation the Defender was allowed to propone his Defenses upon the Writs produced by him as sufficient to exclude the Rights produced by the Purâ—uer before certification contra non producta without necessity to the Deâ—ender to declare that he would make use of no more writs December 20. 1662. Laird of Mochrom contra Laird of Martoun and others In a Reduction of a Valuation no need was found of calling a Wodsetter publickly Infeft being an improper Wodâ—et and seing the Obtainer of the Decreet his Heir having the reversion and possession was called Iuly â—3 1664. Earl of Landerdail contra Laird of Wolmet Reductions take â—away all consequent Rights that need no several Reasons as falling in consequence albeit the parties interressed therein were not called to the Reduction of the principal right Iuly 1â— 1664. Dowglas and her Husband contra the Laird of Wedderburn Reduction of a Decreet of Exoneration was sustained against the Executor without calling the Creditors or Legators Ianuary 11. 1665. Arnot contra Arnot Reduction of an Heretable Right was sustained on an Appryzing on the pursuers own Bond assigned to himself and a charge thereon without Infeftment and the general Clause thus limited against all Writs granted by the Pursuer and his Predecessors to whom he doth succeed jure sanguinâ—s or his authors whose Rights and Pogresses thereto he produces or to the Defender or his Predecessors to whom he may succeed jure sanguâ—nis or his authors who or some to represent them are called Ianuary 20. 1665. Little contra Earl of Nâ—thisdail In a Reduction no Process was sustained for reducing an Heretable Right till the Defenderâ— authors were called though the Pursuer declared he insisted not against that authors right being common author but against the Defenders right from that author seing that author was bound in Warrandice and therefore behoved to be called Ianuary 30. 1665. Lord Borthwick contra Ker. In a Reduction ex capite inhibitionis the Defender producing a sufficient Right to exclude the Pursuer being before the inhibition the Defender being indigent the Lords ordained the parties to dispute their Rights as if it had been in a general Reduction Ianuary 2. 1666. Brown contra Wilson and Callender Reduction was â—ound to extend to a Term before Sentence February 16. 1666. Borthwick contra Skein In a Reduction the authors being calâ—ed one dying aâ—â—er conclusion of the Cause the same was not advised â—il one â—â—presenting him were called though the reasons were only against the first authors Right and â—o the rest would fall in consequence seing all were interressed in the Waâ—randice to Defend the first authors right Iuly 14. 1666. Lâ—ith contra Lesmore and others Reduction of a Bond was not sustained against the Creditor who was denuded by Assignation intimate to the Pursuer before the Citation Iuly 2. 1667. Lord Blantire contra Walkâ—â—â—haw In Reductions of Rights of Lands without improbation The Lords declared they would grant two Terms to produce Nâ—vemâ—er 26. 1667. Hâ—y of Hayâ—â—â—un contra Drummond and â—epâ—urn Reduction ex capite inhibitionis was sustained though the inhibition was only on a Clause of Warrandice and there was yet no actual distress only to take effect when the distress should take place as a Declarator of Right December 10. 1667 â—og contra Countess of Hume In a Reduction ex capite inhibitionis the Defender was admitted to exclude the Pursuâ—rs Title and Right by other rights 〈◊〉 to the Inhibition which the Lords would not reserve but received them by way of Defense December 11. 1667. Inter eosdem A Reduction on
1621. It was answered for the Lady They opponed the Lords dayly Practique ever since the said Act that Infeftments were never taken away thereupon by Exception or Reply Which the Lords found Relevant Montgomerie contra Hoom. Eodem die WIlliam Mongomery pursues Alexander Hoom to Remove who alleadged absolvitor because he stands Infeft and by vertue thereof in seven years Possession and so hath the benefit of a Possessorie Judgement It was Replyed that before any such Possession a Decreet of Removing was obtained against the Defender which made him mala fide Possessor It was duplyed that since that Decreet which was in absence the Defender had Possessed it seven years without Interruption which acquired the benefit of a new Possessorie Judgement And alleadges that an Interruption of Possession ceases by seven years albeit in the Point of Right it ceases not till Fourty The Lords found the Interruption stands for fourty Years and that no Possession thereafter upon that same ground could give a new Possessorie Iudgment the Possession being Interrupted not only by Citation but by a Decreet of Removing which stated the other Partie in Civil Pessession Earl of Sutherland contra Mcintosh of Conadge Eodem die THe Earl of Sutherland pursues Mcintosh of Conadge for the profit of