a price the price would not belong to the Executor or Fisk but to the Heir any sums due for Damnage and Interest not performing a Disposition or upon Eviction belongs to the Heir not to the Executor The Defender answered that this sum is not in the case of any of the former alleadgences neither is the question here what would belong to the Executor but what would belong to the Fisk for Moveable Heirship belongs to the Heir and not to the Executor and yet belongs to the Fisk so do sums without Destination of Annualrents wherein Executors are secluded So also doth the price of Lands when they are de presenti sold by the Defunct The Lords found this sum moveable and belonged to the Fisk and therefore Assoilzied the Defender from that Member also Mr. Ninian Hill contra Maxwel February 5. 1663. MR. Ninian Hill pursues Maxwel as heir to his Father Iohn Maxwel for payment of a sum due to be payed to Maxwels Relict yearly after his death and assigned to the pursuer The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Pursuers Cedent being Executor her self to the Defunct was lyable for this sum intus habuit It was answered for the Pursuer that this being an annual payment after the Defuncts death it was proper for his heir to pay the same not for his Executor and if the Executor had payed it he would get releif off the heir Which the Lords found Relevant Grahame contra Ross Eodem die THe Parties having Competed upon Appryzings being decided the 24. of Ianuary Wherein the Lords found that none of the Appryzers should come in with him who was first Infeft till first they payed their proportional part of the Composition and Expenses now having considered again the Tenor of the Act of Parliament they found that they behoved to satisfie the whole and that the obtainer of the first Infeftment should bear no share of it that being all the other Appryzers gave â—to got the benefit of the Act to come in pari passu Lenox contra Lintoun Eodem die LEnox being Married to Margaret Mcgie who was an Heretrix she dying Lenox Son was Infeft as Heir to her who dying also without Issue this Lenox as his Brother by his Mother and alleadging him to be appearing Heir to his Brother Lenox in these Lands whereunto his Brother succeeded to their Mother craves Exhibitions of the Writs of the Lands ad deliberandum The Defender Lintoun alleadged absolvitor because his Son being Infeft in the Lands as Heir to his Mother his nearest Agnat on the Fathers side his apparent Heir and â—one on his Mothers side for we have no intrin succession neither holds it with us materni maternis paterni paternis Which the Lords found Relevant and that the Father was apparant Heir to his Son being once Infeft as Heir to the Mother and therefore Assoilzied Lady Carnagy contra Lord Cranburn Eodem die THis day afternoon the Lords Advised the rest of the Defenses proponed for the Lord Cranburn in the Recognition pursued at the Instance of my Lady Carnagy who alleadged first that Recognition was only competent in proper Ward-holdings and not in blench Feu or Burgage these only being feuda recta militaria and all others but fendastra But the Lands of Innerweek are not a proper Military Feu holding Ward being only a Taxed Ward wherein the word Duties is Taxed yearly and the Marriage is Taxed to so much and so is in the nature of a Feu neither was it ever yet found in Scotland that a Taxt-ward did fall in Recognition The pursuer answered that the Defense is not Relevant to rule in our Law being that alienation of Ward-lands without the consent of the Superiour infers Recognition and neither Law nor Custom hath made exception of Taxt-wards which have but lately occurred in the time of King Iames who and King Charles were most sparing to grant Gifts of Recognition whereby there hath been few Debates or Decisions thereanent and there is no consequence that because the Casuality of the Ward when it falls is liquidat and Taxed or the value of the Marriage that therefore the Fee is not a Military Fee wherein the Vassal is oblieged to assist his Superiour in Counsel and in War in the stoutest Obligations of Faithfulness and Gratitude and therefore his withdrawing himself from his Vassallage and obtaining another to him is the greater Ingratitude that the Superior had Taxed the benefite of the Ward and Marriage at low rates which Casualties cannot be drawn to prejudge the Superior of other Casualties but on the contrair exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis The Lords repelled this Defense It was further alleadged that here was no offer of a Stranger but of the Vassals own Grand-child who now is his apparent Heir in one half of these Lands as being the eldest Son of his second Daughter and Recognition was never found in such a Case The Pursuer answered that albeit the Defender be now apparent Heir to the Vassal Disponer yet the Case must be considered as it was in the time of the Disposition when he had an elder Brother the then Lord Cranburn living and was not alioqui successurus and the Lords had formerly found that an alienation of ward-Ward-lands by the Earl of Cassils to his own Brother albeit he was his nearest of Kin for the time having no Children yet seing he could not be esteemed alioqui successurus or Heir apparent in regard the Earl might have Children therefore they found Recognition incurred The Lords repelled this Defense 3ly It was further alleadged that there could be no Recognition where there was no alienation of the Fee without the the Superiors consent here there was no alienation of the Fee because the Seasine being taken to be holden from Dirletoun of the KING not confirmed was altogether null and therefore Dirletoun was not Divested nor Cranburn Invested for such an Infeftment is ineffectual and incompleat till Confirmation and could never be the ground of Pursuit or Defense against any Party 2ly By such an Infeftment the Superiors consent is a Condition implyed for an Infeftment to be holden of the Superior is null till Confirming and implyes as much as if the Seasine had been expresly granted si dominus consenserit and so can be no obtrusion or ingratitude 3ly Craig in his Dieges de recognitionibus Reports the Decision of the Lords betwixt Mckenzie and Bane whereby they found that the Seasine being unregistrat was null and inferred no Recognition quia non spectatur affectus sed effectus yet that was but an extrinsick nullity much more here the Seasine being intrinsically null The Pursuer answered First That if this ground hold there could be no Recognition except by subaltern base Infeftments holden of the Vassal in which there is far lesse ingratitude there being no new Vassal obtunded nor the Vassal withdrawing himself from his Clientel nor any prejudice to the Superior because subaltern Infeftments
of the Price and bearing this provision that it sholud not be payable till the Earl obtained George Infeft by his Superior The Earl Assigns the Bond to Lady Lucy his Sister who having raised Inhibition upon the Bond against George Hay and having thereafter Charged him he Suspended alleadging that the Condition was not fulfilled he not being Infeft and the Lady offering a part of the Sum to purge that Condition pro damno interesse and to procure his Infeftment George accepted of the offer and thereupon the Letters were found orderly proceeded for 3000. Merks of the Sum and Suspended for the rest in place of the Condition upon this Decreet the Lady Apprizes the Lands of Mountcastle and now Insists in a Reduction of a Disposition of the same Lands granted to Dunlap and Pitcon for themselves and to the use and behove of the Disponers other Creditors underwritten viz. Where there was a blank of several Lines which is now filled up by another Hand and though this Disposition was anterior to the Inhibition and did prefer Dunlap and Titcon for any Sums due to themselves or for which they were Cautioners the time of the Disposition Yet the Lords found by a former Interlocutor that as to the other Creditors filled up in the blank it should be repute as posterior to the Inhibition and filled up after the same unless the Creditors prove by the Witnesses insert or other Witnesses above exception that they were filled up before the Executing of the Inhibition The Cause being called this day the Creditors repeated their former alleadgeance and offered to prove that their Debts were anterior to the Inhibition and also that at the Subscribing thereof it was communed and agreed that Dunlap and Pitcon should undertake the remainder Creditors Debts at least they promised to give Dispositions of parts of the Estate effeirand to their Debts and accordingly they had done the same after the Inhibition but being upon a promise before the Inhibition they were valide having causam anteriorem and they offered to prove the Communing and Promise by the Writter and Witnesses insert 2dly They offered to purge and satisfie the Pursuers Interest 3dly They alleadged that their Disposition from the common Author of the Property of the Lands in question did comprehend all Right the Disponer had and consequently the Condition and Provision in the Bond that before payment George Hay should be Infeft for the Disposition would no doubt carry any obligement for Infefting the common Author The Pursuer opponed the former Interlocutor and alleadged that she was not obliged to Assign her Right seing she had now Apprized and that her Apprizing was now expired and yet of consent she was content to Renunce her Right but would not Assign it to exclude other Creditors or to distresse the Cautioners and as for the Condition of the Bond the Defenders Disposition gave them no Right thereto because there was no obligement in the Bond to obtain the common Author Infeft but only a suspensive Condition that payment should not be made till he were procured to be Infeft for hat the provision to obtain the Infeftment being only an Condition and not an Disposition after the Disposition to the Defenders the Pursuer might have payed the Bond or transacted thereanent with George Hay and was not obliged to know the Defenders The Lords adhered to their former Interlocutor and found the offer not sufficient and that the Pursuer was not obliged to Assign her Right though she had offered of her own accord to Renunce it and found the Persons Intrusted their undertaking the Creditors Debts before the Inhibition Relevant only to be proven by Writ or by the Ladies Oath of Knowledge and would not make up such a material Clause by the Oaths of the Witnesses insert nor of the Persons Intrusted and if they had made any such promise it was their own fault that they caused not put it in Writ knowing that their Oaths albeit they might prove against them yet that they would not prove for them for the Lords thought that if such blanks and clandestine Promises were allowed they might disappoint the Diligences of all Creditors Thomas Kennedy contra Archibald Kennedy of Culzean Eodem die THe Laird of Culzean having three Sons Iohn Archibald and Alexander for a Provision to Archibald the second Dispones his Lands of Corrowa and others with this provision that if Iohn should die and Archibald Succeed to be Heir Archibald should denude himself of the Lands in favours of Alexander and if Archibald wanted Heirs of his Body Alexander should be his Heir notwithstanding of any Law or Custom to the contrare thereafter a few Moneths before the Fathers Death this fourth Son called Thomas was Born Iohn the eldest and Alexander the third are both dead Infants Archibald falls to be Heir and so the Condition exists in which he was obliged to Dispone to Alexander Thomas enters Heir of Line to Alexander and pursues Archibald to Dispone the Lands to him It was answered for Archibald that Thomas as Heir of Line to Alexander can have no Right to this Provision First Because the Provision is only in favours of Alexander without mention of his Heirs 2dly Though it could be extended to Alexanders Heirs yet it being no Heretage to which Alexander could Succeed it is Conquest and would not descend to Thomas Alexanders Heir of Line but would ascend to Archibald as Heir of Conquest to Alexander It was answered for the Pursuer that in this case theâ—meaning and intention of the Father must be considered by his Provision inter liberos which is clear to have been that Archibald should not both have his Estate and these Lands of Corrowa but that the same should descend to Alexander and if Thomas had been then Born he would no doubt have provided that failzying of Alexander Archibalds Portion should fall to Thomas and if he had declared that the Lands of Corrowa should only belong to the Heirs of Line it would undoubtedly have excluded the Heirs of Conquest He has done the equivalent for having provided the Lands to Archibald and his Heirs whatsomever he does by a posterior explicatory Clause declare that if Archibald died without Heirs of his Body Alexander should be Archibalds Heir therein notwithstanding of any Law or Custom to the contrare which can have no other meaning then that notwithstanding by the Law Iohn as Heir of Conquest would Succeed to Archibald wanting Heirs of his own yet Alexander the younger who would be Heir of Line should Suceeed which is as much as to say that this Provision should belong to Archibalds Heirs of Line and not to his Heirs of Conquest and consequently having made no mention of Alexanders Heirs he did also mean Alexanders Heirs of Line who is the Pursuer Thomas and the case is so much the more favourable that if this failed Thomas hath neither Provision nor Aliment The Lords considering that both Parties were
Denunced for then by the Horning his Escheat would fall but there is no Law nor Statute making the Penalty of Adultery to be the Adulterers Escheat for Queen Maries Statute anent Adultery is only making nottour Adultery Capital but nothing as to other Adulteries The Pursuer answered that Custome had made the Penalty of Adultery to be the single Escheat and for Probation of the Adultery in this case the Defender had publickly confessed it and had stood in Sack-cloth for it a year and had taken Remission from the King The Defender answered that Confession in the Kirk was necessary to purge Scandel when such Probation was Adduced as Church-men allowed to infer Confession which is but extra judicialis confessio and cannot prove ad â—viles aut criminales effectus neither can the taking of the Kings Remission instruct these Crimes seeing Remissions are frequently taken to prevent accusations or trouble The Lords found the Libel not Relevant and that no Declarator could passe unless the Defender had compeared judicially in a Criminal Court and there Confessed or had been Condemned by Probation but that the Confession in the Church or taking Remission was no sufficient Probation Andrew Barclay contra Laird of Craigivar Ianuary 10. 1662. ANdrew Barclay Pursues the Lairds of Craigivar as representing his Father upon all the passive Titles to pay a Bond due by his Father and insists against him as behaving himself as Heir by intromission with the Mails and Duties of the Lands of Craigivar and Fâ—ntrie The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because if any Intromission he had not granting the same it was by vertue of a singular Title viz. an Appryzing led against himself upon a Bond due by his Father The Pursuer answered non relevat unless the legal had been expired for if the appearand Heir Inâ—romet within the Legall during which the right of Reversion is unextinct immiscuit se haereditati and it is gestio pro haerede The Lords found the Defense Relevant albeit the Appryzing was not expired unless the Pursuer alleadge that the Defenders Intromission was more then satisfied the whole Appryzing Laird of Rentoun contra Mr. Mark Ker. Eodem die THe Laird of Rentoun having obtained Decreet against Mr. Mark Ker for the Teinds of Ferniside he Suspends on this Reason that he ought to have retention of the Annuity of the Teind which he had payed and whereto he had Right The Charger answered that there was no Annuity due out of their Teinds because he was Infeft cum decimis inclusis which are not lyable for Annuity The Suspender Answered that there was no exception in the Act of Parliament 1623. of Teinds included The Lords Recommended the matter to be settled this being a leading Case in relation to the Annuity of Teinds included but they thought that Annuity was not due of Teiâ—ds included because such Lands never having had the Teinds drawn there is nothing to Constitute Teind due for them either by Law Paction or Possession and so where no Teind is there can be no Annuity And also because the Ground granting Annuity to the King was because the King having an Interest in the Teinds after the Reformation and the Titulars pretending also Right did surrender the same in the Kings favours and submitted to Him who Confirmed the Titulars questionable Rights and gave the Heretors the benefite of drawing their own Teinds upon a Valuation and therefore the Annuity was appointed to be payed out of the Teinds to the King but the surrender did not bear Teinds included Lord Carnagie contra Ianuary 11. 1662. LAdy Anna Hamiltoun eldest Daughter to the Deceast William Dâ—ke of Hamiltoun having obtained Charter of the Lands of innerw â—ik from the King as becoming in his hand by Recognition in so far as the Lands being holden Ward the late Earl of Dirletoun Disponed the same to Iames Cicil second Son to his second Daughter whereupon the said Lady Anna and Lord Carnagie her Husband for his Interest Pursues Declarator of Recognition against the said Iames Ciâ—il and against Iames Maxwels Heirs of Line and Heir-Male to hear and see them Secluded for ever and that the Lands were fallen in to the Kings hands and belonged to the Pursuer as his Donatar by Recognition through the Ward-vassals alienation thereof without the consent of the King as Superiour The Defender alleadged no Processes because all Parties having Interest are not called viz. Sir Robert Fleâ—cher who stands publickly Infeft in the Lands Libelled The Lords Repelled the Alleadgence as super juretertii in respect it was not proponed by Sir Robert aâ—d that his Right could not be prejudged by any Sentence whereto he was not called Secondly The Defenders alleadged no Process because the Heirs of Line are not lawfully Called in so far as three of them are Resident in the Abbey and are Minors and their Tutors and Curators are only called at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh whereas they Reside within the Regality of Brughtoun and their Curators should have been Cited at the Cross of the Canongate as head Burgh of that Regality The Pursuâ—rs answered that the Defenders Reside in the Kings Palace which is exempt from all Regalities and must be a part of the Royalty being the Kings own House by his Royal Regative The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and found the Kings House to be Royalty and so in the Shire and not in the Regality Iohn Nicolson contra Feuars of Tillicutry Ianuary 14. 1662. JOhn Nicolson as Baron of the Barony of Tillicutry and Miln thereof pursues the Feuars of Tillicutry for a certain quantity of Serjant Corns and for their abstracted Multures for which he had obtained Decreet in his Barony-court which was Suspended The Defenders alleadged that his Decreet is null as being in vacant time Secondly As being by the Baron who is not Competent to Decern in Multures or Thirlage against his Vassals Thirdly The Decreet was without Probation The Baron neither producing Title nor proving long Possession and as to the Serjant Corn nothing could Constitute that Servitude but Writ The Charger answered that Barons needs no Dispensation in Vacance and that Baron Courts use to sit in all times even of Vacance by their Constant Priviledge And that the Baron is Competent Judge to Multures or any other Duty whereof he is in Possession And as to the Serjant Corn in satisfaction of his Decreet he hath produced his Infeftment as Baron of the Barony which gives him Right of Jurisdiction and so to have Serjants whose Fees may be Constitute and liquidat by long Possession The Lords found the Reply Relevant the Charger having 40. years possession as to the Multures and the Pursuer declared he insisted not for the Kings Feu-duties in kind but for the Teind Seed and Horse Corn. The Defenders alleadged Absolvitor for as much of the Corns as would pay the Feu-duties Ministers Stipends and all publick Burdens because they behoved to sell Corns for
instruct the Protestation The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the absence of the Register and the oldness of the Horning Achinbeck contra Mccleud Eodem die IN an Improbation at the Instance of the Laird of Achinbeck against Mccleud The Lords found that the Improbation behoved to be continued albeit the samine had an ordinar priviledge to pass upon six dayes for the first Summonds past of course periculo penitentis Acheson contra Earl of Errol Eodem die ACheson pursues the Earl of Errol as presenting his Father to pay a Debt wherein his Father was Cautioner for the Earl of Mar and for instructing thereof produced the Extract of a Bond Registrate by consent in the Books of Session The Defender alleadged no Processe against him because the Bond was not Registrat by any Procurator for his Father because he was Dead before the Registration and so cannot prove against him neither being a principal Writ Subscribed by his hand nor being a Decreet of Registration by consent of his Procurator nor upon Citation The Pursuer alleadged that it was an authentick Evident and bare expresly Sic subscribitur Errol and seing by Law and Custom the Pursuer was necessitat to leave the Principal at the Register when the Registrat the same and that the Registers are now lost without his fault The Lords refused to sustain the Extract against the Earl of Errol but yet would not put the Party to an Action of proving the Tenor but would receive Adminiâ—les to instruct that Earl was Cautioner and therefore ex officio ordained the other Subscribers of the Bond or any other person that could be adduced for instructing the Truth to be required ex officio Thomas Crawford contra Earl of Murray February 8. 1662. THomas Crawford as Executor Creditor Confirmed to Umquhil Robert Ingâ—is as Assigney by his Relict for satisfaction of her Contract of Marriage pursues the Earl of Murray for payment of the Sums Confirmed addebted by him to the said umquhil Robert The Defender alleadged compensation because he had Assignation to a Debt due by the said umquhil Robert which as it would have been relevant against Robert himself so must it be against his Executor The Pursuer replyed First non relevat unless the Assignation had been Intimat before the Confirmation but an Executor Creditor having done Diligence by Confirmation it is not in the power of any of the Defuncts Debitors by taking Assignation from any of his Creditors to prefer that Creditor to any other Creditor which is no ways legittimus modus preferendi But the Creditors must be preferred only according to their Diligence Secondly This Pursuit being for Implement of the Relicts Contract of Marriage and pursued to their behove hath by our Law and Custome preference to all other personal Creditors though having done more Diligence The Lords found either of these two Replys Relevant to elide the Defense albeit the Assignation was before any Pursuit moved upon the Pursuers Confirmation Lord Torphichan contra Eodem die THe Lord Torphichan and certain of his Feuars pursue a Reduction of a Decreet of the Sheriff whereby he set down Marches betwixt their Lands and others upon this Ground that he did not proceed by an Inquest conform to the Act of Parliament but by Witnesses Secondly That he as Superiour was not Called Thirdly That the Sheriff had unwarrantably Sustained the setting down of Marches foamerly by Arbiters to be proven by Witnesses The Defenders answered the first Reason was not objected and the Defenders Compearance it was competent and omitted To the second the Superour could have no Detriment To the third that the setting down of March-stones being a palpable Fact might be proven by Witnesses whether done by the Parties themselves or by Friends chosen in their presence their being neither Decreet-arbitral nor Submission in Writ The Lords Repelled the Reasons in respect of the Answer and declared that if the Land fell in the Superiours hands by Recognition Non-entry or otherwise The Decreet should not prejudge him if he were not Called Ramsay of Torbanie contra Mcclellane February 11. 1662. DAvid Ramsay of Torbanie having raised Suspension and Reduction of a Decreet against him at the Iâ—stanâ—e of Thomas Mcclellane in Anno 1658. Insists upon this Reason that he being pursued as Heir to his Father at the Instance of Thomas Mcclellane he proponed this Relevant Defense absolvitor because the Bond pursued upon was granted by his Father after he was Interdicted without consent of the Interdictors and so could not affect the Person Interdicted Heir albeit he had succeeded in his Estate The Defender answered that the said alleadgence was justly Repelled in respect of this relevant Reply that the Interdiction hath no effect as to Moveables and Personal Execution neither as to any other Lands then such as lay in the Shires or Jurisdictions where the Interdiction was puplished and Registrat conform to the Act of Parliament ita est this Interdiction was published and Registrate only at Linlithgow and therefore if the Defender hath succeeded to any Lands not lying in Linlithgow Shire or if he hath medled with Heirship Moveable or be vitious Intromettor with his Fathers Moveables he is lyable for this Sum albeit after the Interdiction ita est he succeeded to Lands in the Stewartry of Kirkcudburgh and Moveables c. and therefore the Defense was justly Repelled The Lords found the Decreet just and therefore Repelled the Reasons of Suspension and Reduction Bells contra Wilkie February 12. 1662. GRissel and Bells raise a Reduction against Iames Wilkie of a Decreet obtained at his Instance against them in Anno 1659. whereby the said Iames Wilkie being Executor Confirmed to his Mother who was one of the Sisters and Executors of umquhil Patrick Bell their Brother in which Confirmation the said Iames gave up the third of the said Patricks Goods and thereupon obtained Decreet against these Pursuers as the two surviving Executors to pay to the said Iames his Mothers third Part of her Brothers Means The Reason of Reduction was that the Decreet was unjust and contrair to the Law and Custom of this Kingdom whereby there is no right of Representation in Moveables as in Heretage neither doth the Confirmation of the Executors establish in the Executors a compleat Right untill the Testament be execute either by obtaining payment or Decreet and if the Executor die before Execution the Right ceases and is not Transmitted to the Executors Executor but remains in bonis defuncti of the first Defunct and therefore Executors ad non Executa must be confirmed to the first Defunct which being a constant and unquestionable custome one of the three Executors deceasing before Executing the Testament her Right fully ceases and both the Office of Executrie and Benefit accresâ—es to the surviving Sisters as if the deceased Sister had never been Confirmed Executrix The Defender in the Reduction Answered That this Reason was most justly Repelled because albeit it be true
also produced three Contracts betwixt umquhil Lambertoun and Kennedy at Striveling upon the ninth of August 1651. by the last of them Kennedy was oblieged to deliver Lambertoun the Bonds for such several Sums he obtaining the Lady Levins consent of all these the Writer and Witnesses were dead and the Date proven to be false In this Process the Lords having considered all the indirect Articles of the Improbation in respect that these Writs in question were never in the alleadged Creditors hands and that there was not one Witness that did Depone that either they remembred to have Subscribed any of these Writs themselves or that they saw either the Parties or any other of the Witnesses Subscribe or any thing communed done or acknowledged by either Party contained in the Writs and that the Subscription of Watson one of the Witnesses in all the Bonds was by comparison with other contraverse Writs about the same time altogether unlike his Subscription and that the Word Witnesses adjoyned to the Subscription of all the VVitnesses did appear to be so like as written with one hand They found sufficient ground to Improve the foresaids writs besides many pregnant presumptions from Kennedies inclination and carriage which being extrinsick were accounted of less value and yet the astructions aforesaid and presumptions on that part were so strong that several of the Lords were unclear simply to find the Bonds false but not authentick probative writs VVilliam VVachope contra Laird of Niddrie Iuly 15. 1662. THe said VVilliam VVachope pursues Niddrie his Brother to pay him eleven pound Sterling for many years which he promised to pay him by a missive Letter produced bearing a Postscript of that nature The Defender alleadged absolvitor First because the Postscript is not Subscribed and so no sufficient Instrument to prove Secondly there is no ground for eleven pound Sterling yearly therein because the words are I have sent you five pound ten shillings Sterling now and I have sent you five pound ten shillings Sterling at VVhitsonday and you shall have as much as long as you live if you carry your self as ye do now which words as long as ye live cannot be understood Termly but yearly nor can relate to both the five pound ten shillings Sterling but only the last to which is adjected Donations being of strick Interpretations Thirdly The words foresaid cannot import a Promise but only a Declaration of the Defenders resolution to continue the same free kindness to his Brother which resolution he may recal at any time Fourthly The Promise is conditional quamdiu se bene gesserit wherefore the Defender can be the only Interpreter and declares that since his Brother hath not carried himself so well the meaning of such words being only this If so long as in my opinion you carry your self so and not according to the opinion of any other The Pursuer to the first Defense opponed the Letter which is holograph and albeit the Postscript be after the Subscription yet seeing it can have no other construction then to be done as a part of the Letter and not as other unsubscribed Papers whereanent it is presumed the VVriter changed his mind and left them imperfect and unsubscribed which cannot be here seeing the Letter was sent To the second he opponed the terms of the Letterâ— To the third alleadged omne verbum de ore fideli cadit in debitum and by these words can be understood nothing else but a Promise which is ordinarly made in such terms The Lords found not the first Defense Relevant per se but found the remnant Defenses Relevant and assoilzied VVilliam Swintoun contra Iuly 18. 1662. THe said VVilliam Swintoun having used Inhibition against at the Cross where he lived she falls Heir thereafter to another Person and immediatly Dispones that Persons Lands whereupon William raised Reduction of that Right ex capite inhibitionis The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Lands Dâ—poned ly not within the Shire where the Inhibition was used Therefore replyed the Land fell to the Inhibit Person after the Inhibition and the Pursuer did all he was oblieged to do or could do till that time which if it was not sufficient Creditors will be at a great loss as to Lands acquired or succeeded in alter Inhibitions The Lords found the Defense Relevant that the Inhibition could not extend to Lands in other Shires bâ—falling to the Inhibit after quocunque titulo but that the Pursuer ought to have Inhibit de novo or published and Registrat in that Shire seeing all Parties count themselves secure if no Inhibitions be Registrat in the Shire where the Lands ly without inquiring further Lord Frazer contra Laird of Phillorth Eodem die THe Lord Frazer pursues Declarator of Property of the Barony of Cairnbuilg against the Laird of Phillorth as being Infeft as Heir to his Father who was Infeft as heir to his Grand-father who was Infeft upon the Resignation of Frazer of Doors and also upon the Resignation of the Laird of Pitsligo who was Infeft upon an Appryzing led against Doors and also as being Infeft upon an Appryzing at the instance of one Henderson led against Doors and declared that he insisted primo loco upon the two first Rights flowing from Doors and Pitsligo The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Defender in an Improbation against the Pursuer and his Father obtained Certification against Doors Seasine so that it being now improven all the Rights Libelled on falls in consequentiam because Doors is the common Author to them all and if he had no real Right all their Rights are a non habente potestatem so that now the Pursuer has no more in his Person but a Disposition made by Phillorth's Grand-father to Doors and a Charter following thereupon and is in the same case as if Doors upon that ground were craving declarator of Property which he could not do nor would the Lords sustain it albeit there were no Defender because that can be no Right of Property where there is no Seasine The Pursuer answered 1. That the Defense is no ways Relevant nor is the Pursuer in the case of a Declarator upon a Disposition or Charter without a Seasine because he produces a progress of Infeftments and is not oblieged hoc ordine to Dispute Doors his Authors Rights as being a non habente potestatem which is only competent by way of Reduction some representing Doors his Author being called 2ly The Defense is no way competent to this Defender unless he alleadge upon a better Right then the Pursuers for the Pursuer hath done all that is requisit to instruct his Declarator by production of his Infeftments and his authors Rights are presumed and need not be instructed and albeit the Defender be called yet he cannot quarrel the Pursuers Authors Right or hinder his Declarator unless he alleadge upon a more valide Right in his own Person 3ly The Defense ought to be Repelled as proponed by this Defender
had died Infeft in the Annualrent if there had been Bairns of the Marriage they Male and Female joyntly and equally behoved to be Served specially as Heirs of Provision to their Father and so Infeft and failzing Bairns Thomas and Margaret behoved also to be so served and Infeft for albeit there needs no general Service where Persons are nominatim substitute in a personal Right requiring no Infeftment yet where there is Infeftment there must be a special Service And therefore found the Father Feear might uplift the Mony or might change the Destination thereof as he pleased and albeit Thomas and Margaret were Infeft nominatim yet they found the Seasine was without Warrand bearing only to Infeft them in case of failzie of Heirs of the Marriage and the Infeftment could only be granted to the Conjunct-feears Iohn Scot contra Montgomery Eodem die JOhn Scot as Assigney to certain Bonds granted by Montgomery to Andrew Robertson charges Montgomery who Suspends upon this Reason that he instantly instructs by a Back-bond that the Bonds is for the price of certain Lands and by the Back-bond it is provided that these Sums should not be payed till the Writs of the Lands were delivered and payment made of some Duties thereof The Lords found the Back-bond being before the Assingation relevant against the Assigney albeit the Bonds were simple bearing borrowed Money Greenlaw contra 〈…〉 Ianuary 15. 1663. GReenlaw being pursued by 〈…〉 for Spuilzie of two Mares in May 1654. alleadged Absolvitor because he was then in Arms for the King and took these Mares for the Service and had warrand from his Officers which he offered him to prove by his Pass and Capitulation produced expressly including him with his Officers who Capitulate The Pursuer answered the Mares were great with Foal and altogether unfit for the Service and if they were specially commanded to be taken it might be instructed by Writ The Lords considering this Capitulation being about that same time found that albeit there had been no Order yet the Defender being then in Arms acting modo militari the Act of Indemnity freed him and would not give occasion to such Process and therefore Assoilzied Tennents of Kilchattan contra Lady Kilchattan Major Campbel and Baillie Hamilton Ianuary 16. 1663. OLd Kilchattan in his Sons Contract of Marriage Dispons the Lands of Kilchattan to his Son young Kilchattan and his Lady in Conjunct-fee whereupon there was Infeftment taken in favours of the Husband and Wife to be holden from the Disponer and of the King but the same was not confirmed till the year 1662. At which time Major Campbel procures a Confirmation of the Conjunct-Infeftment and Seasine thereon which Confirmation hath a Clause insert bearing the same to be only in so far as may confirm and establish the Right of an Annualrent granted by young Kilchattan to the Major and thereafter the Lady Confirms the Conjunct-Infeftment simply In Anno 1654. young Kilchattan Infefts Major Campbel in an Annulrent out of the Lands thereafter Heugh Hamilton Appryzed from young Kilchattan and was Infeft upon this Appryzing about that time It was alleadged by the Lady that she ought to be pre-ferred because she being joyned with her Husband in the Conjunct-Fee and thereupon Infeft it is sufficient to give her the Right of Liferent which is but a personal servitude It was answered first That Major Campbel having procured the first Confirmation which is expresly limit unto his Annualrent must be preferred to the Lady and that such limitations might lawfully be because it being free for the Superiour to Confirm or not or to Confirm a part and not the rest he might Confirm it to what effect he pleased and his Confirmation being extended no further the Lady cannot crave preference because she is now only Infeft in the Lands in question in Warrandice that her principal Lands shall be worth so much and it is not yet declared in what they are defective The Lords in respect the Ladies Right was not Confirmed preferred the Major as to his Annualrents It was alleadged for Heugh Hamiltoun that he must be preferred to the Annualrenter because he being publickly Infeft upon his Apprysing before the Infeftment of Annualrent at least before it was cled with Possession whereby it became a valid Right the King's Charter upon the Apprysing is virtually and equivalently a Confirmation of Kilchattans Infeftment especially in favours of a Creditor who could not perfectly know his Debitors condition which if he had known and given in expresly a Confirmation to the King it would have been accepted seeing the King respects none and therefore the King 's granting of a Charter upon the Apprysing must be interpret equivalent The Lords found that the Charter upon the Apprysing was not equivalent to a Confirmation It was further alleadged for Heugh Hamiltoun that the Confirmation obtained by Major Campbel behoved to accresce to him who had the first compleat Right by publick Infeftment upon the Apprysing and albeit that base Infeftment upon the Annualrent granted by Kilchattan to Major Campbel was prior yet it was null till it was cled with Possession and therefore if it was not cled with Possession before Heugh Hamiltouns Infeftment the Confirmation must accresce to Heugh Hamiltouns Infeftment The Lords found that the base Infeftment was not null for want of Possession albeit it might be excluded by a publick Infeftment before Possession but found that Heugh Hamiltouns publick Infeftment was not compleat in it self because it put Heugh Hamiltoun only in the place of young Kilchattan who had a null Right till Confirmation Which Confirmation they found did accresce to the base Infeftment being cled with Possession at any time before the Confirmation for at that time it became a compleat Right at which time the Appryzing and Infeftment was no compleat Right and therefore the Confirmation albeit it had not had this restriction accresced to the base Infeftment as being the first compleat Right in suo genere Earl of Roxburgh contra a Minister Eodem Die IN a review of a Decreet at the Instance of a Minister against the Earl of Roxburgh the point in question was whether or no the Judges for the time or now the Lords of Session were competent to discuss this Nullity of a Decreet of Locality by the Commission for Plantation in that it called the Earls Lands expresly designed to be his Lands and he was not called The Lords found that albeit they would not decide upon the Nullities of the Decreets of the Commission competent by way of Reduction which behoved to be before the Commission it self yet this Nullity being palpable and competent by Exception or Suspension that they might thereupon Suspend simpliciter the Decreet of the Commission Earl of Errol contra Parochioners of Ury Eodem die THe Earl of Roxburgh pursues the Heretors for the Teind from 1648. till 1662. as he who had Right during that tyme by the Act of Parliament 1649. Establishing
Infeftment was only base not cled with Possession and that the Defenders Title was by another Party Possessing and publictly Infeft before his Fathers Death Which the Lords found Relevant Iames Allan contra Iames Paterson Iune 17. 1663. JAmes Allan charges Iames Paterson as Cautioner in an Indenter for a Prentise set to the Charger for five years and insists upon that Article of paying two dayes wadges for ilk dayes absence and subsumes that the Prentise left his Service after the first two years and was absent three years The said Iames Paterson Suspends on this reason that it must be presumed Collusion betwixt the Charger and his Prentise that having gotten the Prentise Fee and not learned him the Trade he had suffered him to escape never making intimation to the Suspender that he might have brought him back to his Service while now that he is out of the Countrey and not knowing where The Charger answered that there was nothing to obliege him to make such intimation neither could a sufficient presumption of Collusion be sustained The Lords found the Letters orderly proceeded either while the Cautioner caused the Prentise Re-enter and serve out his time or otherways payed fifty pound for damnage and interest to which they modified the Charge Margaret Fleming contra Iames Gilleis Iune 18. 1663. MArgaret Fleming being Infeft in an Annualrent of 700. merks out of Houses in Edinburgh in Liferent with absolute warrandice from all dangers perils and inconveniencies whatsomever pursues Declarator against the said Iames Gilleis as Heretor for declaring that her Annualrent should be free of all publick burden since the rescinding of the Act of Parliament 1646. whereby Liferenters were ordained to bear proportional part for their Annualrents with the Heretors The Defender answered the Libel was not Relevant for albeit the Act of Parliament was rescinded the justice and equity thereof remained that whatever burden were laid upon Land shouldly proportionably upon every part therof and every profit forth of it Which Defense the Lords found Relevant and Assoilzied Francis Hamiltoun contra Mitchel and Keith Eodem die SIr Alexander Keith of Ludquharn being oblieged by Bond to Robert Mitchel in Leith for the price of certain Bolls of Victual was arrested in Leith till he found Francis Hamiltoun Cautioner as Law will and both being pursued on the Act raised Advocation on this reason that the Baillies of Leith had unjustly forced him to find Caution as Law will he not being dwelling in Leith nor Leith not being a Burgh Royal but a Burgh of Barony It was answered that the priviledge and custome of the Town of Edinburgh was to arrest within Leith and all other priviledges and pendicles thereof The Lords found that it behoved to be condescended in what place of Leith Ludquharn was arrested for the Peer of Leith was a part of the Burgh Royal of Edinburgh and was served by a Bailie of Edinburgh called the Water Baillie and if he was arrested there it was valid but the rest of Leith is but a Burgh of Barony and in that part thereof the Baillie is called Baron Baillie it were not valid Euphan Hay contra Elizabeth Carstorphine June 19. 1663. THe said Euphan having obtained Decreet against the said Elizabeth for certain Furnitur to her House She suspended on this reason that her Husband was not called The Charger offered to prove in â—ortification of her Decreet that her Husband was 20. years out of the Countrey and she repute as Widow Which the Lords found Relevant George Reid contra Thomas Harper Eodem die THese Parties competing in a double Poinding George Reid craved preference because he was assigned to the Mails and Duties by Thomas Mudie Heretor of the Land Thomas Harper alleadged that he had arrested the Duties upon a Debt owing to him by William Mudy Father to the said Thomas and any Right Thomas had was fraudulent and null by exception by the express words of the Act of Parliament 1621. being betwixt Father and Son without any onerous Cause and he ought not to be put to Reduce in re minima his Debt being within a 100. pound The Lords found he behoved to Reduce conform to their constant Custom in Heretable Rights Ferguson contra Ferguson June 23. 1663. UMquhil Ferguson in Restalrig having a Tack set to him by the Lord Balmerino for certain years his eldest Brother Son as heir of Conquest and his youngest Brother Son as heir of Line competed for the Mails and Duties of the Lands The Lords found the Tack to belong to the Heir of Line albeit it was Conquest by the Defender Mcdowgal contra Laird Glentorchy June 24. 1663. Mcneil having Disponed certain Lands to Mcdowgal wherein he was Heir apparent to his Goodsyrs Brother oblieged himself to Infeft himself as heir therein and to Infeft Mcdowgal at least to renunce to be heir to the Effect Mcdowgal might obtain the Lands adjudged whereupon Mcdowgal having raised a Charge to enter heir Mcneil renunces and thereupon Mcdowgal craves the Land to be Adjudged and Glentorchy Decerned to receive and Infeft him Glentorchy alleadged that he could not receive him because he had right to the Property himself unless the Pursuer condescend and instruct his authors in whose place he craves to be Entered had Right The Pursuer answered that lie needed to instruct no Right nor was he oblieged to Dispute the Superiours Right but craved the ordinar course to be Entered suo periculo with reservation of every mans Right and the Superiours own Right as is ordinary in Appryzings and Adjudications The Defender alleadged that albeit that was sustained in Appryzings where the Superiour gets a years Rent and though it might be allowed in ordinar Adjudications proceeding upon a liquid Debt favore creditorum yet not in such a Case as this where the Vassals apparent Heir Dispones and oblieges himself to Renunce of purpose to Charge his Superiour The Lords found no Processe till the Pursuer instructed his Authors Titles But an Infeftment being produced he was not put to Dispute the validity thereof in this instance Menzeis contra Laird Glenurchy Eodem die THe Daughters of Mr. William Menzeis as Executrix to him pursues Glenurchy for payment of a Bond due to their Father he alleadged minority and Lesion and that he had Reduction thereupon depending The Pursuers answered no Lesion because this Bond being granted to their Father for his Stipend by the Defender who was Heretor of the Land he was not leased because as Heretor he was lyable for the Stipend The Defender answered that his being Heretor could not Obliege him because his Grand-father was then living whose Liferent was reserved in his Disposition who and the intrometters could only be lyable Stipends not being debita fundi and it were of very evil consequence if the Heretor were lyable during the whole life of a Liferent The Lords found that there being a Liferenter the Heretor was not lyable and therefore sustained
Dispute whether his Fathers Authors were Infeft or whether his Father had disponed or not until his Majority that he might seek out his Evidences and defend himself Reid contra Ianu. 19. 1667. IN a Process betwixt Reid and whereof the Title was a Service of the Pursuer as Heir deduced before the Bailzie of Regality of Spenzie It was alleadged by the Defender that this Title was not sufficient seing the Service was not retoured It was answered that the Service being within the Regality and of a Person dwelling there neither needed nor used to be Retoured in respect the Service it self was in Record in the Bailzies Books It was answered that albeit a special Service of Lands within the Regality needed not be Retoured in the Kings Chancellary because there was no Precept thence to issue but the Service within the Regality was sufficient that thereupon the Precepts of the Lord of the Regality might proceed against the Superiour within the Regality who was Infeft but in a general Service which may be before any Judge whether the Heir Reside in his Jurisdiction or not there is no difference betwixt a Regality and any other Court but all must be Retoured in the Chancellary It was answered that the Regality having their own Chapel and Chancellary were not oblieged to Retour it in the Kings Chancellary Which the Lords found Relevant and sustained the Service Isobel Findlason contra Lord Cowper Ianu. 22. 1667. ELphingstoun of Selmes having given a Precept to Isobel Findlason and direct to the Lord Cowper that he should pay to the said Isobel a Sum owing by Selmes to her and receive Selmes Bond from her upon the foot of which Precept the Lord Cowper directs another Precept to Iames Gilmore to pay the said sum the VVoman not being payed pursues both the Lord Cowper and Iames Gilmore for payment It was alleadged for Iames Gilmore absolvitor because he had not accepted the Precept neither was there any ground alleadged for which he was oblieged to accept or pay the Lord Cowpers Precept Which the Lords found Relevant It was alleadged for the Lord Cowper that the giving of the Precept should not obliege him seing it mentioned not value received or any other Cause and therefore resolved into a meer desire It was answered that the giving of the Precept was an acceptance of Selmes Precept and behoved at least to import a Donation to be made effectual by the Drawer of the Precept or otherwise an Intercession or Expromission for Selmes The Lords sustained the Process and found the Lord Cowper lyable by the Precept to pay in case of none acceptance especially seing it was consequent to Selmes Precept direct to Cowper Mr. Iohn Mair contra Steuart of Shambelly Eodem die MR. Iohn Mair Minister of Traquair having obtained Decreet against Shambellie and the Parochioners to pay him 545. merks Expended for Reparation of the Manse and to meet and Stent themselves for that Effect upon which Decreet he took Shambellie with Caption whereupon he gave him a Bond of fourscore pounds for his part Shambellie now Suspends the Bond on this Reason that albeit it bear borrowed Money he offers to prove by the Chargers Oath that it was granted for his part of that Stent and that his proportion thereof casting the Sum according to the Valuation of the Paroch would not exceed fourty merks and that he granted this Bond for fear of Imprisonment It was answered the Reason was not Relevant to take away the Suspenders Bond being major sciens prudens and there was here no justus metus because the Caption was a lawful Diligence so that the giving of the Bond was a Transaction of the Parties which is a strong Obligation It was answered that the Suspender when he was taken at his House was sick and unable to travel yet the Messenger would carry him away and being at the Tolbooth gave the Bond rather than in that Case to go to Prison which was an irregular force and a just cause of fear but this addition was not proponed peremptory The Lords Repelled the Reason of suspension unless the said addition were also instructed instanter otherways it could only be reserved by Reduction ex metus causa Sir Henry Hoom. contra Tennents of Kello and Sir Alexander Hoom. Janu. 24. 1667. SIR Henry Hoom having Appryzed the Lands of Kello from Henry and Iohn Hooms and being Infeft pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for Sir Alexander Hoom Donatar to the Forefaultor of the said Iohn Hoom of Kello who alleadged that the Forefault Person the time of the Doom of Forefaultor was in Possession of the Lands in question in whose place the Donatar now succeeds and by the Act of Parliament 1584. It is Statuted that where the forefault Person was in Possession the time of the Forefaulture albeit not by the space of five years which would Constitute a Right to him that the Donatar must be put in Possession and continue five years in Possession that in the mean time he may search and seek after the Rebels Rights It was answered First That this part of the Statute is only in case the Rebel had Tacks or Temporary Rights which neither is nor can be alleadged in this Case Secondly The five years Possession must be reckoned from the Doom of Forefaulture after which the Kings Officers or Donatar might have attained Possession and if they did not their neglect cannot prejudge others Ita est there are five years since the Forefaulture and the Rents are Extant being sequestred It was answered that the Act Expresses not only in Case of Tacks but also in Possession and that the five years must be after the Possession began and not the Forefaulture The Lords found the alleadgance Relevant that the Rebel was in Possession and preferred the Donatar to the five years Rent after the date of the Forefaulture It was further alleadged that the Pursuers Right being but an Appryzing the Donatar would instantly satisfie the same at the Bar. It was answered non Relevat to retain by way of Exception but the Donatar behoved to use an Order and pursue a Declarator It was answered that in Appryzings an Order upon 24 hours Requisition was sufficient there being no further Solemnity required then that the Appryzer might come to receive his Money The Lords found that the Appryzing might be summarly satisfied hoc ordine Earl of Argile contra George Campbel Eodem die THE Earl of Argile pursues George Campbel to remove from certrin Lands who alleadged absolvitor because the Warning was null not being used at the right Paroch Kirk where Divine Service at that time was accustomed It was answered non Relevat unless it were alleadged that the other Kirk were Erected by Parliament or Commission thereof and that thereby the Old Paroch was supprest and divided 2ly Though that were alleadged it ought to be Repelled because it is offered to be proven that all VVarnings and Inhibitions
or out of any other the Canons Portions of this Kirk George Shein contra Iames Christie Eodem die G Christison of Bassallie gave an Infeftment to his eldest Son of the Lands of Bassallie and to his second Son of an Annualrent of 86. merks forth thereof both of one date and both reserving the Fathers Liferent Iames Christie hath Right by Appryzing led against the eldest Son in his Fathers life to the Lands George Shein hath Right by Adjudication against the second Son to the Annualrent and pursues a poinding of the Ground It was alleadged for Iames Christie that Sheins Authors Right was base never cled with Possession and so null whereas his Right was publick by an Appryzing and had attained to Possession It was answered that the Fathers Liferent being reserved the Fathers Possession was both the Sons Possession and did validat both their Rights It was answered that a Disposition by a Father to his own Children reserving his own Liferent though Infeftment follow is alwayes accounted simulat and never accounted cled with Possession by the Fathers Possession as hath been frequently decided It was answeredâ— that albeit in Competition betwixt base Infeâ—tments granted to Children and Infeftments granted to Strangers upon onerous Causes the Childrens Infeftment though prior and though reserving the Fathers Liferent uses to be preferred yet here that holds not for both Infeftments are granted to Children both of one date and neither of them to Strangers or upon onerous Causes and therefore the Reservation here is without suspition of Simulation and the Fathers Possession must both validat the second Sons Annualrentâ— and the eldest Sons property Which the Lords found Relevant and that the Fathers Possession by this Reservation did sufficiently validat both the Sons Infeftments and that the Possession of one after his Death or of any succeeding in his Right did not exclude the other or his singular Successor Mr. Robert Burnet contra Swane Eodem die MR. Robert Burnet Tutor of Lâ—yes pursues for Mails and Duties of a Tenement in Aberdene It was alleadged for Swane the Defender Absolvitor because he stands Infeft in the Lands and by vertue of his Infeftment in Possession and albeit the Pursuers Infeftment be prior it is null neither being Registrat in the Register of Seasins nor in the Town Clerks Books of Aberdene according to the custom of all Burghs but hath been latent many years and no vestige of it in the Town Books so that the Defender was in bona fide to Contract with the common Authour and Apprize thereafter It was answered that the Act of Parliament excepted Seasins within Burgh and the Pursuer having the Town Clerks Subscription was not answerable for his keeping a Prothecal or Record Which the Lords found Relevant and sustained the Seasine Colquhoun and Mcquair contra Stuart of Barscub Iuly 1. 1668. THe Laird of Barscub having seued certain Lands to Colquhoun and Mcquair to be holden of himself in the Contract of Alienation there is a special Clause that because the Lands are holden Ward of the Duke of Lenox therefore Barscub is obliged to relieve these Feues of any Ward that shall fall in time coming Thereafter Barscub Dispones the Superiority of these Lands and by the Death of his singular Successor his Heir falls in Ward whereupon Sentence was obtained against the Feuars for the Ward Duties and the avail of the Marriage and they now pursue relief against Barscubs Heir upon the Clause of Warrandice above-written The Defender alleadged that the Libel was no ways Relevant to infer warrandice against him upon the said Clause because the meaning thereof can only be that he as Superiour and so long as he remained Superiour shall relieve the Feuars which ceases he being now Denuded of the Superiority otherwise it behoved to have imported that he should never sell the Superiority without the Vassals consent which no Law doth require or if the Lands had been Appryzed from him he could not be lyable for the Ward of the Appryzers Heir which is cleared by the ordinary Custom there being nothing more frequent in Charters than Clauses of absolute warrandice and yet none was ever overtaken thereby after they ceased to be Superiours The Pursuer answered that his Libel was most Relevant because this being an Obligement conceived in their favours by Barscub not qualified as Superiour no Deed of Barscubs without their consent can take it from them unless Barscub when he sold the Superiority had taken the new Superiour obliged to receive the Vassals with the same warrandice but now the new Superiour not being obliged by this personal Clause Barscub the old Superiour must remain obliged especially in a Clause of this nature which is express for all Wards to come The Lords Repelled the Defense and Sustained the Libel and found the Superiour albeit Denuded lyable for Warrandice Thomas Rue-contra Andrew Houstoun Iuly 3. 1668. ANdrew Houstoun and Adam Mushet being Tacksmen of the Excize did Imploy Thomas Rue to be their Collector and gave him a Sallary of 30. pound Sterling for a year thereafter he pursued Andrew Houstoun upon his promise to give him the like Sallary for the next year and in absence obtained him to be holden as confest and Decerned Which being Suspended he obtained Protestation and therefore raised Caption and apprehended Andrew Houstoun at Wigtoun who gave him a Bond of 500. Merks and got a Discharge and being Charged upon the Bond of 500. Merks he Suspends on these Reasons that Thomas Rue had granted a general Discharge to Adam Mushâ—t who was his Conjunct and coâ—reus deâ—endi afâ—er the alleadged Service which Discharged Mushâ—t and consequently Houstoun his Partner 2dly The Decreet was for Sallary and it was offered to be proven that Rue for his Malversation was by warrand from Ceneral Monk excluded from Collection that year and by the Discharge of the Decreet and this Bond both of the same Date and VVitnesses it did appear that this Bond was granted for the Decreet and if the Decreet were Reduced by the Reduction thereof depending the Bond would fall in consequence as granted for the same Cause The Charger answered that he was now not obliged to Dispute in relation to the Decreet First Because the Suspender had Homologat the same by taking a Discharge thereof and giving a Bond therefore 2dly There was not only a Homologation but a Transaction upon a Reference made by the Parties to â—aldone conform to his Attestation produced so that that Transaction cannot be recalled upon any pretence but is the most firm and Obligatory Contract of any The Suspender answered that his payment making and taking Discharge was no Approbation nor Homologation but that he might reduce the Decreet and repeat if he had payed or been poynded and so may retain especially seing it was done metu Carceâ—is he being taken with Caption and as to the Transaction he denies the same neither can it be instructed by Baldones Attestation but by the
of modification and locality and albeit the Minister had Discharged his whole Teind yet as to the superplus which is the Tacksmans part the Discharge was meerly gratuitous and was not upon payment made and the Pursuer was willing to allow what he truely payed the Defender answered that in all Benefices and Tacks use of payment importing a verbal Tack is sufficient per tacitam relocationem till it be interrupted so that if the Minister had granted a Tack in Writ but for one year and the Defender had continued in Possession per tacitam relocationem he was bona fide Possessor fâ—cit fructus consumptos suos even albeit the Minister had no Right so his use of payment for so long a time must work the same effect neither can it be made appear that the Defender or his Predecessors payed more then what they now pay The Lords Sustained the Defense and found the Defender only lyable for use of payment until Citation or Inhibition Mr. George Johnstoun contra Sir Charles Erskin Lord Lyon Eodem die UMquhile Richard Irwing having Died Infeft in the ten Merk Land of Knok-hill his Son had a Son and four Daughters his Son being his appearand Heir and being Addebted a Sum to Mr. Iames Alexander he Charged him to enter Heir in special to Richard his Grand-father and Apprized the Lands from him whereunto Sir Charles Erskin has now Right the said Son being now Dead and never Infeft Mr. George Iohnstoun takes Right from the four Female Grand-children and Serves them Heirs to their Grand-father but before they were Infeft there was an Infeftment or Charge upon the Apprizing at the instance of Mr. Iames Alexander and in a former competition Sir Charles was preferred upon Mr. Iames Alexanders Right as denuding the Male Grand-child appearand Heir for the time in the same manner as if he had been Infeft now Mr. George Iohnstoun upon the Femals Right raises a Declarator to hear and see it found and declared that Mr. Iames Alexanders Apprizing was satisfied and extinct by Intromission before the legal was expired It was alleadged that the Pursuers as Heirs Served and entered to Richard their Grand-father had no interest to Redeem the Apprizing led against Robert their Brother unless they were also entered Heirs to their Brother which Robert if he were alive might Redeem the Apprizing against himself so that the legal Reversion being in his Person cannot belong to his Grand-fathers Heirs but to his own Heirs and as he or his Heirs could only Redeem so can they only declare the Apprizing to be satisfied by Intromission neither can the Reversion belong to two both to the Heirs of Robert who was Charged to enter Heir and to the Heirs of the Grand-father who Died last Infeft It was answered that Robert never having in his Person any real Right as never being Infeft albeit fictione juris the Act of Parliament gives the Creditors like Right upon his disobedience to enter being Charged as if he had entered yet that is a meer passive Title and could give no active Title to Robert or any representing him either to Redeem or to call the Apprizer to an accompt till they were entered Heirs to the person last Infeft for albeit the Creditor Apprizer has a real Right yet the disobedient appearand Heir has none and albeit the Lords might suffer the disobedient appearand Heir or his Heirs to Redeem the Apprizing because the Apprizer had no interest to oppose the same being satisfied much less can the Apprizer now oppose the Pursuers who being Infeft as Heirs to Richard have the real Right of Fee in their Person and consequently the Right of the Reversion of the Apprizing led against Richards appearand Heir which being a minor Right is implyed and included in the Property Which the Lords Sustained and found that the Heirs of the person last Infeft being Infeft might Redeem or declare against an Apprizer who Apprized from an appearand Heir lawfully Charged albeit they were not of that appearand Heir The Creditors of James Masson contra Lord Tarphichan Eodem die SEveral English-men Creditors to Iames Masson who lately broke being Infeft in several Annualrents out of Lands of his pursue Poinding of the Ground compearance is made for the Lord Tarphichan Superior and his Donator to the Liferent Escheet of James Masson who alleadged that James Masson being Ribel year and day before these Infeftments of Annualrent the Ground could not be Adjudged but the profits behoved to belong to the Superior and his Donator It was answered that the Superior or Donator had no Interest by the Rebellion of James Masson because before the Rebellion James Masson was Denuded in favours of his Son and he Received as Vassal so that the Vassal for the time not having fallen in Rebellion the Superior can have no Liferent Escheat The Superior answered that the Creditors of Masson having been once Vassal and as Vassal constituting their Annualrents they could not object upon the Right of his Son unless they had derived Right from his Son 2dly The Superior is also Creditor and hath Reduced the Sons Right as fraudulent in prejudice of him a lawful Creditor It was answered that the Superiors Right as a Creditor upon the Reduction doth not simply annul the Sons Fee neither doth it at all restore the Father again because it being but a Reduction to a special effect viz. that the Creditor may affect the Lands by Apprizing upon his Debt anterior to the Sons Infeftment notwithstanding of his Infeftment the Sons Fee stands but burdened with that Apprizing so that upon neither ground the Superior can have the Right of a Liferent Escheat of him who once was his Vassal but was Denuded before Rebellion and which is most competent to the Pursuers as well as if the Superior had been Denuded and another Superior Infeft if he or his Donator had been pursuing for a Liferent any person Infeft in the Land might well alleadge that he had no Interest as Superior being Denuded The Lords found that in neither case the Superior or Donator could have interest in the Liferent Escheat Mr. John Hay contra the Town of Peebles January 20. 1669. MAster John Hay the Clerk having pursued a Reduction and Improbation against the Town of Peebles of all Right of Ascheils belonging to him in Property containing also a Declarator of Property of the saids Lands of Ascheils and that certain Hills lying towards the Town-lands of Peebles are proper Part and Pertinent of Ascheils He insists in his Reduction and Improbation for Certification or at least that the Defenders would take Terms to produce The Defenders alleadged no Certification because they stand Infeft in these Hills in question per expressum and the Pursuer is not Infeft therein The Pursuer answered that he offered to prove that they were proper Part and Pertinent of the Lands of Ascheils whereof he produces his Infeftment The Defenders answered that till the samine were
Inglistoun who had Married one of his Daughters and the Heirs of that Marriage whereby he Disponed his Estate of Crawfoordstoun to them with a Bond of 20000. pounds the intent whereof seems to have been that they might have Appryzed to make the Disposition effectual and she and William Lowrie having Deponed acknowledged that the Writs and Charter-Chist were carried out of Crawfoordstoun to Englistoun but Deponed that they knew not whether thir Writs were amongst them or not or whether they were formerly delivered to Inglistoun himself who is now dead There was in the Exhibition Libelled a Declarator that the Writs were null as not delivered and that being unwarrantably taken out of the Defuncts Charter-Chist after the Lords Order to the contrair they ought to be put back and Sequestrat till the Rights of Parties were Discust The Pursuers did now insist in this last member to the which it was answered that the Writs being Exhibit to the appearand Heirs ad deliberandum and they having seen them they could have no further interest but the Lady Crawfoordstoun Tutor to her Oy Inglistoun ought to have them up again who produced them neither is it nor can it be instructed that these Writs were unwarrantably taken out of the Charter-Chist after the Lords Warrand seing their Oaths bore that they knew not whether these were in the Charter-chist or not and therefore being a Pupils Writs in his favours produced by his Tutrix they cannot be taken from him or Sequestrat unless the unwarrantable medling therewith were proven 2dly By a Disposition of the Moveables to the Lady produced granted by the Defunct it bears a Delivery of the Keys of the Charter-Chist to her to be Delivered to Inglistoun with the Charter-Chist which is equivalent as if they had been Delivered to Inglistoun himself and she was content to be Enacted to produce them when ever the Lords found cause It was answered that the Lords Warrand being anticipat and the bulk of the Writs in the Charter-Chist carried away it must be presumed that these Dispositions and that Bond was amongst the rest and so must be returned in statu quo The Lords found this alleadgance Relevant unless the Defenders would instruct that these Writs were not in the Charter-chist the time of the Order but out thereof in Inglistouns hands and yet they allowed the Parties presently to Dispute whether albeit these Writs were in the Charter-Chist Inglistoun or his Tutrix should have them up or if they should remain Sequestrat Mr. Iames Drummond contra Stirling of Ardoch Ianuary 23. 1669. MR. Iames Drummond being Donator to the Escheat of the Laird of Glenegies pursues Exhibition and Delivery of a Bond granted by George Mushet to Iames Henderson containing 2000. merks principal and by him Assigned to umquhil Glenegies and thereby falling under his Escheat and the Bond being produced by Ardoch the Donator craves the same to be Delivered to Ardoch It was answered by Ardoch that the Bond ought not to be Delivered to the Donator because it cannot belong to him in respect that Mushet who by the Assignation became Debitor to Glenegies had two Bonds granted by him to Glenegies containing 3000. merks wherein Ardoch is Cautioner whereby this Bond of 2000. merks due to Glenegies was compensed long before Glenegies Rebellion It was answered for the Pursuer that Compensation is not Relevant unless it had been actuallie proponed in Judgement or Extrajudiciallie stated by the Parties offering and accepting the Compensation 2dly That the alleadgance is no wayes Relevant against the Donator who has Right to the Debts due by the Rebel 3dly Ardoch had no Interest to alleadge the Compensation which could only be proponed by Mushet the Creditor and not by Ardoch who is Cautioner to him The Defender answered that Compensation is Competent ipso jure from the time that the sums be mutuallie due by the Debitor and Creditor in the same way as if they had granted mutual Discharges each to other and therefore when an Assigney Pursueth or Chargeth Compensation is always Sustained against him upon Debts due by the Cedent before the Assignation albeit the Compensation was not actually stated before the same neither is the Donator here in better case then an Assigney so that when he pursues Mushet Debitor to the Rebel Mushet may alleadge Compensation upon the like Debt due to him by the Rebel before the Rebellion and the Defender hath good Interest to propone the Compensation because he is Cautioner to Glenegies for Mushet and if Mushet be forced to pay the Donator without allowing Compensation Ardoch will be necessitat to pay Mushet to whom he is Cautioner and therefore hath good Interest to propone that by the concourse of the two Debts they are both extinct and he is not obliged to Deliver up to the Donator the Bond Constituting Mushets Debt The Lords found the Alleadgance proponed for Ardoch Relevant and Competent and that Compensation was Relevant against the Donator upon Debts due by the Rebel before Rebellion Sir Iohn Weims contra Farquhar of Towley Eodem die SIr Iohn Weims having Charged Farquhar of Towley for the maintainance of his Lands deu in Anno 1648. He Suspends on this Reason that by the Act of Parliament 1661. appointing this maintainance to be uplifted by Sir Iohn Weims singular Successors are exeemed ita est in one part of the Lands he is singular Successor to Sir Robert Farquhar of another part he has a Disposition from his Father for Sums of Money particularly exprest in the Disposition It was answered to the first That the Exemption is onlie in favours of singular Successors who had bought Lands the time of the Act ita est Sir Robert Farquhars Disposition is after the Act neither doth it appear that a competent price was payed therefore and as for his Fathers Disposition though prior to the Act yet the Narrative thereof betwixt Father and Son will not instruct the Debts unless it be otherways instructed nor can it be made appear to be a just price The Lords found that the Exemption could not extend to singular Successessors acquiring after the Act for if at that time the Lands were in the hands of him who was Heretor in Anno 1640 or his Heirs nothing ex post facto done by them can prejudge the Right Constitute by the Act which doth not bear an exemption to singular Successors who should acquire but only to these who had acquired They did also Ordain the Defender to instruct the Cause onerous of his Fathers Disposition but would not put the Suspender to Disput the Equivalence of the price unless it were instructed that the Dispositions were Simulat there being a great latitude in prices according to the pleasure of Parties Alexander Chisholme contra Lady Brae Ianuary 26. 1669. ALexander Chisholme having apprized certain Lands from the Heirs of Sir Alexander Frazer of Brae and thereupon insisting for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for the Lady Brae Sir Iames
Defender alleadged Absolvitor because this Bond being granted without an Onerous Cause after the Provision of the second Contract of Marriage Providing all the Goods Conquest to the Heirs of the second Marriage who were thereby their Fathers Creditors for fulfilling of that Provision no voluntar Dâ—ed done without a Cause Onerous by their Father in Favours of his Daughter of a former Marriage could prejudge them or burden the Moveables acquired in that Marriage It was answered First That the Provision being to the Heirs of the second Marriage they being Heirs could not quarrel but were obliged to fulfil their Fathers Obligation whether for a Cause Onerous or not 2dly Such Clauses of Conquest are ever understood as the Conquest is at the Acquirers Death but does not hinder him any time of his Life to Dispose or Gift at his pleasure which if he might do to any Stranger there is neither Law or Reason to exclude him to do it to his Daughter And albeit it might be interpret Fraud if nothing were left to the Daughters of the second Marriage yet where they have a special Provision and something also of the Conquest with this burden their Father could not be found thereby to Defraud them or to hinder him to use his Liberty Which the Lords found Relevant and Sustained the Bond. Buohan contra Taits February 11. 1669. IN Anno 1623. George Tait of Pirn gave a seisine propriis mâ—nibus to George Tait his eldest Son and a Bond of that same Date bearing that he had given Seisine and obliging him to Warrand the same Reserving his own Liferent Thereafter in Anno 1640. he Contracts in Marriage with Ianet Buchan and for two thousand and five hundreth Merks of Tocher obliges him to Infeft her in the same Lands of Piâ—n whâ—rein his Son was Infeft whereupon she now pursues Reduction of George Tait youngers Infeftment against his Daughters upon these Reasons First That the Seisine propriis mâ—nibus was only the assertion of a Nottar without a Warrand 2dly That the Seisine had not four Witnesses 3dly That this was a clandestine latent Right most fraudulent betwixt a Father and his appearand Heir never having been published or taken effect by any Possession and cannot prejudge this Pursuer who is a most priviledged Creditor and brought a competent Tocher with her 4thly That this being an Infeftment by a Father to his appearand Heir then in his Family it was but as the legittime of Children which is still ambulatory at their Parents Disposal and so must be affected with this posterior burden of the Fathers Marriage It was answered to the first that the Bond of the same Date with the Seisine acknowledging the same is a sufficient adminicle and is equivalent as if the Father had Subscribed the Seisine To the second there is no Law requiring â—our Witnesses to a Seisine for that Act of Parliament is only where a Party Subscribes by a Nottar but relates not to Nottars Instruments Subscribed by themselves upon warrands or adminicles without which they are not valid with 40. Witnesses and without which two Witnesses are sufficient To the third this Infeftment is no ways Fraudulent or Latent seing it is Registrat in the Register of Seisines and Reserves the Fathers Liferent whose Possession is the Sons Possession and cannot be pejudged by a Deed so long posterior thereto To the last Infeftments taken to Children by Parents being Registrat by Parents can never be Recalled The Lords Assoilziâ—d from all the Reasons of Reduction and Sustained the Defenders Seisine Pot contra Pollock February 12. 1669. UMquhile Iohn Pollock having granted a Bond of 5000. Merks to Iames Pollock his second Son of the first Marriage and he having Adjudged thereupon Pot as Assigney by his Wife to her Provision and the Creditors Debts having also Appryzed raises Reduction of Iames. Pollocks Bond and Adjudication on this Reason that the said Bond was without a Cause Onerous given by a Father to a Son as is clear by the Sons Oath taken thereupon and therefore a posterior Debt Lent by Creditors bona fide to the Father is in Law preferable thereto 2dly This Bond to a Son can be but de natura legittimae having no Cause Onerous as if it had born for his Portion Natural and Bairns part In which Case it is Revockable by the Father and the Fathers Creditors though posterior are preferable thereto 3dly This Bond is Reduceable super capite doli as being a contrivance betwixt a Father and a Son to insnare Creditors to Lend to the Father who then drove a great Trade which must be inferred from these circumstances First The Son was foriâ— familiat and sufficiently provided before 2dly The Bond bears no Annualrent and the Term of payment is after the Fathers Death and remained ever latent betwixt the Parties without any thing following thereupon and these Debts were all Contracted within a very little after this Bond which was only a year before the Defuncts Death The Defender answered that the Reasons are no ways Relevant for there is neither Law nor Reason to hinder any person to give Bonds or Gifts freely there being no Impediment the time of the granting neither hath the Law any regard to posterior Creditors but in personal Debts whether for Causes Onerous or not the first Diligence was ever preferable nor was it ever heard that a posterior Onerous Obligation did Reduce or was preferred to a prior gratuitous obligation upon that ground that the prior was gratuitous And to the second Albeit this Bond were in satisfaction of a Portion Natural as it is not yet being Delivered to the Son who iâ— forisfamiliâ—t he can be in no other case then any other person to whom a bond were granted without an Onerous Cause As to the third Dolus non presumâ—tur and all machinations being only animi are only probable scripto vel juramento and can be inferred by no circumstances The Pursuer answered that albeit in dubio dolus aut câ—lpa non preâ—umitur yet it is doubtless probable otherwise then by the Oaths of the Parties whereunto Truâ—â— is never to be given in relation to their own shame contrivance or fraud and therefore matâ—ers of fact do necesâ—arly infer and presume fraud in many cases and in none more then this where the Deed was clandestine and latent betwixt Father and Son and where the Fathers Estate was thereby rendred insuffiâ—ient to pay both his Dâ—bt and the others contracted shortly thereaâ—ter and if it were sustained that such latent Rights betwixt conjunct persons were valide in prejudice of posterior Creditors contracting bona fide and not knowing the same all Commerce behoved to cease for every man might give such Bonds to his Children and continue to Trade and to borrow Money and upon the Childrens anterior Bonds be totally excluded The Defender answered that our Law by a special Statute in Anno 1621. having determined the cases of presumptive fraud and extended
Iohn Eleis contra Inglishtoun Eodem die CRichtoun of Crawfordstoun having only one Daughter Disponed his Estate to Iohn Brown of Inglishstoun in contemplation of the Marriage betwixt him and Crawfordstouns Daughter and to the Heirs-male of the Marriage which failzying to certain other Heirs Substitute bearing a power to Burden the Estate with 5000. Merks to whom he pleased and containing a Clause that the Disposition should be valide though not Delivered in his Lifetime and after Inglistouns Marriage Crafordstoun grants a Bond relating to his former promise of 20000. Pounds to Inglistoun and the Heirs of the Marriage which failzying After which words there follows a blank of a Line and a half and the Sum is payable at the first Term after Crawfordstouns Death the intent of which Bonds seems to have been that thereupon Apprizing might proceed to Denude the Heirs of Line and to compel the Superior 〈◊〉 Receive Inglistoun Thereafter Crawfordstoun made a second Tailzy wherein Inglistouns Son with his Daughter being then Born is Feear and several Members of the Tailzy altered and after that he made a third wherein his Daughter Inglistouns Wife is Feear and the Substitutions much like the former After his Death these Papers being Exhibit at the Instance of two of his Daughters Heirs of Line Married to Mr. Iohn Eleis and Alexander Tran upon a Process ad deliberandum and being craved up again from the Clerks by the Tutor of Inglistouns Son It was alleadged for the Heirs of Line that the saids Writs could not be Delivered up because they not having been Delivered by the Defunct in his leige poâ—stie could not prejudge his Heirs of Line and albeit his first Disposition contained a dispensation for not Delivery which ordinarly is accounted sufficient yet where it appears the Defunct altered his purpose both by the posterior Dispositions of a different Tenor and several Missive Letters showing a resolution after all to alter the same the said Clause cannot be effectual and there is no pretence for Delivering the Bond and the two other Dispositions seing they want that Clause It was answerd that the Dispensation with Delivery is in all cases equiparat with the Delivery it self and that the remanent Writs ought also to be Delivered though they bear not that Clause because the Heirs of Line being absolutely excluded by the first Disposition they have no interest to quarrel the other Dispositions and albeit it the posterior Dispositions were to different effects the want of Dispensation therein might make them ineffectual yet where they are but qualifications of the first Tailzy they are accessory thereto and must be Delivered therewith seing the Defunct so long as he keeped the Writ in his own Hand might still alter the same at his pleasure It was answered that the posterior Dispositions wanted the Clause reserving power to the Defunct to leave to whom he pleased the 5000. Merks and it is like he hath left it to his other Daughters and the Bond may be made use of to overturn his whole intent and alter the Tailzy The Lords found that seing the first Disposition contained a Dispensation with Delivery and the rest being accessory thereto and only altering in somethings the Tailzy but still to the first Heir of Tailzy being the Son of Inglistouns Marriage they ordained them all to be Delivered up and the Bond also but with this Declaration that the Provision anent the 5000. Merks in the first Disposition should be holden as repeared in the rest that the Heirs of Line might be in no worse Case then by the first and that the Bond should only be made use of according to the Substitutions and Clauses of the Tailzies Crawford contra Anderson Iuly 24. 1669. IOhn Fleeming having made a Disposition of his Lands to William Anderson Provost of Glasgow sometime thereafter William grants Back-bond Declaring the Disposition was upon Trust to the behove of Fleemings Creditors Young being one of the Creditors uses Inhibition and Apprizing against Fleeming and is thereupon publickly Infeft after which William Anderson makes payment to the other of the Creditors the said Alexander Young and Crawford his Spouse Insists for Mails and Duties of the Apprised Lands Anderson excepts upon his prior Infeftment from Fleeming the common Author upon the said Disposition Crawford replys upon the Back-bond that the said Infeftment is on Trust to the behove of Fleeming Anderson duplys that it is a qualified Trust to the behove of Anderson himself in so far as any Debt was Due to him and next to the behove of Fleemings Creditors and condescends and instructs that he has made payment to several of these Creditors so that payment made by him bona fide must give him Right to the Trust pro tanto and any Inhibition or Infeftment at Youngs Instance was only against Fleeming and not against Anderson against whom there was never any Action It was answered that the Trust being for payment of Fleemings Creditors cannot be interpret at the option of Anderson which would be a most fraudulent conveyance to exclude the more timeous Diligence of Fleemings other Creditors but it must be understood to pay the Creditors legitimo modo and not to make voluntar payment to these who had done no Diligence and prefer them to these who had done Diligence and albeit the Inhibition and publick Infeftment upon the Apprizing be only against Fleeming yet Anderson who was Intrusted for Fleeming might and ought to have known the same by searching of the Registers appointed for publication of Rights and if he had neglected the same Sibi imputet for he being Trusty for Fleeming could no more prefer Fleemings Creditors then Fleeming himself could do The Lords Repelled the Defense and Duply and found that voluntary payment made by Anderson to Fleemings Creditors after the Inhibition or publick Infeftment of other Creditors did not give him any Right by his Infeftment in Trust to exclude the more timeous Diligence of the other Creditors Street contra Masson and Lord Tarphichen Iuly 27. 1669. IAmes Masson being Debitor to the Lord Tarphichen does Infeft his Son an Infant in his Lands publickly holden of the Superior and being a Merchant there was a correspondence betwixt him and Mr. Street and other London Merchants whereupon he gave them Bond mentioning to be for former Accompts and Provisions betwixt them and thereupon followed an Infeftment of Annualrent The Lord Tarphichen obtains Decreet of Reduction of the Infeftment granted to the Son as being posterior to his Debt and granted by a Father in defraud thereof The London Merchants raise also a Declarator that the Infeftment granted by Masson to his Son then an Infant ought to be affected with their Debt in the same condition as it were yet standing in the Fathers Person or otherwise ought to be declared void as a fraudulent Deed by the Father in favours of his Son the Father being then in tract of Correspondence and Traffick with these Merchants who
security of the whole Leiges Yet the saids Lords understanding that by reason of the late Troubles and the Confusions ensuing thereupon Especially during the time of the Usurpers these Acts have been neglected to be put in Execution In so far as many Nottars are Deceased whos 's Protocals are not returned to the Clerk of Register or his Deputes but do remain in the hands of their Relicts and Children which occasions divers inconveniencies and divers of their Protocalls are upon perusal found to be Defective and Unformal and some of their Cautioners are not sufficient Likeas divers Persons pretending to have been admitted under the Usurpers do presume to Officiat as Nottars albeit they be not lawfully Authorized so to do For redresse of which abuses and disorders The Lords do Ordain Letters to be direct at the Instance of the Clerk of Register or his Deput Clerk to the admission of Nottars for charging the Relict and Executors of such Persons as are Deceaâ—ed and their Cautioners to bring in and deliver to them the Protocall Books of the saids Nottars conform to the Act of Parliament and their Respective Acts of Admission And also Ordains General Letters to be Direct at the Instance of the Clerk of Register or his said Deput for charging such Nottars as they are informed to have Protocalls Detective or Informal to produce their Protocalls before the said Deput at the head Burgh of the Shire where the Nottar does Reside and where the Cautioners found for any Nottar is insufficient to charge that Nottar to find new and more sufficient Caution And Ordain these General Letters to be Execute upon six days and that against such Particular Persons only as shall be given in a List under the hand of the Clerk of Register And the saids Lords do hereby prohibit and discharge all Persons who were admitted Nottars under the Usurpers to Officiat as Nottars untill they be of new admitted And the saids Lords considering that it is Statute and Ordained by Acts of Parliament and specially by the 78. Act Parliament 5. Iames 5. That all Sheriffs Stuarts Bailzies and others both to Bâ—rgh and Land shall present their Clerks in presence of the Lords of Session to be Examined Sworn and admitted by them and seing the Clerks of these Courts have neglected for some time by past â—o compear before the saids Lords to be tryed and approven by them and it being necessary and the publick Interest of the Leidges that these Acts of Parliament be punctually observed in time coming Therefore the saids Lords do ordain and require all persons who hereafter shall be nominate Sheriff Clerks Clerks of Sâ—ewartries and Bailiries before they enter to and exerce their Office of Clerkship to compear before the saids Lords that they may be tryed and approven by them conform to the Act of Parliament Certifying them if they failzie therein they shall be deprived of their Offices ACT concerning Bills of Suspension November 9. 1630. THE Lords considering that by former Acts of Sederunt of the 9. of February 1675. and the 3. of Iuly 1677 They did give Warrant to the Ordinary upon the Bills to allow a sight of a Bill of Suspension to the Charger and to stop Execution for some time not exceeding a Moneth declaring also that a Bill of Suspension signed by the Ordinary though not expeded at the Signet should import a stop of Execution for the space of fourteen dayes from the date it was signed that in the mean time sufficient Caution might be found and that the Clerk of the Bills might enquire anent the condition of the Cautioner And now finding that abuses have crept in stops being procured from several Ordinaries from time to time and that when the first fourteen dayes after a signed Bill were elapsed a new one was presented and past which stopped Execution for other fourteen dayes and so might continue for a long time Therefore the Lords do declare that they will give no stops of Execution hereafter upon Bills of Suspension fourteen dayes from the date being a sufficient time both for seeing and expeding the Bill And Declares all other stops to be void except where Causes are ordained by the Lords to be Discust upon Bills and ordains the Clerk of the Bills to make a Minut-book both of past and refused Bills by the Alphabetick Order of the Parties sirnames which he is to make patent to any Charger that shall desire to see the same gratis and discharges him to present any new Bills in that Cause except to the whole Lords in time of Session or to three Lords in time of Vacance as he will be answerable at his peril and because Parties or their Procurators are accustomed to procure Suspensions upon pretence that the Copy of the Charge given by the Messenger is general or unformal and for verrifying thereof do produce forged Copies and sometime forged Writes for instructing Reasons of Suspension founded thereupon never intending to make use of the same and therefore do suffer Protestations to pass For remeid whereof the Lords do declare that if the Charger shall produce such a Suspension or a duplicat thereof under the hand of the Keeper of the Signet that in that case the Lords besides the ordinary expenses of Protestation will modifie large Expenses to the Charger for his delay and in case Protestation shall not be admitted but the Suspension shal come to be Discust and at the Discussing the Charge or other Writes mentioned in the Reason of Suspension be not produced The Lords Declares they will hold these Writes false and sorged and modifie large Expenses to the Charger but prâ—judice to insist against the forger of the saids Copies or Writes and ordain a Copy of this Act and of the other two Acts above-mentioned to be affixed upon the Wall of the Outter-House and Copies thereof to be delivered to the Clerk of the Bills to remain affixed on the Wall of the Bill-Chamber that he may exactly observe the same ACT anent the marking of Advocats Compearance for Defenders November 25. 1680. THE Lords declares that in time coming where several Defenders are conveened in one Summonds and that at the calling thereof by the Clerk an Advocat shall be marked compearing indefinitly for the Defenders and who shall likewise return the Process that Advocat shall be holden compearing for all the Defenders unless by the return upon the Process he qualifie his Compearance and express for which of the Defenders he compears and for which of them he doth not compear ACT in favours of the Macers February 15. 1681. THE which day there being a Petition given in to the Lords by their four ordinary Macers representing that where the Lords are in use upon application of Parties to grant Commissions for taking the Oaths of Parties and the Depositions of Witnesses in Causes where it appears by Testificats produced that the Parties or Witnesses are through age and infirmity unable to travel And sometimes Commissions
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-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 a Donation pro reliquo which many thought strange seeing a Bond of 100. Sterling mentioned 14th Instant reâ—eired and payed by the Mother and being proven by Patrick Scots oath so to have been done to the satisfaction of most of the Lords which was clogged with no Provision was not allowed to be in Satisfaction of these Bairns Portions Bosewel contra Bosewel November 22. 1661. JOHN Bosewel Pursues Bosewel of Abden as representing Henry Bosewel his Father for payment of a 1000. pounds due to the Pursuer by the said umquhil Henry and insisted against the Defender as lucrative Successour by accepting a Disposition of Lands and Heritage from the said umquhil Henry whereunto he would have succeeded and was therein his appearing Heir The Defender alleadged he was not lucrative Successor because the Disposition was for Causes onerous The Pursuer answered non relevat unless it were alleadged for Causes onerous equivalent to the worth of the Land as was formerly found in the Case of Elizabeth Sinclar contra Eâ—phingstâ—â—â— of Cardoâ—â— The Defender answered maxime relevat to purge this odious passive Title of lucrative Successor which is no wheâ—e sustained but in Scotland specially seeing the Pursuer hath a more favourable remeid by Reduction of the Disposition upon the Act of Parliament 1621. if the price be not equivalent and there it is sufficient to say it was for a considerable sum or at least it exceeded the half of the worth for there is latitude in buying and selling and as an inconsiderable Sum could not purge this Title so the want of an inconsiderable part of the full price could as litle incur it The Lords before answer ordained the Defender to produce his Dispositior and all Instructions of the Cause onerous thereof that they might consider if there was a considerable want of the equivalence of the price here the Defender pleaded not that he was not alioqui successurus the time of the Disposition being but Consing German to the Defunct who might have had Children Dowglasse contra Iohnstoun Eodem die EODEM die In the Competition between Dowglass in Abernethie who Confirmed himself Executor Creditor to Gilbert Weymes in Dumblane where Gilbert dwelled and Iohn Iohnstoun as Executor Confirmed to the said Gilbert by the Commissars of Edinburgh because Gilbert in a Voyage from Scotland to Holland died at Sea The Lords found the Commissars of Edinburgh to have no Right unless the Defunct had died abroad animo remanendi This Interlocutor was stayed till the Commissars were further heard Marjory Iamison contra Rodorick Mccleud December 3. 1661. MARIORI Iamison Relict of umquhil Mr. Iohn Alexander Advocat pursues Rodorick Mccleud for payment of a Bond of Pension of 200. merks yearly granted to her Husband bearing For Service done and to be done The Defender alleadged the Libel is not relevant unless it were alleadged that Mr. Iohn had done Service constantly after granting of the of the Pension which the Lords Repelled The Defender alleadged further that he offered him to prove that Mr. Iohn did desist from his imployment as Advocat after the Pension and became Town Clerk of Aberdeen and the Pension being granted to him who exerced the Office of an Advocat at that time must be persumed for his Service as Advocat The Lords Repelled this Defense in respect of the Bond of Pension bearing For Services done and to be done generally Sir Robert Farquhar contra Lyon of Muiresk Eodem die SIR Robert Farquhar pursuing a Reduction of a Disposition against Iohn Lyon of Muiresk upon Circumvention The Lords granted Certification unless not only the Extract but the Principal Disposition were produced in respect they were registrate at that time when the Principals were given back to the Parties Thomas White contra Crocket December 4. 1661. THOMAS White pursues Patrick Crocket in Eliot to make payment of the sum of 600. merks which the Pursuer alleadged he had in a Leather-Girdle when he lodged with Crocket being in an In-keepers House and that the Defender promised that the Pursuer should want nothing after the Pursuer had shown him the said Girdle yet the Defender came ordinarly in the Chamber where the Pursuer lay that night and he wanted his money from under his head which he declared and shew to the Defender the next morning and therefore according to the Law nautae caupones stabularij c. which is observed in our Custom the Defender as Keeper ought to be Decerned to restore The question was here only of the manner of Probation The Lords found all the Libel Relevant to be proven pro ut de jure and declared that these being proven they would take the Pursuers oath in litem upon the quantity Baillie of Dunnean contra Town of Inverness Eodem die BAILLIE of Dunnean pursues the Town of Inverness for violent Intromission in his Moss and molesting him therein both Parties were content to Dispute as in a Molestation The Defenders alleadged Absolvitur because the Town of Inverness was Infeft in their Bâ—rgh and Burrow-lands with common Pasturage in Montkaplâ—ch and offered them to prove the Moss contraverted was a part of Montkaâ—loch and that they have been in constant Possession thereof accordingly The Pursuer Replyed the Defense ought to be Repelled because he offered him to prove that he was Infeft in his Lands of Dunnean with Parts and Pertinents and that the Moss contraverted was proper Part and Pertinent of his said Lands and that he was in use to debar the Defenders therefrom and to get Moss Mail for tollerance to cast therein and produced the same under the hand of nine of the Citizens and one by their Clerk and therefore being in libello ought to be preferred in Probation The Lords before answer granted Commission to Examine Witnesses hinc inde upon the Possession of either Party Which being Reported the Defenders craved the same with the Dispute to be Advised The Pursuers Procurators alleadged there was yet no Litiscontestaâ—ion and they were not Insisting and the Defenders could not compell them to Insist without a Process to Insist with certification in which case they would get a day to Insist The Lord found that the Probation being taken before Answer was equivalent to Litiscontestation as to the Points Proposed and that they miâ—ht proceed both to Advise the Points of Probation and Relevancy together and might instantly Decern accordingly albeit it hindred not the Parties to Propone other Alleadgences in jure then it were in the Dispute as in ordinary Litiscontestation and therefore the Lords considered the Parties Infeftments specially that of the Town of Inverness bearing with liberty to them to cast Fail and Divote in the Month of Kaploch and several other Months according as they were accustomed of before Which Clause the Lords found to be Qualified and Taxative and not to give an absolute Right of Commonly but only such as they had before which behoved to be cleared by Posterior long Possession and
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
Few-dutie produced he acknowledged the Pursuer to be Proprietar 2dly If any such Back-bond was no way granting the same he offered him to prove that it was Conditional so soon as the said Umquhile Robert Lord Kirkcudbright should require Ita est he has never required The Defender alleadged he had done the equivalent because in a Double Poynding formerly pursued be the Tennents he had craved Preference and the Pursuer alleadged upon the Condition of Requisition in the Back-bond and also that be the Back-bond the granter and his Wifes Liferent was preserved whereupon the Defender was excluded The Lords â—â—und the Alleadgeance of the said Double Poynding was not Equivalent to the Requisition and therfore found the Replyes Relevant and Assigned a day to the Defender to produce the Back-bond and to the Pursuer â—â—â—â—prove the Qualitieâ— thereof and so found the Reply not to acknowâ—â—ge the Defense but reserve it to either Partie to alleadge contra â—oducenda and found the Personal Obligdement sufficient to dâ—bar the Purâ—â—â—â— albeit the Defender had no other Real Right seeing thereby she was oblidged to grant a Real Right to the Defender Alexander Barns contra Applegirth Ianuary 1. 1662. ALexander Barns having Conform to the Act made by the Iudges obtained Letters of Horning Summarily at his Instance as Heir to his Brother Iames Bâ—rns upon production of his Retour and a Bond granted by Iohnstoun of Applegirth and thereupon having Denunced him and Apprized his Lands Applegirth Suspends on this Reason because the foresaid Act of the Iudges was now Void and by the late Act of Parliament confirming their Judicial Proceedings liberty is granted to quarrel and reduce them upon Iniquity and this was Iniquitie to charge him Summarily contrair to Law The Charger answered non Relevat because he followed the Order in use at that time and the liberty of Quarrelling is for Unjustice in the Matter and not in the Order of Procedor for then all their Debates would be null because they proceeded not upon Continuation and Letters The Lords sustained the Charge as a Libel to the effect the Suspender might have his Defenses if he any had to be proven not iâ—stantlie but upon Terms but declared the Apprysing should stand valid for whatsomever was found due but prejudice to the Horning as accords Sir Alexander Hoom of St. Bathanes contra Orr and Pringle Ianuary 3. 1662. SIr Alexander Hoom of Saint Bathanes having pursued Improbation and Reduction upon Inhibition against Iohn Orr and Wateâ— Pringle and insisted for all Writs of the Lands in Question made to the Defenders Predecessors and Authors of the Lands in Question and the Defender having alleadged no Process for Writs made to his Authors unlesse they were called and having condescended particularly on the Authors to be called The Pursuer offered him to prove that these Authors were fully denuded in favours of the Defender and that the Writs were in the Defenders own hands The Defender answered non Relevat though they were in his hands because his Authors being lyable for warrandice ought to be called to defend there own Rights The Pursuer answered the Defender might intimate to them the Plea The Defender answered he was not oblidged to Intimate the Plea but the Pursuers to call the Authors in this Case the Summonds was sustained for his Authors Writs in Anno one thousand six hundred fiftie nine Years And now the Pursuer insisting for the Defender taking a second time to produce The Defender having a reviewe of the said Act and Interlocutor The Lords reponed the Defender and would not sustain the Pursuit or Act as to the Authors Rights uncalled Tippertie contra his Creditors Eodem die Innes of Tippertie being charged by several of his Creditors Suspends and alleadged payment made by the Suspenders Son to them The Chargers answered non Relevat because they declare the Charge to be to that Sons behove who payed them so that they must alleadge it was payed by his means The Suspender Replyed That seeing they declared it to be to his Sons behove the payment was sufficient because he offered him to prove by a Transaction the Son was oblidged to pay his Debts The Charger answered denying any Transaction if it were proven the Suspender behoved to instruct his part of it performed The Lords found the Reasons and Reply relevant reserving the said alleadgance against the Transaction when produced James Seaton contra Anothonie Rosewall Jannuary 4. 1662. JAmes Seaton and others pursue Anthonie Rosewall to hear it found and declared That two Apprysings to which he had right were fully Satisfied by his and his Authors Intromission within the Legalls respective in the Compt. The Defender alleadged he was only comptable according to his intromission conform to the Act of Parliament one thousand six hundred twenty one anent Apprysings and not according to a Rental of the Lands as they payed when he entred The Pursuers answered that that they could not charge him by his Yearly Intromissions which they could not know but he behoved to charge himself with the Rent of the Lands as they payed at his entrie thereto and if any Deductions or Defalcations were in subsequent Years by necessary setting of the Lands at a lower Rate poverty of the Tennents or waste he behoved to condescend there upon and their the Reasons and Veriâ—ty thereof for in Law an Appryzing giving jus pignoris pratorij the Appryser is comptable for his Diligence having once entered in Possession and thereby excluded the Debitor and Con-creditors from the Possession It were against Law and Conscience to say That if he should abstain and suffer the Tennents to keep the Rent or Depauperat or the Lands to be waste without any Diligence that his Legall should thereby expire and the Debitor and Creditor should be excluded as was found in the Case of the Earl of Nithisdale and Countess of Buckcleugh and was several times so found be the Lords before The Lords found the Defender comptable by a Rental as the Lands payed the time of his Entry but Prejudice of his just Defalcations he clearing a reasonable Cause thereof and proving the truth of the same for they thought that albeit Apprizers are only comptable for their Intromission That is only for such parts of the Lands as they intend only to possesse and not for these they never possest yet in so far as they once entred to possesse they must do Diligence It was further alleadged that no allowance ought to be given to the Defender of a Composition he had given to the Superiour in respect a prior Appryzer had given a Composition before and so he was oblidged for none The Defender answered that both the Prior and Posterior Composition was within a Years Rent which was due to the Superiour which the Lords allowed seeing it was not alleadged that the Composition of a Years Rent was discharged by the Superiour but only according to the Custome of the Burgh where the Lands
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
he expresly renunced the benefit of the Usurpers Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor and all such Acts made or to be made and oblidged himself upon Honour and Conscience not to prejudge Sir John of his bargain to which no subsequent Law could derogat unless it had been specially notwithstanding any such Paction Secondly The foresaid Act has an express exception That where such Acts made and to be made are Renounced the benefit of that Act shall not be competent to such The Pursuer Answerd to the first That Pactions or Renunciation of Parties cannot operat against a posterior Law Secondly The persuâ—t here is for restricting of a Wodset to the true Annualrent for all that was done in the Usurpers Act was to take Land in satisfaction and to delay payment but this Clause of the Act is nothing such and so is Casus Incogitatus which could not be held to be Renunced unless it had been exprest as to the exception in the Act it is not an Exception general to the whole Act but to the Antecedent part of the Act and this Clause anent Restricting of Wodsets is posterior to the Exception and not derogat thereby The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and found the Exception not to Derogat to the Posterior Clause concerning Wodsets Lord Burly contra Iohn Sime Ianuary 30. 1662. THE Lord Burly pursues Iohn Sime for intruding himself in a Coal-heugh wherein the Pursuers Author was infeft severally and not in the Land but only in the Coal with power to set down Pits through all the bounds of the Land The Defender alleadged absolvitor because he stood Infeft in the Lands lybelled with Parts and Pertinents and be vertue thereof was seven Years in Possession which must Defend him in Possession until his Right be reduced The Pursuer answered that the Defender could have no benefite of a possessory Judgement not being expresly Infeft with the benefite of the Coal in prejudice of the Pursuer who was expresly Infeft and Seased in the Coal and in possession of the Coals past memory The Defender answered there was no necessity of an express Infeftment of the Coal which is carried as part and pertinent as Craig observes in dieg de investituturis impropriis to have been decided betwixt the Sheriff of Air and Chalmers of Garthgirth and so being Infeft and in possession seven years he has the benefite of a possessory Judgement The Lords found the Defense Relevant but Repelled the same in respect of Interruption within seven years which was proponed Halbert Irwing contra Mckartney Eodem die HAlbert Irwing pursues Mckartney for Spuilzie of ten Oxen. The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because he Intrometted with the Oxen by Warrant from Mr. Robert Ferguson to whom the Pursuer had given a Disposition of all his moveable Goods for relief of a Cautionry for which Mr. Robert first and now this Defender is Distrest Secondly He offers him to prove voluntar Delivery of the Oxen by the Pursuer to him for the cause foresaid But because the Pursuer hath summoned several other persons as Complices which are necessary Witnesses of purpose that he might exclude them from being Witnesses he desires they may be admitted Witnesses or otherwise Discust First that if they be Assoilzied they may be Witnesses The Pursuer answered to the first non relevat a Disposition unless there had been Delivery and albeit there had been an Instrument of Delivery yet it being dispositio omnium bonorum two years before the medling could be no Warrant for summar medling without Sentence of a Judge and gave only jus ad rem But specially the medling with the Plough Goods in time of Labourage when the Pursuer put other Goods before the Defender The Lords found the first Defense Relevant founded upon the general Disposition and Instrument of Possession and that the Disposition alone though without any possession had been sufficient against the Disponer ad vitandum spolium unless the Defender had Intrometted by violence being resisted by force But they proceeded not to the second Defense which doubtless was Relevant and the desire reasonable of Discussing the remnant Defenders First that they might be Witnesses if Assoilzied Yea it seems they could not be hindred to be Witnesses used for the Defender though they might be suspect Witnesses against him as being Interest to put the Spuilzie upon him for their own relief Sir Iames Cunninghame contra Thomas Dalmahoy February 1. 1662. SIr Iames Cunninghame pursues Thomas Dalmahoy and the Tennents of Pollomount to make payment to him of the Mails and Duties of the Lands of Pollomount resting at the Death of the late Dutches of Hamiltoun because she had granted Bond of 500. pound Sterling to the Pursuer to be payed after her Death and for security thereof had assigned the Mails and Duties of her Liferent Lands of Pollomount which should happen to be due at the time of her Death It was alleadged for Thomas Dalmahoy her second Husband Absolvitor because these Mails and Duties belonged to him jure mariti neither can he be lyable for this Debt jure mariti because it was not Established against him during the Ladies Life neither could be because the term of payment was after her Death The Pursuer answered that he did not insist against Thomas Dalmahoy as Husband but as Intrometter with the Rents of Pollomount due at the Dutches Death wherewith he hath medled since which could not belong to him jure mariti being assigned before the Marriage and if they could belong to him jure mariti yet it must be with the burding of this Debt The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply for they thought a Husband albeit he was not lyable simply for his Wifes Debt post solutum matrimonij yet that he should have no more of the Wifes Means jure mariti but what was free of Debt and so behoved to pay her Debt so far as he enjoyed of her Means Belshes contra Belshes Eodem die IN an Account and Reckoning betwixt Belshes and Belshes concerning Executry The Lords found that the prices given up by the Defunct in his Testament of his own Goods should stand and the Executor be accountable accordinglyâ— seing there was no enorm prejudice alleadged as if the Defunct had prized the Goods within a half or third of the true avail to the advantage of the Executor and prejudice of the Wife Bairns or Creditors The Lords did also allow Aliment to the Wife out of her Husbands Moveables to the next Term albeit she Liferented an Annualrent payable at the next Term. Lord Melvil contra Laird of Fairin February 4. 1662. THe Lord Melvil pursues the Laird of Fairin for Warrandice of a Disposition of certain Lands aud Teinds sold to my Lord by him with absolute Warrandice and condescends that the Teinds were affected with 13. Bolls by a Locality to the Minister in Anno 1641. The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because this Distress was
known or might have been known to the Pursuer the time of the Bargain at least to his Tutors who made the Bargain Secondly there is no legal Distress but voluntar payment made all the years bygone The Lords Repelled the Defense and found that seeing the Distress by the Stipend was unquestionable payment made thereof without Processes prejudged not and that the Pursuers knowledge could work nothing being then a Pupil Laird of Elphingstoun contra Sir Mungo Murray Eodem die THe Laird of Elphingstoun having Charged Sir Mungo Murray for the price of some Lands bought from him he Suspends and alleadges that by the Disposition the Charger is oblieged to relieve him of all Inhibitions and now produces several Inhibitions The Charger answered non relevat unless there were a Distress seeing the Disposition bears not to purge but only to relieve or to warrant against Inhibitions The Lords considering that the Chaeger vergebat ad inopiam found the Reasons Relevoan till Cauton were found to warrant the Suspender from these Inhibitions They found also that where the Charger was oblieged to pay to the Suspender the Composition for his Entry to the Lands That the Suspender should have no Composition if he got it Gratis albeit he alleadged he got it for other good Services Skeen contra Lumsdean Eodem die ANdrew Skeen having Charged Alexander Lumsdean for payment of a sum for which he was Cautioner for his Brother Mr. Thomas Lumsdean he Suspends upon this Reason that the cause of the Bond was two Bills of Exchangeâ— which was Protested The Suspender answered he offered him to prove they were payed after the Protest by him who drew the Bills or by Mr. Thomas Lumsdean in whose Favour the Bills were drawn The Suspender replyed that the Alleadgence ought to be Repelled because he was assigned to the protested Bills for relief of this Cautionry and intimat his Assignation to Skeen who delivered the Bills and got the Bond Charged on The Charger offered him to prove paymentâ— before that Assignation or Intimation and ad modum probationis produced an Instrument under the Seal of Camphire and a Declaration of the Conservator there bearing that upon inspection of Mr. Thomas Lumsdeans Compt Books they found that he had acknowledged two or three sums payed in part of these Bills and exprest the Dates thereof prior to the Assignation The Suspender alleadged the Compt Books could not prove unless they were produced Cognosced and Proven to be Lumsdeans Compt Books Secondly they could not prove contra tertium Thirdly the Question being de data and they holograph they could not prove their Date Fourthly these Testificats can prove nothing unless they had been taken upon Processes or by Commission The Lords found the Testificats could not prove but that the Compt Book being Cognosced might prove against the Assigney being Brother to Lumsdean and the Books out of his hand since he was broken for amongst Merchants Compt Books or Writs without Witnesses by their Custom are sufficient and ordained Lumsdean and his Brother to Depone upon the having of the Books to produce them if they had them and if not granted Commission to the Magistrats of Camphire and Conservator to Cognosce the Books and to report what they find of this matter in them Marjory Gray contra Dalgardno February 7. 1662. MAjory Gray pursues Dalgardno as vitious Intromettor with the Goods of a Defunct to pay his Debt who alleadged Absolvitor because the Defunct Died Rebel and at the Horn and so nihil fuit in bonis defuncti seing by the Rebellion all his Moveables belonged to the Fisk ipso jure without necessity of tradition for the King jure coronae hath the right of Lands without Infeftment and the right of Moveables forefaulted or fallen in Escheat without Tradition or Possession The Pursuer answered non relevat because the Defender Intrometting without any warrand from the Fisk is quassi prodo and Moveables are not ipso facto in the Property of the Fisk by the Rebellion But if they be Disponed by the Rebel for an onerous Cause the Disposition before Rebellion will be valid or if they be arrested for the Defuncts Debts and recovered by Sentence making forth-coming or if a Creditor Confirm himself Executor Creditor to the Defunct Rebel he will be preferred to the Fisk by all which it appears that the Rebellion transmits not the Property The Defender answered that these Instances do only show that the King prefereth Creditors and takes but the benefit of what the Rebel had deductis debitis or what was Contracted with him bona fide but doth not say that the Property of the Goods were not in the Fisk but in the Rebel The Lords repelled the Defense The Defender further alleadged that not only was the Defunct Rebel but that he had a Gift of his Escheat The Pursuer answered non relevat unless it had been before the vitious intromission or at least ante motam litem The Lords Repelled the Defense unless the Defender would alleadge that the Gift was ante motam litem for they thought that the Taking of the Gift was like the Confirmation of an Executor which purged vitious Intromission being ante motam litem Iohn Bonnar contra Robert Foulis Eodem die JOhn Bonnar pursues Robert Foulis to pay the Debt of a Person Incarcerat by Act of Warding whom the Bailzie set at Liberty without Warrant The Defender alleadged no Processes because the Person Incarcerat was not Called who might have proponed Exceptions against the Debt that it was payed c. Secondly that thereafter the Pursuer had taken himself to the Incarcerat Person and gotten part of payment from him The Lords Repelled the Defenses and decerned but because there was a Reduction depending of the Decreet whereupon the Person was Incarcerat and that he was set at Liberty in Anno 1659. when there was no Iudicatory sitting they superceeded Extracting for the time till the Reduction was Discust Countess of Buckcleugh contra Earl of Tarras Eodem die THe Countess of Buckcleugh pursuing Reduction of a Contract of Marriageâ— betwixt her Sister and the Earl of Tarras The Lords would not Sustain incident for the Earl of Tarras albeit he was minor that Contract being his own Writ and not his Predecessors Lockerbie contra Applegirth Eodem die JOhnstoun of Lockerbie having obtained Decreet against Ierdine of Applegirth for a Sum payed by the Pursuers author as Cautioner for the Defenders Father The Lords found Annualrent due by the Principal to the Cautioner by an Act of Sederunt 1613. and that from the year 1619. until now in respect the Cautioner had payed upon distress by Decreet of Transferrence and a Charge of Horning thereon Acheson contra Mcclean Eodem die DAm Iean Acheson pursues the Laird of Mcclean as representing their Predecessors who was Cautioner in a Suspension The Defender alleadged nothing produced to prove the Suspension Discussed but Letters of Horning upon a Protestation which cannot
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