a Regality belonging to the Earl viz. Blood-wyts Escheats c. whereof Conadge had obtained Gift from the Usurpers the time that Regalities were Supprest and declared that he insisted for those only that were yet unuplifted for which the Parties Fyned had not made payment albeit some of them had given Bond. The Defender alleadged absolvitor for Blood-wyts and Amerciaments which might have been done by the Justices of Peace because as to these the Inglish had done no wrong seing the Justice of Peace might then and may now Cognosce and Fyne for Blood-wyts whithin the Regality The Pursuer answered that as he might have Re-pleadged from the Justice General if he had not been impeded by the Act of the Usurpers so much more might he have re-pleadged from the Justice of Peace and therefore any Blood-wyts decerned by them belonged to him as Lord of the Regality The Lords repelâ—ed the Defense and joâ—nd the dead of the Iustice of Peace could not prejudge the Pursuer M. John Muirhead contra Iuly 21. 1664. MR. John Muirhead as Assigney pursuing he alleadged that the Assignation not being intimat before the Cedents death the Sum was in bonis defuncti and the Assigney could have no Right without Confirmation The Lords Repelled the alleadgance James Johnstoun Merchant in Edinburgh contra The Lady Kincaide November 11. 1664. JAmes Iohnstoun pursues the Lady Kincaide as Executrix to her Husband who alleadged absolvitor because the Testament was exhausted and she had obtained a Decreet of Exoneration which being standing un-reduced she behoved to be assoilzied seing there was no Reduction thereof raised 2ly Albeit the said Exoneration were quarrallable hoc ordine yet it appears thereby that the Testament was exhausted The Pursuer answered that the first Defense on the Exoneration non Relevat unless the Pursuer had been cited to the giving thereof it operats nothing against him nor needs he Reduce it 2ly The second member of the Defense of exhausting the Testament mentioned in the Exoneration non Relevat unlesse it were alleadged exhausted by lawful Sentences before intenting of the Pursuers Cause The Defender answered that it was Relevant to alleadge that payment was made of lawful Debts of the Defuncts instructed by writ before intenting of the Pursuers Cause for seing the Debt was clear the Executor ought not to multiply Expenses by defending against the same unless it were alleadged there were collusion to prefer the Creditors payed The Lords repelled both members of the Defense and found that the Executrix might not without a Sentence prefer any Creditor especially seing it was not a Debt given up in Testament by the Defunct neither was it alleadged that the Pursuer had long neglected to pursue Nicolas Murray Lady Craigcaffie contra Cornelius Neilson Merchant in Edinburgh November 12. 1664. NIcolas Murray pursues a Reduction of a Decreet of the Baillies of Edinburgh obtained against her at the instance of Cornelius Neilson upon this Reason that she being pursued for the Mournings for her self and Family to her Husbands Funeralls which Mournings were delivered to her by the said Cornelius and were bought by her from him or by her Order sent to her which was referred to her Oath and she deponed that Cornelius had promised to his Father to give necessars for his Funerals out of his Chop and according to that promise had sent unto her The Baillies found that this qualitie adjected in the Oath that the Furniture was upon Cornelius promise to his Father resulted in ane Exception which they found probable by Write or Oath of Cornelius who having deponed denyed any such promise and therefore they decerned the Lady to pay Against which her Reason of Reduction is that she ought to have been Assoilzied by the Baillies because her Oath did not prove the lybel viz. That she bought the Wair from Cornelius or made her self Debitor therefore but only that she received the same from him without any Contract or Ingadgment which would never make her Debitor for a Wife or a Bairn in Family are not lyable for their Cloaths unless they promise payment but only the Father and in the same manner the Mourning for the Funeralls of the Husband is not the Wifs Debt but the Husbands Executors The Defender answered that the Reason was no ways Relevant seing the Pursuers Oath proved the receipt of the Goods which was sufficient ad victoriam causa The quality being justly taken away for albeit the Husband or his Executors were lyable for the Relicts Mournings yet a Merchant that gives off the same to the Relict is not oblidged to dispute that but may take himself to the Relict who received the same without either Protestation or Aggreement not to be lyable The Pursuer answered that whatever Favour might be pleaded for a Merchant Stranger yet this Furniture being given by the Defuncts own Son to his Relict could not oblidge her The Son being the Fathers