Disposition in which there was an expresse Reservation of the Ladyes Liferent so that the Back-bond could import no more then securing of that Liferent The Pursuer answered these words conform to the Disposition were set upon the Margin of the Tickit which was all written by the Defenders hand and might have been added ex post facto 2. The Tickit behoved to import more then the Liferent because the Liferent was fullie and clearly reserved and oftimes repeated in the Disposition so that Clause had been frustrat Thirdly The oblidgment to deliver the Back-bond to the Ladies Husband after her Death could not be understood to be only in relation to her Liferent which and the Husbands interest should cease by her Death The Lords found the Tickit sufficient to instruct Trust but because the Terms of the Trust were not clear They before answer in Relation to the Probation of the Terms thereof Ordain the Parties to Compt and Reckon upon all Sums due by the Lady to the Defender in contemplation of the Trust that the same might be allowed and satisfied to the Defender before he be denuded Iames Slumond contra Wood of Grange Eodem die JAmes Slumond having charged Iames Wood of Grange to pay a Sum wherein he was Cautioner for the Laird of Balcaskie to Williiam Smith merchant in Edinburgh who constitute Richard Potter Assigny who transferred the same to the said Iames Slumond and Suspends The reason of Suspension was because this Bond was payed and retired by Balscaskie the principal Debitor who took a blank Translation thereto from Potter the Assigny which Translation with the Bond it self were surreptitiously taken out of his Coffer by Iames Hay who filled up this Chargers name therein likeas the Suspender produced a Declaration of Potter that the Sum was payed â—o him by Balcaskie and therefore the Suspender craved that the Oaths of this Charger the said Iames Hay and Potter and also the Witnesses who were present at the payment of the Sum might be taken before Answer Which the Lords granted albeit the Charger had the Translation for an oneâ—rous cause Children of Monsual contra Laurie of Naxweltoun February 14. 1662. THE Children of the Laird Monsuel as Executor to their Father pursues Laurie of Maxwelltoun for a Sum due by him to the Defunct who alleadged Compensation upon a Debt due by the Defunct Assigned to the Defender by the Defuncts Creditor after the Defuncts Death and intimat before any Citation or Diligence at the instance of any other Creditor The Pursuer replyed that Debt compensed on cannot take away this Debt pursued for solidum because the Defender as Assigny can be in no better Case then his Cedent and if he were now pursuing he would not be preferred fore his whole Sum but only in so far as the Testament is not yet exhausted or other prior Diligence done for an Executor having but an Office can prefer no Creditor but according to his Diligence much less can any of the Defuncts Debitors by taking Assignation from any of the Defuncts Creditors prefer that Creditor whose intimation is no Legal Diligence The Lords found that the Defender could be in no better Case then the Cedent and could have only compensation in so far as the Inventar was not Exhausted or prior Diligence used they found also that a Decreet against a Defender for making arrested Sums forthcoming at the Instance of an of the Defuncts Creditors was null because the Executor Creditor was not called thereto albeit Decreet was obtainedâ— at the Instance of that Creditor against another Executor in a former Process Lady Muswal Elder contra Lady Muswal Younger February 15. 1662. IN a Contention betwixt the Lady Muswall Elder and Younger upon two Annualrents out of one Barony The Lords Ordained the first Annualrenter to do Diligence within twenty days after each Term that after that time the second Annualrenter might do Diligence or otherwise at her option Ordained the Lands to be divided conform to the Rents Proportionably as the two Annualrents The second Annualrent and the first to take her choise Laird of Pitfoddels contra Laird of Glenkindy Eodem die IN the Revieu of a Decreet in one thousand six hundred fiftie nine at the Instance of the Laird of Pitfoddels against the Laird of Glenkindyâ— in which Decreet Glenkindy Cedents Oath having been taken that the Cause of the Bond was for an Assignation to a Wodset which was excluded by Apprizing after Report whereof Glenkindy the Assigny alleadged that his Cedents Oath could not prejudge him and it being Answered that he made no Objection before the Oath taken neither could make any Just Objection because the Oath of the Cedent any time before Intimationâ— is sufficient against the Assigny Glenkindy Answered that his being called in that Process as Assigny and compearing and Insisting as Assigny was an intimation which was before taking of the Oath which was found Relevant in the said Decreet and now rescinded by the Lords upon this consideration that the Citation being ad hunc offectum to instruct the cause of the Bond the insisting in that pursuite could not be such an intimation as to exclude the Cedents Oath Earl of Bedfoord contra Lord Balmirino February 18. 1662. THE Earl of Bedfoord for satisfaction of his Tocher due by his Father in Law the deceast Earl of Sommerset caused Adjudge in the name of a Person intrusted all Right compent to the Earl of Summerset of the Estate of Iedburgh and being Assigned to the Adjudication pursues the Lord Balmirino for denuding himself of two Apprisings of the Estate of Jedburgh conform to three Back-bonds produced granted by umquhile Balmirino to Summerset acknowledging that he had acquired Right to these Apprysings with Summersets own Money and therefore oblidged him to denude himself thereof The Defender alleadged that his Father being intrusted by the late Earl of Summerset to acquire the Estate of Iedburgh and having the Fee thereof in his Person the Defender is not oblidged to denude himself untill he be Re-imbursed and satisfied of all Sums of Money which after the said Back-bonds he payed for Summerset or advanced to Summerset which can only be accompted to have been in Contemplation of the Trust and is particularly so exprest in Summersets Letters produced bearing that Balmirino should be satisfied of what was due to him out of Tiviotdale whre the said Estate of Iedburgh lyes The Pursuer answered non relâ—vat against him as a singular Successor 2dly Non competit by way of Exception but the Defender hath only Action therefore especially this Trust being fidei-comissum which is a kind of Deposition in which there is neither Compensation nor Retentation competent 3dly there can be here no Compensation because the Debt is not Liquid The Defender answered his Defense stands must Relevant which he founds not upon Compensation but upon the Exception of Retentation which is competent in all Mandats and Trusts by which as there is a
Direct Action in favour of the Mandator against the Mandatar or Person intrusted so there is a contrare Action in favours of the Mandatar for satisfying of all that he hath expended by Reason of the Trust and which he may make use of beway of Exception of Retention if he be pursued and whatsomever by in Relation to Compensation in deposito by the civil Law or of the difference of Action and Exception yet thereby they and by our un contraverted Custom whatever is competent by way of Action is Competent by Exception and if this be not receavable by Exception it is utterly lost because there is none to represent Summerset The Lords considering that Balmirino's Estate was disponed and Apprysed by his Vncle the Lord Couper and William Purvis the Reversion whereof was shortly to expire which they would not lengthen and that by an accompt running to the expire of these Reversions the Pursuer being a Stranger might be frustrat therefore they Repelled the Defense but declared that Estate or benefit that Bedfoord should make thereby should be lyable to Balmirino for what Debt he should instruct to be due by Sommerset and withall supersâ—â—eded the Extract fâ—r a time that if in the meane time Balmirino should cause Couper and Purvis Restrict their Rights to as much Rents as would pay their Annualrents and secure Bedfoord in the rest of his Estate and in a certain Bond produced for what should be found due They would sustain the Defense by Exception and Ordain Compt and Reckoning Lord Carnagy contra Lord Cranburn February 19. 1662. THE Lord Carnagie being Infeft in the Barony of Dirltoun upon a Gift of Recognition by the KING pursues a Declarator of Recognition against the Lord Cranburn because the late Earl of Dirltoun holding the said Barony Ward of the KING had without the KING'S consent alienat the same to Cranburn and thereby the Lands had Re-cognized The Defender alleadged First No Process because he is minor non tenetur placitare super haereditate paterna Secondly The Re-cognition is incurred by the ingratitude and Delinquence of the Vassal yet delicta morte extinguntur so that there being no other Sentence nor Litiscontestation against Dirltoun in his own Life it is now extinct which holds in all Criminal and Penal Cases except in Treason only by a special Act of Parliament The Lords Repelled both the Defenses The First in respect that the Defender is not Heir but singular Successor and that there is no question of the validity of his Predecessors Right in competition with any other Right but the Superiours The other because Recognition befalls not as a Crime but as a Condition implyed in the nature of the Right that if the Vassal alienat his Fee becomes void Children of Wolmet contra Mr. Mark Ker. Eodem die IN a Declarator of Redemption at the the Instance of the Children VVolmet against Mr. Mark Ker. It was found that the Declarator needed not be continued though the Pursuer produced not the Reversion but an attestat double thereof and offered to prove that the principal Reversion was in the Defenders hands Which was sustained the Pursuers Right being an Appryzing Earl of Calender contra Andrew Monro February 20. 1662. THE Earl of Calender pursues Andrew Monro of Beercrofts for the valued Teind Duty of his Lands several years who alleadged absolvitor for the Teinds intrometted with by his Author preceeding his Right The Pursuer Replyed that Teinds being valued are like an Annualrent and are debiti fundi by the Act of Parliament 1633. anent Valuations The Teind-masters being appointed to be Infeft in the Right of the Teind according to the Valuation The Lords found the Defense Relevant and found the Teind not to be debitum fundi albeit valued Halbâ—rt Irvin contra Mackertnay Februarie 24. 1662. THis day in a Spulzie betwixt Halbert Irvin and Mackertnay The Defender principally called having proponed a Defense upon a Disposition and Delivery of the Goods in question and craving to prove the same by others of the Defenders called as accessory as necessary Witnesses alleadging that the Pursuer had called all that were present upon the ground as accessories that thereby he should get no Witnesses The Lords Ordained the Pursuer in the Spulzie to declare whether he would insist against these others as accessory or as applying any of the Goods to their own behove or if he would not allowed them to be received as Witnesses and if he did insist against them Ordained the Processe against the principal Partie to fist till the accessions were discussed that such of them as were assoilzied might be used as Witnesses Alexander Arbuthnet of Fiddes contra Keiths February 25. 1662. ALezander Arbuthnet of Fiddes pursues Keiths the two Daughters of John Keith and their Husbands for the avail of their Marriages belonging to him as Donatar by the Earl of Marischal their Superiour The Defenders alleadged First No Process because nothing produced to instruct that the Lands were Waird or that the Earl of Marischal is Superiour Secondly absolvitor from that Conclusion of the Summonsâ— craving not only the Ground to be Poynded for the avail of the Tocher but also the Defenders personally to pay the same Thirdly Absolvitor because the Earl of Marischal consented to the Defenders Marriage in so far as he is Witness in the Contract The Lords repelled all these Alleadgances The First in respect that Waird is presumed where the contrair is not alleadged and the Defender did not disclaim the Earl of Marischal as his Superiour The Second because they found that the avail of the Marriage did not follow the Value of the Land holden Waird but the Parties other Means and Estates also so that the avail of the Marriage might be much more worth then the profite of the Waird Land and therefore behoved not only to affect the Ground but the Heir or appearand Heir personally And as to the other Defense of the Earls consent it was after this Granted and was only as Witness neither is the profite of the Marriage as to the single avail taken away by having of the Superiours tacit consent but is a Casuality simply belonging to him which cannot be taken from him unless id agebâ—tur to renunce the benefite thereof yet it seems that the Superiour consenting to his Vassals Marriage can crave no greater Avail then the Vassal gets of Tocher Brown contra Iohnstoun February 26. 1662. BRown having obtained Decreet against Archibald Iohnstoun of Clachrie for two hundred pounds Sterling He raises Reduction and Review upon this Reason that the ground of the said Decreet was a Bill of Exchange drawn by Johnstoun to be payed by Mukgown in Blackainor-fair in England Ita est the alleadged Bill is null not Designing the Writer nor having any Witnesses neither hath it the Subscription of Johnstoun nor the Initial Letters of his Name but only a mark most easily Initiable which is Written about with an unknown hand Archibald Johnstoun
his mark it being reasoned amongst the Lords whether this could be accompted a Writ Probative and it being alleadged an Astruction thereof that this Johnstoun being a Merchant and a Drover was accustomed ordinarly so to Subscribe and to give Bills for far greater Sums then this The Lords thought it would be sufficient amongst Merchants though it wanted Witnesses but being unwilling via ordinaria to allow of such a Writ or Subscription for which we have neither Custom nor Decision Yet in respect of the Decreet and of the alleadged Custom so to Subscribe They before answer ordained the Oaths ex officio to be taken of the Writer of the Bill if he could be condescended on by either Party and of the Witnesses who saw Johnstoun Write this mark or receive the Money for which the Bill was granted Creditors of Kinglassie Competings Eodem die IN a Competition betwixt the Creditors of Hamiltoun of Kinglassie It was alleadged for William Hume who had Right to an Annualrent that he ought to be preferred to Joseph Lermont who stood publickly Infeft in the Property in Anno 1655. because albeit the Annualrent of it self was base yet long before it was validat by a Decreet for Poynding of the Ground It was answered that there was no way to make a base Infeftment valide but by Possession here there could be no Possession because the Annualrent was granted to take effect only after the Granters Death and the Decreet thereupon was obtained long before his Death and so could be repute no Possession The Lords were of Opinion that the foresaid Decreet of Poynding of the Ground upon the base Infeftment Ordaining the Ground to be Poynded the Terms of payment being come and bygone was sufficient to validate the base Infeftment and that thereby it remained no more a private Clandestine Infeftment by many other Questions falling in The Matter was laid aside without Decision vide February 27. 1667. Inter eosdem John Kinard contra Laird of Fenzies Eodem die JOhn Kinard pursues a Declarator of Property of a Myre or Marish in the Carss of Gowrie against the Laird of Fenzies who had his Land on the other side thereof alleadging that he and his Predecessors and Authors have been fourty years in Possession of the Myre as proper Part and Pertinent of the Barony of Rossie and that the same is severally kend and known by March and Meith and a Dyke inclosing it from the Defenders Lands It was alleadged for the Defender that he his Predecessors and Authors this fourty years has been in Possession of the said Myre by doing all the Deeds Libelled by the Pursuer which must give them Right at least of common Passurage Fail and Divot therein and therefore craves the Defense to be found Relevant and admitted to his Probation at least that a Cognition might be by an Inquest conform to the Act of Parliament and Witnesses led hinc inde The Pursuer Replyed that he offers him to prove that by the space of fourty years he his Predecessors and Authors Possessed the said Myre not only by the Deeds Libelled but also did divide the same in several Parcels to each Tennent in the Barony and was accordingly Possessed by them which is sufficient to show that they bruiked the same as Property and not a promiscuous Commonty And as for the Defenders Alleadgances of Commonty by common Pasturage c. The same ought to be Repelled because the Pursuer offers him to prove that he interrupted and debarred the Defender from time to time which hindered him to Acquire a Right of Commonty by Possession and Prescription and he cannot alleadge that he hath any other Right by express Infeftment and therefore being so much more pregnant then the Defender there ought to be no Cognition but he preferred in Probation The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Libel and Reply but granted Commission to one of their number to Examine Witnesses for the Pursuer omni exceptione majores after which the Defender passing from his Compearance The Lords Declared they would give the Extract of the Interlocutor to the Pursuer and give his Libel and Reply by way of Condescendence and Declaration of the manner of the Property and of his Possession to his Probation Viscount of Stormount contra Heirs of Line and Creditors of the Earl of Annandale Eodem die THE Viscount of Stormont pursues a Declarator against the Heirs of Line of Umquhil James Earl of Annandale and several Creditors of the said Umquhil Earl who had Appryzed the Lordship of Skoon and were Infeft thereupon to hear and see it found and declared that David Viscount of Stormount had Disponed these Lands to Mungo Viscount of Stormount his Brother and the Heirs-male of his Body which failzing to Andrew Lord Balvaird and the Heirs-male of his Body c. with this express provision in the Charter and repeated verbatum in the Seasine that it should not be leisom to the said Mungo or any of the Heirs of Tailzie for the time to alienate the Lands or alter the Tailzie or to do any Deed whereby the same may be evicted or Apprized from the Heirs of Tailzie otherwise their Right should expire and should belong to the next Heir of the Contraveener and that thereby Iames Earl of Annandale last Infeft had contraveened the said Clauses by contracting thir Debts whereupon the Lands were Apprised and thereby had lost his Right and that the saids Creditors Bonds and their Apprizings are thereby null and void and likewise that the said Iames Earl of Annandale his Retour was null and that the Pursuer might yet Enter as Heir to Mungo Viscount of Stormont as if the said Iames Earl of Annandale had never been Infeft The Defender alleadged First No Proses in this Order without a Reduction without which no Infeftment can be taken away The Lords Repelled this Alleadgence and found that a Declarator was al 's effectual as a Reduction when all was produced that was necessar to be produced before the ground of Nullity were Discussed with which all the rest will fall in consequence and that Reduction was only necessar to force tho Defenders to produce by the Certification but if the Defender would produce himself he might proceed by way of Declarator of Nullity Secondly The Defender alleadged no Processes because by the Co-ception of the Clauses irritant the Rights is declared to belong to the nearest Heir of the Contraveener and therefore the Pursuer as served Heir-male general to Andrew Lord Balvaird hath no Interest till he be served Heir-male to Iames Earl of Annandale the Contraveener in which case he cannot quarrel his Deeds or Debts The Pursuer answered that by Heir here cannot be understood the Heir actually served but the Person only that might be Heir for the Pursuer insisted in this same Processes against the Earl of Annandale when he was living and could not have been then excluded because he was not his heir
appearand Heir alioqui successurus because vita presumitur The Pursuer answered the Defense was not Relevant unless the Defender would be positive that the time of the Disposition his Elder Brother was on life especially seing he had been out of the Countrey twenty years and was commonly holden and repute to be Dead The Lords sustained the Defense that the Elder Brother was on life the time of the Disposition and reserved to their own consideration the Probation in which if the Defender proved simply that his Brother was actually living the time of the Disposition there would remain no question and if he prove that he was living about that time they would consider whether in this Case the presumption of his being yet living should be probative Paâ—rick Herron contra Martein Stevenson Iune 17. 1662. PAtrick Herron having obtained Decreet of Removing against Martein Stevinson he Suspends on this Reason that the Decreet was not upon Litiscontestation but a time being Assigned to the Suspender to find Caution for the violent Profits and he failing was Decerned without being admitted to any Defense and now alleadges that he ought not to remove because he obtained Decreet of Adjudication of the Lands in question against the common Author and thereupon charged the Superiour long before the Chargers Decreet of Adjudication or Infetment The Charger answered that the Reason ought to be Repelled because the Decreet was given against the Defender compearing and failing as said is Secondly The Charger stands Infeft upon his Adjudication The Pursuer was never Infeft neither did he use all Diligence to get himself Infeft not having Denunced the Superiour and in case he had Suspended Discussing the Suspension The Lords found the Reason Relevant and Proven and Suspended because they found no necessity for an Appryzer to use further Diligence against the Superiour then the Charge of Horning unless the Superiour had Suspended both and that in competition the other Party had done greater Diligence Earl of Marischal contra Charles Bray Iune 18. 1662. THe Earl of Marischal having obtained Decreet in his own Baron Court against Bray compearing for a years Rent of his Maines of Dunnottor herein he had been possest by the English Bray Suspends and alleadges compensation upon a Bond assigned to him due by the Charger who answered competent and omitted and so not receivable in the second Instance especially being Compensation which by special Act of Parliament is not to be admitted in the second Instance The Lords Sustained the Reason of Compensation and found that a Baron Court was not such a Iudicature as that Alleadgences competent and omitted that should be Repelled in the second Instance Mr. Iohn Wallace contra Forbes Iune 19. 1662. RObert and William Forbeses and Heugh Wallace being bound in a Bond as Co-principals Heugh Wallace being Distressed for all consigned the Sum to this Chargers Son Forbes Suspends on this Reason that there is no Clause of Relief in the Bond and Wallace being Debitor in solidum and having gotten Assignation confusione tollitur obligatio The Charger answered that though there was no Clauses of Relief hoc iâ—est where many Parties are bound conjunctly and severally that each is oblieged to relieve others The Lords Repelled the Reason of Suspension for the Suspenders part and found them lyable therefore but not for the other Co-principal Parties Isobel Drummond contra Iean Skeen Eodem die ISobel Drummond pursues Iean Skeen as behaving her self as Heir to her Brother Iames Skeen by uplifting the Mails of the Lands wherein he Dyed Infeft to fulfill her Contract of Marriage with Iames. The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the uplifted those Duties by vertue of her Infeftment being Served Heir to Iohn Skeen Son to Iames Skeen the Pursuers Debitor who was Infeft not as Heir to his Father Iames but as Heir to her Good-sire The Pursuer answered in respect to the Defenders Seasine or to Iohn Skeens which were evidently null seing Iames Skeen was Infeft and so John could not pass over him to his Goodsire and if any regard were to such Infeftment it would open a Door to all Fraud and abstracting of Defuncts Creditors Evidents The Lords found the Defense Relevant to purge this viticus passive Title seing the fâ—â—â—zie was not in this Defender but in John Skeen his Brother Son but prejudice to Reduce as accords but ordained her to Renunce to be Heir to James that Adjudications might be obtained Mr. Alexander Vernor contra George Allan June 24. 1662. MR. Alexander Vernor as Executor to Mr. David Calderwood Charges George Allane to pay a part of the Defuncts Stipend as he who intrometted with the Teinds of the Lands lyable therefore whereupon he had obtained Decreet The Suspender alleadged that the Decreet was in absence and any intromission he had was only as a Merchant having bought from Sir Alexander Auchmutty the Heretor to whom he made payment bona fida before any Arrestment or Pursuit against him The Charger answered non Relevat because the Suspender is oblieged to know that by Law the Teinds are lyable for the Ministers Stipend Secondly He offers him to prove that the Suspender did not make his Bargain for so many Bolls of Victual but that he took Disposition of the Corns ipsa corpora before they were drawn The Lords found the answer Relevant to elide the Reason and found the Defender lyable for the tenth part of the Cornes he bought Robert Hay contra Hoom of Blackburn Eodem die RObert Hay Tailzior pursues Hoom of Blackburn as representing his Father upon all the passive Titles to pay a Debt of his Fathers The Defender alleadged absolvitor because there was nothing produced to instruct the Debt but an Extract out of the Register bearing the Bond to have been Registrated by his Fathers consent whereas it is nottour and acknowledged by the Summons that his Father was Dead long before the Date of the Registration The Pursuer answered the Extract is sufficient to instruct the verity of the Bond being in a publick Register of the Session alb it the Defunct was Dead the time of the Registration which might have been the Creditors mistake and cannot prejudge them seing vitapresumitur especially now when through the loss of the Registers principal Writs cannot be gotten The Defender opponed his Defense and the Decisions of the Lords lately in the like case concerning the Earl of Errol because nothing can instruct against any man but either a Writ Subscribed by him or the Sentence of a Judge upon Citation or consent and this is neither The Lords refused the Extract simply but ordained the Pursuer to condescend upon Adminicles for instructing thereof either by Writ or Witnesses who saw the Bond c. of Woodhead contra Barbara Nairn Eodem die WOodhead pursues Barbara Nairn for the Mails and Duties of certain Lands The Pursuer alleadged absolvitor because she Defender stands Infeft in Liferent of these Lands It was Replyed The Defenders Husband
Disponed these Lands to the Pursuer with her consent Subscribing the Disposition It was Duplyed The Defenders Subscription and Consent was Extorted metus causa whereupon she has Action of Reduction depending and holds the production satisfied with the Writs produced and repeates her Reason by way of Duply viz. if she was compelled by her Husband it was by just fear because she offered to prove by Witnesses that he threatned her to consent or else he should do her a mischief and that he was a fierce man and had many times beaten her and shut her out of Doors and offered to prove by the Nortar and Witnesses Insert that at the time of the Subscription she declared her unwillingness The Lords found the Defense and Duply Relevant David Wilkie contra Sir Andrew Ker. Eodem die DAvid Wilkie and others Tacks-men of the Castoms Charged Sir Andrew Ker for the Tack-Duty of the Customs of the Border Anno 1650. Set by them to him he Suspends and alleadges by the publick Calamity of the English Entry in Anno 1650. in Iuly Traffick was hindered and by the Kings Proclamation against Commerce with these The Charger answered it was a Casuallity ex natura rei and that they had payed without Defalcation and the Suspender had profit in former years The Lords before answer Ordained the Suspender to Compt upon what benefit he got in Anno 1650. and what Profite above the Tack-duty in former years Adamsons contra Lord Balmerino Iune 26. 1662. ADamsons being Infeft in an old Annualrent out of two Tenements in Leith and having thereupon obtained Decreet of Poynding the Ground in Anno 1661. and insisting for poinding one of the Tennents Goods now belonging to the Lord Balmerino for the whole Annualrent Balmerino Suspends on these Reasons First The Heretor against whom the Decreet of poinding was obtained and all the Tennents were Dead and therefore it can receive no summar Execution against the present Heretor and his Tennents but there must be a new Decreet against them Secondly Balmerino hath peaceably possessed this Tenement twenty or thirty years and thereby hath the Benefit of a possessory Judgement by which his Infeftment cannot be questioned without Reduction and Declarator Thirdly The Englishes possessed this Tenement several years by the publick Calamity of War and therefore there must be Deduction of these years Annualrents as is frequently done in Feu-duties Fourthly The two Tenements being now in the hands of different singular Successors Balmerino's Tenement can only be poinded for a part of the Annualrent The Pursuer answered that Poinding of the ground is actorialis chiefly against the Ground and therefore during the Obtainers Life it is valued not only against the ground while it belonged to these Heretors and Possessors but against the same in whosoever hands it be that the Moveable Goods therein or the Ground Right thereof may be Apprized To the second Annualrents are debita fundi and a Possessory Judgement takes neither place for them nor against them To the third though in some cases Feu-duties ceass by Devestation that was never extended to Annualrents due for the profit of a Stock of Money To the fourth the Annualrent being out of two Tenements promiscuously The Annualrenter may Distress any part for the whole in whosoever hands the Tenement may be The Lords Repelled all these Defenses but superceded Execution for one half of the Annualrent for a time and Ordained the Suspender to give Commission to Balmerino to put the Decreet in Execution against the other Tenements for its proportion for his relief medio tempore Wilson contra Thomson Eodem die WIlson having obtained Decreet against Thomson for poinding of the Ground of a Tenement of Land Thomson Suspends on this Reason that the Chargers Infeftment is base and before it was cled with Possession the Suspender was publickly Infeft and thereby excludes the base Infeftment though prior The Charger answered that the Reason ought to be repelled because he had used Citation upon the base Infeftment before the publick Infeftment by which Citation res fuit letigiosa The Lords Repelled the Reason in respect of the Answer and found the base Infeftment validat by the Citation whereupon the Decreet followed Ruthven contra Laird of Gairn Iune 27. 1662. THe Laird of Gairn having Infeft his Son in his Estate reserving his own Liferent after his Sons Death his Oye pursues him for an Aliment out of the Estate conform to the Act of Parliament appointing the Heir to be Entertained by the Donatars to the Ward Conjunct-feears or Liferenters thereof The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Act of Parliament cannot be extended to his case who voluntarly Infeft his Son in his Estate with the burden of his Liferent Secondly If any Aliment were due the Mother who is Liferenter must bear her part Thirdly Aliment is only due where the Heir hath no other means But here the Heir hath a Stock of Money which though Liferented by his Mother yet he may Entertain himself out of the Stock The Pursuer answered First That the Act of Parliament anent Alimenting of Heirs is generally against Liferenters without exception Secondly The Disposition by the Defender to the Son was for a Tocher worth all the Estate he then had wherefore no part was Liferented by the Son or his Wife the Pursuers Mother but only a sum of Money which came by her self and there is no reason that the Stock thereof should be exhausted for the Pursuers Aliment the Defender having now succeeded to a plentiful Estate The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Replyes Mr. David Watson contra Mr. Iames Ellies Eodem die MR. David Watson having acquired Right to the Superiority of Stenhouse milne pursues the Feuers for their Feu-duties who alleadge First no Process the Lands in Question being Kirk-lands Disponed to a Lord of Erection and it is declared that the Lords of Erection having only right to the Feu-duty till they be Redeemed by the KING at ten Years purchase by the Act of Parliament thereanent in Anno 1633. And thereby none have Right but such as subscribed the submission surrendring their Interest in the KING'S hands untill the Pursuer Instruct that his Author did subscribe the said submission he hath no Interest Secondly absolvitor from the Feu-duties 1650. and 1651. Because the Lands were wasted these Years by publik calamity of War Thirdly absolvitor from Harrage and Carrage because all Services are reserved to the KING by the said Act of Parliament The Lords assoilzied from Harrage and Carrage but differed for the Feu-duty being smal and found no necessity for the Pursuer to instruct that this Author did subscribe the Surrender after so long time but that the same was presumed for his so long bruiking the Fee Sir William Wilson contra Sir William Murray Eodem die WIlson having Apprysed Sir William Murrays Estate pursues him and his Tenents for Mails and Duties who alleadged that by the Act
of Parliament 1661. anent Debitor and Creditor the Lords are impowred to restrict Apprysers to a part of their Lands Apprysed sufficient for the Annualrent and to leave the rest to the Debitor The Lords did accordingly restrict but give the Appryser his option of any of the Apprysed Lands except the Debitors House and Mains paying eight per cent effeiring to the Sum Apprysed for the Appryser being comptable for the superplus above the Annualrent and publick burdensâ— Dame Margret Hay contra George Seaton of Barnes Iune 28. 1662. UMquhile Sir Iohn Seatoun of Barnes having provided George Seaton his son by his Contract of Marriage to his lands of Barnes some diferences rose amongst them upon the fulfilling of some Conditions in the Contract for setling thereof there was a minute extended by a Decreet of the Judges in Anno 1658. by which the said Dame Margaret Hay second Wife to the said Sir Iohn was provided to an hundred pound sterling in Liferent and it was provided that Sir John might burden the Estate with ten thousand merks to any Person he pleased to which George his Son did consent and oblidged himself to be a principal Disponer Sir Iohn assigned that Clause and destinat that Provision for Hendrie Seaton his Son in Fee and for the said Dame Margaret Hay in Liferent whereupon she obtained Decreet before the Lords the last Session George suspends the Decreet and raises Reduction on this Reasonâ— that the foresaid Clause gave only power to Sir Iohn to burden the Estate with a 10000. merks in which case George was to Consent and Dispone which can only be understood of a valid Legal and Effectual burden thereof but this Assignation is no such burden because it is done in lecto egreditudinis and so cannot prejudge George who is Heir at least appearand Heir to his Father The Charger answered that the Reason was no way relevant First because this Provision was in favours of the Defuncts Wife and Children and so is not a voluntar Deed but an Implement of the natural obligation of providing these 2dly This Provision as to the Substance of it is made in the Minute and extended Contract in the Fathers health and there is nothing done on Death-bed but the Designation of the Person which is nothing else then if a Parent should in his life time give out Sums payable to his Bairns leaving their names blank and should on Death-bed fill up their names The Suspender answered that he opponed the Clause not bearing de presenti a burden of the Land but a Power to his Father to burden neither having any mention of Death-bed or in articulo mortis or at any time during his life and though the Dead on Death-bed be in favours of Wife and Children it hath never been sustained by the Lords in no time though some have thought it the most favourable Case The Lords sustained the Provision and Repelled the Reason of Reduction assoilzied therefrom and found the Letters Orderly proceeded Dorathie Gray contra Oswald Eodem die UMquhile Mr Iohn Oswald having Married Dorathie Gray in England did at the time of their Contract grant an English Bond of a 1000 lib. Sterling to the said Dorathies Mother and on Wilson ad opus usum dictae Doratheae the Condition of which Obligation is that if Mr. Iohn shal pay the saids intrusted Person the Sum of 600 lib. Sterling or shall secure the said Dorathie in Lands or Cattels worth thesaid Sum of 600 lib. in in his life time or be his Testament Then he shall be free of the 1000 lib. Mr. Iohn granted Assignation to the said Dorathie of 5500 merk due to him by the Earl of Lauderdale bearing expresly the same to be for Implement of the Bond and Assigning both principal Sum and Annualrent Dorathie confirmed her self Executrix to her husband gives up this Bond and obtains Decreet against Lauderdale who calls Dorathie on the one part and the appearand Heir and Creditor of the said Mr. John on the other part It was alleadged for the appearand Heir and Creditors that they ought to be preferred to the Stock of the Sum because the Clause ad opus usum could only be understood to be for Dorathies Liferent use and not in Fee and as for the Assignation it was on Death-bed and so could operat nothing in their prejudice It was answered for the said Dorathie that she opponned the Clause The meaning thereof was no other but that her Mother and Wilson were Creditors in trust to the use and behove of her and could not be a Liferent Right because it was provided to her her Heirs Executors and Assigneys and as to the Assignation though on Death-bed yet it may very well be used as an Adminacle to clear the meaning of the Parties The Lords found the Clause to carrie the Stock of the Money and preferred Dorathie and it being thereafter offered to be proven that by the Custom of England such Clauses signifie only the Liferent use The Lords repelled the alleadgance in respect of the Clause being provided to Dorathies Heirs and Assignies and in respect of the clearing meaning thereof by the Testament would not delay the Process upon the proving the Custome of England the matter being clear in the contrair William Baillie contra Margaret Henderson and Ianet Iameson Iuly 1. 1662. BY Minute of Contract betwixt Umquhile Iameson and Baillie Baillie oblidged himself to Infeft Iameson in a Tenement for which Iameson oblidged himself to pay three thousand merks of price Iameson being dead without any further progress upon the Minute Baillie pursues the said Margaret Henderson as Executrix to him and the said Ianet Iameson as Heir to pay him the price It was alleadged for the Executor absolvitor because the bargain being incompleat the Heir must perfit it and dispone the Tenement and so can only be lyable for the price for by the performance of mutual Minute the Heir will only get the Land and therefore the Executor should not be lyable for the price or at least if the Executrix be decerned to pay the price The Pursuer must dispone to her the third part of the Tenement in Fee and the two part to the Heir she being the only Child and having Right to the two third parts of the Moveables which Moveables being exhausted by the Price of the Tenement the Tenement ought to come in place of the price The Pursuer answered that he could dispone no otherwise then according to the Minute but the Executrix might betake her recourse against the Heir as she pleased but both as representing the Defunct were lyable to him The Lords decerned the Executrix to make payment and would not bring the Debitor betwixt the Heir and her in this Process for the third of the Tenement or for her Terce thereof but reserved the same as accords Breidy contra Breidy and Muire Eodem die A Contract of Marriage was sustained both against Principal and Cautioner albeit
Nottar as Town Clerk for the time The Lords sustained the alleadgeance to prefer Mackitrick The Executors Mr. Iames Fairly Minister of Leswald contra the Parochiners Iuly 5. 1662. THE Executors of Mr. Iames Fairly having obtained Decreet before the Comissaries against the Parochiners for the Ann as being the hail Year 1658. In respect the Minister died in February in the Year 1658. The Decreet was Suspended on this Reason that the Ann could only be half a Year seeing the Minister died before the Sowing of the Cropt or Whitsonday because if a Minister serve after Whitsonday he has the half of that years Stipend albeit he be Transported or Deposed otherwayes if a Minister should serve the whole Year till Michalmass day and then be Transported or Deposed he should get nothing so that the Ann being half a years Stipend more then the Minister served for he having only survived till Michalmes 1657. Has only the right to the Michalmes proprio jurae and half a Year thereafter as the Ann. The Charger answered That in Teinds and Stipends there are not two Terms but Michalmes for all and therefore if the Incumbent be disposed or transported before Michalmes he has nothing that Year but if he die after Michalmes any time before the beginning of the nixt Year proprio jure he has the Year he died in and the half of the next as his Ann but if he live till Ianuary in the year ensuing he has that whole year as his Ann. Which the Lords found relevant and therefore the Lords found the Letters orderly proceeded Duncan Drummond contra Colline Campbel Eodem die DVncan Drummond pursues Colline Campbel for payment of a Debt of his Fathers because in a Writ betwixt his Father and him The Father had Disponed all his moveables to him and he had undertaken his Fathers Debt whereby the Pursuer as Creditor had interest to pursue him to pay this Debt The Defender having alleadged that the Band and Disposition was never a delivered Evident either to the Father or to the Son but two blanks subscribed by them both were put in the hands of a Nottar to fill up the Bond and Disposition but before delivery both Parties resyled and desired the Nottar to Cancell and Destroy them yet Eight or Nine Years after the Nottar gave them up to this Pursuer and neither to the Father nor to the Son and the Question being how this should be proven The Lords before answer Ordained the Nottar and Witnesses insert to be examined ex Officio which being done their Testimonies proved as is alleadged before Then the Question was in jure whether the Depositation of Writs could be proven any other way then by the Oath of the Partie in whose favours the Writs were conceived he having the same in his hands The Lords found that seeing these two Writs were not produced by the Father nor the Son by and to whom they were mutually granted but by a third Partie in whose favours a Clause therein was conceived in that case the deposition probable by the Writer and Witnesses insert and by the saids Testimonies found the Writs null Robert Bones contra Barclay of Iohnstoun Iuly 9. 1662. RObert Bones having arrested certain Goods and Bestial as belonging to Iohn Wood his Debitor in the hands of Barclay pursues for making the same forthcoming The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Goods Lybelled the time of the Arrestment were the Defender proper Goods Disponed to him by the said Iohn Wood for anterior Rests and Debts and delivered also before the Arrestment It was Replyed The Defense ought to be repelled because Wood the Disponer was Rebell and at the Horn before the delivery of the Goods at the Pursuers instance and whereby the Tradition being after the Horning the Disposition is null as being incompleat before the Horning and after the Horning the Rebel could do nothing to prejudge the KING or his Donatar or the Pursuer for the Debt whereupon he was denuded which by the Act of Parliament one thousand six hundred twenty one affects the Escheat Goods ubicunque The Defender answered That the Reply is not Relevant unless it were alleadged that the Horning had been before the Disposition for it is lawful for Creditors either to Poynd Arrest or take Dispositions of their Debitors Goods though Rebel being for Debts anterior to the Horning if the Disposition and Delivery be prior to Declarator neither can the Act of Parliament one thousand six hundred twenty one against Dispositions in defraud of Creditors operat here because the Disposition is anterior to the Horning and for an onerous cause The Lords found the Defense Relevant notwithstanding the Reply Laird of Lamertoun contra Hume of Kaimes Iuly 10. 1662. HOom of Kaimes being Infeft upon an Appryzing of the Lands of Northfield led against Lamertoun pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties and obtains Decreet which was Suspended and Reduction thereof raised on this Reason that it was spreta authoritate judicis there being an Advocation judicially produced before the Sheriff before pronouncing at least before the Extracting of this Decreet in so far as the Suspender came to the Sheriff Court at the ordinar time of the Court Day at eleven hours and produced the Advocation but the Sheriff had fitten down that Day contrair his Custom at ten hours and had pronounced the Decreet before eleven hours The Charger answered non Relevat that the Advocation was produced before Extract not being before Sentence pronounced because albeit inferiour Judges are accustomed sometimes to stop their own Decreets after they are pronounced before Extracting yet sententia definitiva est ultimus actus judicis and the Extract is but the Clerks part so that it can be no contempt albeit the Judge would not prohibite the Extract and as to theâ— other Member that the Sheriff sat his Court an hour before the ordinar time non Relevat unless he did it of purpose to anticipat this Advocation The Lordâ— found the first member of the Reason that the Advocation was produced before Extract after Sentence non Relevat and as to the other member they found it relevant as it is circumstantiat to infer that it was done of purpose to anticipat the Advocation without necessity to prove otherwayes the purpose and in that case declared if the same were proven they would turn the Decreet in a Libel Iohn Ker contra Ker of Fernilee and others Eodem die IOhn Ker having granted a Bond whereupon he being Charged to Enter Heir to several persons his Predecessors and having renounced their Lands were adjudged John took Assignation to the Adjudication himself and pursues the Defenders for exhibition of the Rights and Evidents of the Lands and Delivery thereof The Defender alleadged absolvitor First Because the pursuit being upon the Pursuers own Bond now again Assigned to himself confusione tollitur obligatio The Lords Repelled this Defense Secondly absolvitor because the Pursuer can have no Interest upon
because he represents Frazer of Phillorth his Grand-father who Disponed the Lands in question to Doors and was oblieged to infeft him and did de facto resign in the Kings hands in his favour and so personally objection umquhil Phillorth Doors Author would be for ever excluded from objecting against Doors Right which flowed from him so neither can the Defender who represents him object against the Pursuer who is Successor in Door 's Rights The Defender answered that being called albeit he had no Right in his Person he might propone a Defense upon a Nullity in the Pursuers Right viz. that it is a non habente potestaâ—mâ— which is very competent here by exception This Declaâ—ator â—eing judicium petitorium wherein he may well repeat this Defense without necessiâ—y to call Doors because Doors being called in the Improbation all Infeftments in his Person are Improven for not production and so the Reason is instantly verified and albeit he were Successor to his Grand-father which he denys yet he may well alleadge that any Right flowing from his Grand-Father is personal and incompleat and can be no ground of Declarator of Property The Lords repelled the Defenses and found it not competent to the Defender to quarrel the Pursuers Authors Right unless he had a better Right Skeen contra Lumsdean Iuly 19. 1662. SKeen having Charged Alexander Lumsdean upon a Bond granted by Mr. Thomas Lumsdean as principal and the said Alexander as Cautioner he Suspends on this Reason that the cause of the Bond was Bills of Exchange drawn by Verhage upon Kezar in Camphire to be payed to Skeen or his Order which Bills Skeen ordered to be payed to Mr. Thomas Lumsdean's Wife and Mr. Thomas granted the Bond charged on for the saids Bills which Bills were protested upon Kezar's not paying of the Bills as the Protest bears To which protested Bills Mr. Thomas Lumsdean assigned the Suspender and whereupon he now alleadges that he must have allowance of the Bills protested being the cause of the Bond and therefore Skeen himself is lyable for the Bills which must compence the Charger The Pursuer answered that the Reason ought to be repelled because he offered him to prove that albeit the bills were protested for not payment by Kezar on whom they were drawn yet Mr. Thomas Lumsdean having gone back to Verhage who drew them Verhage payed Mr. Thomas and that before the Intimation of the Suspenders Assignation 2ly That Mr. Thomas Lumsdean being Factor in Camphire in his Factor Book upon the 109. page thereof there are four posts of Payment payed by the said Verhage to Mr. Thomas Lumsdean at diverse times conform to the Magistrates of Camphire their report upon the Lords Commission bearing that the said Factors Compt Book is Authentick and unvitiat and that Verhage who drew the Bills and Kezar upon whom they were drawn had both sworn before them that Verhage had payed the same to Lumsdean so the question was upon the manner of probation whereanent the Suspender alleadged 1. That Compt Books not being subscribed were not probative Writs even against the Merchant himself 2ly That at least they cannot prove against the Suspender his Assigney 3ly That they could be no better then Holograph Discharges by the Cedent which cannot instruct their own Date against the Assigney and so cannot prove the same to have been before the Intimation as for the Testimonies of Verhage and Kezar their Testimonies cannot take away Writs and yet are suspected being both Debitors for the Bills and that it was not instructed who write the Book whether Lumsdean himself or his ordinar Book Keeper The Lords found the Probation sufficient against the Assigney the Charger also proving that the Books were written by Lumsdean himself or by his â—rdinar Book-keeper and thought that the Book proved against this Assigney being Mr. Thomas own Brother and no suspition he would wrong him and there being four several Posts of payment in several Months besides the Depositions of the foresaids persons Fiddes contra Iack Iuly 19 1662. FIddes pursues Iack for payment of a Bond of 500. merks which Iack acknowledged to have received in custody form Fiddes to be keeped as his own Iack alleadged that he had but the custody and did conform to his Obligation he sent the Money to Dundee in Anno 1650. where he lost both it and much more of his own at the plunder of Dundee The Pursuer answered no way granting that his Money was lost at Dundee yet it ought not to liberat the Defender because he oft-times required and desired the Defender to pay him his Money before the plundring of Dundee and seing he did not then give it it was lost upon the Defenders hazard The Defender answered that any requisition was made was but verbal without Instrument and that it was made to the Defender being in Edinburgh after this Money and the Defenders whole means was sent to Dundee for safety and that at the time of any such desire he shew the Pursuer so and bid him send for it to Dundee when he pleased he should have it The Lords before answer having ordained Witnesses to be examined hinc inde and having advised the same found that the Pursuer did desire his Money and at that same time the Defender told him it was at Dundee and said he might have it when the pleased to send for it and Witnesses also proved that he was at Dundee and was in esteem as a man of good means then and that he was there aâ—the plunder of Dundee and ever since was in a poor miserable condition and some of them deponed that he had a considerable sum of Money far above this in question there The Question was whether this probation was sufficient to assoilzie albeit none of the Witnesses did particularly Depone that they knew the Pursuers Money to have been at Dundee and lost there Tâ—e Lords found that the probation was sufficient the Pursuer giving his oath in Supplement that it was there and lost there for they considered that at the time of the Pursuers Requisition the Witnesses proved the Defender declared it was there and that ex natura rei it was hard to prove particularly this Mony being a Fungible to have been lost there but that it behoved to be presumed so seing the man lost his whole means there and hath been poor ever since Montgomery of contra Eodem die MR. William Wallace having obtained a Disposition of the Lands of Hagburn from Thomas Hunter he gave a Back-bond oblieging him to sell the same at the best avail and as a part of the price to pay a Bond of Provision to Thoma's Sisters and Brother granted by their Father and having retained his own Sums and such as he was Cautioner for was oblieged to count for the rest and being first pursued before the Englishes and now before the Lords he was decerned to take the Lands at sixteen years purchase and a half and to count
accordingly It was alleadged he could not have allowance of the sums payed to the Brother and Sister because these could not exclude lawful Creditors It was answered for Mr. William he had payed bona fide a part and had given Bond for the rest and could not now be called in question It was answered he was in mala fide because the payment was made after intenting of the Reduction against his Right at the pursuers Authors Instance Mr. William answered non Relevat unless there had been a Reason Libelled in that Reduction against these Bonds The Pursuer answered it was sufficient that Reduction was used against the whole Right to which any Reason might be added The Lords found this alleadgence not Relevent to put Mr. William in mala fide unless there had been a special Reason of Reduction filled up and shown to Mr. William against these Bonds particularly Margaret Anderson and Iohn Elphingstoun contra Mary Wachop Iuly 22. 1662. MArgaret Anderson and Iohn Elphingstoun as heir to Anderson who were the two Daughters of umquhil Mr. David Anderson of Hills pursues Mary Wachop his Relict and Executrix to fulfil an Article of his Contract of Marriage bearing That if there were no Heirs-male of the Marriage he band and oblieged him and his Heirs-male and Successors whatsomever to pay to the Daughters of the Marriage 3000. merks and craved that the Executrix as representing their Father might pay the same The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because it is clear by the Clausses of the Contract that the Father did not bind himself simply or himself and his Heirs but that he bound only himself and his Heirs-male which is the more clear that the Narrative of that Clause bears because his Estate is provided to his Heirs-male The Pursuer answered he opponed the Clause by which he did not only obliege his Heirs-male but himself and his Heirs-male and so in oblieging himself he hath oblieged all that Represent him and he might have been pursued in his own lifetime if his Daughters had come to the age appointed by the provision 2ly He has not only oblieged himself and his Heirs-male but his Successors whatsomever and therefore his Executors The Lords found that by the Tenor of the Clause and Narrative thereof the Defuncts meaning was chiefly to obliege his Heir-male and albeit Successors whatsomever was added yet by the Narrative and the order of the Words they found the Heir-male was first burdened and behoved first to be discussed Therefore ordained the Defender to condescend what the Heir-male had to succeed to and if he was not Entered Heir-male and had nothing to succeed to as Heir-male they thought the Defender would be lyable William Montgomery contra Theoder Montgomery Eodem die WIlliam Montgomery as Donator to the Escheat of Theoder Montgomeryâ— pursues a general and special Declarator in on Libel and insists first in the general The Defender alleadges Absolvitor because the Horning is null the Denunciation being at the Cross of Edinburgh where the Defender had not his Domicile The Pursuer opponed the Horning standing bearing the Defender to dwell in Edinburgh and the Horning could not be taken away by Exception alibi not instantly veryfied The Lords Repelled the Defense but prejudice of Reduction thereupon Secondly Absolvitor from the Rents and Duties of the Lands of Whyteslaid in time coming because these fell not under single Escheat It was Replyed the Defense ought to be Repelled because the jus mariti falls under single Escheat of the Husband and carrys with it per consequence the Liferent of the Wife The Lords was clear that the Replâ— was Relevant but the Defense not being competent in the general Declarator which was first insisted in they give no Interlocutor on the Reply Lord Frazer contra Phillorth Iuly 23. 1662. IN the Declarator of Property of the Barony of Cairnbulg at the Instance of the Lord Frazer against the Laird of Phillorth It was alleadged for the Defender Absolvitor because the Pursuers Father and Grand fathers Infeftment is upon the Resignation of Frazer of Doors Ita est Frazer of Doors had no real Right in his Person never having been Seased at least there is Certification granted against Doors Seasin in the Improbation at the Iâ—stance of the Defender against the Pursuer and his Father so that Doors having no reall Right his Disposition Instrument of Resignation and Câ—arter granted by the King flowing upon the Resignation of the Laird of Phillorth and the Lord Lovit who had Right to Pttsligo's Appryzing of the hail Estate of Phillorth can give no Right to declare the Property especially against the Defenders who hath a real Right by Infeftment flowing from Phillorth his Goodsyre by Resignation and flowing from the Lord Lovit which albeit posterior yet having the first Infeftment is the first and only Right The Pursuer answered the Defense ought to be Repelled because any Right the Defender hath is from his own Grand-Father to whom he was alioqui successurus and thereby the Defender is Successor titulo lucrativo to his Grand-father the common Author after the Disposition granted to Doors and as umquhil Phillorth Doors Author personali objectione would be excluded from opposing Doors Right of Property which Right he had Disponed to Doorsâ— and was oblieged to warrand no more can the Defender who by this same Right he Defends being successor Lucrative to his Grand-Father be heard to exclude the Pursuer who is Successor to Doors 2ly Albeit there be no Seasine yet umquhil Phillorth and Lovit were fully denuded in favours of Doors by the Resignation made in the Kings hands and Charter conform after which any Right granted by them to this Defender is a non haâ—ente potestatem 3ly Any Right the Defender hath flowing from the Lord Lovit cannot defend him because it was but an Appryzing against Phillorth the common Author and it is offered to be proven that the Appryzing was satisfied within the Legal in so far as the Lands of Innernorth were Disponed by Phillorth and Lovit joyntly to Frazer of Doors for 20000. merks and the Lands of Innerallothy were Disponed by them to Lovits own Sons irredeemable the price of which Lands being 54000. merks was the sum appointed for satisfaction of the Appryzing betwixt the saids Parties and so as to the Lands of Cairnbulg and remnant Lands appryzed the appryzing is extinct The Defender answered to the first that he is not Successor titulo lucrativo to his Goodsyre because the time of the Disposition by his Goodsyre to him and also the time of his Goodsyres death his Father was alive and served Heir to his Goodsyre 2ly There was no Right in his Goodsyre when he Disponed but all the Right was in the Lord Lovit by Pitsâ—igoes Appryzing neither was Lovit denuded by the Resignation or Charter without Seasine so but that the second Resignation with the first Infeftment is preferable 3ly Satisfaction of the Appryzing as it is alleadged is not Relevant unless
it be by Intromission with the Mails and Duties of the Lands Appryzed conform to the Act of Parliament 1621. but no other payment or satisfaction by the Debitor is sufficient to take away an Infeftment contra singularem successurum The Lords Repelled the Defense founded upon Lovits Appryzing in respect of the Reply of satisfaction thereof and found no necessity to alleadge that the Person having Right to the Appryzing was otherways denuded the by acknowledgement of payment or satisfaction and that there needed no formâ—â— grant â—f Redemption or Renunciation Registrat conform to the Act of Parliamâ—n anent the Registration of Seasings Reversions c. wâ—ich the Lords found only to extend to Wodsets properly so called and not to Appryâ—zings neither yet to an Infeftment for Relief whereunto the Rents were not to be only for the Annualrent of the sum but to satisfie the Principal and therefore seing the Lords found that the only Right was in the Defenders Grand-father and that he Disponed to the Defender that he could be in no better case then his Grand-father as to the Disposition granted by his Grand-father without a Cause Onerous being after the Disposition of the same Lands by that same Grand-father to the Pursuers Author but found it not necessar to determine the Case of lucrative Successor as it was here stated to make the Successor lyable to all his Predecessors Debts Iames Birsbine contra Iohn Monteith Iuly 24. 1662. JAmes Birsbine pursues Iohn Monteith as Cautioner for Iohn Birsbine who was Executor to the Pursuers Father for payment of the Pursuers Legacy The Defender alleadged no Processe because the Executor himself is not Discussed and the Cautioner is only lyable subsidiary The Pursuer Replyed there is a Decreet obtained against the Executor produced and there was no further Discussing requisite because he is broken and the Pursuer is content to assign the Debt to the Cautioner The Defender answered non Relevat for a Decreet is no sufficient Discussing but there must be Registrat Horning at least albeit the Executor had neither Lands nor Moveables to Poind or Apprise The Lords sustained the Defense and found the Reply not Relevant till the Registrate Horning were produced Alexander Shed contra Robert Gordon and David Kill Eodem die ALexander Shed pursues Robert Gordon Pupil as lawfully Charged to enter Heir to his Father to pay a Debt of his Fathers compears David Kill the Pupils Uncle who was Tutor nominat to him but refused to accept and therefore shunned to propone any Defense in the Pupils own nameâ— least it should be an acceptance or gestio and therefore produced a Bond of the Defuncts and as Creditor alleadged that he would not suffer his Debitors Estate to be affected in his prejudice and offered him to prove that the Debt pursued on was satisfied The Question was whether he had Interest as Creditor to propone this Defense The Lords having considered the Case amongst themselves found that where Creditors in this manner compeared it is not cnmpetent to allow their Defense because it may delay the other Creditors pursuing so that a third Creditor may be preferred in Diligence and therefore they Repelled the Defense hoc loco but declared that it should be receivable against the Pursuer whenever he should pursue for affecting any of the Defuncts Means or Estate in the same case as now Mr. Patrick Weyms contra Mr. Iames Cunninghame Eodem die MR. Patrick Weyms having an Order of Parliament for a Terms vacant Stipend of the Paroch of Leswade Mr. Iames Cunninghame alleadged that Terms Stipend was not vacand but belonged to him as incumbent viz. Whitsonday 1659. because he was admitted before Michalmess 1659 and shortly after Whitsonday and so the legal Terms of Stipends not being divisable at two Terms but at Michalmess joyntly he being incumbent before Michalmess hath the whole year The Lords Repelled this alleadgence but preferred Weyms and found that Ministers had Right to their Stipend Termly and if he entered before Whitsonday he had Right to the whole year and if after VVhitsonday and before Michalmess but to the half Barbara Naesmith contra Iohn Iaffray Iuly 25. 1662. BArbara Naesmith pursues Iohn Iaffray her Son as Heir and Executor to his Father for payment to her of her umquhil Husbands hail Means and Eschaeat by vertue of a Missive Letter written by the Defunct her Sponse bearing that if he happen to die before his return that his VVife should do with what he had as she pleased that he thought it too little for her but he desired her to Discharge a 1000. Pounds or a 1000. Merks to his Brother Alexander and 500. Merks to his Sister Magdalen if she follow her advice The Lords having formerly found that this Letter was donatio mortis causa or a Legacy and so could only affect Deads part It was now further alleadged that by the pursuers Contract of Marriage he was oblieged to imploy 6000. merks on Land or Annualrent to him and her and the longest liver of them two and to the Bairns to be gotten betwixt them which failzing his Heirs This Obliegement to imploy being a Debt the Moveables must be lyable for it primo loco and the Pursuer can only have Deads part of the remainder of free Goods The Pursuer answered that this Destination being on Heretable Clauses cannot affect the Moveables 2ly The Bairns cannot have Right thereto till they be Heirs and so they will be both Debitors and Creditors and the Obligation will be taken away by Confusion The Lords found this Defense Relevant notwithstanding of the Answer and that albeit the Clause was Heretable quoad creditorem yet it was Moveable quoad debitorem and so behoved to be performed out of the Defuncts Moveables and that the entring thereto would not take away the Obliegement by Confusionâ— more then one paying a moveable Debt wherein he is both Debitor and Creditor yet he will have action of Relief against the Executors out of the Moveables It was further alleadged that in the said Missive there are two particular Legacies left to the Defuncts Brother and Sisters which must abate the general Legacy The Pursuer answered that both Legacies were only left thus I wish c. which cannot be obligator nor constitute an effectual Legacy but is only a desire or recommendation left in the Pursuers option and for Magdalens Legacy it was conditional the following the Pursuers advice which she did not but left her contrair her will The Defenders answered that verba optativa were sufficient in Legacies at least were sufficient to make a fidi commissari Legacy because all fidi commissis either for restoring the Inheritance or for restoring Legacies in the Civil Law were in such Terms and albeit such words would not be sufficient intor vivos yet favore ultimo voluntatis where the Defuncts will howsoever manifested is the Rule and so is most extended such words are sufficient as to the condition in Magdalens Legacy
it cannot be understood of being under the Pursuers command all her life and so can only be meaned if Magdalen miscarry contrair to the Pursuers advice in some considerable matter of her carriage and however it is not a suspensitive condition hindring the payment of the Legacy but oblieging the Legatar thereafter The Lords found the Legacies constitute and in terms for said valid and as for Magdalens Legacy declared that in case Magdalen miscarried and took not the Pursuers Advice that she should be lyable to refound the Legacy to the Pursuer but would not put her to find Caution for that effect the condition being so general Katharin Kinross contra the Laird of Hunthill THe Laird of Hunthill being oblieged by Bond to pay a sum to umquhil Mr. Beverly and the said Katharin his Spouse the longest liver of them two in Conjunct-fee and the Heirs betwixt them which failzing his Heirs or any person he should design whereupon they were infeft in an Annualrent The said Katharin having charged for payment of the sum Hunthill suspended alleadging that she was but Liferenter and he could never be in tuto till the Feear were called The Lords formerly found the Letters orderly proceeded for the Annualrent but superceeded to give answer for the Stock till some to represent Beverly the Feear were called who now being called and not compearing he Debitor alleadged he could not be lyable to give up the Stock to the Charger being only Liferenter neither would her Discharge or Renunciation of the Wodset liberat him and his Estate but only a Renunciation of the Heir neither did the Charge at the Liferenters Instance take away the Annualrent and make the principal sum moveable unless it had been at the Feears Instance The Charger answered that she being Conjunct-feear was not a naked Liferenter albeit it resolved in a Liferent and therefore she craved that it should be declared by the Lords that she had power to uplift the Stock and to reimploy it as formerly and that her Discharge and Renunciation should be declared to be sufficient to liberat the Debitor and his Lands which being so found by the Lords The Debitor's appearing Heir being called would be an irreduceable and sufficient ground of Liberation The Lords declared as aforesaid but before Extract ordained the Conjunct-feear to give Bond for Reimployment of the sum to her self in Liferent and to Beverly's Heirs in Fee which Bond they ornained to be presently Registrat and kept by the Clerk in respect none appeared for the Heir Lady Milntoun contra Laird of Milntoun Iuly 26. 1662. LAdy Milntoun pursues probation of the Tenor of a Bond of Interdiction granted by her Husband young Calderwood Interdicting himself to her It was alleadged no Process because there was no sufficient Adminicles in Writ produced there being no Writ relative to the Interdiction Subscribed by the Party but only the Extract of Letters of Inhibition The Lords sustained this as a sufficient Adminicle in respect the question was not about a Writ that use to be retired such as Bonds In this Case also the Lords examined some Witnesses ex officio before Litiscontestation being old and valitudinary Margaret Robertson contra William Mcintosh Eodem die MArgaret Robertson pursues an Ejection against William Mcintosh who alleadged absolvitor because he offered him to prove that he had warned the Defenders umquhile Husband and that he dying shortly thereafter he inquired of his Wife if she would continue in the Possession and she declared she would not but willingly removed It was Replyed Relevat scripto vel juramento but witnesses cannot be received to prove willingness of Removing being mentis The Lords considering that the Defender alleadged no Tack nor Title in Writ but meer Possession were inclinable to sustain the Defense probable pro ut de jure but withall considering the Parties were Highlanders and had great advantage whoever had the benefite of probation therefore they ordained the Pursuer to condescend what Deeds of violence was done in ejecting her and both parties to conscend what persons were present at the Pursuers outgoing and the Defenders incoming being resolved to examine all these before answer so that there might be no advantage in probation to either party Sir John Aiton contra Adam Wat. Eodem die ADam Wat being first Infeft in an Annualrent out of Whitlands Estate Compryzed for some of the bygone Annualrents Sir Iohn Aiton being infeft after him in an Annualrent of the same Lands alleadges that Adam hinders him to uplift the Duties or poynd the Ground for his Annualrent and yet lets them ly in the common Debtor or Tennents hands until his Appryzing expire and therefore alleadges that Adam Wat ought either to Intromit and do exact Diligence and impute the same in his Compryzing or suffer Sir Iohn to do Diligence or at least that both may do Diligence effeiring to their Sums The Lords found that Adam Wat ought to be lyable for Diligence in time coming in uplifting the Rents to satisfie his Appryzing and as to the Annualrent found that after 40 days after each Term in which Adam as the first Annualrenter might poynd the Ground it should be leisom for Sir Iohn as the second Annualrenter to poynd the same without respect to Adam Wats prior Infeftment if he did not Diligence thereon within 40 days after ilk Term. Alexander Hamiltoun contra Thomas Harper Iuly 29. 1662. ALexander Hamiltoun pursues a Removing against Thomas Harper who alleadged Absolvitor because the Pursuer invaded and beat the Defender in the Session-house during the Dependence of this Cause and therefore by the Act of Parliament 1584. cap. 219. renewed 1592. cap. 173. The Pursuer cadit causa and the Defender must be Assoilzied The Lords having considered the saids Acts of Parliament and finding thereby that the Invasion must be Cognosced in a Criminal Process competent to the Justice and must be found summarly by an Inquest The Question was whether beating without effusion of Blood was such a Criminal Fact because it seems to be but a Ryot and next whether the Lords would take probation of it themselves or if it behoved to be Recognosced by the Justices The Lords found the Defense Relevant For the Act of Parliament anent violence in the Kings presence or in the Session House when the Session is sitting make such deads to incur death and therefore whether they would assign a Term to the Defender to prove that in the mean time he might proceed Criminally before the Iustice and instruct the Defense by the Sentence of the Iustice or whether they would receive the Probation themselves they resolved to hear the Pâ—rties upon it Laird Balnagoun contra Iuly 30. 1662. THe Laird of Balnaggoun having obtained a Gift of ultmus haeres of Thomas from the Exchequer in Anno 1661. and being thereupon Infeft pursues Removing against Rorie The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Defender stands Infeft and by vertue of his
Infeftment in Possession 7. years before the warning by vertue of a Gift of ultimus haeres granted by the English Exchequer The Pursuer answered ought to be Repelled because the foresaid Gift is null ipso jure in so far as it is not confirmed by the late Act of Parliament anent judicial proceedings in the Usurpers time wherein Gifts of Bastardy and ultimus haeres were excepted The Defendet answered 1. That his Infeftment being cled with 7. years Possession cannot be taken away by exception neither is he oblieged in hoc judicio possessorio to Dispute the validity thereof 2ly The said Act of Parliament doth not declare it null much less null by Exception such Gifts but doth only not confirm them The Lords Repelled this Defense and found the Infeftment null in it self seing it was not confirmed The Defender further alleadged absolvitor from this warning because the Pursuers Gift is not yet decalred It was answered for the Pursuer no necessity of Declarator because it cannot be ever made appear that any such thing was required or was in Custom and Use more then in the case of a Gift of Ward or a Gift of Forefaultry The Lords found that this Gift behoved to be declared in the same way as a gift of Bastardry William Zeoman contra Mr Patrick Oliphant WIlliam Zeoman as having Right by an Appryzing to the Lands of Newton pursues Mr. Patrick Oliphant to hear and see it found and declared this his Appryzing was satisfied by Intromission with the Mails and Duties within the Legal The Defender alleadged Appryzing cannot be satisfied by his Intromission because any Intromission he had was by vertue of other Rights viz. Mr. Iames Oliphant the common Author having killed his own Mother and thereupon he being declared Fugitive not only upon the Paricide but upon a Criminal Dittie againstâ— him upon committing Murder under Trust which is Treason The Defender obtained Gift of his Forefaultry and thereupon stands Infeft and in Possession The Pursuer answered non Relevat 〈◊〉 Because the Act of Parliament against Paricide doth not declare it to infer Forefaultry but only that the committer thereof should be excluded from Succession and as to the committing of Slaughter under Trust the Act of Parliament expresseth what it meaned by Trust viz. though getting assurance from persons that had been formerly in variance 2ly vvhat ever the cause were yet the Infeftment upon the gift of Forefaultry cannot be respectedâ— unless there had been a Doom of Forefaultry pronunced for all that the Justice General does is to charge the party accused to find Caution to underly the Law and if he appear not he is Denunced Rebel and his Escheat only falls or if having found Caution he appear not in causa he is Denunced Fugitive which hath the same effect but none of them can inter Forfaulture unless Doom of Forfaulture had been pronounced which the Justice doth not but when the Defender compears albeit the Parliament Forefaults persons absent having taken probation of the Libel contra absentes and unless the Justice had either cited the party with Letters of Treason under certification of Treason and that certification had been granted or had cognosced the Crime The Defender being present the Gift of Forfaulture can work nothing The Lords found the Reply Relevant unless the Defender would alleadge as aforesaid because the Defender was not clear in the matter of Fact they before answer Ordained him to produce the Gift and Warrands Creditors of Andrew Bryson contra his Son November 14. 1662. IN an Accompt and Reckoning betwixt the Creditors and Bairns of umquhil Andrew Bryson the Auditor being warranted to call all Parties havers of the said umquhil Andrew his Compt Books before him his Son Mr. Andrew being Called and Examined upon Oath Depones that he neither has them nor had them since the intenting of the Cause but refused to Depone upon his having of the same at any time before or upon his knowledge who had them The Lords having heard the Auditors Report thereanent found that he ought not to be examined upon his knowledge who had them but that he ought to Deponeâ—f at any time before the Citation he had the same and frandfully put the same away quia propossessoria habetur qui dolo possidere Mr. Thomas Nicolson contra Lairds of Bightie and Babirnie Eodem die THere having been mutual Molestations betwixt Mr. Thomas Nicolson Advocat and the Lairds of Bightie and Babirnie anent a common Pasturage in the Muire of Bighty lying contigue to all their Lands It was alleadged for Babirny that he ought to be preferred to Mr. Thomas Nicolson and the said Mr. Thomas excluded from all Commonty because Babirny stands Infeft in the Lands of Babirny which infeftment bears with common Pasturage in the Muir of Bighty and Mr. Thomas had no express Infeftment therein It was answered for Mr. Thomas that the alleadgence is not Relevant to exclude him because he his Predecessors and Authors are and have been Infeft in his Lands cum communi pastura and by vertue of the saids Infeftments in peaceable Possession Immemorially or by the space of 40 Years which was sufficient to establish the Right of Communitie with Balbirnie notwithstanding his Infeftment bears express It was answered for Balbirnie that not only was his Infeftment more express but Mr. Thomas Lands and his were holden of divers Superiours viz. Balbirnie of the KING and Mr. Thomas were Kirk-lands and albeit the Muire lyes contigue to Mr. Thomas Lands yet it is not of the same Paroch The Lords repelled the Reasons of Preference for Balbirnie in respect of the Answer It was further alleadged for Balbirnie that the Alleadgeances and Answers for Mr. Thomas Nicolson ought to be repelled because he offers him to prove that Nicolson was interrupted since the Year 1610. and condescended by yearly turning his Cattel off the ground and stopping him from casting Peits and therefore he must say 40 Years Possession by vertue of an Infeftment preceeding that Interruption It was answered for Nicolson non relevat unlesse either a Legal Interruption by Lawborres or Summons or at least a compleat and full Interruptio facti by debarring him on whole year from any deed of Community but for turning off his Goods which were presently put on again and he enjoying all his Profit such were Attempts and Incompleat Interruptions whereof he needed take no notice thereof seing he continued his Possession otherwayes there would be great inconveniences by such Interruptions which would be noticed by the Leidges and yet would cut off the Probation of the old Possession before the same The Lords found that whatsoever the Interruption 40 Years or immemoria possessione before the Interruption behoved to be proven for they thought that what Servituds were introduced only by Possession by the patience and presumed will of the other Partie being either Proprietar or having right of Communitie any Interruption was sufficient to show that the other
being since 1649. The Wodsetter should be comptable for the Profits more nor the Annualrents since the Date of the Wodset The Lords having considered the Woodset by which the Wodsetter bare the publick Burden found the said Clause of the Act not extended to make the Defender comptable since the Date of the Wodset but only since the Date of the offer to secure the Wodseter conform to the Act of Parliament by vertue of an other Clauses of the said Act Ordaining all Wodsetters to compt for the superplus and to possesse the granter of the Wodset he finding Caution for the Annualrents or to restrict to his Annualrent Lord Burghly contra Iohn Syme Eodem die LOrd Burghly and his Authors being Infeft by the Abbot of Dumfermling in the Coal-heugh of Keltie with power to win Coals within the bounds of the Lands of Cocklaw and Losodie pursues John Sime Heretor of Losodie for declaring his Right to win Coal in Losodie The Defender alleadged absolvitor because he and his Authors were Infeft in the Lands of Losodie with the pertinents above the Ground and under the Ground long before the Pursuers Authors Right The Pursuer answered that the Defenders Infeftment could not furnish him Right to the Coal of Losodie because it bare no power to win Coal but being only a Feu which is a perpetual Location it reaches not to Coal not being expressed especially seing in the Tenendas all the ordinary priviledges were exprest even of Peit and Turff and Coal was omitted and because the Defenders Chartor bare expresly a reservation to the Abbot and his Successors to win Coal in Losodie for their own proper use allenarly The Defender Answered that the Right of the Land being Feu with the Pertinents did extend to Coal albeit not exprest seing it was not wholly observed according to Craigs opinion and for the Reservation it did further clear the Defenders Right that seing the Abbot reserved only power to win Coal for his own use exceptio firmaâ— regulam in non exceptis whereby the Defender had Right to the remanent of the Coal neither could the exception extend to the Pursuer but only to the Abbot and give to his Successors only to these Succeeding in the Abbacy viz. the Earl of Dumfermling The Pursuer answered that the Defenders Infeftment was Confirmed long after the Pursuers and that the Defenders Confirmation was not of the first Feu but of a second Right from the first Feuar and by the Act of Parliament anent Feus it was declared that Feus since March 1658. not confirmed by the King before 1584. were â—ull at least another Act of Parliament bare expresly that where there were divers Feus granted of the same thing the first Confirmation with the last Feu should be preferable The Lords found the Defense founded upon the Defenders Rights relevant and proven thereby and therefore found the Pursuer had only right to win Coals in Losodie for his own use and found the Pursuer Successor to the Abbots by his Infefments of the said Priviledge of wining Coal in Losodie for his own use only and found the saids Acts of Parliament that by the late Act the Right of the ancient Possessors and kindly Tenents was reserved so that if they did not Confirm before the Year 1584. They were only lyable for a greater Feu-dutie wherein the Pursuer not being Superiour had no interest and found the Defenders Infeftment that his Authors were kindly Tenents and had a 19 year tack before the Feu Patrick and Joseph Dowglasses contra Lindsay of VVormistoun December 2. 1662. PAtrick and Joseph Dowglasses pursues Catharine Lindsay their Mother as Executrix to their Father for Compt and Payment of their share of the Executry and also the said Lindsay of VVormistoun as her Cautioner found in the Testament who alleadged no Process against him as Cautioner till the Executrix her self were first discussed Not only by Compt and Sentence but also by Appryzing of her Estate Poynding of her Moveables and if nothing can be condescended upon to Poynd and Appryze at least by Registrate Horning against her Person This being but a subsidiary Action as to the Cautioner The Lords Repelled the Alleadgeance and sustained the Accompt against both superceeding all Execution against the Cautioner till the Executrix were discussed as aforesaid which is both to the advantage of the Cautioner who may concur with the Executor who is only able to make the Accompt and it is also to the advantage of the Pursuers that the Cautioner resume not the Alleadgeances omitted by the Executor and so make new Process and new Probation as oft falls out Dam Marion Clerk contra Iames Clerk of Pittencrieff Eodem die MR. Alexander Clerk his Estate being Tailzied to his Heirs Male he obliged his heirs of Line to Renunce and Resign the same in favours of his Heirs Male which Disposition he burdened with 20000. Pounds to Dam Marion Clerk his only Daughter and Heir of Line The Clause bare 20000. Pounds to be payed to her out of the saids Lands and Tenement whereupon she having obtained Decreet James Clerk the Heir Male Suspends on this Reason That the foresaid Clause did not personally oblige him but was only a real burden upon the Lands and Tenement which he was content should be affected therewith and offered to Assign and Dispone so much of the Tenement as would satisfie the same The Lords found the Suspender personally obliged but only in so far as the value of the Tenement might extend in respect the Clause in the Disposition mentioned the Sum to be payed which imports a personal Obligement and whereby the Suspender accepting the Disposition is obliged to do Diligence to have sold the Tenement and payed her therewith and therefore found the Letters orderly proceeded superceeding Execution of the principal sum for a year that medio tempore he might do Diligence to sell and uplift George Steuart contra Mr. James Nasmith December 6. 1662. GEorge Steuart having obtained the Gift of the Escheat of one Hume pursues a general Declarator wherein compears Mr. James Nasmith having a Declarator depending of the same Escheat and alleadged he ought to be preferred having his Gift first past the Privy Seal and had the first Citation thereupon George Steuart answered that his Gift was first past in Exchequer and the Composition payed in March before the Rebel was Denunced on Mr. James Nasmiths Horning whose Gift past in Exchequer in June only and alleadged that he being postponed through the negligence of the Keeper of the Register whom he had oft desired to give him out his Gift it must be esteemed as truely then done and as to the Citation both being now pursuing he having done full Diligence could not be postponed and produced an Instrument taken against the Keeper of the Register bearing him to have acknowledged that the Gift had been sought from him formerly The Lords having considered the Instrument and that it was after Nasmiths Gift
Intimat before the Chargers Intimation because the Assignation only doth not Constitute the Suspenders Creditor or the Cedent Debitor until it be Intimat and so there being no debiium and Creditum before the Intimation there can be no Compensation which is contributio debiti crediti The Suspender answered that the Assignation Constitute the Right and the creditum but the Intimation was only necessar in case of Competition of other Assigneys and he needed not Intimat to Scot quia intus habet in respect Scot was owing him as much The Lords found no Compensation unless the Suspender had Intimat his Assignation to the Cedent and so had Constitute him his Debitor before the Cedent was denuded by the Chargers Assignation and Intimation Children of Netherlie contra The Heir Ianuary 24. 1663. THe Children of umquhil Edgar of Netherlie alleadging that their Father left to his Heir a competent Estate and that he dyed before any Provision or Aliment appointed to them and that the Heirs Tutor refused to Aliment them Their Mother being also dead therefore craved an Aliment to be modified there being no compearence in the contrair The Lords found the Brother as being Heir to the Father of a competent Estate lyable to Aliment the Children being wholly unprovided but determined neither the time nor the quantity till the Condition of the Estate were Instructed Bain contra Laird of Streichan Eodem die THe Laird of Streichan being pursued by Bain proponed a Reason of Compensation and produced a Writ for instructing thereof being called at the advising of the Cause The Lords suffered him to Reform the Alleadgence seing he instructed it instantly by another Writ then was formerly produced Sydeserf of Ruchlaw contra Wood. Eodem die THere being mutual Contraventions betwixt Ruchlaw and Wood both relating to a peace of Ground upon the Marches of their Lands which Ruchlaw alleadged to be his Property and that Wood had contraveened by needful Pasturage thereon himself being present when he was desired to remove his Goods off the same and the other alleadging Commonty and that Ruchlaw had contraveened by wilful debarring him from his Commonty The Lords before Answer granted Commission to Examine Witnesses hinc inde concerning their Possession of Property and Commonty and having advised the Testimonies found that the Matter was not so clear as to be the ground of a Contravention and therefore assoilzied both Parties but declared it should be free to them both or either of them to turn their Libel into a Molestation and to reform the same accordingly thereanent They granted again Commission before answer to Examine Witnesses hinc inde anent eithers Possession and the indurance thereof which was not cleared by the former Commission Robert Grahame contra Iohn Rosse Eodem die IN a Competition betwixt Grahame and Rosse and a third Party all Compryzers the posterior Appryzers craving to come in pari passu by vertue of the late Act of Parliament It was alleadged for Grahame who had obtained Infeftment that he ought to be preferred because albeit his Appryzing was since Ianuary 1652. yet he had been in Possession thereby seven years and so had the benefit of a Possessory Judgement This was Repelled because the Act of Parliament was but late before which there could be no ground to come in pari passu and there was no exception in it of these who had Possessed or not Possest before the Act. Secondly Grahame further alleadged that he ought to be preferred because he was Infeft in an Annualrent out of the Lands which is a real Right excepted by the Act of Parliament Thirdly That Rosse could not come in because Rosses Appryzing was before 1652. and the Act of Parliament brings in only Appryzing since December 1652. Fourthly None of the Parties could come in with him until first they payed him their proportionable part of the Composition and Expenses bestowed out by him conform to the Act. The Lords found that albeit Grahames Appryzing was not upon the Infeftment of Annualrent but upon the personal obliegement for the Principal and bygone Annualrents upon Requisitions which was a passing from the Infeftment of Annualrent yet that he might pro loco tempore pass from his Appryzing and might be preferred to his bygone Annualrents upon his Infeftment of Annualrent in this Case of Composition albeit there was yet no Appryzing upon the Infeftment of Annualrent and found that Iohn Rosses Appryzing before 1652. was not excluded but behoved to be in the same Case as if it had been after But found that the other Appryzers before they came in behoved to satisfie the Composition proportionally by the Tenor of the Act. Sir Robert Montgomerie of Skelmarlie contra Iohn Broun Ianuary 28. 1663. SIr Robert Montgomery pursues Iohn Broun for perfecting a Bargain agreed upon in word betwixt them where Sir Robâ—rt was to Dispone the Right of an Appryzing of the Lands of Fordel for which John was to pay 10000. merks After which verbal agreement Iohn Broun write a Letter to Sir Robert in relation to the Bargain bearing that he was affrayed not to get the Money at the time agreed upon and then bearing the said words all I can say now is I am not to pass from what was spoken betwixt you and me The Defender alleadged that this being a Communing in word anent an Heretable Right est locus penetentiae there being yet neither Minute Disposition or other Security Subscribed And as to the Letter it was not to be respected because it was no Minute and mentionated that the Writer was not fully resolved that he would be able to provide the Money and keep the Bargain as for the Word Signifying that he would not pass therefrom it did but express his present resolution and was not Obligatory and though they were so long as Sir Robert might resile notwithstanding of the Letter John Broun might also resile It was answered for the Pursuer that his Libel stood most Relevant because there is only locus penitentiae when there is no Writ but if any Party obliege himself to stand to a former Communing his own voluntar Deed has unquestionably oblieged him unless the other did resile and the Obligation is as valid in a missive Letter as the most solemn Bond Neither are words I am not to pass to be interpret to signifie a Resolution but being in materia obligatoria must signifie an Obligation otherwise all Minuts must be void and are ordinarly expressed in such Terms as are to do or shall do such things and whereas there was several Practicques produced finding locum penitentiae in such Cases though they were Earnest and though there were Possession and a Letter whereby the Resiler designed another Party by the Lands Disponed yet there was no Obligation in Writ as in this Letter and likewise Iohn Brown payed 3000. merks of the price albeit he took a Bond of borrowed Money till things were perfected and got the Keys of
the Houses The Lords found there was yet place to Resile and therefore assoilzied Margaret Stevenson and her Son contra Ker and others Eodem die MArgaret Stevenson pursues Margaret Ker as vitious Intromissatrix with the Goods of her Husband for payment of a Debt wherein he was Cautioner She alleadged absolvitor because her Iutromission was purged in so far as she had Confirmed herself Executrix Creditrix It was answered by the Pursuer non relevat unless before intenting of the Cause The Defender answered it was sufficient being within year and day after the Defunct's Death Which the Lords found Relevant Lord Balnagoun contra M. Thomas Mckenzie Eodem die BAlnagoun as Donator to the Escheat of his Father pursues Mr Thomas Mckenzie for the price of some Lands sold to him by his Father and for the annualrents since It was answered for the Defender that there was no Annualrent due by the Minute and albeit it was the price of Land yet Balnagoun had never made Mr. Thomas a Right to this day but had forced him to be at a huge Expenses and Plea and so was in mora that the price was not payed and albeitâ—he did possess the Lands it was by redeeming Wodsets thereupon contained in the Minute The Lords found Mr. Thomas lyable either for the Annualrent or for the superplus of the Rents of the Land more then payed the Annualrent In this Process it was found that the Probation of a Tenor before an Inferiour Iudge was null Margaret Edgar contra Iohn Murray Ianuary 29. 1663. MArgaret Edgar having Charged Iohn Murray as Cautioner for the umquhil Viscount of Stormont he Suspends and offers him to prove by her Oath that she transacted with him to accept a Decreet against the principal to free him The Charger answered that she being a Wife clade with a Husband could not swear in his prejudice The Suspender Replyed that before her Marriage he had raised a Pursuit and Cited her to hear and see it found and declared he was free of Cautionry in respect of the said Transaction and so the matter being Litigious her marrying during the Dependence cannot exclude him from his Oath but must work against her Husband who is only jure mariti a Legal Assigney The Lords found this Reply Relevant Scot contra Mr. John Dickson Eodem die SCot as Assigney by her Father to a Bond Charges Mr. Iohn Dickson to make payment he Suspends on this Reason that the Assignation being while the Charger was Wife to Scot her Husband the Sum belonged to the Husband jure mariti and therefore craves Compensation of the like Sums payed to or for the Husband The Charger answered that though the Date of the Assignation was before her Husbands Death yet her Father keeped the same in his Custody and it was not Intimate till after the Husbands Death and so the Right not being Established in the Wifes Person by Intimation could not accresce to the Husband unless the Suspender would instruct that it was Intimate before The Lords found that seing the Assignation was now in the Wifes hands they would not put the Suspender to prove the Delivery thereof during the Marriage but that it was presumed to have been delivered according to the Date and that thereby it became the Husbands jure mariti though no Intimation was in his time Archibald Stuart contra Bogle and Matthie Ianuary 30. 1663. BOgle and Matthie being Conveened before Archibald Stuart as Baillie of the Regality of Glasgow for a wrong committed upon two other Persons in the Kirk upon the Sabbath thrusting in upon them in Seat and beating them they were therefore amerciat in 200. Pounds half to the Party and half to the Fiskall It was alleadged the Fine was exorbitant and that Inferiour Courts could not amerciat above ten Pounds as it had been found by several Decisions It was answered that this Court being a Regality and the Fact so atrocius the Fine was very Competent The Lords Sustained the Decreet Town of Linlithgow contra Inhabitants of Borrowstounness Eodem die THe Town of Linlithgow having apprehended an Inhabitant of Borrowstounness in their Town being an un-free man and exercising the Trade of Merchandise they put him in Prison he granted Bond to forbear in all time coming Likeas they fined him in a 100. merks he Suspended and raised Reduction on this Reason that the Bond was extorted when so far as he was summarly taken and put in Prison and could not get out till he promised to give the Bond and immediatly after he was out subscribed the same The Charger alleadged there was no unjust force or fear because by the Acts of Parliament in favours of Free Borrows all unfree men are discharged to exercise the Trade of Merchandise whereupon they had obtained Decreet against the same Suspender to desist and cease therefrom Secondly They and all other free Borrows had immemorially possessed this priviledge to apprehend persons found within their Town and forced them to find Caution as Law will upon Debt due to any in the Town and particularly to put them in Prison till they give such Bonds in Surety as this The Suspender answered to the first there was no such Warrand by the Act of Parliament but only to Charge with general Letters un-free men to find Caution and for the Priviledge of Borrows to arrest un-free persons within their Towns it is only in case of Debts and other Merchandises due to Burgesses but cannot be extended to this Case where there is a special Order set down by Act of Parliament The Lords found that the Burghs Royal summarly upon Staple Ware of un-free men and might judge thereanent but not summarly Incarcerate their Persons but only to Charge them and found their Custom and Priviledge not to extend to this Case and therefore found the Reason of Reduction Relevant The Lady Carnagy contra The Lord Cranburn Eodem die LAdy Anna Hamiltoun and the Lord Carnagie her Husband as having obtained a Gift of Recognition from the King of the Barony of Innerweek and being thereupon Infeft pursues the Lord Cranburn to whom the samine was Disponed by the Earl of Dirletoun Grand-Father to both for declaring the Recognition and the Donatrix Right in so far as Iames Maxwel late Earl of Dirletoun holding the saids Lands of His Majesties Ward and relief had without His Majesties consent Alienat and Disponed the same to Iames Cicile his Oye then second Son to the Lord Cranburn procreat betwixt him and the Earl of Dirletouns second Daughter It was alleadged for the Defender absolvitor because where there was no Infeftment there could be no Alienation nor Recognition and there could be no Infeftment without the same were granted to the Disponer or his Procurator to the accepter to his Procurator but here there was no accepter nor Procurator because Cranburn being then a Child and in England had granted no Mandat to take this Seasine and therefore had raised Reduction thereof
Defense in that Case must always be that the Defender is Tennent by payment of Male and Duty to such a person who either is Infeft or hath Tack and Terms to run after the Warning but if the Charger had a Tack standing the Lords ordained him to produce the same and they would hear the Parties thereupon Charles Oliphant contra Dowglasse of Donnoch February 3. 1663. CHarles Oliphant as Assigney Constitute by David Macbrair Charges Dornoch to pay the sum of 1800 merks Compearance is made for an Arrester as having Arrested before the Assignation at least before Intimation The Assigney answered no preference upon this Arrestment because it was Execute upon the Sabbath Day and so is not lawful for by the Law of all Nations Judicial Acts done by Authority of Judges upon Legal Process diebus feriates are null and there is an Act of Sederunt to that same effect The Arrester answered that there was no Law prohibiting such Executions or declaring them null and though it was a fault and breach of the Sabbath to do so that annuls not the Act fiâ—ri non debet sed factum valet The Lords were all clear that such Executions should be prohibit in time coming but quo ad praeterita some were non liquct Yet the major part found the Execution null for they thought that albeit Acts of privat Parties on the Sabbath Day might stand legally valid as if Extracts were Subscribed that day or a Consignation made which had been found valid by a former Decision yet judicial Acts authoritate judicis are null else Messengers would ordinarly wait Parties upon the Sabbath Day for all Execution by Horning and Caption c. Laird Phillorth contra Lord Frazer February 4. 1663. SIR Alexander Frazer of Phillorth being in Distresse for Debt Disponed his Barony of Cairnbuilg to Robert Frazer of Doors which Lands of Cairnbuilg lyes near to Phillorth and the House thereof was his Residence in the Alienation there is a Clause conceived to this effect that it shall not be leisom to the said Robert Frazer of Doors to Alienate the Lands during the Lifetime of the said Sir Alexander Frazer and if the said Robert Frazer did in the contrary he obliged him to pay to the said Sir Alexander the Sum of ten thousand pounds for Damnage and Interest ex pacto convento and if the said Robert should have aâ—do to sell the saids Lands after the death of the said Sir Alexander he obliged him to make offer there to the Heirsand Assigneys of the said Sir Alexander or any Person he pleased nominat of the Name of Frazer for 38000 pounds The said Robert Frazer of Doors Disponed the saids Lands to Staniewood during the life of Sir Alexander Frazer Sir Alexander assigned the Contract and the foresaid Clause to this Phillorth whereupon he raised Improbation and Reduction of the Disposition granted by Doors to Staniewood the Lord Frazers Grand-Father upon this Reason that he as Assigney by his Father to the Clause de non alienando had good interest to pursue Reduction of the Disposition contraveening the said Clause and true it is that the said Disposition granted by Doors to Staniewood was null as proceeding a non habente potestatem in so far as by the foresaid Clause in the said alienation granted by his Grand-Father to Doors it was expresly provided it should not be leisom for Doors to sell c. Which being a Provision in the Disposition repeated at the least generally in the Procuratory of Resignation is pactum reale effectual against singular Successors as was lately found in the case of the Lord Stormont and so must annul the Right made contrair thereto 2ly Albeit it were not a real Paction yet unquestionably the Obligement not to Annalize did personally oblige Doors and thereupon there was an Inhibition raised before my Lord Frazers Grand-Father Staniewoods Right And therefore the Disposition made thereafter ought to be reduced ex capite inhibitionis It was answered for the Lord Frazer to the first member of the Reason non relevat for such an Obligation de non alienandoâ— is reprobat in Law as being contrair the nature of Property 2ly It is not reale pactum albeit it were in the Charter or Seasine much less being only in the Disposition and in the Narrative of the Procuratory of Resignation thus and to the effect the said Robert Frazer may be Infeft upon the provisions and conditions in manner foresaid but no further mention thereof in the Procuratory of Resignation or Infeftment and so meets not with Stormonts Case where the Clause was expresly resolutive that in such a Case the Right should be null ipso facto and return to the next person who might be Heir of Tailzie Which Clause was not only in the Disposition but in the Procuratory Charter and Seasine Registrate and thereby equivalent to a Publication of an Interdiction but here there is no resolutive or irritant Clause nor any Right reserved to return in case of contraveening nor is it in the Infeftment at all As to the second the Inhibition cannot make the Clause effectual to annul the Alienation because Doors was not simply obliged not to Alienat during Sir Alexanders Life but if he did in the contrair to pay ten thousand pound for Damnage and Interest ex pacto convento which cannot be understood of Damnage by delay or Expence in attaining the principal Obligation seeing it bears not as is ordinar by and attour performance and the quantity thereof being so great it must be evidently understood of the value of the principal Obligation so that it becomes an alternative or restrictive Clause whereby it was in Doors option whether to forbear to sell or to pay the ten thousand pounds if he did sell so that the Inhibition can reach no further then to the ten thousand pounds seing Doors by selling became obliged for the ten thousand pounds The Lords found the Defense Relevant and that the Clause or Inhibition could extend to no further then ten thousand pounds It was further alleadged for Frazer absolvitor from the ten thousand pounds because it being a Moveable Sum fell under Sir Alexander Frazer his Escheat which was Gifted to one Forbes and declared expresly as to this ten thousand Pounds and assigned to the Lord Frazer The Pursuer answered that this Sum was Heretable because it succeeded in the place of the principal Obligation not to alienat for such a time and after that time to offer the Lands of Phillorth and his Heirs for eight thousand pounds which is clearly an heretable Clause and therefore this Sum coming in leu thereof must belong to the Heir or Assigney and so fell not to the Fisk seing surrogatum sapit naturam surrogati as Sums Consigned for Redemption of Lands before Declarator are not moveable but belong to the Wodsetters Heirs or Assigneys so in mutual Obligations whereby one person oblieges to Dispone or Resign Lands and another is oblieged for
would exclude none of the Casualities of the Superiority yet such Alienations exceeding the half of the Fee do unquestionably infer Recognition though the ingratitude be no more then this that the Vassal renders himself unable fitly to serve his Superior by delapidating his Fee or the Major part thereof how much more when he does all that in him is to withdraw himself from the Superiors Clientel by obtruding to him a Stranger alienating from him the whole Fee and albeit the Seasine be null as to other effects till it be Confirmed Yet as Craig observes in the foresaid place Vassalus fecit quantum in se erat 2ly Though by our Statute or peculiar Custom such Seasins unconfirmed are null yet by the Act of Parliament 1633. Anent Ward holdings Recognition is declared to proceed according to common Law which can be no other then the common Feudal Customs by which Customs it is sure that the Recognition is chiefly inferred by the Vassals alienation As to the implyed condition si Dominus consenserit though that were expresse yet the Vassal giving Seasine the Tradition of Seasine is inconsistant with such a condition being understood as a Suspensive condition for he that delivers Possession de facto cannot be said upon any condition not to deliver the same de facto and therefore it is but protestalio contraria facto and if it be understood as a resolutive condition as needs it must it impedes not the Alienation but only might resolve the same As to the Decision upon the not Registration of the Seasine una herundo non facit ver and albeit it might be a rule in that individual Case It cannot be extended ad alios casus although it were a Statute much lesse a Practick The Lords also repelled this Defense 4ly It was further alleadged by the Defender that Dirletouns Infeftment was granted by the KING Haeredibus assignatis quibuscunque and thereby the KING consented that he should dispone his Right to any Assigney or singular Successor and this Clause is equivalent to the ordinar Feudal Clauses Vassallo quibus dederit which is ever understood to exclude Recognition neither can this be understood to be stilus curiae as when Assigneys are casten in in Charters passing the Exchequer but this is an original Grant under the KINGS own Hand The Pursuer answered that this Defense ought to be Repelled because such Concessions contrair to common course of Law are stricti juris and not to be extended ad effectus non expressos praesertim prohibitos but the adjection of Assigneys is no ways to allow Alienations of the Fee without consent but to this effect because Feuda and Benficia are in themselves stricti juris and belong not to Assigneys unlesse Assigneys be expressed and therefore albeit no Infeftment had been taken the Disposition Charter or Precept could not be Assigned so that this is adjected to the end that those may be Assigned before Infeftment but after Infeftment Assignation hath no effect and this is the true intent of Assigneys In Dispsitions of Land it is clear when the Disponer is obliged to Infeft the Acquirer his Heirs and Assigneys whatsoever there is no ground whereon to compel him to grant a second Infeftment to a new Assigney but only to grant the first Infeftment to that Person himself or to any Assigney whatever which clears the Sense in this case It hath also this further effect that singular Successors thereby might have right to a part of the Lands which though it would not infer Recognition if done yet if there were no mention of Assigneys it would be null and as not done in the same Case as a Tack not mentioning Assigneys The Lords Repelled this also 5ly It was further alleadged that Recognition takes only place where there is contempt and ingratitude and so no Deed done through ignorance infers it as when it is dubious whether the Holding be Ward or not and therefore Recognition cannot be inferred seing there is so much ground here to doubt this Right being a taxed Ward and to his Heirs and Assigneys and it is not clear whether it would be incurred through a Seasine à se or to one in his Family whereupon the wisest of men might doubt much more Dirletoun being illiterate not able to read or write It was answered ignorantia juris neminem excusat 2ly Vbi est copia peritorum ignorantia est supina Here Dirletoun did this Deed clandistenly without consulting his ordinar Advocats or any Lawyers and so was inexcusable and if pretence of ignorance could suffice there could be no Recognition seing it cannot misse to be ignorance that any should do that Deed that will be ineffectual and losse their Right The Lords Repelled this Defense and all the Defenses joyntly and Decerned Lord Loure contra Earl of Dundee February 6. 1663. THe Lord Loure pursues a Reduction of a Disposition made by Carnegy of Craig to the Earl of Dundee as being posterior to the Pursuers Debts and in prejudice thereof upon the Act of Parliament 1621. against Bankrupts and for instructing of the Reason repeats the Disposition it self being betwixt confident Persons Cusing Germans and without cause onerous in so far as it bears Reservation of the Disponers and his Ladyes Liferent and Provision to be null if Craig have Heirs of his Body in whose favours Dundee is to denude himself upon payment of his expense The Defender alleadged that the Lybel is not Relevant Primâ— because Craig is no Bankrupt nor any Diligence done against him before the Disposition 2ly He is not insolvent by the Disposition because there is reserved to him a Power to sell as much of the Land as is worth 80000 lib. for Debt and so is not in fraâ—dm creaâ— oruâ— but the Pursuer ought to pursue for that Provision either by Appryzing or personal Action The Lords found the Reason relevant and proven by the tenor of the Disposition and therefore reduced to the effect that the Pursuer mâ—ght affect the saids Lands with all Legal Diligence for his Debt as if the Disposition had not been granted for they thought seeing by this Disposition there remains not Estaâ—e sufficient ad paratam executionem and that there was no Reason to put the Pursuer to insist in that Clause to restrict himself thereby to a part of the Land but that he ought to have preference for his Debt upon his Diligence affecting the whole Land William Montgomery contra Theoder Montgomery and Mr. William Lauder February 10. 1663. WIlliam Montgomery as Donatar to the Liferent-escheat of Theodor Montgomery pursues a special Declarator against the Tennents of Whit slide belonging to Margaret Hunter in Liferent and now to Theodor jure 〈◊〉 for their Duties It was alleadged that the Horning was null because the Dâ—bt was satisfied before Denunciation The Pursuer answered that it was not competent in the special Declarator to question the nullity of the Horning 2ly Though it were in a
Renunciation of that priviledge of Wifes and it hath been frequently found that minors making faith cannot be restored lesionem conscientia ex juramento violato The Lords having debated the case at large amongst themselves found the Bond null notwithstanding of the Oath for they thought that where the deed needed no Restitution as in the case of minors these deeds are valid but the minor may be restored but in deeds ipso jure null where there need no Restitution an Oath cannot make that ane Legal deed which is none it was winne by a Vot or two many thinking that such priviledges introduced by Custome or Statute might be Renunced and much more sware against but that it were fit for the future that all Magistrats were prohibited to take such Oaths of Wifes or Minors who are as easily induced to Swear as to oblidge and if they did that they should be lyable to pay the Debt themselves Dumbar of Hemprigs contra Lady Frazer Eodem die MY Lady Frazer being first married to Sir Iohn Sinclar of Dumbeath next to the Lord Arbuthnet and last to the Lord Frazer Dumbar of Hemprigs as Executor confirmed to Dumbeath pursues her and the Lord Frazer her Hushand for his interest for delivery or payment of the Moveables of Dumbeath intrometted by her It was answered That she had Right to the half of Dumbeaths Moveables as his Relict and her intromission was within that half It was Replyed that she had only right to third because Dumbeath had a Bairn of the former Marriage who survived him and so the Executory must be imparted It was duplyed that that Bairn was for as familiat married and provided before her Fathers Death and so was not in familia and albeit if there had been any other Bairns in the Family that Bairns part would have accresced to them yet being no other It accresced to the Man and Wife and the Executory is bipartiti The Lords found the Defense and Duply relevant albeit it was not alleadged that the Tocher was accepted in satisfaction of the Bairns Part of Gear unless those who have Right would offer to confer and bring in the Tocher received in which case they might crave a third if the same were not Renunced oâ— the Tocher accepted instead thereof It was further alleadged for the Lord Frazer that he could not be lyable as Husband because his Lady being formerly Married to the Lord Arbuthnet he got the Moveables and his Successors should be â—yable at least in the first place The Lords repelled the alleadgeance but prejudice to the Lord Frazer to pursue the Successors of the former Husband for repetition as accords Mckenzie contra Iohn Ross. Eodem die JOhn Ross having Appryzed certain Lands belonging to Mckenzie there is a Pursuite of Compt and Reckoning intented for declaring that the Apprysing was satisfyed within the Legal It was alleadged that the Appryzer was not Comptable for more of the other Parties Minority then seven years because in the Act of Parliament 1621 Anent Appryzing it is so provided and albeit the meaning of the Act of Parliament was declared to be otherwayes by the Act of Parliament 1641. Yet that Declaration was contrary to the clear meaning by the general rescissory Act 1661. The Lords having considered the Rescissory Actâ— and the Reservation therein of the Right of Private Parties following upon the deeds of these Parliaments In Respect thereof and of the Custome this 20 years the Appryser useing to Compt for all found the Appryser Comptable for the whole Year of the Minority William Blair contra Anderson Eodem die William Blair as Assigny by the Wife and Bairns of Mr. David Anderson by his second Marriage pursues his Daughters both of the first and second Marriage as Heirs of Lyne for Implement of the second Contract of Marriage and the Daughters of the second Marriage offering to Renunce to be Heirs of Line but prejudice of their Provision by Contract of Marriage as Bairns of that Marriage The Assigney insisted against the Daughters of the first Marriage as lawfully Charged c. Who alleadged no Processe because the Provision by the Contract of Marriage insisted on run thus That Mr. David obliged himself and his Heirs-male Successors to him in his Estate but did oblige no other Heirs Ita est there is an Heir-male The Pursuer answered albeit Heirs-male were only expressed other Heirs were not excluded specially seing he bound himself so that the effect thereof would only be that the Heir-male should be lyable primo loco The Lords found the Heir-male lyable primo loco and the Heirs of Line secundo loco and found the Heir-male sufficiently discussed by an apprizing of the Clause of the Contract of Marriage in favours of the Heirs-male they not being Infeft as yet and having no other Right Scots contra Earl of Hume February 19. 1663. THe four Daughters of 〈…〉 Scot pursues an Ejection against the Earl of Hume out of some Lands belonging to them It was alleadged for the Earl absolvitor because he entered into Possession by vertue of a Decreet of Removing given at his instance Anno 1650. It was Replyed that the Decreet was only against the Pursuers Mother that they were never called nor decerned therein The Earl answered First That the Decreet was against the Mother to remove her self Bairns Tennents and Servants and her Daughters were in the Family being then young Bairns and he was not obliged to know them they not being Infeft but having only an old Right whereupon there was no Infeftment for 40. years the time of the Decreet The Lords in respect of the Defense restricted the Processe to Restitution and the ordinary Profits and decerned the Earl to restore them to Possession instantly but superceeded payment of Profits till both Parties were heard as to their Rights for they found that the Decreet of Removing could not extend to their Children and albeit they were not Infeft yet they might maintain their Possession upon their Predecessors Infeftment how old soever seing they continued in Possession Bessie Muir contra Jean Stirling Eodem die THe said Bessie Muir pursues her Mother as Executrix to her Father for payment of a Legacy of 8000. merks left in his Testament subscribed by the Defender and Confirmed by her after her Husbands Death The Defender alleadged absolvitor because she by the Contract of Marriage was Provided to the Liferent of all Sums to be Conquest and albeit she consented to the Legacy it was Donatio inter virum uxorem and for her Confirmation it cannot import a passing from her own Right but only her purpose to execute the Defuncâ—s Will according to Law especially she being an illiterat Person The Pursuer answered that this Donation was not by the Wife to or in favours of the Husband but of their Children which is not revockable and also the Confirmation humologats the same seing the Wife might have Confirmed and Protested to be withont prejudice of her
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