ordinar Merchant The Lords found that the Oath before the Baillies proved not the lybel and that the accepting of the Mournings did not oblidge the Relict but the Executors seing the Defunct was a Person of their quality that his Relict required mourning and therefore Reduced Galbreath contra Colquhoun Eodem die WAlter Galbreath pursues an Exhibition of all Writs made by or to his Predecessors ad deliberandum The Lords restricted the lybel to Writs made to the Defunct or his Predecessors or by them to any Preson in their own Family or containing any Clause in their â—avour whereupon the Defender having Deponed that he had in his hand a Disposition of Lands made by the Pursuers Predecessors Irredeemably and that he had his Predecessors progress of these Lands but that
he thought there was no Clause in any of these Writs in the Pursuer or his Predecessors Favours The Lords having considered the Oath Ordained the Defender to produce the Disposition denunding the Pursâ—ers Predecessors and thought that being produced simply without condition of Reversion it liberat him from producing the Pursuers Predecessors Progresse though made in their Favours but because the Pursuer alleadged that in their Predecessors Progress there was a Clause de non alienando which would work in his Favour and that the Oath was not positive but that he thought They Ordained the Defender to be examined if he had any Tailzie Daughters of Balmirrino contra Eodem die THe Daughters of Balmirrino having pursued the Heirs Male for their Portions contained in their Mothers Contract of Marriage and for a competent Aliment untill the same were payed The Defender renunced to be Heir and was absent The Lords advised the Contract by which they found the Portion payable at the Daughters age of fyfteen and Aliment till that time but no mention of Annualrent or Aliment thereafter yet they found that the Aliment behoved to be continued till their Marriage or the payment of their Tochar They being Minors and leised by not pursuing therefore at the Age of fyfteen but that they could not have Annualrent seing the Contract bare none Dame Elizabeth Fleming contra Fleming and Baird her Husband November 16. 1664. IN an Accompt and Reckoning betwixt Dame Elizabeth Fleming and her Daughter and Robert Baird her Spouse The Lords having considered the Contract of Marriage in which Robert Baird accepted 12000 merk in full satisfaction of all his Wife could claim by her Fathers decease or otherwayes and there being some other Bands in her Name her Mother craved that she might be decerned by the Lords to denude her Self and Assigne to her Mother seing she was satisfyed and she on the other part craved that her mother and Sir Iohn Gibson might be oblidged to warrand her that her 12000 merk should be free of any Debt of her Fathers It was answered for the Mother that there was no such Provision contained in the Contract and the Lords in justice could not cause her to go beyond the terms of the Contract there was no Reason for such a warrandice seing Debts might arise to exhauste the hail Inventary It was answered for the Daughter that there was no oblidgment in the Contract for her to assigne her Mother but if the Lords did supply that as consequent upon the tennor of the Contract they ought also to supply the other It was answered for the Mother that there was no reason for her to undertake the hazard unless it would appear that there was so considerable Adiminition of her Daughters Portion in her favours as might import her taking of that hazard for that abatement and albeit such a warrandice were granted yetâ— it should only be to warrand the Daughter from the Fathers Debt in so far as might be extended to the superplus of the Daughters full portion above the 12000 merk The Lords found that if there was an abatement in favours of the mother it behoved to import tâ—at she undertook the hazard of the fathers Debt not only as to the superplus but simply but seing it was known to the Lords They gave the mother her choise either to compt to the Daughter for the whole Portion if she thought there was no benefit without any such Warrandice or if she took herself to the Contract and so acknowledged there was a benefit They found her lyable to warrand her Daughter simpliciter Lochs and the Earl of Kincairdin contra Hamiltoun November 18. 