Reduction of that Disposition as being done in lecto Aegritudinis It was alleadged for the Defender primo Minor non tenetur placitare de Haereditate Paterna The Defender is Minor and now the Question of Reduction is upon her Fathers Heretage It was Answered that the maxime holds not where the Question is of the Disposition made to the Minor whether valid or not but where the Question is not upon the Minors Right but upon the Fathers Right which Right of the Fathers or Predecessors the Minor is not holden to Dispute The Lords repelled this Defense in respect of the Reply 2dly It was alleadged absolvitor because the Pursuer having only a Personal Provision in his Favours conceived in the Contract of Marriage and there being as yet no Infeftment to Heirs Male the maxime that no deed upon Death-bed can be prejudicial to Heirs can be extended to none but such as are Special Heirs and not to those who are by destination Heirs which is less then if a Charter had been granted to the Heir Male which according to Craigs Opinion is but as nudum pactum and an uncompleat Right and could not compell the Heirs of Lyne to Resign The Pursuer answered that the maxime is general and there is no Distinction by Law or Custome whatsoever the Heirs be so that a Person having a Right to Heretable Bonds bearing Clause of Infeftment whereupon no Infeftment had followed could do nothing upon Death-bed in prejudice of the Heirs who would have succeeded unto those Bonds as to Craigs Opinion of a Charter it is against Law and the common Opinion now received that a Charter or any Provision in Write is effectual against the granter and his Heirs to compel them to compleat the same The Lords repelled this Defense 3ly It was alleadged absolvitor because the maxime can be only understood of the Heir of Lyne as nearest of blood so that nothing can be effectually done in their prejudice but here the Diposition is but in prejudice of an Heir Male and in favours of an Heir of Lyne in respect of whom the Heir of Male is but a Stranger which is the more clear because this maxime being very ancient was produced before their was any Heir Male or of Tailzie and because the Reason of the Law is founded upon the Natural Obligation Parents and Predecessors have of providing their Successors and so can do them no prejudice especially when they are weak and on Death-bed The Pursuer answered as before that the maxime is general and there is no distinction introduced by Law or Custome of Heirs Male and albeit the Law had introduced such Heirs since this Common Law yet in so far as it makes them Heirs It gives them the Priviledge of Heirs to which the Reason of the Law doth well Quadrat which is not that Natural Obligation but this presumption of Law that Persons on Death-bed are facile and weaker in their Capacities then at other times and therefore the Law disables them at that time to alter the Setlment of their Estates as they were in their Health and so allows of no deed in prejudice of any Heir of whatsoever kind although in favours of another The Lords repelled this Defense 4ly It was alleadged that the Defunct having himself constitute this interest of the Heir Male had reserved this power to himself to alter it during his life can signifie nothing unless it Impower him to do it on Death-bed because without any such Reversion he might have altered the Tailzie during his Leigpoustie The Pursuer answered Pactum privatorum non derogat jure communi Therefore this being a special part of our common Law anterior to either Act of Parliament or Practique no privat Provision or Reversion can capacitat any Person to do that which the Law declares void especially being upon a Reason of weakness and infirmity which is presumed in Persons on Death-bed presumptione juris de jure admitting no contray probation for it will not be admitted to prove that the Disponer was in perfect soundnesse of mind and therefore if any Person should reserve a Power to Dispone though he were not compos mentis the Reservation would signifie nothing so here neither is the ordinary word adjected etiam in articulo mortis or on Death-bed and so cannot be extended to that case and can reach only to what is done lawfully legittimo tempore modo and there is far lesse inconvenience that a Cause should be superfluous which is very ordinary then that it should extend to take away common Law neither is the Provision adjected as an expresse condition upon which the Tailzie was made and no otherwise The Lords repelled also this defense in respect of the Reply and so having advised all the Defenses and Disputes in the afternoon albeit the Parties had aggreed before hand and the Heir of Lynes Portion doubled yet the Lords were generally clear in the Decisions abovewritten as relevant in themselves James Cuthbert of Dragakers contra Robert Monro of Foules February 26. 1663. THe said Iames pursues the said Robert Monro as Heir to his Predecessor the Laird of Foules for payment of a Debt due by him and insists against him as behaving himself as Heir by intromission with the Moveable Heirship The Defender alleadged absolvitor because it was not condescended that the Defunct was a Person who could have an Heir as to Heirship Moveable as being Prelat Baron or Burgess and if the Lands of Foules be condescended on It is offered to be proven that he was denuded by Appryzing before his Death to which Appryzing he had Right before he was Apparant Heir being Tutor to another who was Apparant Heir for the time and therefore the Defender has neither behaved himself as Heir by Intrommission with the Moveable Heirship or the Rents of the Defuncts Lands 3dly The Defender died Rebel and his Escheat Gifted and Declared and so nihil habuit in se bonis and could have no Moveable Heirship It is answered for the Pursuer to the first non relevat that the Lands were Appryzed from the Defunct unless the Legal had been expyred yet semel Baro semper Baro. 3ly The Pursuer having taken Right to the Appryzing while he was Tutor ipso facto it accresced to the Pupil and thereby was extinct and cannot defend his Intromissions 4ly It was for a smal Sum and satisfied by Intromission of a year or two so that the continuance of the Apparant Heir in the Possession after he was satisfyed is gestio 5ly The Gift and Declarator if it was done during the Rebels Life it was simulat â—etenta possessione and so null The Lords found the Appryzing not to purge the Intromission unless the Legal had been expired in Moveable and his Apparant Heir might behave himself as Heir by Intromission with the Rents of the Apprysed Lands but if the Legal was expired they found it sufficient and that semel Baro semper Baro is only to be
Benefice by his Right of Presentation and Collation It was alleadged for the Collectors of the vacant Stipends that his Stipend was not as the allowance of an helper but was a several Congregation separate from the Parsonage of Peebles and at the Parsons Presentation and that no helper has a Presentation and that the Incumbent not being admitted till after Michaelmess has no Right to any part of the Fruits of that year though he was Presented before because the Kirk cannot be said to be full but vacant till the Minister be admitted The Lords found that this Kirk having a Presentation could not return in the vacancy to the Parson of Peebles and that the Presentation being at Lambas and the Incumbent serving at the Kirk and Entring to his Tryals immediatly till he was Entred which was in October thereafter and that he had Right to the half of that years Stipend not being presented before Whitsonday and found the other half to belong to the Collector of vacand Stipends Lairds of Tulliallan and Condie contra Crawfoord Eodem die THe Lairds of Tulliallan and Condie as having a Right from him pursues Declarator of the Expiration of an Appryzing led at the Instance of Crawfoord to which Margaret Crawfoord his Daughter has now Right and condescends that the sum Appryzed for was satisfied within the Legal by Compensation in so far as Tulliallan had Right to a Contract whereby Crawfoord the Appryzer was oblieged to deliver so many Chalders of Coal weekly or in Case of Failzie four pounds for ilk Chalder It was alleadged for the Defender that this Article of Compensation ought to be repelled First because the said Contract is prescribed 2ly The Appryzing proceeded upon a Decreet of Compt and Reckoning wherein an Alleadgence being founded upon the same Contract was past from pro loco tempore and so can never now be made use of to take away that Decreet much less the Appryzing against a singular Successor who seing the same past in tuto to take Right without the hazard thereof 3ly The Defender cannot be oblieged after fourty or fifty years time to prove the Delivery of an yearly Duty of Coal 4ly The Compensation is not de liquido in liquidum because the one is a personal Contract the other is an Apprysing and Infeftment the one hath not a liquid price Constitute but bears expresly such a Sum in case of failzie and not as the price which being much more then the ordinar price then is but a personal failzie which cannot be liquidat till Declarator and modification of a Judge The Pursuer answered that he was evicting the rigor of an Appryzing in causa maxime favorabili And as to the first alleadgence anent the Prescription offers to prove Interruption by Arrestments c. To the second not Relevant according to the Custome before the years 1649. competent and omitted was not relevant against Decreets of Suspension But Suspenders might either omit or pass from their Reasons and Suspend upon them again which could not but be alswell effectual against the Assigney as the Cedent As to the third this Article being instructed by Writ no presumption nor less time then Prescription could take it away To the which the Coals having a liquid Sum in lieu thereof the Article is liquid and as payment within the legal will annul an Appryzing so will Compensation which is equiparat in Law though the Case would not be alike in a Wodset against a singular Successor The Lords found the Defenses against this Article relevant viz. that the Article was not liquid by a Sum Constitute expresly for a price and that it being alleadged that in the Decreet this alleadgeance was past from and an expresse reservation that it might be made use of against any other just Debt then that which was in the Decreet whereupon the Appryzing proceeded The Lords had also consideration that the Legal of the Appryzing was not yet expired Lyon of Muirask contra Laird of Elsick Eodem die LYon of Muirask pursues the Laird of Elsick upon a Debt of his Fathers as Successor titulo lacrativo The Defender alleadged absolvitor because any Disposition he had from his Father was in his Contract of Marriage whereby 10000â— merks of Tocher was received by his Father and 14000. merks of Debt more undertaken for his Father with the burden of his Fathers Liferent The Pursuer answered the alleadgeance ought to be repelled because he offered him to prove that the Land Disponed was then worth fourty or fifty Chalders of Victual so that the Cause onerous was not the half of the value and therefore as to the Superplus he was Lucrative Successor The Defender answered that any onerous Cause or price though incompetent was enough to purge this passive Title and albeit the Pursuer might reduce the Right and make the Lands lyable because the Cause was not onerous and equivalent yet he could not be personally lyable in solidum for all the Defuncts Debts The Lords having seriously considered the bussinesse after a former Interlocutor the last Session Assoilzing from the passive Title but finding the Lands redeemable by the Pursuer or any other Creditor for the sums payed out did now find further that the Defender was lyable for the superplus of the just price of the Land according to the ordinar Rate the time of the Disposition and that the superplus over and above what he payed or undertook ought to bear Annualrent as being the price of Land Iames Iustice contra Earl of Queensberry Eodem die IAmes Iustice as having right to a Bond of 6000. merks due by the Earl of Queensberry pursues the Earl and the Lord Drumâ—anrig his Son as taking his Estate with the burden of his Debt to pay it who alleadged no Processe because the Pursuers Right was an Assignation granted by a Tutrix not bearing in Name of the Pupil or as Tutrix in his Name because being in infancy he could not subscribe but bearing to be done by her as taking burden for the Pupil The Lords found the Assignation not formal not bearing the Pupil Disponer with his Tutrix but yet found the Letters orderly proceeded the Charger before Extract producing a Ratification by the Pupil and Tutrix formally done Laird of Prestoun contra Nathaniel Ebred Iune 24. 1664. THe Laird of Prestoun pursues Reduction and Improbation against Nathaniel Ebred of all his Rights of certain Lands The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because the Lands in question are Abbay-lands Erected in a temporal Holding in favour of Prestoun and therefore by the Act of Parliament 1633. all such Lands are annexed to the Crown and the Feu-duties are only found due to the Lords of Erection ay and while they be redeemed which is repeited in the 30. Act of Parliament 1661. and therefore the Pursuer not being Superiour but the King he has no interest to Improve of Reduce The Pursuer answered that he opponed his Infeftment of the Lands holden of the King
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
answered many exceptions though they bear not so expresly yet they are rather Declaratory of a Right then in being then statutory introducing a new Right The Lords found Singular Successors free and reduced the Decreet pro tanto Earl of Lauderdail contra Wolmet Eodem die THe Earl of Lauderdail pursues a Spuilzie of the Teynds of Wolmet against Major Biggar who alleadged absolvitor because the Lands of Wolmet were Valued and approven The Pursuer replyed that the said Decreet of Valuation was improven by a Decreet of Certification obtained there against at the instance of Swinton having Right to these Teynds for the time by a Gift from the Usurper The Defender duplyed that no respect ought to be had to the said Certification First because this Pursuer derives no Right from Swintoun being only restored to his own Right and Swintouns Right from the Usurper found null so that as the Pursuer would not be burdened with any Deed of Swintouns to his prejudice neither can he have the benefit of any Deed of Swintouns to his advantage 2dly The said Certification was most unwarrantable in so far as the Decreet of Valuation being in the Register of the Valuation of Teynds the Defender was not oblidged to produce it but the Pursuer ought to have Extracted it himself 3dly All Parties having interest were not called to the said Certification viz. Mr. Mark Ker the Wodsetter by a publick Infeftment in whose Right Major Biggar now Succeeds And last the Defender alleadged that he had a Reduction of the Certification upon Minority and Lesion and the unwarrantable Extracting of it The Pursuer answered to the first that seing Swintoun did use the Pursuers Right all reall advantages which were not Personal but consequent upon the Real Right and which belonged not to Swintoun personaliter but as prerended proprietar do follow the Real Right it self and Accresce to the true Proprietar as if he had acquired a Servitude or had reduced the Vassalls Right â—b non solutum canonem To the Second oppones the Certification wherein compearance was made for Wolmet and three Terms taken to produce and no such Defense was alleadged as that the Valuation was in a publick Register To the Third the Pursuer needed not know the Wodsetter because it was an Improper Wodset the Heretor Possessing by his Back-bond as Heretable Possessor seing the Decreet of Valuation was at the Heretors instance it was sufficient to Reduce it against his Heir for it would not have been necessar to have called the Wodsetter to obtain the Decreet of Valuation but the then Heretable Possessor so neither is it necessar to call the Wodsetter to the Reducing or improving thereof To the last no such Reduction seen nor ready neither the Production satisfied The Lords Repelled the Defense and duplyes in respect of the Certification which they found to accresce to the Pursuer but prejudice to the Defender to insist in his Reduction as accords and declared that if the Defender used diligence in the Reduction they would take it to consideration at the conclusion of the cause Balmirrino contra Sir William Dicks Creditors Iuly 14. 1664. JAmes Gilmor for the use of the Lord Balmirrino being Infeft in the Lands of Northberwick upon a Right from Sir Iohn Smith who had Right from Sir William Dick pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for Sir Williams other Creditors Wodsetters and Appryzers who alleadged absolvitor because the Pursuers Right is Extinct in so far as Balmirrino being Debitor to Sir William Dick and charged by him had acquired this Right from Sir Iohn Smith to compence Sir William and did actually compence him by alleadging the same reason of Compensation producing the Disposition then blank in the Assigneys name whereupon the Letters were Suspended Simpliciter aud my Lord assoilzied and the Disposition given up to Mr. Alexander Dick which is instructed by the Testimony of William Douny Clerk at that time Balmirrino answered First That William Dounys Testimony could not make up a Minute of Decreet where there were no Process nor Adminicle to be seen 2dly Though the minute of the Decreet were lying before the Lords not being Extracted the Lord Balmirrino might passe from his Reason of Compensation and take up his Disposition which is always permitted before Litiscontestation or Decreet and Litiscontestation is never accounted untill the Act be Extracted So that there being no Act of Litiscontestation Extracted in the said Process but only an alleadged minute of a Decreet without an Act neither Partie might resile 3dly Though the Suspender might not resile Simpliciter yet it is still competent to him to propone a several reason of Suspension before Extract being instantly verified and now he propones this Reason that the Debt awand by him to Sir William Dick is a publick Debt and the Parliament has Suspended all execution thereupon till the next Parliament which by consequence liberats him from making use of or instructing his Reason of Compensation The Creditors answered it was most ordinar for the Lords to make up Minuts by the Testimonies of the Clerks when they were lost So that William Douny being a famous Clerk his Testimony must make up the Minute after which the Lord Balmirrino cannot resile from his Reason of Compensation or take back the Disposition seing it was his own fault he did not Extract it and cannot make use now of a Supervenient Exception that was not at that time Competent in prejudice of their Creditors Balmirrino being now in much worse condition The Lords found that the Lord Balmirrino might now propone a Reason of Suspension emergent on the late Act of Parliament and pass from his Reason of Compensation and take up his Disposition seing it did not appear that the Process was miscarried through Balmirrino's fault or that the Disposition was delivered to Mr. Dick neither of which did appear by William Dounys Testimony Thomas Crawfoord contra Prestoun Grange Iuly 15. 1664. THomas Crawfoord as Assigney by the Earl of Tarquair to a Decreet of the Valuation of the Teynds Lethinhops obtained Decreet against the Laird of Prestoun Grange Heretor thereof who Suspended upon this Reason that these Lands were a part of the Patrimony of the Abbacy of New-botle which Abbacy was of the Cistertian Order which Order did injoy that Priviledge that they payed no Teynds for their Lands while they were in their own Labourage or Pastourage of which Priviledge not only the Abbots but after them the Lord New-botle and the Defender hath been in Possession and accordingly Sir Iohn Stewart of Traquair having pursued the Lord Newbotle before the Commissaries of Edinburgh in Anno 1587. For the Teynds of the Lands of Newbotle upon the same Defense was Assoilzied which Decreet standing must be sufficient to the Defender ay and while it be reduced likeas the Defender stood Infeft in the saids Lands by the King with express Priviledges decimarum more solito The Charger answered
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
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
possessed so long as to attain the benefit of a Possessory Judgement which would defend him not only for bygones but in time coming till his Right were Reduced yet before Citation he was bona fide possessor fecit fructus consumptos suos which the Lords found relevant 4ly The Defender alleadged that by the Pursuers Contract he was to be comptable for the superplus of the Mails and Duties of the Lands more then payed his Annualrent and now the Defender coming in place of the Heretor the Pursuer is comptable to him for the superplus The Pursuer answered that albeit he was comptable he might detain those Annualrents and impute them in his Principal Sum. The Lords having considered the Contract found the Pursuer ought to be Re-possessed but that he could not detain the superplus but that he behoved to be comptable yearly to the Defender conform to the Contracte Margaret Mcgil contra Ruthven of Gairn November 22. 1664. MArgaret Mcgil pursues a Reduction of her first Contract of Marriage with Umquhil Patrick Ruthven younger of Gairn upon two Reasons First because it was post nuptias and so donatio inter virum uxorem stante matrimonio revocabilis 2dly Because she was Minor and enorlie leised in so far as she disponed to her Husband and the Heirs of the Marriage which failling to his Heirs 8000 lib. of money and above and the half of some Tenements in Edinburgh worthie 1100 lib. yearly in leiu whereof her Liferent was only of 8. or 10. Chalders of Victual and of her own Tenements but she did not â—etain to her self the Liferent of the Money or any Part of the Stock whereby she is leised in that if the Heirs of the Marriage fail the Money and the Lands goes to the Heirs of the Husband and returnes not to hers and that her Provision being worth 20000 lib. she ought at least to have had the double of the Annualrent thereof in joynter The Defender answered to the first Reason that it was no way relevant seing this was expresly a Contract of Marriage although after the Marriage there being no Contract before it is alike as if it had been before the Marriage and to the second Reason is not relevant unless it were enorme lefion for there being no Portion or rule in Tochars and Joynters but that some get a Joynter equivalent to the Aunualrent of their Tochar some half as much more some double and it being ordinar that Tochars are provided to the Heirs of the Marriage which failling to the Mans Heirs here was no enorme lesion or any thing extraordinar although there were an equality The Pursuer being a Burgess Daughter and her Husband a Gentleman of an ancient Family Quality should be compensed with Means 3dly The Pursuer since she was Major had Homologat the Contract by setting her Joynter Lands and lifting the Rent thereof The Lords having before answer heard Probation of the Provision and of the Joynture and having at length considered the whole Cause They first Repelled the Defense of Homologation because the Pursuer was not quarrelling what she got but what she gave and therefore requiring Rectification to have more They also sustained not the first Reason of Reduction and found the Contract not to be a Donation betwixt Man and Wife and they found the second Reason of Reduction Relevant in so far as extended to an enorme lesion beyond the latitude of Contracts of Marriage amongst such Persons and therefore found it not Relevant to reduce the Fee of the Wifs Provision but found it Relevant to add to her a further Conjunct-fee and therefore Rectified the Contract in so far as she had Assigned her Sums of Money without reserving her own Liferent thereof and found that seing the Fee returned not to her she should have the Liferent of her own Portion and her Provision out of her Husbands Estate which is Eight or Ten Chalder of Victual further Malcome Scot contra Laird of Bearfoord November 23. 1664. BEarsoord having borrowed 4000 merk from Malcome Scot in Anno 1652. By his Contract he is oblidged to pay the Annualrent thereof and the Sum at certain Terms which Contract bears That for Malcoms better Security Bairford sets to him certain Aikers of Land for 53. Bolls of Victual yearly at Malcolms option either to pay the Bolls or to pay twenty shilling less then the Candlemess Fiers Bairford alleadged that Malcolm ought to compt for the full Fiars and that the Diminution of twenty shilling was Usurary given Malcolm more then his Annualrents indirectly by that abatement and therefore both by Common Law and specially by the late Act of Parliament betwixt Debitor and Creditor that Addition was void It was answered that there was here no Usurary Paction But it was free to Malcolm Scot to take the Lands by his Tackâ— for what Terms he pleased and he might have taken it for half as many Bolls or at four merks the Boll for each Boll which would have been valid 2ly The Case of the Act of Parliament meets not because that is only in Wodsets here there is neither Infeftment nor Wodset but a Personal Obliegement and a Tack 3ly There is a just reason to abate so much of the Boll because the Tennent behoved to be at the Expense of the Selling thereof and at the hazard of these that bought if they failed in payment The Lords Sustained the Tack without Annulling the Abatement and found it not Vsurary Halyburtoun contra Porteous Eodem die HAlyburtoun having Married a Widow in the Potter-raw there was no Contract of Marriage betwixt them but he gave her first an Infeftment in all the Lands he had the time of the Infeftment and thereafter he gave her a second Obliegment providing certain Lands to him and her and the Heirs betwixt them which â—ailzing to devide betwixt their Heirs Her Heirs pursuing to fulfill this Obliegment Halyburtoun alleadged it was donatio inter virum uxorem and now he Revocked Which the Lords formerly found Relevant unless the Pursuer condescended that this Infeftment was Remuneratory for a proportionable Provision brought by the Wife and after condescendence having considered what the Wife brought and what of it was before the first Infeftment and what interveened betwixt the first and the second Albeit whatever fell unto the Wife was moveable and would have belonged to the Husband jure mariti Yet if it had been of that value to have Served both the first and second Provision They would have Sustained both as Remuneratory in gratitude to the Wife but they found no such thing condescended on or Instructed and therefore they Reduced the second Provision Collin Hay contra Magistrates of Elgin Eodem die COllin Hay pursues the Magistrates of Elgin for the Debt of a Rebel Escaping out of their Prison They Alleadged Absolvitor First Because it was in the time of Richard the Usurper 2ly The Rebel Escaped by breaking through the Roof of the Prison and
they searched for him immediatly after The Lords Repelled both Defenses seing the Escape was in day light during which the Towns Officer should Guard the Prison Elizabeth Nisbet Lady contra Murray Eodem die ELizabeth Nisbit pursues a Poinding of the Ground of certain Lands wherein she was Infeft by Iames Wood her Husband Compearance is made for Patrick Murray who alleadged that he is Infeft by her Husband his Debitor in the same Lands and ought to be preferred It is answered for the Lady that she ought to be preferred because both their Annualrents being base albeit her Infeftment be posterior Yet her Husbands Possession being her Possession and she being Infeft before Patrick Murray's Infeftment was cled with Possession must be preferred It was answered for Patrick Murray First That a Husbands Possession should be the Wifes Possession cannot be understood in an Annualrent because her Husband never Possessed an Annualrent but the Property This the Lords Repelled and found the Possession of the Property as jus nobilius to contain the Annualrents eminenter 2ly Patrick Murray alleadged that the Husbands Possession being the Wifes is only introduced in favours of Contracts of Marriage favore dotis That because Wives cannot Possess during their Husbands life therefore his Possession is accompâ—ed theirs But this Infeftment in question is not founded upon the Contract of Marriage but upon a posterior Charter of a different Tenor. 3ly Patrick Murray used citation before Câ—ndâ—esmess next after the Ladys Infeftment and thereupon obtained Decreet in March which must be drawn back to the Citation So that the Husband could have no Possession betwixt the Ladys Charter and his Diligence there being no interveening Term. It was answered for the Lady that this Priviledge is allowed to Wifes that their Husbands Possession is theirs during their Marriage favore datis which may be without a Contract 2ly The Husband being in present current Possession from the very Date of the Wifes Seasine his Possession is sufficient to validate hers The Lords found the Ladyes Infeftment to be first validat by Possession It was further alleadged by Patrick Murrayâ— that this Infeftment was donatio inter virum uxorem not being founded on the Contract of Marriage which was satisfied before at least it is to the prejudice of him a lawful Creditor who was Infeft before the Lady and therefore seeing the Ladys Infeftment is so free and lucrative both parties being now Disputing the Possession and power therein The Ladys Infeftment cannot prejudge him That the Contract of Marriage was satisfied he condescends thus that the Husband was oblieged to Infeft his Wife in certain Lands and to make them worth 18. Chalders of Victual or otherwise at her option to Infeft her in an Annualrent ita est she made her option and was Infeft in the Property after which she cannot return to this Annualrent in question It was answered for the Lady that the Clause being conceived in her option must be Interpret her option not to receive the Infeftment but to enjoy either of the two she pleased First A Seasine cannot import her choise which might have been given by her Husband without her knowledge upon the Preccept contained in the Contract of Marriage unless it were instructed that she did accept the same by a Seasine propriis manibus or otherwise and that her Infeftment was a valid effectual Infeftment 3ly Albeit that Article of the Contract of Marriage were satisfied by taking her choise yet she being thereafter Infeft upon her Charter produced in her Liferent Lands and in the Annualrent in Warrandice thereof or with power to her to make use of the Annualrent it self principaliter at her option albeit her choice once made will exclude her from the annualrent principaliter yet not in so far as she is Infeft therein to warrand and make up the principal Lands which can be accounted no Donation nor Deed in prejudice of a Creditor because it doth but make real and effectual the personal obliegement of warrandiceâ— contained in the Contract It was answered for Patrick Murray that this alleadgance non competent hoc loco but he must only poind the Ground until the Lady obtain a Declarator of what is defective of her Liserent Lands but cannot come in by way of Reply The Lords found that the Ladys acceptance of the Liferent Infeftment satisfied the obliegement in the Contract of Marriage and did not sustain the posterior Charter to give her any further choice but sustained the Right of annualrent constitute therein in warrandice of the Liferent Lands hoc loco and ordained the Lady to condescend upon the several Rooms what they payed and what was wanting that she might be preferred in the first place and Patrick Murray in the second place Alexander Livingstoun and Schaw of Scrnbeg contra Lord Forrester and Creditors of Grange Eodem die ALexander Livingstoun as Assigney by Mistriss Margaret Forrester and Sornbeg her Husband to some Debts owing to her by her Father The umquhil Lord Forrester having Charged the remnant Daughters and Heirs of Line craves Adjudication of the Estate of Forrester and Barony of Grange wherein the Lord Forrester Died Infeft Compearance is made for a Creditor of Grange who produces a Back Bond granted by the Lord Forrester to the Laird of Grange bearing that the Infeftment was in trust to the use and behove of the Laird of Grange and only to the Lord Forresters behove for Relief of Debts he should be ingaged in for Grangeâ— and alleadged that he being Granges Creditor and now insisting against Grange who has renunced to be Heir for Adjudging of the Estate of Grange for Granges own Debt he has good Interest in this Process to alleadge no Adjudication of Grange Estate because it is only in Trust except in so far as may be extended to my Lord Forresters Relief and if the Pursuer condescend upon any Distress or Ingagement he will instantly relieve the same The Pursuer answered that he being now in an anterior Diligence to this Party ought not to be stopped in his Diligence but must be admitted to Adjudge from the Lord Forresters Heirs whatever was in his Person And the other Party may also proceed according to his Diligence to Adjudge the Back Bond and when he pursues thereupon he shall have an answer 2ly There is no reason to stop the Adjudication and to force the Pursuer to condescend upon my Lord Forrestersâ— Debts or Interest because a Creditor cannot possibly know them and therefore Adjudications are always granted generally of all Right the Debitor had and is the only ground upon which the Adjudger can pursue the havers of the Debitors Rights to Exhibit and Deliver them and thereupon to found Processes and Condescendences but cannot be urged to condescend before he obtain Adjdication and also insinuat that he would take his Adjudication with the burden of the Back Bond But some of his Advocats resiled therefrom The Lords having considered the Case
that Term was past before his Presentation at least before his Institution and Collation 2ly There being but a Decreet of Modification and no Locality The Earl alleadged Locality should be first made and he lyable but for his proportional part of the Stipend The Lords found that the Stipend affected the Teinds and the Minister might take himself to any of the Heretorsâ— in so far as he had Teind and therfore sustained the Condescendence and ordained the Charger to prove what Teind my Lord had without prejudice to him to crave his Relief Lady Craig and Greenhead her Husband contra Lord Luire Decemb. 7â— 1664. THe Lady Craig being Infeft in Liferent pursues her Tennents Compearance is made for the Lord Luiâ—e who Appryzed the Lands of her Husband and alleadges that he ought to be preferred because he stands publictly Iâ—feft and any Right the Lady has is but base holden of her Husband and before she attained Possessionâ— he was publickly inâ—eft It was answered for the Lady that her Husbands Possession is her Possession and so her Infeftment was cled with Possession from the Date thereof It was answered that that holds only in the case of an Infeftment to a Wife upon her Contract of Marriage but this was but an additional gratuitous Infeftment stante matrimonio she being competently provided before by her Contract In which case such Provisions cannot prejudge Lawful Creditors neither can the Hushands Possession give the benefit of a possessory Judgement to the Wife unless she had Possessed seven years after his Death The Lords found that such Infeftments as these being gratuitous and voluntar could not be prejudicial to the Husbands Creditors nor give the Wife a possessory Iudgement And the case here being with a Creditor of the Husbands they did not proceed further to consider and determine if the Husbands Possession in such a case would not validat the base Right as to any acquired Right thereafter Eccles contra Eccles. Eodem die IN an Action of a Compt and Reckoning betwixt these two Infants It was alleadged for the Defender that he being pursued upon his Fathers back-bond oblieging him to make Compt and Payment of the means of umquhil Fergus Eccles his Brother to Thomas Ecclesâ— and umquhil Andrew Eccles the Pursuers Father It was answered upon condition that Mr. Hugh the Defenders Father should have the third part to himself The Question was concerning the manner of Probation The Pursuer alleadged it was only probable scripto he being a Pupil and his Father dead The Defender alleadged it was probable by the Tutors Oath being so likely in it self that Mr. Hugh being the third Brother should have the third share and that Thomas the Tutor did accordingly allow him the third share and there was produced a Testificat of Balloche that there was an agreement Notwithstanding whereof the Lords refused to take the Tutors Oath ex officio seing they found albeit it were Affirmative it could not prove against the Pâ—pil Scot in Cairlyle contra Henderson and Wilson December 8. 1664. RItchard Scot having Charged Henderson and Wilson upon their Bonds they Suspend and offer them to prove payment of a part by Witnesses and alleadges that it being the Law of England that Wâ—tnesses can prove to take away Writ that therefore these Bonds being Contracted in England with English men the Suspenders ought to have the same benefit of Probation they would have had if they had been Arrested in England upon their Bonds or pursued there and adduced a Practick of Dury in Anno 1628. The Lords having accuratly Considered and Debated this Case amongst themselves and finding that locus contractus was in England But the Bonds bare expresly a Clause of Registration in Scotland And that such Bonds had been ordinar betwixt Merchants in England and Merchants in Scotland and in no time such a Probation admitted and that it would furnish an ordinary delay in such Cases to the disadvantage of Merchants and hindering of Trade by always offering to prove payment in England by Witnesses which could require long time Therefore they found the reason only probable scripto vel juramento Mr. Cornelius Inglis contra Mr. Rodger Hogg December 9. 1664. MR. Cornelius Inglis pursuing a Removing against certain Tennents near Dumbar upon an Infeftment and Appryzing It was alleadged for the Tennents that they were Tennents to Mr. Rodger Hogg by payment of Mail and Duty to him and he was not called The Pursuer answered non relevat unless the Defenders condescend upon Mr. Rodgers Right which might defend him and them The Defenders answered first that they could not be oblieged to Dispute their Masters Right but he ought to be called to Dispute his own Right 2ly It was insinuat that Mr. Rodger had an Appryzing and a Charge against the Superiour The Lords repelled the Defense unless the Defenders condescended upon such a Right as were valide to exclude the Pursuer being prior to his but the Tennents alleadged no such Right and Mr. Rodgers Charge was posterior to the Pursuers Infeftment Iohn Veatch younger of Dawick contra Alexander Williamson Eodem die JOhn Veatch pursues Williamson upon the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor for paying to him of his proportional part of the Mails and Duties of Appryzed Lands as coming in pari passu with the Defender by an Appryzing within a year of his The Defender alleadged absolvitor because he has Right to the first Appryzing led before the Act of Parliament betwixt Debitor and Creditor and therefore he has the benefit of the 21. Act of the last Session of Parliament declaring that where an Appryzer for his own Security had redeemed a prior Apprysing and gotten Right thereto before the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor The said first Apprysing should have the same effect it would have had before the Act Debitor and Creditor and should not come in pari passu The Pursuer answered that behoved only to be understood where the second Appryzer had upon necessity to shun the expyring of the legal redeemed and gotten Right to the first Apprysing which could not be said here because the Debitor being minor the legal had and has a long course to run The Lords sustained the Defense without any such limitation in respect of the express Tenor of the Act of Parliament Robert Learmonth contra Laurance Russel Eodem die RObert Learmonth being pursued by Laurance Russel for the price of Wines and the matter referred to his oath gave in a qualified Oath bearing that the Wines in question were sent to him not to be sold till further order and that therefore he keeped them unsold till the end of the year and when they were in hazard of spoilling sold them for 12 pound Sterling the Tun and that he that sent them was Debitor to him by Bonds and Decreets in a greater sum It was alleadged neither member of the quality was competent not the first because it was offered to be proven that the
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
Poynding against the Pursuer and the Bairns but in regard of so much ground in the matter they declared they would not sustain the Passive Title to make him Successor universal but only as to the just Price and the Cause Onerous Grahame of Blackwood contra Brouns Ianuary 7. 1665. JOhn and William Brouns having Appryzed certain Lands and William Grahame having Appryzed the same within a year after pursues an Accompt and Reckoning against the first Appryzer upon the last Act of Parliament betwixt Debitor and Creditor and craves to come in pari passu with the first Appryzer not only as to there Mails and Duties of the Lands Intrometted with by the Appryzer since the said Act of Parliament but also for these Duties that were Intrometted with before the said Act and that because the Act bears expresly That such Appryzing shall come in pari passu as if there had been one Appryzing led for both It was answered for the first Appryzer that what he did uplift bona fide before any Process intented against him at this Pursuers instance he cannot pay back a part thereof to the Pursuer because he is bona fide Possessor and because the Act of Parliament bears That such Appryzings shall come in pari passu which being in the future must be understood to be from their intenting of Process at least from the date of the Act but not from the beginning The Lords having considered the Tenor of the Act of Parliament found that such Appryzings should only come in pari passu from the date of the Act but that the bygones uplifted by the first Appryzer before the Act should be accompted to him in his Sum but no part thereof repeited to the second Appryzer and found that the Sums Appryzed for Principal and Annualrent of both Parties should be restricted as they were the time of the Act of Parliament in one total Sum and the Rent to be received from that time proportionally to the total Sums and that the first Appryzer should have allowance in his preceeding Intromission of the expenses of the composition to the Superiour and the charges of the Appryzing without compelling the second Appryzer to pay him the same Normand Lesly contra Gilbert Gray Ianuary 10. 1665. NOrmand Lesly charges Gilbert Gray Provost in Aberdeen to pay 2000 merk for which he was Cautioner for William Gray He Suspends and alleadges that the Charger had gotten an Assignation from the said William Gray to an Bond granted by the Earl of Errol to him and therefore craved that the Charger might be decerned to transfer that Assignation to him being given for the security of the same Sum. It was answered that the Charger was only oblidged to give a discharge to his Cautioner and not an Assignation of the Bond it self and much less of any security ex post facto he had gotten therefore The Lords declared they would not give the Charger Process till he Assigned the Bond and all security gotten therefore to the Cautioner William Reid contra John Reid Eodem die WIlliam Reid pursues Iohn Reid as his Tutor to deliver all Writs belonging to the Pupils Father or which were in his Custody and Possession quovis modo Intrometted with by the Tutor Who alleadged the Pupil could have no interest in any Writs but these which belonged to his Father The Lords found that Pupil had interest to call for Exhibition and Delivery of all Writs that were in his Fathers Possession quovis modo and ordained the Tutor to exhibit all but prejudice to any Partie having interest to crave the delivery of these Writs if they belonged to them Campbel contra Mary Bryson Eodem die GEorge Campbel having right by Adjudication to the Reversion of a Wodset of some of the Lands of Newlistoun Wodset by the Laird of Newlistoun to Andrew Bryson Baillie of Edinburgh whereupon he was publickly Infeft and thereafter did dispone the same to his Daughter Marry Bryson and she was Infeft holden of her Father which Disposition contained a power to the Father to dispone on the Sum in the Wodset Right during his Lifetime without her Consent after all Andrew Bryson obtained a Confirmation of the foresaid Wodset with Addition of 16. aikers of Land more for the same Sum which was conceived in favours of himself and the Heirs of the Marriage whereupon he was Infeft The said George having used an Order of Redemption craved Declarator Compearance is made for the said Mary who craved the said Sum to be delivered up to her It was alleadged by the Pursuer that she could not have up the Sum unless she were Infeft as Heir to her Father both in the first and last Wodset and resigned the same and so liberat the Land of the Burthen thereof for albeit she was Infeft proprio nomine yet it was but base holden of her Father so that the Superiority remained with her Father and she behoved to be Infeft as Heir to him and renunce the same 2. The Corroborative Wodset stood in her Fathers Person who by her Disposition had a Power to dispose of the first Wodset and so had altered the Fee thereof to himself and his Heirs It was answered that the second Wodset was taken when Maries mother was dead and she the only child of that Marriage and so was alike as if her name had been expressed 2. The Declarator it self will sufficiently secure the Redeemer albeit there were no Resignation 3dly The second Wodset is but accessory to the first so that the said Mary having power to renunce the first Wodset proprio nomine the second may be declared to be extinct in consequence and further offered Caution if need were to warrand the Redeemer The Lords found the Lands to be Redeemed but ordained the Money not to be given up untill the said Mary had Infeft her self as Heir to her Father and Resigned for they thought the Redeemer ought to put upon no hazard of repetition or of the danger of the Infeftment unrenunced seing it was the ordinar Course to be Infeft and to renunce Magaret Arnot contra Mr. Robert Arnot Ianuary 11. 1665. MArgaret Arnot pursues a Reduction of a Decreet of Exoneration obtained by William Arnot her Uncle and Executor to her Father It was alleadged for Mr. Robert Arnot Son and Successor to the said William that all Parties having Interest were not called viz The Creditors and Legatars who were concerned in the event of the Reduction for if there Sums and Discharges were not allowed according to the Exoneration The Defender behoved to return upon them for payment and therefore they ought to be called to defend their Interest The Lords repelled the Defense and found no necessity to call the Creditors and Legatars but that the Defender might intimat the Plea to them Neilson and Calender contra Ianuary 12. 1665. NEilson and Lodovick Calender her Spouse pursue a Transferrence of an old Summons on which there was an Inhibition used It
thought to be Creditor in the same Clause The Lords found the conception of the Clause that the Brother by falling now Heir was excluded seing it was clear by the meaning of the Defunct that his Heir should have his Lands and his Bairns of his second Marriage should have though but one 4000 merks but here the Heir of the first Marriage was never served Heir They also found that the Portions of the Children being to an uncertain day and not conceived to their Heirs or Assigneys that they dying before that day had no right to the Stock but only the Annualrent medio tempore so that the Stock accresced to the surviving Children as if the Defuncts had never existed and that their Assigneys or Creditors could not have affected the same and so found the Brother had no right as nearest of Kin to the two deceasing Children not attaining the Age mentioned in the Contract William Stewart contra Stewarts Ianuary 18. 1665. WIlliam Stewart pursues a Poynding of the Ground of the Lands of Errol upon an Infeftment of Annualrent granted to his Grand-Father by the Earl of Errol by his Bond and Infeftment following thereupon in which Bond there were Cautioners the Annualrent was for a Sum of 7000 merk and a Sum of 8000 merk Compearance is made for the Pursuers Brothers and Sisters who alleadged that as to the Sum of 7000 merks it became moveable and belongs to them as nearest of Kine In so far as their Father made Requisition for the same It was answered the Instrument of Requisition is null and being disconform to the Clause of Requisition in respect that the Original Bond was to the Husband and Wife the longest liver of them two in Conjunctfee and their Heirs c. And the Requisition bears expresly That if the Husband or his Heirs required with consent of the Wife then the Debitor shall pay ita est the Instrumenet bears no consent It was answered that albeit some Points of the Requisition were omitted yet seing the mind of the Defunct appears to take himself to his Personal Right and consequenly to prefer his Executor to his Heir it is sufficient The Pursuer answered non relevat because every Intimation of the Defuncts Intention is not enough but it must be haili modo and the ground whereupon the Sums become moveable is because the Requisition looses and takes away the Infeftment and therefore if the Requisition be null the Infeftment is valid and he Bairns can never have access The Lords found the Requisition null and preferred the Heir Stewart contra Stewart Ianuary 19. 1665. IN the foresaid Cause it was further alleadged for the 8000 merk that it was also moveable because as to it there was no Liferenter and the Fear himself did require It was answered for the Children that the Requisition is null because it mentions not the production of a Procuratory nor the production of the Right it self 2ly The Requisition is made to Bogie as Cautioner for the Earl of Kinnoul whereas he was Cautioner for the Earl of Errol granter of the first Bond. It was replyed oppones the Requisition bearing That the Procurators power was sufficiently known to the Notar 2ly non Relevat unless the Person required had called for the Procuratory or Right and had been refused 3ly The Procuratory is now produced with the Right and the Defunct acknowledged the Procuratory and Right because he raised horning thereupon The Lords sustained the Requisition and found the Sum moveable and preferred the Bairns thereto Shaw contra Lewens Eodem die WIlliam Shaw being a Factor at London and dieing there and having Means both in England and Scotland There falls a Competition betwixt his Executors nuncupative in England and his nearest of Kine Executors in Scotland Anna Lewens Executrix confirmed in England produces a Sentence of the Court of Probat of wills in England bearing That upon the Examination of Witnesses that Court found that William Shaw did nominat Anna Lewens his Executrix and universal Legatrix And that being asked by her what he would leave to his friends in Scotland He declared he would leave her all and them nothing because they had dealt unnaturally with him It was alleadged for the Defuncts Cusigns Executors Confirmed in Scotland that they ought to be preferred because as to the Defuncts Means and Moveables in Scotland the same must be regulat according to the Law in Scotland where a nuncupative Testament hath no use at all and albeit a Legacy may be left by word yet it cannot exceed a 100 lib. Scots It was answered that as to the Succession the Law of Scotland must regulat so that what is Heretable cannot be left by Testament though made out of Scotland As was found in the Case of the Successors of Col Henderson dying in Holland and in the Case of contra Meldrum yet as to the Solemnity of Acts to the Law and Custom of the Place where such Acts are done takes place as where an Act is done in Scotland albeit it be only probable by Writ or Oath of Parties yet being done in England it is probable by Witnesses though it were of the greatest moment and though the Law of Scotland in Writs of Importance requires the Subscription of the Partie before Witnesses or of two Nottars and four Witnesses yet Writs made in France and Holland by the Instrument of one Nottar are valid so here there being no difference from the Law of Scotland which always preferres Executors nominat before nearest of Kin and the difference only as to the Solemnities and manner of Probation that there it may be proven by Witnesses there was a Nomination and here only by Writ The Lords having considered the Reasons and former Decisions preferred the Executors confirmed in Scotland for they found that the Question was not here of the manner of Probation of a Nomination In which case they would have followed the Law of the Place but it was upon the Constitution of the essentialls of a Right viz. A nomination which albeit it were certainly known to have been by word yea if it were offered to be proven by the nearest of Kin that they were Witnesses thereto yet the Solemnitie of writ not being interposed the Nomination is in it self defective and null in substantialibus Lord Lour contra Ianuary 20. 1665. IN a Process for making arrested Sums furth-coming two Arresters viz. my Lord Lour and another Competing It was alleadged for Lour that the first Arrestment is null because the Partie was out off the Countrey when it was only made at his dwelling house which is not Legal seing all Summonds Intimations Premonitions Requisitions and all Denunciations against Parties out of the Countrey must be by Letters of Supplement from the Lords Execute at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh and Peir and Shore of Leith So must Arrestments against these who are out of the Countrey be there Which the Lords found relevant and preferred the second Arrestment Personal
Litle contra Earl of Nithsdail Eodem die LItle pursues an Improbation and Reduction against the Earl of Nithsdaile of the Rights of some Lands Whereinâ— the Lords sustained the Pursuers Interest on a Compryzing and Charge without Infeftment and though the Appryzing was on Litles own Band simulat and assigned to himself and found such Deeds might make him lyable as behaving as Heir if he Intrometted and were sufficient Titles any other way The Lords also found that Certification ought to be granted against Retours and Charters though in publick Registers but not against Writs Registrate in the Books of Session the date being condescended on by the Defender were sustained against all Writs granted to the Defender and his Authors but such as Seem to represent them are called nor against Writs granted by the Pursuer his Predecessors or Authors but only his Predecessors to whom he doth Succeed jure sanguinis and such Authors as he produces Right from but they would not admit Certification against Appryzing if the Infeftment thereupon were produced Sir John Baird contra The Magistrats of Elgine Ianuary 25. 1665. SIr Iohn Baird pursues the Magistrats of Elgine for the Debt of a Rebel whom they suffered to escape forth of their Prison It was alleadged for the Magistrats absolvitor because they could be oblidged no further but for their ordinar diligence of Custodie but not contra vim majorem and offered to prove that about six a clock at night in the winter time the Rebels Lady going in to Sup with him the keeper opening the Prison Door to let her in six or seven Armed men pressed in with her and that there was sixty more at the Gate The Pursuer answered non relevat because it was the Keepers fault to let in any body at that time of night The Lords found the Defense relevant to be proven by Witnesses above exception which were condescended on Parson of Dysart contra Watson Eodem die ANderson Parson of Dysart having a designation of four Aikers of Iohn Watsons Land which was Bishops Land charges him to removeâ— Watson Suspends on this Reason that there are Parsons Lands in the Paroch more ewest to the Kirk and lying about the Parsons Mans and therefore according to the Order of the Act of Parliament anent Designation of Glebs the Parsons Lands must be designed in the first place before the Defenders Lands which are Bishops Lands It is answered for the Charger that the Parsons Lands were Feued out before the said Act of Parliament and are all build with houses incorporat within the Town of Dysart It was answered that the said Act of Parliament bears That the Parsons Lands shall be first Designed although they be Feued out before Which the Lords found relevant and Ordained the Parsons Land to be cognosced what quantitie was wanting thereof to be made out of the Bishops Land William Menzies contra Laird of Drum Eodem die WIlliam Menzies as Executor to Alexander Menzies and umquhil Margart Gordon the other Executor having obtained Decreet against the Laird of Drum for 8000 merk The said Margaret being dead William charges for the whole Margaret having died at the Horn Compearance is made for the Donatar It was alleadged for Drum that he could not be conveened at the instance of this Pursuer without concourse of the other Executor or some to represent her had been called For they might have alleadged that this Charger is satisfied of the half of his Executry The Lords found that seing the Testament was execute by a Sentence the other Executor needed not be called 2ly Drum alleadged that he could not be lyable to this Executor but for the half It was alleadged for the Donatar that he craved preference for the other half It was answered that the Donatar could have no interest because the Sum was Heretable It was answered that albeit it was Heretable yet it became moveable by the Executors taking a Decreet therefore in the same Case as if Requisition had been used In this the Lords did not decide some being of opinion that it was Moveable others contrair because an Executor being but a Successor as a Decreet of Registration or Transferrence would not change the Nature of the first Bond so neither would this Decreet The Heretors of the Fishing of Don contra The Town of Aberdeen and their Feuers Ianuary 26. 1665. THe Heretors having Salmond Fishing in the Water of Don above Aberdeen pursue a Declarator of their Right of Salmond Fishing and that they ought to be Free of the prejudice sustained by the Cruives built at Aberdeen and insist upon these Particulars That the Town of Aberdeen hath no Right to Cruives but is only Infeft cum piscationibus piscarijs and within such a bounds which cannot carry Salmond Fishing being inter regalia much less Cruives It was answered that such a Clause granted to an Incorporation or Community or being in Baronia with Immemorial Possession is sufficient and that there is a later Right granted to the Town with power of Cruives within the said Bounds uti possidebantur It was answered that the Pursuers had their Cruives established before that time The Lords found the Town of Aberdeens Title to Cruives albeit conceived but conform to the first Clause with long Possession was sufficient 2ly The Pursuers insisted against the Transporting of the Cruives from one place to another which they could not do Cruives being a Servitude strictissimi juris as a way being once chosen and fixed cannot be changed especially in respect of the Clauses uti possidebantur It was answered that there being a Bounds expressed and mentioning Cruives to have been there before the meaning can be no other then that these Cruives should be removed if Inundations alter the present stans and uti possidebantur is only understood of the way of building as before The Lords found by the said Clause that the Cruives might be Trasplanted within the Bounds having but one Cruive Dyck and the former Dyck demolished so that the Fishings above be in no worse condition then formerly 3ly They insisted for the wydnesse of the Heeks whereanent it was alleadged that by an Act of Parliament King Iames the fourth Hecks were appointed to be five Inches wyde which is confirmed by an Act 1661. It was answered that the Act King Iames the 4th did relate to a former Act of King Davids which was not to be found but there were two Acts by King Iames the 3. Relating to the old Act by King Alexander which was found to bear three Inch. So that the Act K. Iames the 4th though posterior being but Relative and the Act Related not known The Lords found it was a mistake in the writing of the Act and that in the stead of King David it should have expressed King Alexander and so born only three Inches seing otherwayes five Inch would let the greatest part of Salmond passe 4ly They Insisted for the Saturndays Slop and craved that