1664. HAmiltoun and her Authors having obtained Decreet against Lochs as Heirs to their Father for a Sum of money and Annuals thereof after Compt and Reckoning and being thrice Suspended there are still Decreets in foro Lochs and the Earl of Kincardine now Suspends again and alleadged that in the Compt and Reckoning there were several Recepts of Annualrent which were not at that time in Lochs hands but in the Earl of Kincardines whose Father was Co principal bound conjunctly and severally with Lochs Father The Charger opponed her Decreets in foro and alleadged that Kincairdin had no interest for neither could the Letters be found Orderly Proceeded nor yet Suspended against him and whereas it was alleadged that the Clause of mutual Relief would force him to Relieve the Lochs prorata he had a good Defense that they had not intimat to him the Plea and thereby had Prejudged themselves of the Defense upon the Ticket in his hands The Suspenders answered they were Minors and that Kincardin having a clear Interest might choise whether to Defend them or Defend himself against them The Lords reponed them to the Tickets now gotten out of my Lord Kincairdins hands but declared there should be expense granted against them for all the Decreets to which the Chargers were put Thomas Guthrie contra Sornbeg Eodem die GVthrie pursues Sornbeg alleadging that their being a first Wodset of the Lands of Thriplandhill and certain Tenements in Edinburgh to Alexander Veatch or his Authors and a second Wodset of the Lands of Thriplandhill granted to the Pursuers Father and by a posterior Contract The Pursuers Fathers Wodset was Confirmed and a certain Sum added thereto and for both some Tenements in Edinburgh were disponed with this provision that Guthrie should possess thereby and should be comptable for what was more then his Annualrent and Sornbeg having redeemed the first Wodset and taking a Renunciation thereof and having Right to the Reversion of the whole entered to the Possession of the Tenements in the Town whereupon Guthrie craves that Sornbeg may compt and reckon for the Mails and Duties uplifted by him and possess him in time coming to the hail Mails and Duties aye and while he be payed of his Principal Sum and Annualrents or satisfied by Intromission The Defender alleadged First That he having the Right of Reverson though posterior yet having first Redeemed and made use thereof his Right of Reversion by his Disposition being in effect an Assignation to the Reversion and Guthries second Wodset being a prior Assignation to the Reversion The second Assignation with the first Diligence or Intimation must prefer the Defender This the Lords repelled and found no necessity of an Intimation or Diligence to consumat Guthries Right to the Reversion of the first Wodset seing Guthrie was Infeft by his second Infeftment which was equivalent to the Registrating of a Formall Assignation to the Reversion 2dly The Defender alleadged that being Singular Successor and having Redeemed the first Wodset which is now extinct he possesses by an irredeemable Right and so must have the benefit of a Possessory Judgement The Lords repelled this Defense seing seven years Possession was not alleadged 3dly The Defender alleadged absolvitor from the bygone Mails and Duties before intenting of this Cause because albeit he had not
the Cautioner in the Suspension may be reached It was alleadged no Transferrence because Bagillo â—s Father obtained a general Discharge from Denhead before any Intimation upon Collistouns Assignation and albeit the Discharge be posterior to the Assignation produced it must liberat the Debitor who was not obliged to know the Assigney before Intimation It was answered that the Debitor might pay to the Cedent bona fide before Intimation yet a Discharge obtained from the Cedent after Assignation would not liberate against the Assigney though it were before Intimation and this general Discharge bears no onerous Cause 2dly This general Discharge being only of all Processes and Debts betwixt Bagillo and Denhead at that time it cannot extend to this sum assigned by Denhead long before and who could not know whether the Assigney had intimate or not and cannot be thought contrair the Warrandice of his own Assignation to have Discharged the sum Assigned especially seing there was an Assignation long before which was lost and the Intimation thereof yet remains and this second Assignation bears to have been made in respect of the losse of the former and yet it is also before this general Discharge The Lords found the general Discharge of the Cedent could not take away this sum formerly assigned to him though not Intimat unlesse it were proven that payment or satisfaction was truely made for this Sum. Alexander Wishart contra Elizabeth Arthure February 4. 