title to it 2. Though it should be condescended that they were lent yet it must be proven only scripto vel juramento being a matter above an hundred pound The Pursuer answered that in liquid Sums or Promises Witnesses are not receivable above that Sum but in corporibus or facts as in bargains of Victual made and delivered Witnesses are sufficient though for greater Value The Lords found the Pursuer behoved to condescended upon the way the books was delivered and found it probable by Witnesses Mr. William Kintor Advocat contra John Boyd Baillie in Edinburgh Eodem die MR. William Kintor and Iohn Boyd having both adjudged the Lands of Mountlouthian pursue mutual Reductions of each others Rights Mr. Williams Right was upon a Decreet cognitionis causa against the Appearand Heir renuncing against which Iohn Boyd alleadged that the Adjudication was null proceeding upon a null Decreet cognitionis causa First In so far as it was lybelled at the instance of Kintor as Assigney by his Brother who was Heir to his Father and Execut-Executor and neither Retour nor Testament produced and so was null for want of probation The Pursuer answered that he had now produced in supplement of the Decreet the Writs The Lords sustained the Decreet only as ab hoc tempore 2ly Boyd alleadged that the Decreet cognitionis causa proceeded on six hundered merks which was Heretable by Infeftment and contained Clause of Requisition and no Requisition produced The Lords found the Decreet null pro tanto and to stand for the rest being upon diverse Articles 3ly Boyd alleadged that the said Decreet ought to be Reduced in so far as it proceeded against the Cautioner of a Tutor for payment of the Annualrent of his Pupils money during the Tutorie and for the Annualrent of that Annualrent a tutâ—la finita because the Tutor had uplifted at least ought to have uplifted and imployed the same for the Pupills behove ex officio It was answered that albeit Tutors are oblidged for their Pupils Rent which are in Tennents hands yet not for the Annualrent of their Money being in secure hands then and now if the Tutor had lifted it it would have been lost he being broken and the Cautioner also and the Debitors being great men as the Marquess of Hamiltoun and Lord Burghlie they would easily have Suspended and lost the Pursuers pains The Lords found that Tutors were oblidged to uplift their Pupils Annualrents though the Creditors were secure and to imploy them for Annualrents but not for each year they were due but ante finitam tutelam because though he had them he was not oblidged every year to imploy them severally and so sustained the Decreet 4ly Boyd alleadged that the years of the Tutorie ought to have been proven which was not and so the Decreet is null The Lords sustained the Decreet seing it was lybelled in communi forma unless it were alleadged that some of these years were post sinitam tutelam here a Testificat of the Pupils age was produced Lord Borthwick contra Mr. Mark Ker. Ianuary last 1665. THe Lord Borthwick pursues a Reduction ex capite inhibitionis of all Rights made by Sir Mark Ker to Andrew or Mr. Marks Ker of Moristoun of certain Lands The Defenders alleadged no Process because none to represent Sir Mark Ker were called who being bound in warrandice to the Defenders ought to be called whereas of old Processes sisted till warrands were first discussed so now the warrand ought at least to be called The Pursuer answered that he was not craving Reduction of Sir Marks own Right but of Moristouns Right granted by Sir Mark who was common Author to both And as to the warrandice the Defender might intimat the plea if he pleased The Lords found no Process till the warrand were called Alison Kelloâ— contra Pringle Eodem die ALison Kello pursues a Reduction against the Lairds of Wadderburnâ— and Pringle and craves Certification It was alleadged for Pringle no Certification because he was minor non tenetur placitare de Haereditate Paterna The Pursuer answered primo non relevat against the Production but the Minor must produce and may alleadge that in the Debate against the Reason 2ly Non constat that it is Hareditas Paterna and therefore he must produce at least his Fathers Infeftment 3ly All he alleadges is that his Father had an Heretable Disposition without Infeftment which cannot make Haereditatem Paternam else an Heretable Bond were not Reduceable against a Minor or an Appryzing and Tack 4ly Albeit the alleadgeance were proponed in the discussing of the Reason yet the Reason being super dolo metu upon which the Defenders Original Right was granted and not upon the poynt of Preference of Right the brocard holds not in that Case as it would not hold in Improbation in casu falsi The Lords found that the Defender ought to produce his Fathers Infeftment and that a naked Disposition would not be sufficient which being produced they would sustain the Defense quoad reliqua against the Production but that they would examine Witnesses upon any point of fact in the Reason to remain in retentis that the Witnesses might not die in the mean time without discussing the Reason but prejudice of their Defenses Anderson and Proven contra Town of Edinburgh Eodem die ANderson being Creditor to Proven arrests in the hands of Gairdner all Sums due by him to Proven and thereupon pursues before the Commissaries of Edinburgh Gairdner gives his Oath that he is Debitor to Proven no way but for the Tack Dutie of the Customs of Edinburgh whereunto he was Sub-tacks-man to Proven conform to his Bond produced whereupon the Commissaries decerned Gairdner Suspends on double poynding It was alleadged for the Town of Edinburgh that the Sum in question being a Sub-tack dutie they had the common priviledge of all Masters against their Tennents and Sub-tennents that they might pursue either of them as they pleased without an Arrestment or any Diligence and were alwayes preferable for their Tack-dutie to any other Creditor of the principal Tacksman It was answered that Custom was not in the case of Rents of Lands wherein their is tacita hipotheca and that the principal Tacks-man was only their direct Debitor and the Sub-tacksman paying to the Principal Tacksman or which is equivalent to his Creditor is for ever free and the Town of Edinburgh hath secured themselves by taking Caution of the Sub-tacksman The Lords found the Town of Edinburgh preferable for their Tack-dutie and that they had immediat Action against the Sub-tacksman unless he had made payment bona fide before that they might exclude any other Creditor of the Principal Tacks-man for their Tack-dutie George Baptie contra Christian Barclay Eodem die CHristian Barclay having pursued George Baptie before the Commissares of Edinburgh for Solemnizing Marriage with her because he had gotten her with Child under promise of Marriage as was instructed by his Bond produced
and so would not insecure Creditors doing diligence by Arrestment Lyon of Muirask contra Heretors of the Shire Eodem die LYon of Muirask having been Commissioner in the Parliament 1648. did by vertue of the Act of Parliament 1661. Allowing Commissioners Charges to these who served in Parliament 1648. Who adhered to the Engadgment charges the â—â—eretors of the Shyre to meet and Stent and their being a Stent made conform to the Valuation he Charges thereuponâ— some of the Heretors Suspends and alleadge that they were not charged to meet and so the Stent Roll is null 2ly That is not instructed that the Charger attended all the dayes in the Parliament 3ly That the Roll ought to be made according to the Retour and not to the Valuation conform to the Custom before the troubles The Lords found that seing the Heretors who met expressed in the Stent Roll that all the Heretors were charged that it was sufficient though the Executions against each on of them was not now produced and because the Sedâ—runts of the Parliament 1648. were not to be found They found he had right to the whole Charges during the Parliament unless for such time as they shall prove by his oath that he was absent but found that the Stent Roll ought to be according to the Retour and not to the Valuation Lady Greenhead conra Lord Loure February 10. 1665. THe Lady Craig and the Laird of Greenhead her second Husband pursues the Tenents of Craig wherein she is Infeft for Mails and Duties In which Process my Lord Loure coâ—â—pears for his Interest and alleadges that he having Appryzed the Estate of Craig and being Infeft thereupon hath raised Reduction of the Ladies Infeftment on this Reason that a Part of his Sumes being anterior to the Ladies Infeftment who was competently provided by her Contract of Marriage in 30. Chalder of Victuall and this additional Infeftment of fifty Chalder of Victual being betwixt most Conjunct Persons Husband and Wife in so far as it is posterior to the Pursuers lawful Debt ought to be Reduced upon the Act of Parliament 1621. The Pursuer answered the Reason ought to be repelled First Because the Act of Parliament being only against gratuitous Dispositions made by Bankerupts in prejudice of their lawful Creditors is not relevant seing Craig the Disponer was not a Bankerupt 2ly As he was not a Bankerupt so neither was heâ— insolvendo because the Reversion of his Estate is sufficient to pay his Debt albeit the Same were affected with this additional Joynture It was answered for the Defender that albeit the Title and Narrative of the Act be against Bankerupts yet the Statutory part thereof is against all gratuitous Dispositions by Conjunct Persons so that the Defender needs not alleadge that either the Disponer was Bankerupt or insolvendo but that the Ladies Infeftment is betwixt Conjunct Persons without an onerous Cause The Pursuer answered that the Disponer was neither Bankerupr nor insolvendo and the Defender can have no Interest unless there were fraud or prejudice which the Defender cannot alleadge because the Pursuer is content that the Defender have access by his Appryzing to the Joynture Lands In so far as will satisfie his Annualrents and by the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditorâ— the Lords are impowred to restrict Appryzings to their Annualrent and so he can pretend no prejudice providing he assigne the Lady to his Appryzing in so far as he satisfies his Annualrent out of her Additional Joynture The Lords found the answer to the Reduction Relevant upon purging of the Appryzers prejudice not only by admitting him to have access to the Appryzed Lands upon Assignation as said is during the Legal but with Declaration that if the Lady Redeemed not within the Legall the Lands should be irredeemable and the Lady totally excluded Earl of Lauderdail contra Lord Oxfuird February 11. 1665. THe Earl of Lauderdail his Guidsir being Infeft in the Barony of Musselburgh which is a part of the Abbacy of Dumferling by a Gift from King Iames in Anno 1584. Excepted by the Act of Parliament for Annexation of Kirklands in Anno 1587. And repeited in the Act of Parliamet 1593. His Father got a Gift in Anno 1641. And Oxfuird got another the same year from the King as Heir to Queen Ann his Mother who had a Heretable Disposition of the whole Lordship of Dumferling from the King after Lauderdails first Right Lauderdail obtained Conformation of his first and subsequent Rights in the Parliament 1661. Declaring all Rights formerly granted by the King since Lauderdails first Right void Which Ratification bears an express provision That it shall not be prejudged by the Act salvo jure cuâ—uslibet The Defender alleadged absolvitor in hoc judicio possessorio because his Father was Infeft by the King in Anno 1641. And by vertue thereof in possession twenty years before this persuit and as for his Ratification the Defender not being called thereto it cannot take away his Right being founded super jure communi untill the Pursuer insist in Reduction In which case the Defender shall answer but is not oblidged to answer in hoc judicio and as for the exception of the Act salvo jur It s against the common Law and the Act salvo jure is posterior without repeiting that exception The Pursuer opponed his Ratificatiom excepting the Act salvo jure which being done upon the King and Parliaments certain knowledge upon consideration of Lauderdails prior Right The Lords cannot be Judges to reduce the Sentence and Statute of Parliament as Durie observes to have been found in the Case of the Earl of Rothes and Iohn Stewart of coldinghame The Defender repeiâ—ed his answer and for these Decisions opponed the Tennor of the Act salvo jure 1633. And repeited 1661. Whereby the Lords are ordained to decide in the Rights of privat Parties according to Law without respect of Ratification or other privat Statuts in favours of particular Persons such as this which being after this decisions clears and enlarges the power of the Lords The Pursuer opponed his Ratification and exception of the Act salvo jure which bears expresly That it should stand as a publick Law and so was no privat Statute mentioned in these Acts Salvo jure The Lords having considered the Case and that such exceptions from the Act Salvo jure were of dangerous consequence to the Leidges They ordained the Parties before answer to dispute the point of Right as if such an exception of the Act Salvo jure had not been granted but they thought that Defense upon a possessory Iudgement being but a point of form whereby the Rights of Parties were not competent by exception or reply the Parliament might dispense therewith and also might repone Parties as to the matter of Prescription or quoad minor non tenetur placitare but if without these and such the Pursuer had a prior valid Right The Lords were loath to enter upon the case of
Heir to the Defunct as his Goodsirs Brothers Oye and having obtained Certification contra non producta there being nothing produced but the Retour Service Brive and Executions but no Warrand of the Service either bearing the Testimony of Witnesses adduced to prove the propinquity of Blood or bearing that the Inquest of proper knowledge knew the same The Pursuer now insists in his Reason of Reduction that the Service is without Warrant and without Probation by Writ or Witnesses It was answered non relevat as it is lybelled bearing only that it is without probation by Writ or Witnesses whereas it might proceed upon the proper knowledge of the Inquest or any two of them The Pursuer answered that neither were there any Probation by Writ or Witnesses nor by the Minuts of Processe bearing that the Persons of Inquest of their proper knowledge did Serve The Lords considering that the Minuts of these Process upon Service for Serving general Heirs which may be before any Judicature use not to be exactly keeped would not instantly Reduce for want of the Warrants but ordained the Persons of Inquest to be produced to condescend whether they proceeded upon proper knowledge and what was the Reason of their knowledge Mc. Gregor contra Menzies Eodem die THere being a question arising betwixt Mc. Gregor and Menzies upon a Decreet Arbitral The Lords found the Decreet Arbitral null proceeding upon a Submission of this Tenor submitting to the Arbiters ay and while they meet at any Day and Place they found convenient with power of Prorogation without any particular Day for giving their Sentence blank or filled up because the Decreet Arbitral was not within a year of the Date of the Submission nor any Prorogation during that time Dam Elizabeth Dowglass and Sir Robert Sinclar of Longformacus contra Laird of Wedderburn Eodem die THe Lady Longformacus as Heir to her Goodsire William Dowglas of Eveling who was Donatar to the Escheat and Liferent of Iohn Stewart of Coldinghame pursues the Laird of Wedderburn for the Teinds of his Lands which Teinds pertained to the Abbots of Coldinghame The Defender alleadged absolvitor because he has Tack to run flowing from the Earl of Hoom who was Infeft in the Lordship of Coldinghameâ— and before that was Commendator thereof by His Majesty 2ly Iohn Stewart had ratified all Rights flowing from the Earl of Hoom and consequently this Tack after which the Donatar of his Escheat could not challenge the same for the Ratification is equivalent as if the Tack were granted by the Ratifier The Pursuer answered that the Defense upon the Tack and the Earl of Hooms Right ought to be Repelled because the Earl of Hoomes Right is Reduced by the Parliament 1621. on this consideration that the Earl of Bothwel being Commendator of Coldinghame had demitted the same in his Majesties hands whereupon the said Iohn Stewart his Son was provided by the King Commendator of Coldinghame and thereafter the Earl of Bothwel being Forefault the said Iohn and his other Children were Dishabilitate and declared incapable to bruik and joy his Land and Heritage or to succeed to any Person within this Realm by Sentence of Parliament whereupon the King provided the Earl of Hoom to be Commendator of Coldinghame and thereafter on the Earls own Resignation Infeft him therein in an erected Lordship and thereafter in the Parliament 1621. The King and Estates upon express consideration that Iohn Stewart was an Infant no wayes accessory to his Fathers Crimes did therefore annul his Dishabilitation and Rehabilitate him and declared that he should have Right to the Abbacy of Coldinghame in the same manner as he had before his Dishabilitation and Resciâ—ded all Rights and Infeftments of the said Abbacy granted by His Majesty to any Person of the said Abbacy since the said Dishabilitationâ— in so far as the samine might be prejudicial to Iohn Stewart's Provision that he had before After all which Iohn Stewart upon his own Resignation was Infeft in the Property of Coldinghame so that the Earl of Hoom's Right being Reduced in Parliament and falling in consequence with Iohn Stewarts Dâ—shabilitation whereupon it was founded the Defenders Tack following thereuponâ— falls also in Consequence as was already found by the Lords in Anno 1628. betwixt the said William Dowglas of Evelen and the Laird of Wedderburn conform to an Interlocutor Extracted and produced which is sufficient inter easdem partes and cannot be questioned super eisdem deductis now albeit at that time Wedderburn past from his compearance and so the Decreet against him was in absence yet the Interlocutor was ordained to be Extracted against him by the Lords which is sufficient and as for the Ratification of the Tacks granted by the Earl of Hoom the samine was after Iohn Stewart had Resigned his Comendatorship and before he was Infeft in Property The Defender answered First That the said Reduction of the Earl of Hoom's Right was without calling of the Defender or of the Earl of Hoom himselfâ— 2ly It mentions no particular Right or any Person but in general all Right and so is but a privat Right impetrat from the Parliament without hearing of Parties and therefore falls under the Act of Parliament salvo jure And as to the former Interlocutor of the Lords The reason why the Lords sustained the said Rescissory Act was because they found themselves not competent to Judge as to Sentences of Parliament or to annul the same upon the not calling of the Parties in respect that the Act salvo 1621. relates to Ratifications but not to such Sentences as this but by Act salvo 1633. It is expresly declared that that Act and all former Acts salvo should not only extend to Ratifications but to all other privat Acts impetrat without hearing of Parties and prejudicial to other Parties Rights and therefore now the Lords ought to proceed upon the Parties Right without consideration of that Act Rescissory 2ly The Act of Parliament Prohibits and annuls all Restitution of Forefaulture by way of Grace in so far as may be prejudicial to these who bona fide acquired Rights from the King medio tempore and so the Rehabilitation of Iohn Stewart cannot prejudge the Earl of Hoom or the Defender who had Right from the Earl It was answered for the Pursuer that there was no difference in the two Acts salvo jure albeit the last was more express then the first containing the same in effect 2ly Iohn Stewart being Dishabilitat by the Parliament without Citation or Crime might justly be Rahabilitate eodem modo without Citation and that not by way of Grace but in Justice as not accessory to the Crimesâ— and albeit Forefaultures may not be taken away by way of Reduction by the Act of Parliament 1584. cap. 135. yet that cannot be extended to the Dishabilitation of their Children so that the Parliament doing nothing prejudicial to any Parties Right but restoring Iohn Stewart to his just Right eo
it is a Rule with us that the Cedent cannot Depone in prejudice of the Assigney unless the Charge be to the Cedents behove and we have no Exception whether it be gratuitous or onerous but the most part were of opinion that in gratuitous Assignations the Cedents Oath should prove because an Assigney is but Procurator in rem suam and doth not proceed upon his own Right but utitur jure authoris and therefore albeit for Commerce our Custom hath not allowed the Oath of the Cedent in prejudice of the Assigney Yet the case in a gratuitous Assignation hath neither been Debated nor decided and therefore in it the Cedents should be sufficient seing it cannot be presumed that he who voluntarly gifted will swear to his Assigneys prejudice and that truely the Cedent is Party and the Assigney pursues but as Procurator in rem suam And seing we have no Law regulating this case equity and expedience ought to rule it but in equity no man can put his Debitor in a worse condition without his consent either as to the matter or as to the manner of Probation and in expedience the excluding of the Cedents Oath in this case opens a way for Fraud that after Debts are payed they may be assigned even freely and the Debitor is excluded from his Probation of the payment The Lords before answer Ordained the Assigneys Oath to be taken whether Assignation was for a Cause onerous or not Bruces contra Earl of Mortounâ— Eodem die BRuces pursues the Earl of Mortoun for payment of a Bond who alleadged that the Bond was assigned by the Defunct and the Assignation intimat and a Decreet obtained against him thereupon The Pursuers answered that this was jus tertij to the Defender who could not Dispute the Assigneys Right The Defender answered that it was exclusio juris agentis The Lords Repelled the Defense as being super jure tertij and decerned but ordained Suspension to pass without Caution or Consignation that the Assigney may be called and Dispute his Right Gideon Murray contra Iune 17. 1665. GIdeon Murray having obtained Decreet against for certain Merchant Ware wherein he was holden as confest and thereafter reponed and the Decreet turned in a Libel The Receipt of the Goods was found probable pro ut de jure and was accordingly proven and the Cause being concluded and the Depositions advised It was alleadged for the Defender first that he produced and instantly verified that the Pursuer had granted him a Bond after the furnishing of the Account of a greater sum which must be presumed to have included satisfaction of the Accompt 2ly The Decreet was more then three year after the furnishing and so was not probable by Witnesses but that manner of Probation was prescribed by the Act of Parliament The Pursuer answered to the first that both those Exceptions were competent and omitted and now after Probation taken there was no reason to sustain that alleadgence for after Litiscontestation no new exceptions can be admitted unless they be instantly verified and emergent or at least new come to knowledge as this is not for it was obvious being founded upon so known a Law as to the Prescription and as to the other it is but a weak presumption no way relevant unless the posterior Bond had exprest to have been after Compt and Reckoning The Defender answered that the Lords might ex nobile officio repone Parties to Defenses instantly verified after Litiscontestationâ— and albeit they ordinarly repone them when the Exceptions are emergent or new come to knowledge yet in other Cases ex officio they may as when there is so pregnant a presumption concurring 2ly Albeit Prescription hinder Pursuits active Yet seing the Defender was Creditor by Bond in a greater Sum. The Pursuer needed not pursue for the Accompt quia intus habuit and the other Party might have compensed upon the Bond and therefore as in the Civil Law in debitis naturalibus non civilibus licet non dat actionem dat tamen exceptionem so here the Pursuer may except upon account after three years The Lords found the presumption not Relevant and found that the manner of Probation being prescribed it could not be made use of either by Action or Exception albeit there was a compensation competent yet it befell not ipso jure seing it was not liquid but liquidable by the other Parties Oath But as to reponing in this state of the Process though many of the Lords were in the contrary yet seing the exception was but a Prescription which is but by positive Law and odious so that the Pursuer might as well have craved to be reponed against the Prescription as the Defender against his omission of a palpable Defense yet in respect of the Prescription and that the Party was poor the Lords Reponed Christian Braidie contra Laird of Fairny Iune 21. 1665. CHristian Braidy Relict of Iames Sword having Inhibite George Glassfuird upon his Bond pursues a Reduction of a Disposition granted by George to the Laird of Fairny of certain Lands as being done after her Inhibition Fairny having produced the Disposition it bear to be Holograph whereupon it was alleadged that it was null by the Act of Parliament requiring all Writs of importance to be subscribed before Witnesses and this Disposition wanted Witnesses The Defender offered to prove it was Holograph The Pursuer Replyed that the question being de data not that it was subscribed but when it was subscribed whether prior or posterior to the Inhibition Witnesses could not be received where the question was not against the granter of the Writ or his heir but against a third Party The Lords before answer did appoint Witnesses to be examined omni exceptione majores who being now Examined both Deponed that they saw the Disposition subscribed and that it was long before the Inhibition It was then alleadged that this being done but before answer it was intire to Discuss the Relevancy of the alleadgence whether a Date might be instructed by Witnesses 2ly Albeit Witnesses omni exceptione majores were receivable for such an effect that these Witnesses were not such the one being but a Town Officer and the other Procuratorfiscal of a Sheriff Court especially seing there were strong presumptions of fraud as that nothing followed upon this Disposition that it remained Clandestine for several years that thereby the Disponer becoming Bankrupt had excluded some of his Creditors and preferred others and that there was no penuria testium seing both thir Witnesses assert they saw it subscribed and the one Deponed that he Dited it so that their Names might easily have been insert and therefore it must be thought it was done for some Fraudulent intent as to be of an anterior Date to the Inhibition and therefore in such a case the Witnesses should be Persons of Fame and known Reputation It was answered that the Witnesses adduced were sufficient seing they were above exception Frst because
Cautioner who were free to have pursued for the Tochar and did not and after 40. years she cannot be put to instruct that the Tochar was payed albeit she had been Debitor therefore her self much more when another is Debitor The Lords found both these replyes relevant Mr. John Colvil contra The Lord Balmirino Iuly 6. 1665. MR. Iohn Colvil as Executor confirmed to Umquhil Mr. Iohn Colvil Minister at Kirknewtoun pursues the Lord Balmirino for the Stipend the year 1663. and for the profit of the Gleib The Defender alleadged absolvitor because payment is made bona fide to the intrant before intenting of this Cause It was answered it could not be payed bona fide because the Minister died after Ianuary 1663. VVhich being so notour to my Lord Balmirino to whom the most of the Paroch belongs and he being so near it he ought to have made payment to no other of that year which belonged to the Defunct Minister as his Ann extending to the whole years quia annus inchoatus habeâ—ur pro completo as to the Ann so that if the Minister lived till the first of Ianuary he has that whole year The Defender answered that an Ann is only due to the VVife and Bairns of the Defunct Minister and this Minister had none 2ly That the point is so dubious in Law he knew not that it would be his unless he had lived till Whitsunday 3ly The benefit of the Gleib must be the intrants and falls not under the Ann as a part of the Stipend no more then the Manss The Lords repelled the Defense as to the Stipend and found it belonged to the Executor as nearest of kin and that the Defunct surviving the first of January gave him that whole year but found that the Gleib did not fall under the Ann nor did belong to the Defunct but only the Crop thereof if it were sowen by himself before he dyed Earl of Argyl contra Mcdougalls of Dumolich and Ziner Iuly 14. 1665. THe Earl of Argyl having raised a double poynding in name of the Tennents of certain Lands calling himself on the one part and Mcdougals on the other as both claming right to the Mails and Duties Mcdougals produce a Decreet of Parliament whereby they having pursued the late Marquess of Argyl alleadging that he had obtained the Right and Possession of these by Force and Oppression during the troubles whereupon his Rights were reduced and they restored to their Possession The Earl of Argyl produced his Seasine upon the Kings Gift with two Dispositions of these Lands granted to his Father one in Anno 1632. and another in Anno 1639. And thereupon craved to be preferred Mcdougals produced a disclamation of the Process in name of the Tennents and alleadged no Process because the Tennents who were pursuers past from the pursute It was answered that their names was but used that the Parties might discusse their Rights and so they could not disclame it being ordinar to use Tennents names in double poyndings It was answered that there was no Reason that Tennants should be forced to make use of their names to intervert their Masters Possession The Lords found that the Tennants could not disclame especially the possession being but late by Decreet of Parliament and was contraverse It was further alleadged for Mcdougals that there was nothing particularly lybelled as Rents due by the Tennants and therefore there could be no sentence The Lords repelled the alleadgeance and found the Sentence might be in general to be answered of the Mails and Duties as is ordinar in Decreets conform It was further alleadged for Mcdougals that seing this double poynding was in effect now used as a Declarator of Right no Process thereupon because in all Declarators Law allows the Defenders 21 days upon the first Summons and six on the next that they may prepare and produce their Rights and here there is but one Summons on 6 days 2ly No Process because Mcdougals being founded upon a Decreet of Parliament my Lord Argyl produces no Title but only a Seasine not expressing these Lands 3ly Decreets especially of Parliament cannot be taken away but by Reduction and not thus summarly It was answered that my Lord Argyl insisted here for taking away the pretended Decreet in Parliament and restoring the King and Donatar to the possession of the Lands so that in effect it is not so much a Declarator of a Right as a possessory Judgement And as for the Title it is sufficient to produce a Siasine seing in the Decreet of Parliament My Lord Argyls Right and possession is quarrelled as wrong and therefore was acknowledged to have been and seing Mcdougals produces no other Right and the King's Advocat concurres and if need beis my Lord Argyl offers to prove the Lands in question are parts and pertinents of the Lordship of Lorn exprest in his Seasine and albeit this be pretended to be a Decreet of Parliament yet by Sentence of Parliament since it is remitted to the Lords and is in it self visibly null as having been intented against my Lord Argyl and pronounced after his death and Forefaulture without calling the Kings Officers The Lords repelled these Defenses in respect of the replyes James Mathison contra Harie Gib Eodem die JAmes Mathison having obtained a Decreet before the Commissars of Edinburgh against Gib he Suspends and alleadges it was not a cause consistorial being a bargain of Victual and that it was not probable any other ways but by his Oath now after 12. or 13. years In respect of the Act of Parliament anent house Mails and others which comprehens this case The Lords repelled the alleadgeance and found that bargain of Victual not comprehended under that Act of Parliâ—ment James Borthwick contra Janet Skeen Iuly 15. 1665. JAmes Borthwick being Infeft in the Lands of Oversneip pursues Reduction and Removing against Ianet Skeen the Liferentrix It was alleadged that the Feer being minor non tenetur placitare super haereditate paterna And for the Liferenter that the minor was oblidged to warrand her Liferent-right and her Possession was the minors Possession so that if her Right were reduced and she removed the priviledge of the minor were altogether overthrown It was answered That the priviledge was personal and stricti juris and was to be extended to Majors and as for the warrandice it was never sustained as a ground to exclude a Reduction because warrandice would be inferred against a Minor which is but a personal obligement and not haereditas The Lords repelled the alleadgance for the Liferenter Who alleadged further that her Right being Reduced the Fee was absolute in the person of the Minor who would not suffer the Liferentrix to be removed but she did possesse by the Minors tollerance It was answered that the Pursuers Reduction behoved to accresce to him and his Right and not to the Minors Right that he behoved to enter to the Liferenters possession which would not prejudge the Minor for if
the Liferenter dyed during the Minors Minoritie he might return to the possession in the same way as if the Liferenter were in possession but as for the tollerance now the Liferenter having entered by the Liferent Right and it being reduced in favours of the Pursuer as the Minor could not thereby attain possession so neither can he give tollerance to defend the Liferenter The Lords repelled also this second Defense Patrick Urquhart contra Thomas Blair Eodem die PAtrick Vrquhart having charged Thomas Blair upon a Bond granted by him and William Young as co-principalls Thomas Blair Suspends and alleadges that William Young has payed the whole It was answered that this was not instructed and therefore not receivable being in a Suspension It was answered that though in a Suspension yet a terme is always granted where it is another mans Right It was answered that the Suspender is in hazard of breaking and has not found a good sufficient Cautioner and therefore if he get delay he ought to give better Caution It was answered that he had found Caution who was accepted and he was oblidged to do no more The Lords ordained him to make faith de calumnia upon the Reason but would not put him to find new Caution Robert Scot contra Silvertounhill Eodem die RObert Scot pursuing a Poynding of the Ground for an Annualrent Silvertounhill compeared and alleadged possession by vertue of a prior Annualrent and that the Pursuers Infeftment was base not cled with Possession For proving Possession Robert Scot produced discharges granted by the Annualrenter to the Hetetor for the time for himself and in name of the Tenents which had Witnesses But designed not the Writers name and being alleadged to be null for want thereof The Lords ordained Scot to condescend upon the writer of the discharge in respect the Annualrent did extend to 80. lib. and it did prefer one Annualrent to another Johnstoun of Scheens contra Alexander Brown Eodem die JOhnstoun being pursued to remove from certain Lands It was alleadged no Process because all Parties having interest were not called viz. The Defenders wife in respect he possest but by her Right jure mariti and she was not warned Which the Lords found relevant Mr. Thomas Johnstoun contra Mcgregor Iuly 19. 1665. MR. Thomas Iohnstoun having obtained the Gift of Bastardie of one Mcgregor and declared in general insists now in his special Declarator against Patrick Mcgregor for 2000 merks belonging to the Bastard It was alleadged absolvitor because there was a Gift granted in the Usurpers time and declared whereupon the Defender had transacted with the Donatar and satisfied him and obtained his discharge It was answered non relevat because in the Act of Parliament confirming Judicial Precedor under the Usurpers Gifts of Bastardry and all following thereupon are excepted so that the Defender had no Defense in the point of Right and as for his bona fides it only relevant for what was truly payed but not for what was in his hand The Lords repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply Mr. James Winerham conra Lady Idingtoun Iuly 19. 1665. MR. Iames Winerham pursues the Lady Idingtoun personally for Feu-Duties out of certain Lands Liferented by her It was answered non relevat for any years before the Ladies possession because Feu Duties may be Pursued either really by poynding of the Ground or personally against the Intrometters with their profits and because the Feu-duties are as the yearly Rent yet that cannot be extended further than during the years the Possessors intrometted The Pursuer answered that the whole profits being lyable for the whole Feu-duties whether of that or preceeding years the Lady was lyable not only for the years of her possession but for bygones The Lords repelled the alleadgeance and found the Lady lyable personally only for the years of her possession Ryce Gum contra Mckewn Eodem die RYce Gum having obtained Decreet before the Baillies of the Cannongate against Mckewn to repone him to an Assignation he Suspends on this Reason that the Decreet was null wanting Probation proceeding only upon the alleadged judicial confession of the Suspender without proponing any defense acknowledging the Lybel and succumbing in the Defense but simply confessing the Lybel which cannot prove against him being under the hand of an Clerk of an Inferiour Court only without the Suspenders subscription or oath Which the Lords found relevant Mr. Robert Dickson contra Mr. Mark Ker. Iuly 21 1665. THere being a competition betwixt Mr. Robert Dickson and Mr. Mark Ker as both having the Gift of the Escheat of Hoom of Garden both past the Seal in one day Mr. Robert Dickson had past in Exchequer long before and his Summons was raised two dayes before his Gift was Sealed and so was not a Regular Diligence He alleadges Mr. Mark Kers was more irregular because being a Declarator his Summons was not upon 21. days It was answered the Summons was priviledged It was Replyed that the priviledge was granted periculo petentis upon a common Bill which passes without observation The Lords considering that their Gifts were both past in one day and that there diligence was so near conjoyned the Gift and declared them joyntly Spreul contra Miller Eodem die BArbara Miller having left two Legaces and named William Wilson her Executor and universal Legatar he nominats his Wife and one Giffin his Executors Spreul having right to the two Legacies pursues the Relict and Executors of Wilson who was Executor to Barbara Miller for payment of the Legacies He alleadges absolvitor because the first Testament was not Execute 2ly The special Legacies must be abated proportionally with the general Legacies The Lords repelled both the Defenses and found the general Legacie not to come in pari passu with the special and found that the Executor of the Executor was lyable unless he could alleadge that the first Executor had done diligence and had not recovered or was exhausted Laird of Ludquharn contra Laird of Gight Iuly 21. 1665. THe Laird of Gight having Married Ludquharns Daughter who remained in her Fathers Family and brought forth a Bairn to Gight and dyed Ludquharn the Childs Guid-sir keeped her in his Family several years and now pursues Gight for her Aliment who alleadged absovitor because the Pursuer never having required a promise of this Aliment nor desired the Defender to take home his Daughter It must be presumed that the Pursuer did it animo donandi for his own Oye The Lords found this Defense relevant for all years preceeding the intenting of this Cause Thomas Rew contra Viscount of Stormont Iuly 22. 1665. THomas Rew pursues a Reduction of a Decreet obtained by the Viscount of Stormont who alleadged no Process because the Citation was not within year and day of the Summons the warrant thereof which bears to cite the Defenders to compear the day of next to come The Lords found the Defense relevant Johnstoun contra Tennents of Achincorse
albeit it appears to flow from the Mother yet that is but dolose and in effect it flows from the Father 2. Seing the superplus was appointed to be an Aliment to the hail Children seing there is but one it ought to be modified and what remained above the 600. merks and a competent Aliment to belong to the Creditors The Lords found that the Childs Renunciation should repone himâ— and found that if the Provision had been Exorbitant it might have been counted as fraudulent but they found it not exorbitant seing the Land was offered to the Defenders for 900. merks and there was 200. merks thereof Liferented by another Woman so that there râ—mained but 100. merks for the Child and therefore Repelled the Defenses and Decerned VVilliam Dickson contra Iohn Hoom. Eodem die WIlliam Dickson having charged Iohn Hoom upon a Bond of 37. Pounds Scots He suspends and offers to improve the Bond as not subscribed by him but another Iohn Hoom. It was answered Improbation was not receivable but in a Reduction or where the original Writ was produced But this Bond was Registrate in an Inferiour Court and the Charger was not oblieged to produce nor was the Clerk called The Lords in respect the matter was of small importance admitted the Reason of Improbation the Suspender Consigning principal Sum and Annualrent and declared they would modifie a great Penalty in case he succumbed and ordained Letters to be direct against the Clerk of the inferiour Court to produce the principal Howison contra Cockburn November 17. 1665. THe Executors of David Howison pursue Iames Cockburn for the price of several ells of Cloath which the said Iames by his Ticket produced granted him to have received in name and for the use of the Laird of Langtoun his Master It was alleadged absolvitor because by the Ticket the Defender is not oblieged to pay the Cloath and doth only act in name of his Master and therefore the Merchant ought to have called for the Accompt from his Master within three years which he has not done till many years long after his Masters death It was replyed that the Ticket must obliege him at least docere demandato for his doing in name of his Master could not obliege his Master so that if he be not so oblieged the Merchant loses his Debt and no body is oblieged It was answered that he who Acts with any Mandatar should know his Commission and if he does not know it it is upon his own hazard but if the Mandatar Act not in his own name but his Masters he does not obliege himself and if Servants who receive in their Masters name should be thus oblieged to shew their warrand it would be of very evil consequence seing their Receipt can be proven by Witnesses within three years and their Warrand would not be so probable The Lords found that post tantum tempus the Defender was not oblieged to instruct his warrand but the same was presumed to have been known to the Merchant unless it be proven by the Defenders Oath that he acted without a warrand or that he did not apply the Cloath to his Masters use Baxters in the Canongate November 21. 1665. THere being a Contract betwixt two Baxters in the Canongate to make use of an Oven still keeped hot for both their uses the one pursues the other as desisting and obtained Decreet before the Baillies of the Canongate for 36. Pounds of Damnage which being Suspended It was alleadged ipso jure null as having compearance mentioning Defenses Replys c. And yet expressing none but refers the Defenders Action to the Pursuers Probation by Witnesses who now offered to prove positive that he continued in doing his part The Lords would not sustain this visible Nullity without Reduction though in re minina inter pauperes for preserving of Form Laurence Scot. contra David Boswel of Auchinleck November 22. 1665. UMquhil David Boswel of Auchinleck being Debitor to Laurence Scot in 1000. pounds by Bond He pursues his Daughters as Heirs of line and David Boswel now of Auchinleck his Brothers Son as Heir-mail or at least lucrative Successor by accepting a Disposition of Lands from the Defunct which were provided to Heirs-mail and so being alioqui successurus It was alleadged for the said David no Process against him till the Heirs of Line were first discuâ—â— It was Replyed and offered to be proven that he was oblieged to relieve the Heirs of Line Which the Lords found Relevant It was further alleadged for the Defender that he could not be conveened as lucrative Successor by the foresaid Disposition because the time of the Disposition he was not alioqui successurus in respect that his Father was living It was answered that albeit he was not immediat Successor yet being the mediat Successor the Disposition was precepâ—â—o haereditatis and the Lords had already found that a Disposition to an Oye made him Lucrative Successor albeit his Father who was immediat appearand Heir was living The Lords sustained not the Lylel upon that member for they found it was not alike to Dispone to a Brother as to a Son or a Brothers-son as to an Oye because a Brother is not appearand Heir nor alioqui successurus seing the Disponer has haeredes propinquiores in spe and therefore cannot be presumed to have Disponed to his Brother or Brother Son in fraud of his Creditors seing that by that Disposition he does also prejudge his own Son if he should have one and this 〈◊〉 prejudice to the Pursuer to Reduce the Disposition upon the Act of Parliament as accords Mr. Iames Campbel contra Doctor Beaton November 23. 1665. DOctor Beaton being Infeft in certain Lands Wodset by the Laird of Balgillo does thereafter by a minute take an absolute Disposition thereof for a price exprest in the Minute whereupon Mr. Iames Campbel arrests in Doctor Beatons hands all Sums due by him to Balgillo for payment of a Debt due by Magillo to Mr. Iames and likewise Iuhibits Bagillo after which there is a Tripartite Contract betwixt Bagillo on the first part the Doctor on the second and Iohn Smith who bought the Lands on the third the Doctor and Bagillo Dispone with mutual consent and the Doctor particularly assigns the Minute to Smith Bagilâ—o Renounces the Minute as to the price and Smith is oblieged to pay the Wodset to the Doctor the Debitor being before conveened for making arrested Goods forthcoming and having Deponed that he was owing no Sums to Bagillo the time of the arrestment but by the Minute which was an Inchoat Bargain never perfected but was past from thereafter and that he was not Disponer to Smith but only consenter whereupon he was assoilzied But Mr. Iames Campbel having now found the Tripartite Contract pursues the Doctor again thereupon super dolo that by passing from the Bargain and yet assigning the Minute and not destroying it he had dolose evacuate Mr. Iames Inhibition and Arrestment seing Smith
would defend himself against the Inhibition upon the Minute which was anterior to the Inhibition Disponing the Land It was alleadged for the Doctor that he was tutus exceptione rei judicatae because he was already assoilzed having Deponed upon the Arrestment and the Pursuer could not make use of any Writ in that which he had referred to the Defenders Oath 2. Albeit the matter were intire there was nothing to enforce him to perfeit a minute of the sale of Lands but that he might pass from it before it was extended or might assign it to any other which could import no Fraud seing he was not oblieged to know or cannot be presumed that he knew the Inhibition used against Bagillo The Pursuer answered that for the Defenders Oath he did not now insist upon it nor did the Writ produced contradict it for when a Party Depones upon the Tenor of a Writwhich is not his own Writ it can but be understood according to his memory but if thereafter by the Writ it self it do appear to be otherways it does not infer Perjury nor can it justly exclude the Pursuer to make use of that Writ 2ly There is not only a different matter of Probation here but a different medium from the former Process viz. damnum dolus at least lata culpa dolo aequiparata in so far as the Doctor did assign the Minute and exclude the Pursuers Inhibition which is the more clear that in the said Contract the Doctor secures himself by Bagilloes obliegement to warrand the Doctor from any hazard by assigning the Minute ubi nimia cautio arguit dolum neither can the Defender pretend ignorance not only by the Publication and Registration of the Inhibition but upon that very Inhibition the arrestment being execute against the Doctor The Lords having Read and Considered the Tripartiâ—e â—ontract they found that after the Arrestment was laid on the priâ—e of the Land was affected and no Discharge nor Renunciation by the Debitor could take the price Arrested away from the Arrester and therefore found the Lybel Relevant and proven by the Tripartile Contract produced and decerned notwithstanding of the former Alsolvitor upon the Doctors Oath Bishop of the Isles contra The Fishers of Greenock Novemb. 24. 1665. THe Bishop of the Isles as being presented by His Majesty to the Bishoprick of the Isles and whole Teinds Rents and Emoluments thereof and as thereby having Right to the great Teind of all Fish taken in and about the Isles of Scotland Pursues the Fishers of Greenock for the Teind of Cod and Ling taken by them about the Isles of Arran Bute and Ilsey but insists only for these taken between Arran and Ilsey or Boot and not between these and the Shore and insists against the Fishers of Greenock as Fishing in that Bounds The Defenders alleadged 1. Absolvitor because the Bishops Right buire expresly according as his Predecessors had been in Possession and it was not libelled nor could it be proven that ever the Bishop of the Isles was in Possession of the Teind of any Fishâ— taken by the Inhabitants of the main Land albeit taken in the place libelled 2ly Albeit that Clause were not insert yet all Teinds of their own Nature and by the Custom of this Kingdom are Local and Consuetudinar and so can be craved out of no place or for no particular unless they had been accustomed to be payed of these particulars by that place as in some places Teinds are payed not only of Stirk and Lamb Wool and Milk but of Staigs Swine Hemp Lint Eggs and some places of Fruit and in other placesâ— of none of these and that within the same Parochs And therefore unless it were Libelled that Teinds had been accustomed to be payed in this place they are not due 3ly Albeit a Teind here were due of Fish it could not be due to the Bishop of the Isles because such Teinds being personal and not predial follow the Residence of the Takers and not the place where they are taken especially being taken not in any Bay or Creik of the Isles but in mari libero several myles from any Isle except Ilsey which is no Island but a Rock inhabited by no body 4ly The Defenders offer them to prove that they and others upon that Shore of the main-land has been in Possession 40. years of a constant fishing of Cod and Ling in that place free from all payment of Teinds to the Bishop of the Isles paying only two merks yearly to the Tacks-men of the Viccarage of Greenock granted in Tacks by the Ministers of Greenock The Purâ—uer answered that the Clause in his Charter was in his favour and is to extend the same to all his Predecessors Possest bearing as amply c. and that for the Possession it was sufficient that which he had condescended viz. that he offered him to prove that through all his Diocie the small Teind of Fish belonged to the Ministers as Viccars but the great Teind of Killing Ling and Herring belonged to the Bishopâ— and was possest by him and his Predecessors past memory but he needs not alleadge that he possest in every several place where Fish happen to swim but possessing generally about the Isles not only as to the Inhabitants of the Isles being in his Diocie but also being taken by the Inhabitants of the Main-land throughout the Kingdom And as in a Barony Possession of a part will be sufficient for the whole so it must be in this Benefice especially seing it is but of late that there was any considerable Fishing in the place in question and there was no reason if Herring and other Fish change the Lochs where they are ordinarly found that because there was never Herring Teinded in that Loch therefore there was none due there The Lords found the Defense Relevant viz. that the Defenders and others upon the main-Main-land thereaboutâ— had been in immemorial Possession in the place in question of Cod and Ling free from paying any Teind to the Bishops of the Isles But the Lords would not sustain less then immemorial Possession of the freedom in respect of the time the Bishops had been out nor did they determine the Right of the Ministers of Greenock whether they had Right to the hail Viccarage or that as a small duty but reserved that to them as accords and they found that the Defense of a constant Fishing elided the condescendence that this Fishing was but new Mr. Iames Chalmers contra Lady Tinnel Eodem die MR. Iames Chalmers Parson of Dumfreis having obtained a Decreet before the Sheriff for a part of his Stipend against this Lady Tinnel for whom a Procurator compeared and took a Term to produce her and she succumbed whereupon she was holden as confest She Suspends and alleadges that the Decreet bears not the Procurator to have produced any Mandat and therefore craves to be Reponed to her Oath The Lords finding that there was nothing else alleadged by the
Procurator that might infer his being informed or having Warrand but only his taking a day to produce they would not sustain the Decreet unless the Charger instructed the same by proving the quantities White contra Horn. Novemb. 25. 1665. IN a Competition between White and Horn the one having Right by progresse to the Property of a piece Land and the other to an Annualrent forth thereof It was alleadged for the Proprietar First That the Annualrent was prescribed no Possession being had thereupon above fourty years 2ly The Original Right produced to constitute the Annualrent is but a Seasine without a Warrant and albeit the Common Author have given Charter of Ratification thereof yet it is after the Proprietars Seasine given by the Common Author to his Daughter propriis manibus It was answered for the Annualrenter to the first That the Prescription was interrupted by Citations produced used upon a Summons of Poinding of the Ground before the Baillies of the Regality of Dumfermling where the Lands ly As to the second that the Confirmation granted to the Annualrenter is prior to any Charter Precept or other Warrant granted to the Proprietar for as for the Seasine propriis manibus that has no Warrant produced The Proprietar answered that the Interruption was not Relevant because the Executions were null in so far as the Warrant of the Summons bears to Cite the Defender Personally Or otherwise upon the Ground of the Land or at the Mercat Cross or Shore of Dumfermâ—ing whereupon such as were out of the Countrey were Citedâ— and not upon 60. dayes but 25. which Reasons would have excluded that Decreet and therefore cannot be a legal Interruption As to the other albeit the Pursuers first Seasine want a Warrant yet it hath been cled with natural Possession and the Annualrentars hath not The Lords Repelled both these alleadgences for the Proprietar and found the Executions sufficient to interrupt albeit there were defects in them that might have hindred Sentence thereupon especially in re antiquâ the Lands being in Regality where the custome might have been even to Cite Parties absent out of the Countrey at the head Burgh of the Regality and the Shore next thereto and as the Proprietars Right was not Established by Prescription so they found that Possession could not give a possessory Iudgement to the Proprietar against an Annualâ—entar which is debitum fundi Mr. Iames Peter contra Iohn Mitchelson Eodem die MR. Iames Peter Minister of Terregh pursues Mitchelson for a part of his Stipend due out of the Defenders Lands who alleadged no Process till the Pursuer produced a Title to the Defenders Teinds seing he brooked them by a Tack It was Replyed he offered him to prove seven years Possession as a part of the Stipend of Terreghs Which the Lords sustained without any Title of Possession Bruce contra Earl of Mortoun Novemb. 28. 1665. IN an Action for making arrested Sums forthcoming between Brucâ— and the Earl of Mortoun The Lords found that the Summons behoved to be continued seing they were not past by a special priviledge of the Lords to be without continuation albeit they were accessory to the Lords Anterior Decreet against the principal Dâ—bitor which they found to be a ground to have granted the priviledge of not Continuation if it had been desired by a Bill at the raising of the Summons but not being demanded They found quod non in erat de jure Younger contra Iohnstouns Eodem die PAtrick Porteous having a Tenement of Land in Edinburgh provided his Wife thereto in Liferent and dyed before the year 1608. his Wife lives and Possesses as Liferenter Yet in Anno 1608. one Porteous his Brother Son was Served and Retoured Heir to him and Infeft as Heir and Disponed the Land which is come through three several singular Successors to Iohnstouns who are Infeft therein as Heirs to their Father in Anno 1655. Youngâ—r having acquired aâ— Disposition from Stephanlaw Porteus Residenter in Polland causes Serve the said Stephenlaw as nearest Heir to the said Patrick whereupon Stephenlaw is Infeft and Younger is Infeft There are now mutual Reductions raised by either Parties of others Retours and Rights wherein Younger alleadging that his Author Stephenlaw Porteous was the nearest of Kin in so far as Patrick the Defunct had four Brethren and Stephen Law Porteous was Oye to the eldest Brother whereas the other pretended Heir was Son to the youngest Brother which he offered him to prove It was answered for Iohnstouns Absolvitor from that Reason of Reduction because they had Established their Right by Prescription in so far as they had a progress of Infeftments far beyond the space of fourty years cled with Possession by the Liferenter whose Possession behoved to be accounted their Possession because the Act of Paâ—liament anent Prescription bears that the Person Infeft being in Possession by himself or by his Tennents or others deriving Right from him and therefore the Liferenters Possession is alwise the Fiars 2ly By the first Act of Parliament anent Prescriptions of Retours they prescrive if they be not quarrelled within three years And by the last Act of Parliament 1617. anent the Prescription of Retours they are declared to be prescrived if they be not pursued within twenty years And by the general Act of Prescription 1617. There is a general Clause that all Reversions Heretable Bonds and all Actions whatsomever shall prescrive if they be not followed within fourty years By all which Stephenlaw Porteous not being Retoured till the year 1655. nor having moved any Action against the first Retour This Action of Reduction and all other Actions competent are prescribed It was answered for Younger that he being Heir to maintain the right of Blood which is the most important Right competent by the Law of Nations no Statute nor positive Law can take it away unless it be express and evident for the right of Blood can never prescrive seing it is certain that a man may serve himself Heir to his Predecessor though he died a 1000. years since if he can instruct his Service And as for the Acts of Parliament alleadged upon they cannot take away any Right of Blood for the first Act of Prescription on three years expresly bears to extend to these within the Countrey as Stephenlaw was not and the last Act is expresly only in relation to Retoures to be deduced thereafter but this first Retour quarrelled was deduced long before viz. in Anno. 1608. As for the general Act of Prescription seing it mentions not Retoures but only Infeftmentsâ— Reversions and Heretable Bonds The general Clause of all Actions whatsomever ought not to be extended to Retoures especially seing the meaning of the Parliament appears not to have been extended by them to Retoures because the very next Act doth specially Order the prescription of Retoures As to the Iohnstouns Infeftments they have not the benefit of Prescriptions never being cled with Possession For the Liferenters
jus mariti could not carry her Liferent seing immediatly after the marriage he went out of the Countrey and was never heard of since and she had obtained Decreet of Adherence against him and was going on in a Divorce for malitious deserting The Lords Repelled the Alleadgance seing the Divorce was not compleat and this was four years anterior The said Isobel further alleadged absolvitor for the Rents of her Dwelling-house for bygones and for what she had uplifted because she had done it bona fide cum titulo viz. her Husbands obliegement to aliment her as his Wife bona fide possessor facit fructus consumptos suos Which the Lords found Relevant and that albeit her Husband would be lyable for these Rents which alimented his Wife yet not she David Veatch contra Iohn Duncan Eodem die DAvid Veatch as heritor of the Miln of Dersie pursues Iohn Duncan for abstracted Multures and obtains Decreet He Charges and Iohn Suspends both parties being ordained to produce their Rights the Heritor of the Miln instructs that his Author was first Infeft in the Miln before the Defenders Author was Infeft in the Land and produces a Decreet of the Lords in Anno 1575. declaring the Thirlage wherein it was alleadged that the Heretor of the Miln being first Infeft of the Common-author and producing a Precept from Cardinal Beaton then Bishop of St. Andrews Common-author ordaining the Tennents of the Defenders Land to pay the Multure to the Miln of Dersie It was alleadged this was not sufficient seing the Charter did not Thirle the Defenders Lands but was only of the Miln and Multure thereof generally as for the Cardinals Precept it was not with consent of the Chapter and so could not extend beyond the Bishops Life yet the Lords declared the Astriction notwithstanding it was now alleadged that the Defender was Infeft cum molendinis muliuris by vertue whereof he had prescribed his freedom by 40. years time It being answered that once being Thirled by the Common-author no Charter granted by him thereafter could prejudge the Feuar of the Miln And as for Prescription offered to prove Interruption by paying of Insucken-multures within the space of 40. years William Cranstoun contra Walter Pringle Decemb. 12. 1665. WIlliam Cranstoun being Vassal to Greenknow he was amerciat in his Court for a Blood committed upon Walter Pringle and being charged Suspends upon this Reason that Greenknow not being a Baron or the Kings immediat Tennent had no power of Blood-waits unless he had had an express Deputation from his Superiour the Marquess of Huntly who is Baron only having the Jurisdiction It was answered that Greenknow was Infeft cum curiis bloodwitis Which the Lords found sufficient Mr. John Pearson contra Martin and his Son Eodem die MR. Iohn Pearson by his Contract with Eupham Martin did conceive the Clause of his Tochar in thir Terms that it should be payable to him and her the longest liver of them two in Conjunct-fee and Liferent and to the Heirs of the Marriage in Fee which failzing to return to the Wifes Heirs By a second Contract betwixt the Husband and his Wife it was agreed that that Clause should be altered and that failzing the Heirs of the Marriage it should return to the mans Heirs who thereupon pursue Declarator of Right by vertue of the second Contract The Defender being absent The Lords advised the Cause wherein the difficulty appeared to be that the Tochar was provided to the Bairns in Fee So that the Husband and Wife could not alter the Succession being both Liferenters because that the Clause bears to them in Liferent and to the Bairns in Fee yet the Lords sustained the Declaratâ—r seing the Husband and Wife were named Conjunctfeers so that either of them behoved to be Fear and the adjection of and Liferent could only be understood of the Person that were Liferentar and albeit it was exprest to be the Bairns in Fee yet that could be but of a substitution seing there were no Bairns then existent Christian Barns contra Hellen Young and her Spouse Eodem die HEllen Young being provided to the Annualrent of 800 merks and to the Conquest obtained Decreet thereupon against Christian Barns the Executrix who Suspends on this Reason that the Pursuer was Infeft by the Defunct her Father in a Tenement in full satisfaction of these provisions It was answered nonrelevat unless it were alleadged that the Charger had accepted Whereupon it was alleadged Accepted in so far as she had uplifted the Mails and Duties after her Fathers death and had no other Title ascribe it to It was answered that she had another Title viz. her Goodsir had Disponed this Tenement to her Father and Mother the longest liver of them two and the Bairns of the Marriage be vertue whereof as Heir Appearand of the Marriage she might contiue and uplift and miskene the new infeftment given by her Father Which the Lords founds relvant unless the other Partie Insist on that alleadgeance proponed that the Pursuer had pursued and obtained payment upon the Title bearing in satisfaction John Ramsay contra James Wilson and others Eodem die COlonel Cunningham having impignorat a number of Jewels of great Value and immediately thereafter went out of the Countrey and never returned These Jewels were in the Custody of Iohn Ramsay who and Mr. Robert Byres had given Bond to make them furthcoming to the Colonel and now Iohn Ramsay having been Confirmed Executor to the Colonel pursues Iames Wilson and others for Exhibition and Delivery of the Jewels The Defenders alleadged absolvitor because the Jewels were Impignorat by Mr. Robert Byres for a considerable Sum of Money who having them in his Possession it was a sufficient ground for the Defenders to Contract with him because property of Moveables is presumed by Possession and therefore it is not relevant to lybel that once the Jewels were Colonel Cunninghams and therefore they must be restored to his Executors unless it were also lybeled quomodo desijt possidere so that the Jewels behoved to have past from him without his own Consent or Alienation otherwise it is alwayes presumed that he sold or gifted them and needs not be proven else no man could be secure of any Moveable if he who could instruct that he bought it could recover it from all possessors unlesse they could instruct all the wayes the same past from the first Owner The Pursuer replyed that the Case is not here as to Moveables that are ordinarily sold in Mercat but in relation to Jewels of great Value which cannot be presumed to have been Mr. Robert Byres because they were never worn by him as being his proper Good nor were they Competent to any of his quality and therefore the Defenders were in mala fide to acquire them from him without knowing his Right 2ly It is instructed by Mr. Robert Byres Letter produced that he acknowledged them to be Colonels before the Impignoration and it s
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
Registration of Seasines there is neither Law nor Favour since for posterior acquirers who might have known the prior Infeftments And therefore in Infeftments of Warrandice Lands the Possession of the principal Lands is accompted Possession of the Warrandice Lands neither is there any ground to oblidge a Person who takes a Feu of Lands to demand a more publick infeftment of the Warrandice Lands then of the principal It was answered that albeit the Narrative of the Statute mention Fraudful alienations yet the dispositive words are General that wherever an Infeftment hath been publick by Resignation or Confirmation and hath attained Possession year and day the same shall exclude any prior base Infeftment attaining no Possession and if the said Act were only to be measured by Fraud then if it could be alleadged and astructed that the first Infeftment though base was for a cause onerous and without Fraud it should be preferred which yet never hath been done And for the Practiques they meet not this Case nor the Act of Parliament because the posterior publick Infeftment had attained no Possession It was answered that now consuetude had both Interpret and Extended the foresaid Act for thereby posterior publick Infeftments though they be not for cause onerous or cled with Possession year and day are ordinarily preferred contrair to the tenor of the Statute and base Infeftments retenta possessione where the obtainer of the Infeftment is negligent are accounted Simulat presumptione juris de jure but where there is no delay nor ground of â—imulation the base Infeftment is preferred whether the posterior publick Infeftment attain Possession for year and day or not The Lords having heard this Case at length and debated the same accuratly amongst themselves in respect they found no preceeding Decision whether base Infeftments of Warrandice where there was possession of the Principal Lands were valid or not against posterior publick Infeftments They found this base Infeftment of Warrandice valid against the posterior publick Infeftment The Infeftment in Warrandice being Simul with the Principal and not ex intervallo and being after the Act of Parliament 1617. but did not decide the Case to be of generall rule for Warrandice ex intervallo before the said Act. Grissell Seatoun and Laird of Touch. contra Dundas Ianuary 11. 1666. GRissall Seatoun and the Laird of Touch younger her Assigney pursues Dundas as charged to enter Heir to Mr. Hendrie Mauld for payment of a Bond of 8000 merks granted to the said Grissall by the said Mr. Hendrie her Son It was alleadged that the Bond was null wanting Witnesses It was Replyed That the Pursuer offered him to prove it Holograph It was duplyed that albeit it were proven Holograph as to the body yet it could not instruct its own date to have been any day before the day that Mr. Hendrie died and so being granted in lecto aegritudinis cannot prejudge his Heir whereupon the Defender has a Reduction It is answered that the Reduction is not seen nor is there any Title in the Defender produced as Heir It was answered that the nullitie as wanting Witnesses was competent by exception and the the duply as being presumed to be in lecto was but incident and was not a Defense but a Duply The Lords Repelled the Defense upon the nullitie of the want of Witnesses in respect of the Reply and found the Duply not competent hoc ordine but only by Reduction and found there was no Title produced in the Reduction Executors of William Stevinson contra James Crawfoord Ianuary 12. 1666. THE Executors of William Stevinson having confirmed a Sum of 3000. and odd Pounds due by Bond by Iohn Ker to the said William and also by Iames Crawfoord who by his missive Letter became oblidged to pay what bargain of Victual should be made between the said Iohn Ker and Iohn Stevinson for himself and as Factor for William Stevinson And subsums that this Bond was granted for a Bargain of Victual It was answered that albeit this Bond had been in the name of William Stevinson yet it was to the behove of Iohn Stevinson his Brother who having pursued upon the same ground the Defender was Assoilzied and that it was to Iohns behove alleadged First That Iohn wrot a Letter to his Brother William to deliver up his Bond acknowledging that it was satisfied and that Iohn having pursued himself for the other Bond granted in place of this The said Umquhil William Stevinson compeared or a Procurator for him before the Commissars and did not pretend any Interest of his own neither did William during his Life which was ten yearsâ— thereafter ever move question of this Bond nor put he it in the Inventar of his Testament though that he put most considerable Sums therein It was answered 1. That the presumptions alleadged infer not that this Bond was to Iohn Stevinsons behove because by Iames Crawfoords Letter there is mention made of several Bargains of Victual both with Iohn and William so that the Bond and pursuite at Johns instance might be for one Bargain and at Williams for another especially seing the Sums differ 2dly Writ cannot be taken away by any such Presumptions It was answered That if the Defender James Crawfoord had subscribed this Bond it could more hardly have been taken away by Presumptions but he hath not subscribed the Bond but only his missive Letter which is dubious whether it be accessory to this Bond or if that Bond was for this Bargain and therefore such a writ may well be â—lided by such strong Presumptions The Lords found the Presumption Relevant and that they instructed the Bond was to Johns behove and therefore in respect of the ahsâ—lvitor at Crawfoords instance they Assoilzied William Dick contra Sir Andrew Dick. January 13. 1666. WIlliam Dick pursues Sir Andrew Dick his Father for a modification of his Aliment whereupon the question was whether Sir Andrew Dick himself being indigent and having a great Family of smal Children and the Pursuer having been Educat a Prentice whether the Pursuer should have a Modification The Lords considering the great Portion the Pursuers Mother brought and that he was a Person of no ability to Aliment himself by his industrie decerned Sir Andrew to receive him in his House and to entertain him in meat and Cloath as he did the rest or else two hundred merks at Sir Andrews option James Crawfoord contra Auchinleck January 17. 1666. THE Heirs of Lyne of Umquhile Sir George Auchinleck of Balmanno being provided to a Portion payable by the Heirs Male did thereupon charge the Appearand Heir Male and upon his Renounciation to be Heir obtained Decreet cognitionis causa after which that Appearand Heir dyed and the Decreet being Assigned to Iames Crawfoord Writer he now insists in in a Summons of Adjudication containing a Declarator that he having charged the next Appearand Heir to enter to the last Appearand Heir against whom the Decreet cognitionis causa was
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
Law and exhausted the Benefice It was answered for the Pursuer that he oppones the Acts of Parliament requiring only Confirmations of Kirklands and albeit the Duties of this Office affects the Lands nihil est for if the Abbay had Thirled the Lands of the Abbacy to a Miln without the Abbacy for a Thirled Duty of a far greater value then the Duties of this Office the constitution of that Thirlage required no Confirmation The Lords Sustained the Pursuers progress and Repelled the first Alleadgence and also Repelled the last Alleadgence and found no necessity of Confirmation of the Office and Duties thereof aforesaid whether the samine were holden Feu or Ward but did not cognosce whether the same was Feu or Ward c. albeit that was contraverted neither whether Infeftments of Kirk-lands holden Ward needed Confirmation or no. â—contra Earl of Kinghorn Ianuary 23. 1666. 〈…〉 having pursued the Earl of Kinghorn upon a Bond granted by his Father He proponed Improbation by way of Exception which was sustained and a Term assigned to prove and that same Term to the Pursuer to bide by his Bond. The Defender supplicat that seing the Act was not extracted albeit the Term was come that he might have yet liberty to propone payment It was answered he could not because exceptio falsi est omnium ultima after which no other could be proponed much less after the Term was come and the Pursuer come to bide by the Write Yet the Lords sustained the Defense of Payment Colonel James Montgomery and his Spouse contra Steuart Ianuary 24. 1666. MArgaret Mcdonald and Colonel Iames Montgomery her Spouse pursue a Declarator against Steuart Oye and appearand Heir to umquhil Sir William Steuart to hear and see it found and declared that umquhil Dam Elizabeth Hamiltoun Spouse to umquhil Sir William had Right to certain Bonds and House-hold Plenishing from Sir William and that the said Margaret had Right thereto from the said Dame Elizabeth by her Assignation and that the sums and Goods were Moveable and thereby the Assignation granted thereto albeit on death-bed was valid It was condescended on that the Bonds were Moveable by a Charge of Horning It was answered that the Charge was but against one of the Cautioners which was not sufficient to make it moveable The Lords Repelled the Alleadgence Eleis of Southside contra Mark Cass of Cockpen Eodem die ELeis of Southside pursues Cass as Heir to Mr. Richard Cass or as being charged to enter heir to him Compearance is made for Cockpen who was a Creditor to the Defender and had appryzed his Lands and alleadged no Process because the Pursuer pursues as Assigney The Assignation being his Title is posterior to the Charge to enter Heir or Summons which are raised not in the Cedents Name but in the Assigneys It was answered for the Pursuer that Cockpen could not object this because he was Curator to the Pursuer and had appryzed the Lands and proponed this alleadgence of purpose to exclude this Pursuer from coming in within year and day because it this Summons were cast the Defender being now out of the Countrey before a new Charge to enter Heir could proceed upon 60. dayes and Citation upon 60. dayes and the special Charge upon 60. dayes the year would elapse It was answered that Cockpen had never acted as Curator and that this Summons was raised by the Pursuer himself after his Majority who was Major more then a year ago It was answered that the Pursuer had but very lately recovered his Writs from his Curators though he used all Diligence and was forced to transume against some of them The Lords sustained the Summons in respect Cockpen had been Curator and so near the time of Minority Earl of Eglingtoun contra Laird of Cuninghame head Ianuary 27. 1666. THe Earl of Eglingtoun pursues the Laird of Cuninghame-head for the Teinds of his Lands conform to a Decreet of Valuation The Defender Alleadged absolvitor because he bruiked by vertue of a Tack at least by tacit Relocation which must defend ay and while the famine be interrupted by Inhibition or Process It was replyed the Pursuer produces Inhibition and craves only the valued Duties for the years thereafter It was answered the Inhibition is direct to Messengers at Arms and is only execute by a Sheriff in that part It was answered that it was sufficient seing the Letters bore Messengers Sheriffs in that part The Lords found the Inhibition sufficient to interrupt the tacite Relocation Iean Crichtoun and Mr. Iohn Eleis her Husband contra Maxwel of Kirk-house Eodem die JEan Crichtoun being Served to a Terce of certain Lands belonging to her first Husband Maxwel of Kirk-house pursues for Mails and Duties It is alleadged absolvitor because the Pursuer hath a competent Joynture more then the third of her Husbands Estate as then it was and a Provision of Conquest and albeit it be not expresly in satisfaction of the Terce yet it is but a minute bearing to be extended and there is a Process of Extension thereof depending and therefore it ought to be extended with such Clauses as are ordinar in such cases and this is most ordinar that competent Provisions use to be in satisfaction of the Terce It was answered that the Extension could not be with alteration of any substantial Point such as this but only as to Procurators of Resignation Precepts of Seasine c. And to show that it was not Kirk house his meaning that the Infeftment should be in satisfaction of the Terce the Infeftment it self produced being extended in ample Form does not bear to be in satisfaction The Lords Repelled the Defenses and found the Terce competent in this Case Colonel James Montgomery contra Steuart Eodem die IN the Declarator betwixt these Parties mentioned the 24. day Instant It was alleadged that the Plenishing and Moveables could not be declared to belong to the Pursuer by vertue of Dam Elizabeth Hamiltouns Disposition in so far as concerns the Moveable Heirship in respect it was done on Death bed and could not prejudge the Defender who is Heir even as to the Heirship-moveable It was answered that the said Dam Elizabeth being Infeft neither in Land nor Annualrent in Fee could have no Heirship It was answered that her Husband and she were infeft in certain Lands by Hoom of Foord which were Disponed to her Husband and her in Conjunct-feeâ— and to the heirs of the Marriage which failzing to whatsoever Person the said Sir William should assign or design And true it is he had assigned that Sum to his Lady whereby she had Right of the Fee and so might have heirship The Lords found that this Designation made the Lady but Heir appearand or of Tailzie whereupon she was never Infeft and by the Conjunct-fee she was only Liferenter and that the Assignation to the Sums and Right gave not her heirs any heirship moveable Heugh Dollas contra Frazer of Inveralochie Ianuary 31.
Trade in the River of Clyde without any such Burden whereof no mention is made in the foresaid Contract and being charged for in Anno 1611. there was not so much as an alleadgence of any Possession of Dumbartons of these Dues at that time and the Entry decerned to be free at either Town and therefore they alleadged that their Priviledge of Trading as a free Burgh ought to be declared and they assoilzied It was answered for the Town of Dumbarton that they had good Right to these Duties by His Majesties several Infeftments granted to them for the King having power to impose petty Customs not only in Ports built and preserved by Industry but in Stations and Rivers Creiks and Bays as is the Custom of all Kings and Princes such are the Customes upon the Rivers of Rhyne Garonnie Thaimes and others to all Ships that anchor there or pass that way and whereof there are severals in Scotland as the Tunnage due to Edinburgh of all the Ships breaking bulk at Leith and the petty Customs of Alloway Cockenie and other places 2ly Albeit the Kings grant were not sufficient alone yet being cled with immemorial or 40. years Possession instructed by Witnesses and the Books of Entry it is more then sufficient It was answered for Glasgow to the first That petty Duties imposed for Ports having a mutual Cause may be appointed at any time by Kings and Princes it being free to these who are burdened therewith to come in to that Port or not they also appoint petty Customs to be payed to any City for Goods Imported and sold there in consideration of the upholding of their Harbours and Mercats as the Tunage of the Harbour of Leith or anchorage at any Shore where anchorage is casten upon the Land or any Goods laid out upon the Land or where Imposition for anchorage or other Dues in a River or Station hath been approven by long Custom and acquiescence but where Burghs Royal have not only by their priviledge of Trading but by immemorial Possession prescribed a liberty of making use of Stations without burding no Right granted or Impetrat by any Party in prejudice thereof if it be quarrelled before Prescription can take away the liberty of Trading Nor is the Kings Gift any way to be understood but periculo petentis and Dumbartons second Charter did expresly bear that these petty Customs were due and accustomed before so that the Kings express meaning is not to Gift them de nova or to impose a servitude in their favours upon a far more eminent City then themselves And as to the Point of Possession nothing is proven thereanent till the year 1616. and then it is neither universal seing more Entered at Glasgow then at Dumbarton nor is it peaceable nor voluntar nor is it continual but interrupted and albeit it were uninterrupted yet it is but by single Persons which cannot infer a Servitude upon the Burgh and if the Kings Gift be periculo petentis and be surrepticiously impetrat upon a false Narrative no Possession can validat it as no Possession of it self without a Title could infer such a Servitude The Lords having considered the Depositions of the Witnesses Books of Entry and the hail Writs produced they found that the alleadgence against Dumbartons Declarator as founded upon their Charters without Relation to Possession was not Relevant and that the first Charter could not extend to these particulars not being exprest unless it had appeared that they had been in immemorial Possession before the second Charter and the interruption by the Suspension raised by Glasgow and the Lords Interlocutor thereuponâ— in Anno 1611. for albeit Immemorial or 40. years Possession immediatly preceeding might have presumed Possession continually before since the first Charter yet they found that Interruption or Suspending that particular in question and no alleadging of Possession by Dumbarton then but on the contrair an Interlocutor as to the liberty of Entry at Glasgow takes off that Prescription And likewise they found that there was nothing proven as to 40. years Possession save only 13. sh. 4. d. for the Anchorage of each Ship and 8. d. for the use of Dumbartons Measures of Salt for each Boll and seing that Possession was also proven to be Interrupted in that several Ships of Glasgow Resisted and came away free and that they had several Salt Measures of their own there Therefore they found the Charter not validat by 40. years Possession uninterrupted and Assoilzie from Dumbartons Declarator and Declared upon Glasgows Declarator of Liberty Earl of Panmuire contra Parochiners Feb. 7. 1666. THe Earl of Panmuire having Right to the Abbacy of Aberbrothick pursues for a part of the Teinds thereof It was alleadged absolvitor because they had possest their Land 40. years free of Teind to any body and by the general Act of Prescription all Right prescribes not pursued within 40. years and so doth the Right of this Teind It is answered that the Right of Teind is founded on Law and not upon any particular or privat Right and therefore albeit in the case of Competition of private Parties pretending Right to Teinds One Right may be excluded by another yet the Teinds themselves must always be due except where the Lands are decimis inclusis and did belong to priviledged Church-men of old such as the Cistertian Order or Templars Manse or Gleibs The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Answer for they thought albeit the bygones of the Teind preceeding the 40. years might prescribe yet the Right of Teind could not more then Customs could prescribe if they were neglected to be Exacted for fourty years or a Feu-duty Ker contra Hunter and Tennents of Cambo Feb. 8. 1666. THe Tennents of Cambo raise a Double-poinding against Ker and Hunter both being Infeft in Annualrents base where the last base Infeftment within a month of the former being cled with Possession by a Decreet of poynding the Ground a year after both and no Diligence on the first The Lords preferred the last Infeftment as first cled with Possession It was further alleadged that this Annualrenter had accepted a part of the Land in satisfaction of his Annualrent It was answered that there was Write there required viz. a Renunciation of the rest and till that was done est locus penitentiae The Lords considering the Case found that if the Promise were only to restrict the Annualrent to a part of the Land burdened therewith it was pactum liberatorium and there was not locus penitentiae but if it was a Promise to accept other Lands or the Property of a part of the Lands burdened there was locus penitentiae till the mutual Rights were subscribed whereby the one Party disponed the Property and the other the Annualrent The Heretors of Johns Miln contra The Feuars Feb. 9. 1666. THere being an old Thirlage of a Paroch which was a part of the Barony of Dumfermling to Iohns Miln the Feu of the Miln being
therefore ordained them to Condescend Archbishop of Glasgow contra Commissar of Glasgow Feb. 14. 1666. THe Archbishop of Glasgow pursues a Declarator or to hear and see it found and Declared that Commissars ought to be persons qualified and able to judge according to Law and that if they be not they might be deprived by the Act 1609. empowering the Bishops then restored to appoint able and sufficient men Commissars in all time coming and by the Act of Restitution 1661. whereby the like power is granted excepting Commissars nominat by the King unless he be insufficient or malversant and subsumes that Mr. William Fleming is not sufficient nor qualified for that Place and also that by the injunctions given to Commissars mentioned in the Act 1609. there is no place for Deputs unless it were by special consent of the Bishops and craves that it may be declared that the said Mr. William may not Serve by a Depute The Pursuer insisted on the first member It was alleadged for the Defender that he had his Place both from the King and Bishop Fairfoul confirming the same with a Novo damus and therefore though he might have been questioned before the said Ratification and new Gift yet now he cannot be questioned upon insufficiency but only on Malversation whereof there is no point alleadged nor condescended on nor is his insufficiency qualified by any Act of inorderly Process or injustice committed by him now these five years and as Bishop Fairfoul who acknowledged him to be a fit and qualified Person by his Ratification could never quarrel him upon insufficiency neither can this Bishop 2ly The Defender has his Place with power of Deputation and therefore having given eight thousand merks to the former Bishop for his Ratification with power of Deputation he cannot be questioned on his sufficiency being able per se aut per deputatum and no Act alleadged of injustice It was answered by the Pursuer to the first Defense that albeit this same Bishop had admitted this Commissar upon hopes of his Qualifications yet if contrair to his expectation it appears he is not qualified for so eminent a Judicature He may justly quarrel him of insufficiency as well as a Minister whom he ordained 2ly Though the same Person might not yet his Successor in Office might and is not bound to acknowledge what his Predecessor did by mistake or otherwayes to the detriment of the Sea which were in his option without a Rule or requiring Qualifications as the naming of Commissars To the Second albeit Deputs were allowable as they are not by the Injunctions yet the principal Commissar who must Regulat and answer for them must also be qualified both by the Act 1609. and the exception 1661. which enervats both the Defenders Gifts The Lords found that Member of the Lybel on the Qualifications and sufficiency Relevant My Lord Ley contra Porteous Feb. 15. 1666. MY Lord Ley having Right by progress to the Reversion of an old Wodset uses an Order and pursues Declarator thereupon The Defender alleadged no Declarator because by the Reversion there is a Tack to be granted to begin after Redemption and to continue for so many years It was answered that Tack was null and invalide not only by Common law as an usurary Paction giving the Wodsetter more then his ordinary Annualrent but by a special Act of Parliament Ia. 2. Par. 1449. cap. 19. whereby such Tacks taken in Wodsets to endure long time after the Redemption for the half mail or near thereby shall not be keeped and as by the late Act of Parliament between Debitor and Creditor it is provided that where old Wodsets were granted before 1650. when annual was at ten for ilk hundreth the Wodsetter may upon offer of Caution for the annualrent take Possession unless the Wodsetter offered himself to be comptable for what exceeds his annualrent It was answered for the Defender that his Defense stands yet Relevant notwithstanding the answer for as to the old Act of Parliament it is in desuetude and it hath been the common custom to grant such Tacks in Reversions which have still been observed and were never quarrelled neither are they usurary seing the Tacksman has the hazard of the Fruits and all burdens so his Tack-Duty how small soever unless it were elusory can be no usurary paction more then taking Lands in a proper Wodset which pay more then the true annualrent which was never found usurary 2ly This Wodset is granted since that old Act whereby the benefit thereof is totally past from As to the new Act the Clause bears expresly that during the none Redemption or none Requisition the conditions therein shall take place which cannot be extended to a Tack to be granted after Redemption It was answered that the first Act bears not only a Regulation of Wodsets already then granted but to be granted bearing expresly who takes or has taken Lands in Wodsets c. and there is nothing in the Wodset to renunce the benefit thereof As for the custom Acts of Parliament are not derogat by custom of privat parties aâ—quiescing in their agreements But the custom of the Lords by current Decisions As to the last Act it ought to be drawn ad pares casus and the Lands are not effectually Redeemed till the Tack be ended The Lords found the last Act no ground for annulling such Tacks but found the first Act a good ground if it were subsumed according to it that the â—ands were set for half Mail or thereby Lyon of Muiresk contra Gordon and others Eodem die JOhn Lyon of Muiresk having obtained Decreet of Spuilzie of certain Goods against Gordon and others they suspend and alleadge the Act of Indemnity that they took these Goods being under the Command of the Marquess of Hunlly It was answered that the Charger was in friendship with the Marquels and on his side and so they cannot Cloath themselves with the Act of Indemnity as done upon hostility 2ly The Act Indemnifies only Deeds done by Command and Warrant of any pretended Authority but here no such Order is alleadged It was answered that Orders were not given in Writ and if none get the benefit of the Indemnity but these can shewâ— or prove Orders few or none will enjoy it nor need the Suspenders to Dispute whose side the Charger was on seing they acted by Order The Lords found that it was sufficient to alleadge that the Charger was the time of the Intromission actually in Arms and acted it with a Party being then in Arms but needed not prove their Order or the application of the Goods to publick use but found it Relevant if it were offered to be proven by the Suspenders Oath that they had no Warrant or Order or pro ut de jure that they applyed them to their own privat use not for any publick use Iames Borthwick contra Ianet Skeen Feb. 16. 1666. JAmes Borthwick having obtained Reduction of Ianet Skeens Liferent-right as a
non habente potestatem obtained payment of a Terms Rent before the Decreet of Reduction Ianet pursues for that Term and alleadges that the Decreet of Reduction could not be effectual till it were pronunced albeit it bear her Right to be null ab initio yet that is but stylus curiae It was answered that the Tennent payed bona fide after Reduction obtained and intimat to him and that the Lords may ex arbitrio find the effect of the Reduction either to be asententia Litiscontestation or a Citation In this Reduction the Lords Assoilzied the Tennent for this Term though before Sentence Earl of Winton contra Countess of Winton Eodem die THe Earl of Winton pursues a Reduction of an agreement made by his Tutors and Curators with my Lady giving her a certain Duty for her Interest in his Coal as being minor and laesed in so far as by her Contract she had only Right to the fourth part of the Coal in his Property now his Coal for several years has been in his Feuars Lands by Reservation in their Rights And also craved the bygons It was answered that bona fide possessor facit fructus consumptos suos the Lady by the Agreement could not compt for the years Duty she had gotten It was answered that this holds not in the case of Minority and Laesion It was answered that albeit Minority Repones as to any principal Right yet not as to the Fruits and accrescences medio tempore The Lords Reduced but Assoilzied the Lady from Repetition Sharp of Houstoun contra Glen Eodem die GLen Pursues for Mails and Duties of some Lands Houstoun compears and alleadgesthat he has Right to these Lands by an Apprizing expired It was answered his apprizing was null because it proceeded on four Bonds the Term of payment of one whereof was not come the time of the Appryzing and so not being due the Apprizing was void quoad totum It was answered the sum was due albeit the day was not come and so being but plus petitum tempore he was willing to admit the apprizing to be longer time by the double redeemable after the legal were expired then all the time he apprized before the hand The Lords found the Appryzing void as to that sum Whereupon occurred to them to consider whether the appryzing should fall in totum or stand for the other 3 Bonds And if it stood for these whether a proportionable part of the Lands appryzed effirand to the Bond whereof the Term was not come should be found free or if the rest should affect the whole Lands as if for these only the appryzing had been led wherein the Lords were of different opinions and recommended to the Reporter to agree the Parties Lady Otter contra Laird of Otter Eodem die LAird of Otter having Infeft his Wife in Conjunct-fee or Liferent in certain Lands cum molendinis did thereafter build a Miln thereupon and the question arising betwixt the Liferenter and the Heir who should have Right to the Miln The Liferenter alleadged aedificium solo cedit The Heir alleadged that a Miln is distinctum tenementum that cannot pass without Infeftment aud the Clause in the tenendo cum molendinis is not sufficient not being in the Dispositive Clause nor any Miln built then and he offered to make up all the Liferenters damnage by Building on her Ground The Lords found that the benefit of the Miln belonged to the Liferenter as to the Multures of all that was ground without the Thirlage but found it not to extend to Lands of the Defuncts which he had Thirled to the Miln John Hay of Knokondie contra Litlejohn Eodem die JOHN Hay pursues Litlejohn for the damnage sustained by a House belonging to Litlejohn falling on the Pursuers House It was alleadged the Defender was only Apprizer of a Liferenters Right and this behoved to lye upon the Fiar who was oblieged to uphold the Liferenters House The Lords found the Defender lyable seing he possest as Apprizer sixteen years and also intrometters with the profits of the House are liable for the damnage sustained thereby seing both Fiar and Liferenter were oblieged to uphold it and are liable de damno Lord Salton contra Laird of Park and Rothemay Feb. 20. 1666. THe Lord Ochiltry having a Disposition of the Estate of Salton from the umquhil Lord Salton in anno 1612. Disponed the same to Park Gordon Rothemay and others This Lord Salton having granted a Bond to Sir Archibald Stewart of Blackhall he thereupon apprized all Right that could be competent to the Lord Salton of that Estate which Right being now retrocessed to the Lord Salton he pursues Reduction of the Lord Ochiltries Disposition and of all these Rights founded thereupon in consequence The reason of Reduction is founded upon an Interdiction against the Lord Salton Disponer before his Disposition and there having been a Process formerly depending at the instance of umquhil Sir Archibald Stewart and being Transferred after his Death the Lords allowed the Process to proceed upon the Minute of Transferrence without Extracting the Decreet of Transferrence which behoved to include the Process and hail minuts which could not be done for a long time whereupon the Lord Salton now insisting in the principal Cause It was alleadged first No Process till the Principal Cause were wakened For albeit the principal Cause be Transferred yet it is but instatu quo and therefore being sleeping there can be no Process till after the Transferrence there be a wakening The Lords Repelled this Alleadgence and found the Transferrence sufficient without any wakening It was further alleadged Absolvitor because the Pursuers Title being an Apprizing the Defender has an anterior Apprizing which does exclude the Pursuer◠ay and while it be Reduced or Redeemed It was answered that the ground of this Pursute being a Reduction upon Interdiction the Interdiction cannot be directly apprized but only the Lands belonging to the Person Interdicted being Apprized all Apprizers or other singular Successors coming in the place of the Heirs of the Person Interdicted may pursue on their Rights and thereupon Reduce voluntar Dispositions made contrair the Interdiction which Interdiction is not a Right it self but medium impedimentum exclusivè of another Right as an Inhibition and as a first Appryzer cannot hinder a second Appryzer to make use of his Right except in prejudice of the first Appryzer so he cannot hinder him to make use of the Interdiction to take away a voluntar Disposition◠but prejudice of the first Appryzers appryzing as accords And in the same way a second Appryzer or any Creditor might pursue upon an Interdiction or Inhibition against a Creditor Which the Lords found Relevant and declared the Pursuer might Reduce this voluntar Disposition upon the Interdiction but prejudice of the Defenders appryzing contra Hugh Mcculloch Eodem die THe Laird of Balnigoun being arrested in Edinburgh for a Debt due to a Burges Heugh Mcculloch became Caution for him
ordinar and known but here the Casualities belonging to the Bailliâ— proprio jure the Constitution of the Burgh could not prejudge them even albeit the Lord of the Regalities consent was thereto produced seing the Ballie consented not but as to the Possession and Prescription whether the Town could Prescribe the Right of the Civil Jurisdiction albeit the Baillie exercised the Criminal Jurisdiction of Bloods or whether the Town could Prescribe their Right of a part of the Civil Jurisdiction in so far as concerned Trade The Lords superceeded to give answer while the first of Iune and that they had time to consider the Depositions of the Witnesses fullie Creditors of Lord Gray contra Lord Gray Eodem die CErtain Creditors of the Master of Grayes being Infeft in Annualrent out of certain of his Lands pursues Poynding of the Ground It was alleadged for the Lord Gray his Son absolvitor because he has Right to an Appryzing and Infeftment of Alexander Milne which is expired and prior to the Pursuers Infeftments It was answered that the Appryzing was satisfied by the Umquhile Master of Gray and a blank Assignation thereto was taken which was amongst the Masters Writs and this Lord filled up his Name after the Masters death this being unquestionably relevant the difficultie was concerning the manner of the Probation The Lords before answer ordained Witnesses ex officio to be examined whereupon the Lord Gray's Brother was examined who acknowledged he saw the blank Assignation by his Brother and Mr. Robert Prestoun being examined and several other Witnesses above all exception and also the Lord Gray himself who acknowledged he got the Assignation blank after his Fathers death but not amongst his Writs and that he gave a Bond therefore Many of the Lords thought that seing by the late Act of Parliament the Appryzing though expyred was Redeemable from him for the Sum he truely payed for it that it were more just and safe that he should be preferred unless the Creditors would purge and satisfie the Sum and that it were a dangerous example to find so important a Writ as this Assignation to be taken away by Witnesses yet the plurality found the Testimonies so pregnant and unquestionable They found the Reply proven thereby and found the Appryzing retired and satisfied by the Debitor and so extinct Earl of Landerdail contra Viscount of Oxenfoord last of February 1666. THE Earl of Lauderdale being Infeft in the Barony of Muslburgh which is a part of the Abbacie of Dumfermling and was Erected into a Temporal Lordship in favour of the Lord Thirlstoun thereafter Chancellourâ— the Lord Lauderdales Grand-fatherâ— in Anno 1587. Before the Act of Annexation wherein the Erection of Musleburgh to the Lord Thirlstoun is expresly excepted Thereafter in Anno 1592. the Queen was Infeft by the King in Liferent in the Abbacie of Dumfermling with the consent of the Lord Thirlstoun as to Musleburgh and his Resignâ—tion as that effect shortly after that same year the King gave the Queen an Heretable and Irredeemable Right of the whole Abbacie of Dumfermling which was Confirmed by a Printed Act of Parliament the Queen lived till the Year 1618. After which the King was served Heir to his Mother in the Abbacie of Dumfermling and Infeft therein being then Prince The King gave an Heretable and Irredeemable Right to the Lord Oxenfoords Authors of the Teynds of Coutsland as a Part of the Lordship of Musleburgh in Anno 1641. And shortly thereafter His Majesty did renew the Earl of Lauderdales Infeftment of the Lordship of Musleburgh with a novodamus Lauderdale being Forefaulted by the Usurpers Swintoun got a Donative of the Lordship of Musleburgh and amongst the rest of the Teyn is of Coutsland and did raise Inhibition and Reduction of their Rights After the Kings Restauration the Earl of Lauderdale obtains his Infeftment Confirmed in Parliament with an express Exception therein that it should not be derogat by the Act salvo jure raises Inhibition of the Teynds and pursues Action of Spuilzie and also of Reduction It was alleadged for the Defender absolvitor because he stands Infeft in the Teynds lybelled by Infeftment granted by the King before the Earl of Lauderdales Infeftment pursued on and by vertue of his Infeftment King Charles the first and Queen Anne his Authors have been in peaceable Possession uninterrupted since the Year of God 1593 And therefore their Right is accomplished and established by Prescription It was answered for the Pursuer that the Defense ought to be Repelled because since the death of Queen Anne who died in Anno 1618. Till the Interruption made by Swintoun by Inhibition and Reduction in Anno 1656. there are not 40â— years run and till the Queens death the Earl of Lauderdales Grand-father could not pursue because he had granted Resignation in her favours for her Liferent contra non valentem agere non currit Prescriptio So Wyves Provisions in their Contract of Marriage Prescribe not from their Date but from the time of their Husbands death all Obligations Prescribe only from the Term of payment and Infeftments and Oblidgements of Relief from the Distresse It was answered for the Defender that this Defense stands still Relevant First because as to any interruption made by Swintoun it cannot be profitable to the Pursuer because he derives no Right from Swintoun And as to the Queens Liferent Infeftment consented to by Thirlstoun the Queen never accepted the same but an Heretable Right from the King that same Year by which Heretable Right only she possest and did all Deeds of Property by entring of Vassalls and granting of Fews which a Liferenter could not do which Heretable Right Thirlstonn could not misken because by a special Printed Act of Parliament it is Confirmed in Parliament and past the great Seal himself being Chancellor It was answered for the Pursuer that the Defense and Duply ought to be Repelled in respect of the Reply because the Confirmation of the Queens Heretable Right in Parliament was salvo jure and he was secured by the Act salvo jure in the same Parliament and that he knew thereof at the passing of the great Seal is but a weak presumption and such knowledge could not prejudge him nor was he in any capacity to pursue upon his own Right for attaining possession seing the Queens Liferent Right and Heretable were both compatible and it was evident the Queen would exclude him by his Consent in the Liferent Right neither can the Queens acceptance be questioned after so long time seing the acceptance of the Liferent was to her advantage and profit before she got the Fee and did exclude Thirlstouns prior Right which would have undoubtedly reduced the Queens Right and was excepted in the General Act of Annexation and would not fall under the Act salvo jure It was also severally alleadged that this Earl of Lauderdales late Right was Confirmed in Parliament 1661. And all other Rights declared void and that the
is preferable to the Rebels base Infeftment It was answered that the King or his Donatar needed no possession nor can be prejudged for want of Diligence The Lords found the Creditors alleadgeance relevant Iack contra Mowat Eodem die THE Lords found that Iack having obtained Decreet as Assigney by his Father it was relevant for the Debitor to alleadge and prove by the Assigneys Oath that the Assignation was without a cause onerous and by the Cedents Oath that the Debt was payed before Intimation Sir Henrie Hoom contra Sir Alexander Hoom. Iune 14. 1666. IN the Cause debated yesterday betwixt Sir Henrie Hoom and Sir Alexander Hoom. It was further alleadged for Sir Alexander Hoom that the Rebel had not only five years possession but was Infeft by an Infeftment holden of his Father which was cled with Possession before the Appryzers charge against the Superior in so far as the Infeftment bore a reservation of the Fathers Liferent and so the Fathers Possession was the Rebells Possession and was sufficient to validat the base Infeftment seing there could be no other Possession attained during his Fathers lifetime or at least there was reserved to the Father a yearly Rent and the Rebel gave his Father a Warrand in Writ to continue his Possession of such of the Lands for the same The Lords ordained the Donatar to condescend whether the Rebells Infeftment proceeded upon his Contract of Marriage And he declaring that it was by a distinct Right thereafter The Lords found the Possession of the Father not relevant it being betwixt Conjunct Persons privat and suspect For they thought if possession by such Reservation betwixt Father and Son were sufficient the Creditors would hardly be secure Dumbar contra Lord Duffus Eodem die THE Lord Duffus having obtained a Decreet of removing against Dumbar his Tennent and having execute the same by Letters of Possession The Tennents raises Suspension and Reduction of the Decreet and a Summons of Ejection the Reason of Reduction was that the Sheriff had done wrong in repelling and not expressing in the Decreet a relevant Defense 2dly That the Tennent could not be decerned to remove because he was already removed irregularly by Ejection and ought not to be put to defend in the removing till he were repossest spoliatus ante omnia est restituendus which he instructed by an Instrument taken in the hand of the Clerk of Court and where it was replyed before the Sheriff that he had not found Caution for the violent Profits He answered that he needed not seing the Pursuer himself was in possession by the Ejection It was answered that the Lord Duffus offered him to prove that all he did was to put in some Corns and Plenishing in an ouâ— house long after the warning of the Tennent that had taken the Roum and that he continued to possesse all the rest of the house and the whole Land by his Cattel till he was Legally removed and neither the Family nor Goods of the new Tennent came in till then It was answered that the alleadgeance was contrair to the Tennents Lybel of Ejection bearing that he was dispossest both from the house and Lands The Lords considering that the Tennents was only positive in Ejection from the House and had once acknowledged that he was not Ejected from the Land they Assoâ—lzed from the Reduction of the Decreet of Removing but they sustained the Action of Ejection and Repelled the Defenses as contrair to the Lybell Reserving to themselves the modification of the violent profits and the other party to debate whether after the Decreet of Removing the Tennent should have re-possession or only the profits or damnages George Tailzor contra Iames Kniter Junâ— 15. 1666. GEorge Tailzor having Appryzed some Lands in Perth set a Tack of a part of it to Iames Kniter who thereafter Appryzed the same Tailzor now pursues a Removing against Kniter who alleadged absolvitor because he had Appryzed the Tenement within year and day of the Pursuer and so had Conjunct Right with him It was answered that he could not invert his Masters Possession having taken Tack from him The Defender answered it was no inversion seing the Pursuer by Act of Parliament had Right to a part but not to the whole and the Defender did not take Assignation to any new Debt but to an old Debt due to his Father The Lords sustained the Defense he offering the expenses of the Composition and Appryzing to the first Appryzer conform to the Act of Parliament Alexander Stevinson contra Laird of Hermishills Eodem die ALexander Stevinson as Assigney by his Father pursues Hermishills for payment of a Bond who alleadged absolvitor because the Defender as Heir to his Father had right to a Bond due by the Pursuers Father before the Assignation after which the Assignation was a Deed infraudem Creditorum and so null It was answered non relevat unless the Cedent had been Bankrupt or at least insolvendâ— The Lords Repelled the Defense in respect of the Answer The Defender furder alleadged Compensation upon the said Bond which was relevantâ— against the Pursuer both as Heir to and as Assigney by his Father It was answered non relevat against the Pursuer as Executor but for his fourth part being one of four Executors 2dly The Defenders Father was Tutor to the Pursuer nondum reddidit rationes The Lords found that Compensation being equivalent to a discharge taking away the Debt ipso facto it might be proponed against any of the Executors in solidum but in regard the Tutors accompts were depending the Lords sisted his Process till he Tutors Compts proceeded Sir Robert Sinclar contra Laird of Houstoun Eodem die SIr Robert Sinclar pursues a Poynding of the Ground of the Lands of Leni upon an old Annualrent of 20. merks Constitute above a 100. years agoe Houstoun alleadged absolvitor First Because he brooked these Lands past Prescription peaceably without any pursuit upon this Annualrent 2dly Because this Annualrent was base and never yet cled with Possession and his Infeftment was publick It was answered to both that the Pursuer produced a Decreet of Poynding the Ground in Anno 1608. Since which the Pursuers Minority being deduced it is not 40. years Likeas there is produced a Precept of Poynding for the said Annualrent It was answered that the Decreet in Anno 1608. was only against the Tennents and Possessors and so is null the â—eretor not being called It was answered First That albeit the Decreet had been defective for not calling the Master yet it was sufficient to interrupt Prescription 2dly It was sufficient to give possession and to validat a base Infeftment by a civil possession for as natural possession by the Tennents payment would have been sufficient though without their Masters knowledge or consent So a Decreet yea a citation against them is sufficient for a possession as being equivalent to a natural possession and albeit the Proprietar could not be
prejudged as to the constituting an Annualrent in the point of Right not being called yet as to the Point of Possession the Right being constitute he might 3dly Albeit the Heretor must be called when his Ground is first affected with an Annualrent in attinenda possessione yet if the Annualrenter be in possession he may continue the same without calling the Master as well as in Tyends Thirlage c. And here the old Precept of Poynding was evidence sufficient of a prior Possession in re tam antiqua The Lords found that the Decreet was Possession sufficient to interrupt Prescription Minister of contra Lord Elphinstoun Iune 16. 1666. MInister of pursues the Lord Elphinstoun for the Viccarage Teinds of his Lands in his Paroch It was alleadged absolvitor because he brooked these Lands by immemorial possession without paying any Viccarage and so had prescribed Exemption and Liberty It was answered that the Viccarage being due de jure cummuni desuetude cannot take them away nor can any Prescription give Right to them unless it were by a Title as if the Lands had been Templar Lands or belonging to these Orders which payed no Teynds but were exempted by the Cannon Law and therefore in the last Session it was found in the Case of the Earl of Panmoor that 40. Years did not prescribe the Right of Parsonage except for the Years preceeding the 40. It was answered that there was a great difference betwixt Parsonage and Viccarage which is Local and Consuetudinary which is therefore only found due according to what has been accustomed to be payed so that the Teynd of Lint Hemp Geess Stags Swine Fruits Fishes are only due in these parts where they have been so accustomed and therefore as custome may take away a part so it may extinguish the whole The Lords found the Defender could be no furder lyable then for that Viccarage which was commonly payed throughout all the Kingdom viz. Stirk Lamb and Wool and sustained not the same for Milk or any other particular But the Defender upon the twenty one of Iune having Supplicat to be further heard alleadging that it was a common Case that when the Lands were most in Labourage and the Viccarage small and not considerable that through the whole Country Viccarage was never craved time out of minde The Lords stopped Interlocuquutor till they were further heard Thomas Begg contra Patrick Nicoll Iune 22. 1666. THomas Begg gave Commission bearing that he had delivered a certain Sum of Money to Patrick Nicoll to buy Wair for him in England whereunto there is subjoyned the said Patrick his acceptance bearing Sea hazard excepted Thomas Begg now pursues for the Money or Wairâ— Patrick Nicoll alleadged absolvitor because he offers him to prove that shortly after the said Commission he went upon the Voyage and that the Ship was taken and the whole Goods there wherein it must be presumed the Pursuers Money was It being impossible for the Defender to prove that that individual Money was there and yet he is willing to make faith that it was there It was answered that the Defender had Factor-fee and should have transmitted the Money by Bill as he did some of his own and at least he might prove that he had a considerable Sum of Money in the Ship The Lords sustained the Defense and Repelled the Reply and that the Defender being trusted by the Pursuer he could not refuse his Oath in Supplement that his very Money was taken seing he neither might nor could show what money he had when he entrèd to his voyage unless the Pursuer alleadged that he gave the Defender allowance for the Exchange Earl of Eglingtoun contra Laird of Cunninghamhead Iune 23. 1666. THE Earl of Eglingtoun pursues the Laird of Cunninghamhead for the Teynds of Peastoun who alleadged absolvitor for 60. libâ— Yearly which by Decreet of the Plat he payed to the Minister of Irving and produces the Decreet It was alleadged that where the Decreet bore out of the Teinds it was meer Error of the Clerk and disconform to the ground of the Decreet which was a tripartite Contract whereby the Earl of Eglingtoun agreed for so much Victual out of his Teynd beside what was to be payed by the Town of Irving and Heretors and the Heretors oblidged them and their Heirs and Successors of these Lands to pay so much Money which cannot be understood out of their Teynd they being oblidged as Heretors and the Teynd not being theirs but the Earl of Eglintouns who was oblidged so much out of his Teynds besides these oblidgments It was answered that this being to lay a burden of Stipend upon the Stock is most unfavourable and the meaning thereof cannot be inferred unless it had born expresly out of the Stock especially seing the Teynd was under Tack and it was ex gratia for them to pay any more then their Tack-duty but now when the Tacks are expired the Earl cannot crave the whole Teynd and lay this burden upon the Stock 2dly The Lords cannot alter the express tenor of the Decreet of Plat which was a Commission of Parliament The Lords found that the tripartite Contract as to this did not burden the Teynds and therefore seing the Plat could only decern out of Teynds they found that by this Contract the Heretors behoved to relieve the Teynds of this burden out of their Stock Arbuthnet contra Mary Keith Eodem die Andrew Arbuthnet having gotten a Gift to the behove of the Viscount of Arbuthnet of the Marriage of the Heirs of Iohn Keith of Pâ—tten did thereupon pursue the two Heirs Portioners one of them being dead he insists now against the other for her part who alleadged no Process because none was called to represent the other who is thus far interessed that the Probation of the avail of the Marriage against the one will prejudge the other The Lords Repelled the Defense and found it would not prejudge the other against whom new Probation behoved to be used Patoun and Mercer contra Patoun Eodem die JOhn Patoun as Heretor of the Miln of Mukart pursues for the abstracted Multures and alleadges that the Miln is the Miln of the Barony and the Lands a part of the Barony and that they being in immemorial Possession of Intoun Multures of one peck of the Boll and that above thirty years ago there was a Decreet arbitral by the Marquess of Argyle Decerning these Multures The Defenders alleadged Absolvitor because they were Infeft before the Pursuers Right produced cum molindinis and as to the Act of Court the whole Tennents were not present and the Decreet Arbitral it is under Reduction The Lords sustained the Pursuers Condescendence reserving the Reduction as accords Masson contra Iune 27. 1666. MAsson pursuing a Declarator of Escheat It was answered that all Parties having Interest were not Cited at the Mercat Cross conform to the Warrand of the Letters It was answered that was but stilus curiae long indesuetude and