1671. UMquhil Mr. William Arthure being Infeft in an Annualrent out of some Tenements in Edinburgh and having entered in Possession by lifting of Mails and Duties some of his Discharges being produced Alexander Wishart as now having right to the Tenements pursues a Declarator against Elizabeth Arthure only Daughter to Mr. William for declaring that the sum whereupon the Annualrent was Constitute was satisfied by Intromission with the Mails and Duties of the Tenements The Defender alleadged that this was only probable scripto vel juramento and not by Witnesses for an Annualrenter having no Title to Possess out-put and in-put Tennents cannot be presumed to uplift more than his annualrent especially seing his Discharges produced for many years are far within his annualrent and it were of dangerous consequence if Witnesses who cannot prove an hundreth pounds were admitted not only to prove Intromission with the Rents so far as might extend to the Annualrent but so much more as might satisfie the Principal and thereby take away an Infeftment for albeit that Probation has been Sustained to extinguish Appryzings which are rigorous Rights yet not to take away Infeftments of Annualrent It was answered that albeit Witnesses are not admitted where Writ may and uses to be adhibite in odium negligentis who neglected to take Writ Yet this is no such case and therefore in all such Witnesses are admitted for if the Pursuer had insisted against the Defender for intrometting with his Mails and Duties of whatever quantity and time within Prescription Witnesses would have been admitted The Defender could only have excepted upon his Annualrent which would have been Sustained pro tanto but the Pursuer would have been admitted to prove further intromission which being by vertue of his Security for a Sum and in his hand would Compense and Extinguish that Sum which is all that is here craved and whereupon the Witnesses are already Adduced The Lords Sustained the Probation by Witnesses for the whole intromission to be imputed in satisfaction of the Principal Sum and Annualrents Lowrie contra Gibson Eodem die LOwrie being Superiour to Gibson in a Feu pursued him before the Sheriff for annulling his Feu for not payment of the Feu-duty and obtained Decreet against him and thereafter Pursued him before the Lords for Mails and Duties wherein Compearance being made Gibson made an offer that if Lowrie would free him of bygones and pay him 1600. merks he and his Authour would Dispone their whole Right which being accepted by the Superiour Decreet was pronunced against Gibson to denude himself upon payment Shortly thereafter Gibson drew up a Disposition and Subscribed it in the Terms of the Decreet and offered it to Lowrie who refused it because his Author had not Subscribed Thereafter Gibson Suspended upon Obedience and Consigned the Disposition which was never Discussed but Gibson continued in Possession still from the Decreet which was in Anno 1650. Now Gibson raises a Reduction of the Sheriffs Decreet of Declarator annulling his Feu because the Sheriff was not a competent Judge to such Processes and because Gibson had offered the Feu-duty which was refused so that the not payment was not through his fault and also insisted for Reduction of the Lords Decreet as built upon the Sheriffs Decreet and falling in consequence therewith And as for any offer or consent the assertion of a Clerk could not instruct the same unless it had been warranted by the Parties Subscription It was answered that Gibson having Homologate the Decreet by an offer of the Disposition conform thereto which was only refused because it wanted the Authors Subscription and having Suspended upon Obedience he cannot now object either against the Decreets or Consent It was answered that so long as the Decreets of the Sheriff and the Lords were standing Gibson might be compelled thereby to Consign the said Disposition but that is only on these Terms to be given up if the Lords saw Cause and hinders not Gibson to alleadge why it should not be given up And as to the offer to deliver the Disposition the Instrument of the Nottar could not instruct the same but only Gibson's own Oath The Lords found that albeit the Consignation for the Suspension would not have prejudged Gibson yet the simple offer to deliver the Disposition did so Homologate the Decreets and Consent that he could not quarrel the same but they found it not proven by the Instrument without the Oaths of the Witnesses insert in the Instrument And in regard that Lowrie had letten the matterly over for more than twenty years they Declared that the Agreement should only take effect from this time and that Gibson should not be comptable for the bygone Duties Ninian Home contra Francis Scot. February 7. 1671. NInian Hume having Charged Francis Scot upon a Bond of 550. merks He Suspends on this Reason that both Parties having referred the matter verbally to an Arbiter he had determined 200. merks to be payed for all whereupon Hume had pursued It was answered that verbal Submissions and Decreets Arbitral are not binding but either Party may resile before Writ be adhibite The Lords found the Reason was Relevant to be proven thus by the Chargers Oath that he did submit and by the Arbiters Oaths that they did accordingly determine Lowrie of Blackwood contra Sir John Drummond Eodem die SIr Robert Drummond of Meidhope having Disponed his Lands of Scotstoun to Sir Iohn Drummond for love and favour and for better incouraging Sir Iohn to pay his Debt as the