it is enough that the Rebel is Cited and none would be prejudged who were not Cited and any may compear that pleases for their Entress The Lords Repelled the Defense and Forefault the amand given thereupon as being contrair to the common Custom Laird of Philorth contra Lord Fraser Iune 28. 1666. THe Laird of Philorth pursues a Declarator of Property of Lands lying about the Kirk-yard of Rathan and particularly that a part of the Land within the Kirk-yard-dyke is his Property and that therefore the Dyke ought to be Demolished and specially the Lord Fraser's Arms upon the common Entry of the Kirk-yard-dyke It was alleadged for the Defenders first absolvitor because the Pursuer had homologat the Right of the Kâ—rk as to the Kirk-yard-dyke and all within it in so far as he had buried the Dead of his own Family in the bounds in question and likewise his Tennents The Lords found the former part Relevant but not the latter unless he had been present at his Tennents Burials or otherwise had consented The Defenders further alleadged Absolvitor because the Minister and Parochioners of Rathan had possest the Kirk-yard and Dyke peaceably by the space of 30 years which is sufficient to give them a Right upon this Point There occurred to the Lords these Points first Whether less Possession then 40 years could Constitute the full Right of a Kirk-yard 2ly VVhether less Possession by burying of the Dead could take away anothers Property And whether simply or so as to give him Damnage and Interest 3ly VVhether an Interruption made after the Building of this Dyke by the Pursuers raising Summons shortly thereafter could operate any thing if the Defenders had bruiked since the Interruption by that space that would have been sufficient to Constitute a full Right before Interruption Many were of the opinion that Kirk-yards have as great priviledge as any Kirklands and that in Kirk-lands 10. years Possession before the Reformation or 30. years after according to the old Act of Sederunt of the Lords did Constitute a full Right as well as the long Prescription in other Cases and likewise that in Ecclesiasticis 13. years Possession did Constitute a Right decennalis triennalis possessor non tenetur docere de titulo and that accordingly the Lords were in use to decide in all such Rights But the Point to be decided was Whether Interruption once used endured for 40. years so that albeit 13. years would suffice yet the Interruption long before these 13. would alwyse be sufficient till the Interruption did prescrive by 40. years wherein many were in the Negative that as in a possessoy Judgement on 7. years if Interruption were alleadged it was always a relevant Reply that since the Interruption the Defender has Possest 7. years without Interruption so if 10. or 13. years be sufficient to the Kirk no Interruption preceeding but only such as are done during these years can be sufficient for if 13. years will take away the Solemnest Rights and Writs much more may it a Citation Others were for the Affirmative on this ground that in the short Prescription of 3. years in Spuilzies c. Interruption once used serves for 40. years so it must in this case for he that once Interrupts is alwise holden as continuing in that Interruption until it Prescrive or be otherwise past from But it was answered that it did Prescrive by Possessing 13. or 30. years in rebus ecclesiae Church-men seldom have or keep Evidents albeit in other Cases Interruption would only prescrive in 40 years Yet the plurality found that after Interruption no less then 40. years Possession was sufficient but reserved to the Lords the Question anent the ground in so far as dead were buried therein after Probation Iohn Mcmorlan contra William Melvil Eodem die WIlliam Melvil and one Hatter an Englishman both Residing in England gave Bond to Gawin Lourie Residing there after the English Form who Assigns it to Iohn Mcmorlan Melvil Suspends upon this Reason that he had made payment to Gawin Lourie the Cedent which he offered to prove by Gawins Oath and which could not be refused because he offered to prove that it was the Custom of England that the Cedents Oath can never be taken away by Assignation as it is in Scotland but that Assignations are only as Procuratories and that payment might be proven there by Witnesses to take away Writ It was answered that the Law of Scotland must regulate the case because the Assignation is according to the Scots stile and the Debitor albeit Residing in England was a Scots man and knew the Custom of Scotland The Lords found that the manner of Probation behoved to be Regulate according to the Custom of England and so that payment might be proven by witnesses or by the Cedents Oath yet so as the Cedent could not be holden as confest but the Debitor or Suspender behoved to produce him and move him to Depone Wherein the Lords so Declared because they were informed that the Suspender proponed the Alleadgeance because the Cedent was Quaker and would not swear at all Duke of Hamiltoun contra Duke of Buckcleugh Eodem die THe Duke of Hamiltoun as Collector of the Taxation having Charged the Duke of Buckcleugh for the Taxation of the Lordship of Dalkeith He Suspended upon this Reason that the King Possest these Lands Himself the years of the Taxation and so cannot demand them from the Suspender who is a Singular Successor The Charger answered that he had the Taxation from the King for a Cause Onerous viz. a Debt The Lords found the Reason of Suspension Relevant Dougal Mcpherson contra Sir Rory Mcclaud Iune 29. 1666. DOwgal Mcpherson pursues Sir Rory Mcclaud for payment of a Sum upon his promise and the Summons bears a Warrand to Cite him at the Mercat Cross nearest the place of his Residence being in the lsles whereupon the Pursuer craved him to be holden as confest The Defender alleadged that he was not Personally apprehended and so could not be holden as consest and that this Citation at the Mercat Cross was periculo petentis and not to be Sustained in the time of Peace when there was no Trouble in the Countrey The Lords found that Warrands for such Citations ought not to be granted by common Bills of course but only by the Lords upon special Bills in presentia but seing the Defender compeared they allowed his Procurator a long time to produce him Ianet Kid contra Dickson Eodem die JAnet Kid pursues Reduction of a Disposition of some Tenements in Forfar made by her Father on this Ground that the Disposition is subscribed but by one Nottar and one Witness and the Charter by one Nottar and two VVitnesses and so is null by the Act of Parliament requiring two Nottars and four VVitnesses in VVrits of importance It was answered that the Tenements being small the price of one exprest being 200. merks and the other 300. merks the foresaids two
VVrits were sufficient cled with many years Possession in the Defuncts time who never challenged the same 2ly They are Established by the Seasine given propriis manibus conform to the Obligement of the Disposition and Charterby a Town-clerk Registrat in the Town Books The Lords having Ordained the Defenders to condescend upon any Adminicles they had for astructing the verity of the Subscription they condescended only on seven years Possession which the Lords found was not sufficient to Establish the Right without Reduction but if the Defender had condescended on 40. years Possession The Lords Declared they would hear them Dispute whether that could be sufficient or not Chalmers contra Bassily Iune 30. 1666. MR. William Chalmers being to go abroad grants a Factory to Bassily bearing to endure untill he returned and after Discharged the same in VVrit he now writes a Letter to his Father bearing That he would do any thing he could to recal and reduce that Factory whereon a Reduction was raised on this Reason That all Factories of their Nature are Revockable at the pleasure of the Constituent albeit they contain a Term of endurance It was answered that this Factory containing such an endurance cannot be Revocked till the Term come 2ly Albeit Factories be Revockable yet it must be re integra but here the Factor hath advanced considerable sums of Money upon consideration of the Factory The Lords found the Factory Revockable the Factor being always refounded of what he profitably Expended upon consideration thereof before he quite Possession Martin Stevinson contra Dobbie Eodem die DObby being Tennent to Iames Stevinson of certain Lands he gets an Infeftment of Annualrent out of the same Lands before Whitsonday but the first Terms payment of the Annualrent was Martinmas thereafter after Whitsonday and before Martinmas Martin Stevenson apprizes the Land and Charges the Superiour and thereupon pursues for Mails and Duties Dobby excepts upon his Infeftment of Annualrent The Pursuer answered that the Infeftment was base and before it was or could be cled with Possession he had Charged the Superiour which was equivalent to a publick Infeftment The Defender answered that a publick Infeftment interveening before the first term of payment of the Annualrent did not prejudge the base Infeftment which could not be presumed to be privat or simulat for want of Possession till the Term came at which Possession might be attained or pursued for 2ly The Defender being in Natural Possession from the very Date of his Seasine intus habet and he may retain his own Annualrent which begins to become due from the Date of his Seasine de momento in momentum albeit there be a Term appointed to pay accumulative so that as the getting payment from the Possessor of any part of the Annualrent or his Obligement for the same would be a Possession sufficient so the Defender having the same in his own hand as Possessor it is equivalent The Lords found this Member of the Defense Relevant and had no necessity to decyde the other Point whether the interveening publict Infeftment before the first Term would exclude the base Infeftment without Possession wherein they thought that there was great odds if the Appryzers Infeftment or Diligence had been before Whitsonday in respect the first Term of the Annualreni was not the next Term after the Seasine and so if it might pass one Term by the same Reason it might pass ten Terms and be valid because in neither Case could Possession or Action proceed thereon and therefore might be suspected of Simulation so that if the Appryzers Diligence had been before Whitsonday the Annualrenter could have no Right to that Term and so the Appryzer would attain to the Possession and could hardly be excluded thereafter Stevin contra Boyd Eodem die STevin pursues his Mother as his Tutrix and Iohn Boyd as Husband and Factor for an Accompt of his Fathers means In which Accompt these Points were reported First There was some old unfashionable Ware in the Defuncts Inventar not Sold whereof the Tutrix offered to the Pursuer his two third parts in specie The Pursuer answered that the Tutrix had priced the same and behoved to accept them at that price and that she ought to have done Diligence to have Sold them and Executors are never liberat but upon payment of the price The Lords found that albeit Executors are comptable to Creditors always for the price yet not so to the Children and therefore if it was visible that the Ware was old and could not be Sold wherein the Tutrix was at the loss of her Third They found the same should be accepted but in that Case they found the Tutrix lyable for any greater price she got then that contained in the Testament The second point was what Diligence the Tutrix should be lyable for whether Registrat Horning were sufficient or if Poinding and Apprizing behoved to be used The Lords found that Horning would not be sufficient in all Cases but according to ehe Condition of the Debitors and therefore ordained the Parties to condescend thereon Fleming contra Fleming Iuly 3. 1666. DAm Elizabeth Fleming being Executrix to her Husband and Tutrix to her Children gave out the sum of 6000. merks to the Lord Cardross and took a Bondâ— bearing the same payable to her self in Liserent and to Malcolm and Andrew Flemings and failzing the one by Decease to the other This Bond by a former Interlocutor was found not to be altogether a Donation but it satisfied the two Bairns Portions pro tanto Malcolm being now dead Andrew the surviver claimed the sum by the Substitution Thereafter the Children as Executors to Malcolm claimed the same on this ground that this sum not being found a Donation but to be given in satisfaction of of Andro's Portion the Tutor could not Substitute any Heir to Malcolm but behoved to remain as it had been lent as Malcoms own means in which case it would belong to his whole Brethren and Sisters and not to Andrew only Andrew all eadged that he being Substitute by his Mother who had now Right from the remanent Children she who had Constitute this Substitution could never quarrel the same It was answered for the Mother that she did not quarrel the Substitution but that albeit the Substitution took place Andrew was her Substitute and so was in the same condition as Malcolm so that Malcolms half behoved still to be taken away by Compensation in so far as she was Creditor to Malcolm as if Malcolm were alive It was furder alleadged for Andrew that in such a Clause as this there was no Fiar and Heir but two conditional or alternative Fiars viz. either of the Children that Survived and therefore such Clauses would never make the Substitute Heir to represent the Defunct and be lyable to his Debts The Lords found that by the Clause of Substitution the Person Substitute was Heir of Provision yet not so as to be lyable to the
Title to Consideration as to this Point whether Vitious Intromission as it is an universal passive Title died with the Intromettor or if it might be pursued against his Representatives they ordained the Parties to be heard thereupon which being Reported this day The Lords found that no personâ— as representing a Defunct could be lyable universaliter upon that Defuncts Vitious Intromission but only for the true value of his Intromission and that either by Action or Exception upon this Consideration that albeit â—uch Titles have been oft times Libelled and sometimes Sentence thereupon when none opposed yet there had never been a Decision nor Interlocutor for it and that the passive Title being poenal sapiens naturam delicti non transit in haeredes delinquentis in quantum penale for they thought it were of dangerous consequence if Persons might be lyable not only to their immediat Predecessor but to their Goodsire Grandsire or Fore-grandsires vitious Intromission but if the vitious Intromission had been Established against the Defunct in his own time it would be sufficient against all his Successors Otherways after his death they could not be put to purge the Vitiosity or to shew the manner or the Warrand of his Possession But it was not determined if Action had been intented against the Defunct and he dyed before Sentence whether his Heir would be lyable there being different Cases as to that Point which required different Considerationsâ— as if the Defunct dyed after Probation or if after Litiscontestation when at least the particulars were condescended on and the Defunct compearing alleadged nothing to purge or if the Pursuit were de recenti and not long delayed but the Defunct dyed the Pursuer doing all Diligence or if Diligence were not used but the matter lay over in which case it seems litle respect could be had to the intenting the Action only and it would be as litle questionable that if Probation were led the Defunct compearing it would be as valid against him as if Sentence were obtained the midle Cases are more dark But none of them were comprehended in this Decision Iames Thomson contra Binnie Eodem die THere being a Decreet obtained against Binnie his Creditors finding him at Linlithgow secured him and he found two Burgesses Caution as Law will who being conveened for payment of the Debt alleadged absolvitor because they were only in common Form Obliged as Cautioners as Law will which doth not import judicio sisti judicatum solvi but judicio sisti aut judicatum solvi Ita est They sisted the Party for whom they were Cautioners and put him in the Provosts hands who put him in Ward and Protested to be free conform to an Instrument produced It was answered non relevat because they only sisted him judici but not judicio they ought to have presented him in the Court when that Cause was called and the Pursuer was not obliged to know or take notice what they did otherways which might be by way of Collusion The Lords found the alleadgence Relevant for there was no Collusion condescended on providing the Defenders prove by the Witnesses insert iâ— the Instrument that it was so Acted For they thought that if the Cautioners put the Debitor in Ward at any time during the Process the Pursuer was not prejudged For if he insisted in his Process and upon not presenting of the Defender Protested the Cautioners would either then alleadge that he was in Prison or otherwayes it would import Collusion Mr. Iohn Hay contra Sir Iames Dowglas Eodem die MR. Iohn Hay of Haistoun and Sir Iames Dowglas having both Rights of Appryzing of the Estate of Smithfield did agree that Sir Iames should have three parts and Mr. Iohn one and did obtain a Decreet at both their Instances for removing a Tennent from some Aikers but Sir Iames Laboured and did Sow the whole Mr. Iohn did thereafter Sow as much Corn upon the Sown Land as would have sown his quarter and now pursues an Intrusion against Sir Iames who alleadged absolvitor because Mr. Iohn was never in natural possession and offered to give the 4. part of the Rent the Aikers payed before The Pursuer answered that the removing of the natural Possessor was equivalent as if Mr. Iohn had been in natural Possession of his Quarter and therefore the offering to him the Rent was not sufficient yet he was willing to accept the Rent for this year so as Sir Iames would devide for time coming The Lords found that in this Process they could not compel Sir Iames to devide but sustained the Process ad hunc effectum that Mr. Iohn should have the 4. part of the Cropt paying Sir Iames the Expences of Labourage Dam Margaret Hume contra Crawford of Kerse Eodim die DAM Margaret Hume having charged the Laird of Kerse who was Cautioner for the Earl of Lowdoun for her Liferent that she had out of the Estate of Lowdoun He Suspends and alleadges that the Charger ought to assign him seing the Bond wants a Clause of Relief whereby he will have difficulty to have Relief of the other Cautioners bound The Lords found that they could not compel the Charger to assign but in so far as of her own consent she would Canna contra Eodem die THere was a Disposition of some Tenements in Dumbar containing this provision that the Buyer should pay such a sum of Moneyâ— to a Creditor of the Sellers under the pain and penalty that the said Disposition should be null Infeftment followed upon the Disposition and the Land is now Transmitted to singular Successors who pursuing for Mails and Duties It was alleadged for the Creditor by the Reservation that this Reservation being a real Provision the Creditor must be preferred to the Mails and Duties ay and while the Sum be payed It was answered first That this provision was neither in the Charter nor Seasine and any Provision in the Disposition could only be Personal and could not affect the Ground nor singular Successors seing no Inhibition nor other Diligence was used on it before their Right 2ly Albeit it had been a Provision in the Investiture yet it could have no Effect against the Ground which canâ—not be affected but by an Infeftment and upon a Provision neither Action nor Poynding of Annualrents nor Mails and Duties could proceed It was answered that real Provisions must necessarly affect the Ground and there can none be more real than this not only being a condition of the Disposition but also containing a Clause Irritant The Lords having first ordained the Infeftment to be produced and finding that the Seasine proceeded upon the Precept in the Disposition without Charter being within burgh the Lords found that the Provision could give no present access to the Mails and Duties until the Clause Irritant were declared or that it were declared that they should have like Execution by vertue thereof against the Lands as if it were in the hands of the first Buyer which
the Lords thought would operat but had not the occasion here to decide it Iohn Scot contra Sir Robert Montgomery Iuly 12. 1666. JOHN Scot pursues Sir Robert Montgomery as vitious Intrometter with the Goods and Gear of Sir Iames Scot of Rossie to pay a Debt due by Sir Iames to the Pursuer The Defender alleadged absolvitor because any Goods he Intrometted with were Disponed to him for Onerous Causes by the Defunct and delivered conform to an Instrument of Possession produced It was answered that the Disposition bears Horse Neat Insight Plenishing and all other Goods and Gear which cannot be extended to any thing of another kind nor of greater value as current Money Jewels Silver-plate Chains c. which never past by such general Clauses unless it be specially Disponed It was answered that albeit there had been such Moveables and the Defender had Intrometted therewith though another having a better Right might Evict the same yet the Defender had a probable Ground to Intromet which is sufficient to purge this Odious passive Title The Lords found the Disposition and Delivery Relevant to purge the Vitiosity Normand Livingstoun contra Lady Glenagies Iuly 13. 1666. NOrmand Livingstoun having appryzed the Lands of Glenagies pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties wherein the Lady compeared aud alleadged that she ought to be preferred because she is Infeft in a Liferent in the Lands by her Contract of Marriage It was Replyed that the Lady and her Husband for all Right that either of them had had given a Right to their Cautioners to uplist the Mails and Duties of the Lands in question for payment of Debts and this Debt particularly whereon this Appryzer proceeds with power also to the Cautioners to Dispone any part of the Lands for payment of the Debts which the Lady Ratified Judicially and which now Excludes her from hindring any of these Creditors to get payment It was answered for the Lady first That this Right was but a Factory or Commission and so Expyred by the Lairds Death 2ly It was only in favours of the Cautioners for their Relief but the Creditors had no Interest to alleadge thereupon 3ly The Cautioners were never Distrest and it was a mistake being to them as Creditors in the Sum not being so in effect The Lords having considered the Commission and that it buir not only the Lady to consent but for all her Right to grant Commission and that not only it was in favours of the Cautioners in case of Distress but also in favours of the Creditors bearing to be for payment of the Creditors Therefore they found the same Relevant against the Lady to exclude her Infeftment ay and while the Debts were payed But this occurred to the Lords that if the Lady could condescend that by the Creditors or Cautioners fault in not making use of this Commission the Laird was suffered to continue in Possession so that if they had used Diligence the Debts would have been payed in whole or in part and the Ladies Liferent disburdened pro tanto they would find the same Relevant Patrick Keith contra Laird Lesmore Troup and others Iuly 14. 1666. PATRICK Keith having Right of Wodset granted by the Earl of Marischal pursues a Reduction against the Laird of Lesmore of a posterior Right granted by the Earl to him Which Right was Disponed to Muiresk who was Infeft and Dispon'd to Troup who is present Heretor who being all Called and Litiscontestation made and the Cause concluded at the Advising thereof it was alleadged for Troup that Muiresk was dead and there could be no advising of the Cause till some Representing him were Called for as in initio there could be no Process against Troup the present Heretor till Muiresk his Author were Called So neither can there be any procedor now till some Representing him be Called It was answered the Pursuer declares that he Insists against Lesmores Right principaliter against which only the Reasons are Sustained and as for Muiresk and Troups Rights they will fall in consequentiamâ— The Lords found that the Process behoved to be Transferred against Muiresks appearand Heir before it could be advised For as the declaring that the Pursuer Insisted principaliter against the first Right would not have been Relevant ab initio seing the Law allows all mediat Authors to be Called that they may defend the Right whether and Reasons be Libelled against their Rights or their Authors which comes in the place of the old Custom of sisting Process until the Defenders Warrand were Called and Discust So every Author has alike Interest to Object against the Reasons although Libelled principaliter against the first Authors Right But the Lords declared that seing the Defender made this unnecessar delay they would be more favourable in drawing back the Reduction ad litem motam aut contestatam Sharp contra Glen Eodem die IN a Competition betwixt two Compryzers It was alleadged that the Pursuer who Insisted for the Mails and Duties his Appryzing was extinct by Intromission within the Legal Which was offered to be proven by his Pursuers Author his Oath It was answered that his Authors Oath could not be Received against a Singular Successor standing now Infeft for as the Cedents Oath is not Receivable against the Assigney in personal Rights much less is the Authors Oath against the singular Successor in real Rights It was answered that before this Pursuers Right res fuit litigiosa in so far as the Pursuers Author having before pursued Mails and Duties in that Process the Defender offered to prove by his Oath that the Appryzing was satisfyed whereupon litiscontestation was made whereby res fuit litigiosa and no posterior Right could prejudge the Defender Which the Lords found Relevant and ordained the Authors Oath to be taken Fountain and Brown contra Maxuell of Nethergate Eodem die BRown as Heir to Mr. Richard Brown who was Heir to Thomas Brown pursued for exhibition and delivery of a Wodset Right granted in favours of Thomas Wherein the Lords having sustained Witnesses to be admitted to prove not only the having of the Writs since the intenting of the Cause but the having them before and the fraudful putting them away which ordinarly is only probable by Writ or Oath unless evidences of Fraud be condescended on in respect the matter was ancient and the Pursuer had long lived in England now at the advising of the Cause severall of the Witnesses were found to Depone that the Defender before the intenting of the Cause not only had such a Wodset Right but was dealing to get the same conveyed in his own Person which importing Fraud The Lords would not absolutely decern him to exhibite but found that he behoved docere quomodo desijt possedere or otherwayes produce and therefore ordained him to compear that he might be interrogat and condescend upon the particular Writs Thomas Ogilvy contra Lord Gray Iuly 17. 1666. THomas Ogilvie pursues the Lord Gray as behaving himself
as Heir to his Father by Intromission with the Mails and Duties of the Lands wherein his Father dyed Infeft as of Fee for payment of a Debt of his Fathers who alleadged absolvitor because any Intromission he had was by a Warrand and tollerance of Sir George Kinnaird who stood Infeft in the Lands upon a Gift of Recognition It was answered non relevat unless the Gift had been Declared before the Defenders Intromission because the Gift would not have given Right to the Donatar himself to possess The Defender answered that the Gift was Declared before the Intention of the Pursuers cause which Declarator albeit after Intromission yet must be drawn back to the Gift to purge the vitiosity of the Defenders Intromission in the same way that the Confirmation of a Testament will purge anterior vitious intromission the Confirmation being before the intenting of the Cause The Lords found the Defense relevant to elid the passive Title seing any colourable Title is sufficient to excuse the vitiosity but did not find that the Declarator before intenting the Cause had the same Effect as a Confirmation because by constant Customs such confirmations purge the preceeding vitiosity which has never yet been found in this Case of an Heirs intromission with the Rents of Lands but the Lords found the Defender lyable for the single value of his Intromission Alexander Burnet contra Iohnstouns Eodem die JOhn Iohnstoun having disponed the Lands of Fraster-hill to Gordoun of Lesmore whose Right Alexander Burnet having appryzed and by the appryzing having Right to the Clause of Warrandice contained in the Disposition charges Iohnstoun the Disponer to warrand the Right against a posterior Right granted by him to William Iohnstoun who had obtained first Infeftment It was answered that the Warrandice could have no effect because there neither was nor could be a distress in so far as in William Iohnstouns Disposition Iohn Iohnstouns and his Wifes Liferent were reserved during whose life he could never distresse Burnet 2ly It was Burnets authors fault that for many years he did not take Infeftment having long Right before the second Disposition It was answered that Iohnstoun himself could never object this delay to excuse his fraudulent Deed of granting double Dispositions whereby Parties become infamous by the Act of Parliament 1540. cap. 105. and unto the other point albeit there was no present distress yet there was unquestionable ground of a future distress against which the Defender could answer nothing that could elid it and who being but a naked Liferenter if no execution should pass upon the Clause of Warrandice during his Lifetime he would be fully frustrat The Lords decerned Johnstoun the Disponer to purge the posterior Disposition granted by him and found neither of the alleadgeances in the contrair relevant Brown and Duff contra Bizet July 18. 1666. BRown and Duff having obtained Decreet against Bizet for a Sum due to Umquhil Andrew Duff Merchant in Polland Bizet raises Suspension and Reduction upon this Reason that this Sum having been in bonis defuncti the Charger could have no Right thereto till it were established in their Persons by a Confirmation in Scotland by the Commissaries of Edinburgh ut in communi patria It was answered moveables sequuntur personam and therefore wheresoever the moveables be they are regulat according to the Law of the place where the Defunct resides and it is instructed by the Testimony of the Consul and Counsel civitatis Regiae pusensis that by the Common Law and Law of that place moveables belonged to the Wife and Bairns and the Pursuers were so cognosced by them declaring the said Clares Brown Wife and the said Duff the only Daughter of Andrew Duff and therefore they have sufficient Right without Confirmation in Scotland which appears by the Act of Parliament James 1. cap. 89. Par. 1426. And it hath been still the Custome so to do and that it was so decyded the 16. of Feb. 1627. Lauson contra Bastil Kello It was answered that it was otherwayes decided in the Case of Rob contra French 25. Feb. 1637. And there was no reason that these that lived out of the Country animo remanendi should be in better condition then these that resided in the same and behoved to Confirm and to pay the Quot The Lords found that the Testament behoved to be Confirmed by the Commissars of Edinburgh for having considered the old Act of Parliament they found that the poynt there ordered was to what Judicatures the Merchants going abroad to Trade should be lyable and that such as went abroad not animo remanendi should be subject to the jurisdiction of that place where their Testament would be confirmed viz. where they had their Domicills but these that went out of the Country to remain are excepted but nothing exprest where their Testament should be Confirmed and for the Decision the Point in question was not whether a Confirmation in England was valid but whether a Confirmation without an Inventar was valid and therefore seing nothing was objected against the Confirmation it self The Lords did justly find that the wanting of an Inventar in an English Confirmation where that was the custome did not prejudge it neither is the Case determined by the Decision betwixt Rob and French in respect that the Executor having Confirmed in England and rather being Confirmed by the Legatars would not own the Confirmation but renunced the same and therefore the Lords found no Consuetude or Decision in the Case but determined the same ex bono aequo Hellen Millar contra Watson Iuly 21. 1666. WAtson having obtained a Decreet before the Lords against Hellen Millar for the Rent of some Tenements in Glasgow she Suspends and raises Reduction on these Reasons First That the Decreet was null as being ultra petita in so far as the half of the Duties was only lybelled and the whole was decerned 2dly That Watson's Right was as Heir to Watson who was first Wife to Brown who stante matrimonio acquired this Right to him and her and the one half to her Heirs and the other to his which was a Donation betwixt Man and Wife revocable and revocked by the Infeftment granted to Hellen Millar in Liferent his second Wife It was answered that the Decreet being in foro contradictorio was irreduceable 2dly That the Right was not granted by the Husband to the Wife but acquired from a third Partie The Lords reduced the Decreet finding that it was visibly Extracted by error of the Clerks being ultra petita and therefore sustained the second Reason albeit it was omitted that it was a Donation betwixt Man and Wife being acquired to the Man and Wife and so presumed to be by his means which is equivalent as if he had been Author unless that Watson could condescend that it was by the Wifes means Gavin Hamiltoun contra Duke Hamiltoun and Bishop of Edinburgh Eodem die GAvin Hamiltoun as Assigney by the Collector of vaccand Stipends
of Parliament and stented the same upon the Parochioners and others They did Supplicat the Lords for Letters of Horning conform to the stent Roll in respect that the said late Act of Parliament being the twentieth Act of the third Session of the last Parliament bears no warrand for Horning The Lords ordained Letters of Horning to be past Sir Alexander Vrquhart contra Sherem Eodem die IN anno 1636 Sir Thomas Vrquhart of Cromerty gave a Security of a House and some Lands and a Salmond-fishing near Bamff for 4000 merks and in anno 1637 There was 700 merks eiked and a Back-bond relating to the first Wodset Renounced and a full Possession granted on both There is a Clause of Redemption and Requisition upon payment of the principal Sums and Annualrents resting for the time Sir Alexander Vrquhart pursues Sherem as now having Right to the Wodset for Compt and Reckoning Who alleadged Absolvitor because this being a proper Wodset wherein he had the full Possession hazard of the Profits was not comptable especially seing the chief part of the Wodset was a Fishing which was most uncertain and though de facto he happened to get much more then his Annualrent yet it is no Usurary Wodset seing he might have losed all The Pursuer Replyed that by the saids Clauses of Redemption and Requisition he was not only obliged for the principal Sums but for the bygone Annualrents resting unpayed so that the Wodsetter had no hazard and therefore it is no proper Wodset and he is comptable The Defender answered that the Clause was only adjected ex stylo for it did not bear that what Annualrent should be resting over and above Intromission should be Consigned but the whole resting Annualrents or at least it had been adjected in respect of the Back-bond restricting the first Wodset or in case the Wodsetter had been excluded from Possession The Lords found the Defender comptable in respect of the saids Clauses but there occurred to themselves this question whether the Superplus more then the Annualrent should compense and abate the principal Sum at the time of the Intromission or only now whereanent the Lords were of different opinions many thought that when the meaning of the Parties was not full and express that should be followed which is most ordinar amongst provident Persâ—ns hardly could it be thought that any would take a Wodset upon these Terms to draw out the principal Sum with excress yearly but the Lords reserved that Point to be considered while it appeared whether there was any excress above the Annualrent Monteith contra Laird of Gloret Dec 7 1666 IN a Competition between Monteith and the Laird of Gloret It was alleadged for Monteith that he ought to be preferred to the Sums in question because Glorets Assignation was obtained by Hamiltoun of Kinglass and was lying by him blank in the Assigneys name and by him filled up with Glorets Name and delivered to him so that Kinglass being his true Author any Discharge granted by him while the Bonds were blank and in his power was relevant against Gloret his Assigney Ita est Kinglass while or before the Bonds were in his power did equivalent to a Discharge viz. oblieged himself to pay this Sum and relieve the principal Debitor thereof and instead of the Discharge he took this blank Assignation filled up by him in Glorets Name 2ly The Charge though in Glorets Name is to Kinglass's behove and if he were Charging his Obliegment to pay the Debt would exclude him And therefore must exclude the Charger It was answered that Gloret was in bona fide to take this Assignation knowing nothing of the Back-bond and that an Obliegment to satisfie the Debt was not equivalent to a Discharge Neither is the having of the Assignation though blank equivalent to an Assignation unless the Name of Kinglassie had been filled up and Intimat The Lords having taken Glorets Oath before Answer wherein he acknowledged that he got this Assignation from Kinglassy and payed no money for it and that it was on these Terms Kinglassie being owing him a greater Sum he was to allow what he got by this Assignation in part thereof but Deponed he knew not if it was blank when Kinglasse had it or not The Lords found that the Assignation being accepted by Gloret in Terms aforesaid that it was but a Corroborative Security and so found the Assignation to Kinglassies behove and found the Back-bond Relevant to exclude him and therefore preferred Monteith Sir George Mckenzie contra Fairholm Eodem die SIr George Mckenzie Advocat pursues a Reduction of a Bond granted by him as Cautioner for his Father the Bond is now Assigned to Iohn Fairholm on these Reasons First That the Bond is null as being done by a Minor being in his Fathers Family and not being Authorized by his Father as lawful Administrator And therefore in the same condition as a Minor having Curators they not Confirming such Deeds are null and may be Reduced at any time though they have not been quarrelled within the Minors Age of twenty five 2ly Because Curators being chosen as a Security to the Levity of Minors they cannot Authorise the Minor to the Curators behove but such Deeds are null So neither could the Pursuers Father Authorize him to be Cautioner for himself The Defender answered First That albeit a Father as lawful Administrator and Tutor to his Children excludes all other Tutors yet he is not Curator after their Pupillarity because they may choose other Curators and that filij familias in the Civil Law could not Contract without their Fathers consent It was a special Statute per Senatus consultum Macedonianum and not as Curator 2ly The Father cannot be lyable for his Omissions by his unprofitable Authorizing his Children for such Actions would be contra pietatem obsequium 3ly There is nothing more frequent in Scotland then Sons to have a distinct Estate while in their Fathers Families given by the Father or otherwise whereof they have the full Administration without Authority 4ly Whatever may be alleadged for Children residing in the Family of their Father yet that cannot be extended to Children Acting by themselves far from their Fathers Family but the Pursuer was so living and Acting at Edinburgh attending the Tolbooth and was majori aeâ—ati proximus being past 20. The Pursuer answered that his Reason stood still Relevant because by the Law of Scotland a Father is lawful Administrator to his Children and is not ordinarly designed lawful Tutor but lawful Administrator which does not only endure during their Pupillarity but during their Minority but at least till they be Married or Forisfamiliat or till they have a distinct Subsistence or Calling And albeit the Children be not Residing in the Family yet they are in familia so long as they are there and not separat from the same as the Pursuer was and albeit the Son may choose other Curators if the Father permit or the Judge think
fit and is not conveenable for his Mis-authorizing or Omission that infers only that he is only Curator honorarius The Defender did furder alleadged that the Father had furder Authorized in so far as he Subscribed the said Bond and so consented that his Son should Subscribe and neither was the Deed in rem suâ—m but in rem creditoâ—is The Lords found the Reasons of Reduction Relevant and Repelled the Defenses and albeit many thought that the Father Subscribing with the Son was sufficient to Authorize yet that it was not sufficient being Caution for himself in rem suam but did not proceed to cause the Parties condescend how near Sir George was to Majority and what was his way of living Earl Cassils contra Tennents of Dalmortoun and John Whitefoord of Blarquhan Decem 11 1666 AN Action of Double Poynding at the Instance of the Tennents of Balmortoun against the Earl of Cassils on the one part and Iohn Whitefoord of Blarquhan on the other both claiming Right to their Multures It was alleadged for the Earl of Cassils that the Lands in question being holden Ward of him is now in his hands by reason of the Ward of Knockdaw his Vassal he had now Right to their Multures and they ought to come to the Miln of his Barony whereof these Lands were Pertinent and shew his Infeftment containing the Lands of Dalmortoun per expressum It was alleadged for Iohn Whitefoord that he ought to be preferred because that Kennedy of Blarquhan the Earls Vassal both of the Lands of Dalmortoun and Blarquhan had Disponed to him the Lands of Blarquhan and Miln of Sklintoch with astricted Multures used and wont at which time Blarquhan caused his Tennents of Dalmortoun to come to the said Miln of Sklintoch whereby the Thirlage was not only Constitute of the Lands of Blarquhan but of Dalmortoun It was answered for the Earl First That the Thirlage of Dalmortoun could not be Constitute by the said Clause because the Lands of Dalmortoun being no part of that Barony whereof the Miln of Sklintoch is the Miln But a distinct Tenement holden of a distinct Superiour Such a general Clause could never have Constitute a Thirlage unless the Lands had been exprest 2ly Albeit the Servitude had been Constitute never so clearly by the Vassal Yet if it was without the Superiours consent it could not prejudge him by Ward or Non-entry It was answered for Iohn Whitefoord to the First That the Clause was sufficient to Constitute the Thirlage and if it wrought not that Effect it was of no Effect because the hail Lands of the Barony were Disponed with the Miln and neither needed nor could be Thirled And therefore the Clause of Thirlage behoved to be meaned of some other Lands 2ly Vassals may lawfully Constitute Servitudes without consent of the Superiour which are not Evacuat by Ward or Non-entry 3ly It is offered to be proven that the Earl consented to the Right of the â—â—lture in so far as the Lands of Dalmortoun being Appryzed from Blarquhan by Iohn Gilmour he assigned the Appryzing to Iohn Whitefoord who Assigned or Disponed the same to Kilkerren in which Asignation there was an express Reservation of the Multurs of Dalmortoun to the Miln of Sklintoch upon which Infeftment the Earl received Kilkerren in these Lands who is Author to the present Vassal The Lords found the Clause aforesaid in Iohn Whitefords Charter not to infer a Servitude of the Lands of Dalmortoun not being therein exprest and holden of another Superiour Nor no Decreets nor Enrolments of Court alleadged to astruct the Servitude And found also the second Reason Relevant viz. That the Earl as Superiour not having consented was not prejudged by any Deed of the Vassals But as to the third Point the Lords found that the Reservation in Kilkerrens Right unless it were per expressum contained in the Charter Subscribed by the Earl of Cassils could not infer his consent albeit the Charter related to a Disposition containing that Clause but if it were alleadged to be exprest in the Charter they Ordained before answer the Charter to be produced that they might consider the terms of the Reservation Sir Henry Home contra Creditors of Kello and Sir Alexander Home Decemb 12 1666 SIR Henry Home having appryzed the Lands of Kello before the year 1652. pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for either Creditors appryzers who alleadged they ought to come in with him pari passu by the late Act between Creditor and Debitor because the appryzings being since the year 1652. was within a year of his appryzings being effectual by Infeftment or Charge It was answered that the Act of Parliament was only in relation to Compryzings both being since the year 1652. and the Pursuers appryzing being led before falls not within the same It was answered that the Act of Parliament in that Clause thereof in the beginning mentions expresly that Compryzings led since 1652. shall come in pari passu with other appryzings but doth not express whether these other appryzings are since 1652 but in that is general and the Reason of the Law is also general and extensive to this Case It was answered that the posterior part of that same Clause clears that point both in relation to the appryzings in whose favours and against which the Law is introduced viz. that the Clause is only meant the appryzings led since 1652 shall come in pari passu which must both comprehend these that come in and these with whom they come in The Lords Repelled the alleadgence quoad other Compryzings and found that their Compryzings could not come in with the Pursuer he having appryzed before the year 1652. and Charged before their appryzing Ianet Thomson contra Stevinson Decem 13 1666 JAnet Thomson pursues a Reduction of a Disposition made by her to Stevinson upon Minority and Lesion and also upon this Reason that the Disposition was done within some few dayes after her Pupillarity and it being of Land ought not to have been done without authority of a Judge especially seing she had no Curators The Defender answered to the first there was no Lesion because the Disposition bears a sum equivalent to the value of the Land To the second non Relevat The pursuer answered that the Subscribing and acknowledging the receipt of Money by a Minor cannot prove it self but the Minor is Les'd in Subscribing the same The Defender Duplyed that he offered to prove by Witnesses that the price was truely payed and profitably Employed The Lords found not the second Reason of Reduction Relevant the authority of a Judge being only required to the alienation of Lands made by Tutors of their Pupils Lands Anna Fairly contra Creditors of Sir William Dick. December 14 1666 ANna Fairly alleadging that she obtained an Assignation from umquhil Mr. Alexander Dick as Factor for his Father in satisfaction of a Sum due to her by his Father pursues for delivery of the assignation
The Creditors alleadged that the assignation being in the hands and custody of Mr. Alexander the Granter it must be proven by Writ he being dead that it was delivered and not by Witnesses for there is nothing more frequent then Parties upon intentions to subscribe Bonds Assignations and other Rights and yet do not de facto deliver them or if they have been delivered to satisfie them and retire them and if Witnesses were admitted to prove the delivery or redelivery of such Writs the Lieges would be in extream unsecurity contrary to our Law that admits not Witnesses above an hundred Pounds and therefore Chirographum apud debitorem repeatum praesumitur solutum which presumption cannot be taken away by Witnesses The Pursuer answered that though this holds in Bonds where there is a Debitor and no other adminicle to instruct the Debt yet this is an Assignation and the Cause thereof otherwise instructed and most likely to be truely done and it is offered to be proven that this Assignation was delivered back to Mr. Alexander to be made use of as Agent for the Pursuer The Lords refused to sustain this Member of the Probation but because of the poverty of the poor Woman recommended the case to the Creditors to be favourable to her and did forbear to write the Interlocutor Hay of Knockondy contra Litlejohn Eodem die HAY of Knockondy pursues Litlejohn for the damnage sustained by him by the fall of Litlejohns House called the Tower of Babylon whereby the Pursuers House adjacent was broken down The Defender alleadged First The Libel was not relevant unless he had been required to find Caution de damno infecto as is required by the Civil Law whereby if that Caution were not required there is an express Text in the Title de damno infecto that there shall be no Action but the Party shall impute his loss to his own negligence Likeas we have two special Statutes concerning ruinous Houses which prescrive the method of preserving them and making up the damnage none of which being followed the Defender is not lyable 2ly Whatsoever might be alleadged against the Heretor of the said House the Defender is only an Appryzer of a Liferent-Right for a small Sum and the Liferenter was not obliged to repair a Tenement manifestly ruinous that could not be preserved but with great Expence and Rebuilding much less the Appryzer who hath but a small Sum on it The Pursuer answered to the first Defense that his Libel was most Relevant Damnage upon any fault being due and Reparable by the Law of Nature and as for the Civil Law it hath no Effect with us in this point our Custom neither giving nor requiring such Caution much less refusing Action if it be neglected and as to our own Statutes though they be very convenient wayes for securing of damnage yet they are not exclusive nor have they any Clause except in these Cases and in that method Damnage shall be irrecoverable To the 2d it was answered The Pursuer was not obliged to know or enquire whether the Defender was Heretor or not but he finding that he was a Neighbour behaving himself as Heretable Possessor by uplifting the Duties he did pursue him and if need beis offers him to prove that he did require him to keep him skaithless though he took no Instrument thereon The Defender answered that he was not obliged to take notice of such Requisitions not being Solemn by Instrument The Lords found the Defender lyable albeit there had been no Requisition verbal or otherwise it being proven that the Ruinousness of the Tenement that fell was notour and manifest to the Defender himself whereby he was obliged either to demolish the House if it was not Reparable or to have quite his Possession to evite the imminent damnage of Neighbours Lord Colvil contra Feuars of Culross Decemb. 15. 1666. THe Lord Colvil as Heretable Bailzie of Culross having Charged the Lord Kincairn and others for the Taxation of their Lands in Culross conform to the stent Roll They Suspended and alleadged that the stent Roll contained a fifth part more then the Taxation It was answered and offered to be proven that it was the Custom of that and other Benefices at their meeting of making the Stent-roll to add a fifth part for Expenses and Charges of ingathering the Taxation The Defenders answered that if any such Custom were it was against Law and against the Liberty of the Subject who could be lyable for no payment but by Law or of their own consent or if any such Custome were it hath been by the consent of the Vassals or at least they have not questioned the same nor is there any ground for such an addition for the Kings Officers being obliged by their Office to Collect His Majesties Taxations they can demand nothing of them who payed without Process and if they be put to Process the Lords will modifie such Expences as they see cause The Charger answered That such immemorial Customes have the strength of Law and that it was done with the consent of all the Vassals who conveened and that it was the Suspenders fault that they conveened not to make the stent Roll which should not put them in better case then they had conveened or if they had conveened and disassented there is no reason that the dissassent of a few should be preferred to the consent of the most part who as they may Vot in the stent Roll for the Taxation it self in which the plurality carries so must they for the necessary Expences and all that can be alleadged with reason is that the Lords may modifie the Expences of a fifth part if it be too high The Suspenders answered that Law authorized the Feuars as a Court and Judicature to meet and stent which implyes a power to the Plurality but there is no such warrand for Expences as to which the consent of a hundred cannot oblige the dissassent of one or of one absent and the absents have loss enough that they have not a Vot in their own Stent The Lords sustained the Reason of the Suspension notwithstanding of the answer and found that no Expences nor any thing more than the Taxation could be stented to have effect against these who consented not but they would modifie Expences in case of Suspension as the Cause required but modified none in this case because a fifth part was Charged for more then was due Lord Newbeath contra Dumbar of Burgie Decemb. 18. 1666. THE Lord Newbeath having right from Iames Mcken who had appryzed the Lands of Burgie pursues Reduction and Improbation against young Burgie and Iohn Watson and insists on this Reason that any Rights they have are null and fraudulent being Contracted after his Debt and the Right granted to young Burgie is null as being but a base Infeftment not cled with Possession before the Pursuers publick Infeftment The Defender alleadged that his Infeftment was cled with Possession in so
far as his Fathers Liferent was reserved thereby and his Father Possessing by vertue of the Reservation did validat his Infeftment 2ly Albert the Fathers own Possession could not be sufficient yet the Father having Transmitted his Right to Watson and Watson Possessing the Suspicion of â—â—mulation ceased and there is a Disposition produced by the Father to Watson which though it bear to be of the Fee yet can import no more but to be of the Liferent seing the Father had no more neither needs it have an Infeftment seing it hath but the effect of an Assignation to a Liferent It was answered that if the Father had expresly assigned his Liferent reserved in the base Infeftment it might have been the ground of a question whether the Assigneys Possessing so would have validat the base Infeftment But since the Father has not taken notice of the Reservation but Dispones as Heretor it clears that he did not Possess by the Reservation but by his own prior Right The Lords found the Reason of Reduction and Reply Relevant and that the Fathers Possessing by himself or Watsons Possessing by himself could not validat the base Infeftment Charles Cass contra Mr. Iohn Wat. Eodem die DOctor Cass having taken Infeftment of an annualrent out of the Lands of Robertland in name of Cockpen and Adam Wat Charles Cass as Heir to the Doctor pursues Mr. Iohn Wat as Heir to his Father for Compt and Reckoning of the Mails and Duties and Charges him with the hail Rental being intrometted or ought to have been intrometted with by him and his Father by vertue of the Trust in their Person and also Adam Wat took a gift of Tutory to the Pursuer and so is lyable as his Tutor The Defender answered that his Fathers Name being borrowed on Trust could lay no Obligation on him to do any Diligence but what he thought fit seing by his Back-bond he was obliged to denude himself whenever the Doctor pleased and the Pursuer has reason to thank him for what he did and not burden him with what he omitted seing he had no allowance therefore and as for the Tutory there was a multiple Poinding all the time thereof depending among five or six Parties pretending Right by the dependence whereby the Tutor was excluded The Pursuer answered that the Defenders Name was not borrowed without his knowledge but that he accepted thereof and entred to Possession and as an Appryzer is not obliged to Possess but if he Possess must be answerable for the Rents of the Lands conform to the Rental so must the Defender The Lords found the Defender not lyable to Diligence by vertue of the Trust albeit he did Possess but Ordained him to Compt for his intromission and to condescend what Diligence his Father did as Tutor that if he be found deficient therein there might be an additional Accompt to what he intrometted with Mr. Iames Cheap contra Mr. Iohn Philip. Decem. 19. 1666. MR. Iames Cheap charges Mr. Iohn Philip to fulfil a Minute of Alienanation of the Lands of Ormestoun sold by Mr. Iames to Mr. Iohn whereby Mr. Iohn was obliged to pay 25500 merks as the price or to assign sufficient Bonds therefore He Suspends and offers to Consign Bonds and amongst the rest a Bond of 8000 merks due by the Town of Edinburgh The Charger alleadged that he was not obliged to accept that Bond because at the time of the agreement and Subscription of the Minut the Charger particularly excepted the Town of Edinburghs Debt and the Suspender declared that it should be no part of the price which he offered to prove by the Writer and Witnesses insert in the Minute The Suspender answered that Witnesses were not competent in this Case where the words of the Minute are not dubious but clear and general of any sufficient Debt for if this were sustained the alteration of the price as well as the manner of payment might be proven by Witnesses It was answered that it was no way alike nothing being here in question but the manner of payment and not the quantity of the price The Lords Ordained the Writer and Witnesses to be Examined before answer Ianet Thomson contra Stevinson Eodem die IN the Reduction on Minority at the Instance of Ianet Thomson contra Stevinson The Lords Ordained the Pursuers Mother to be received Witness of her Age cum nota there being a Testificat already produced and there being 30 or 40 years since the Pursuers Birth after which time it was not likely that others would remember but she was ordained to Deponâ— who were Witnesses at the Birth and Baptism and these to be Examined Corstorphin contra Martines Decem. 21. 1666. JAmes Corstorphin pursues a Reduction of a Disposition made by his Fathers Sister in lecto It was alleadged by Martines to whom the Disposition was made that he could not quarrel the same because his Father to whom he is Heir and the other Brethren and Sisters of the Defunct had approven whatsoever Testament Legacy or Disposition made or to be made by the Defunct of her Goods and Gear Debts and sums of Money and others whatsoever that she had or should have the time of her Decease so that she having made this Disposition he cannot quarrel the same The Pursuer answered First That the Ratification in the Terms foresaid could not be extended to Lands or Annualrents Constitute by Infeftment there being no mention of Lands Annualrents or Heretage therein 2ly It could not be extended to any Disposition but Legally made and therefore not to Dispositions on Death-bed The Defender answered that the Ratification bearing expresly sums of Money did comprehend all sums although Infeftment of Annualrent were granted for security thereof which being but accessory to the sum follows the same 2ly There could be no other effect of the Ratification if it were not to exclude the Heir from quarreling thereof as being in lecto for if the same was made by the Defunct in her leige poustie it were valide and unquarrelable in it self and albeit it bear not mention of Death-bed yet it expresses Disposition of all Goods she should happen to have the time of her Death so that if she had acquired Rights after her sickness contracted she might Dispone the same validly by this Ratification and yet behoved to be on Death-bed The Lords found this Ratificatiou not to extend to sums whereupon Infeftment of Annualrent followed which was carried but by one Vote and so they came not to the second Point William Yeoman contra Mr. Patrick Oliphant Eodem die WIlliam Yeoman having apprized the Lands of Iames Oliphant Son to Sir Iames Oliphant and Mr. Patrick Oliphant having also appryzed the same William insists on this reason that Mr. Patricks appryzing was satisfied by Intromission within the legal Mr. Patrick alleadged that his whole Intromission could not be countable to satisfie his Appryzing because the two part thereof did only belong to his Debitor and the third
The Tower of Babel falling upon the Roof made it Ruinous It was answered That was an accident without the Pursuers fault and the Tennent ought to pursue these whose Tenement it was that fell The Lords found the Reason was not Relevant to Liberate from the Mail unless the Suspender had abstained to Possesse but found it Relevant to abate the Duties in so far as he was Damnified Oliphant contra Hamiltoun of Kilpoty Eodem die WILLIAM OLIPHANT having obtained a Decreet for Poynding of the Ground against Hamiltoun He Suspends on this Reason that he was neither Decerned as Heir nor Possessor but as appearand Heir to the Heretor and was never Charged to Enter Heir The Lords Repelled the Reason and found this Action being real was competent against the appear and Heir without a Charge William Oliphant contra Hamiltoun Eodem die OLiphant pursuing the foresaid Poinding of the Ground upon an Annualrent It was alleadged Absolvitor from the bygones before the Pursuers Right because his author was Debitor to the Defender in a liquid sum equivalent It was answered that the Pursuer was singular Successor and no personal Debt of his Authors could infer Compensation of a real Right against him The Lords found that the bygain Annualrents were moveable and compensable with any liquid Debt of the Pursuers Authors contra Brand. Ianuary 3. 1667. Chapman having left his Pack in custody with Brand In Dundee about ten or twelve dayes after Brand opened the Pack and made use of the Ware The Chapman now pursues him for a Spuilzie who alleadged Absolvitor because the Pack was put in his hands for security of a Debt due by the Pack-man and he being informed that the Pack-man would not rerurn did by warrand of a Baillie in Dundee cause four of the Neighbours Inventar and Price the Ware It was answered non relevat for though the Pack had been impignorat the Defender could not appryze it summarly but behoved to take a Sentence to Poind the same The Lords Repelled the Defense It was further alleadged that there could be no Spuilzie nor Oath in litem of the Pursuer because there was no Violence It was answered that the Oath in litem is Competent whether it were a Spuilzie or a breach of Trust actione deposâ—â— It was answered that the Oath in litem being granted mainly because Parties injured by breach of such Trusts cannot be put to prove by VVitnesses that which is taken from them none being oblieged to make patent his Pack or other privat Goods to VVitnesses yet where there is another clear way to prove the quantities viz the Oathes of the four Persons who opened the Pack there is no reason to put it to the Pursuers Oath especially seing their Inventar is not the eight part of what he claimes The Lords admîtted the Pursuers Oath in litem reserving their own Modification with liberty to the Defender if he thought fit to produce what of the Ware he had and to produce these four Persons that the Pack-man may Depone in their presence Earl of Sutherland contra Earls of Errol and Marischal Eodem die THere being a Decreet of Parliament ranking the Nobility whereby Earl of Sutherland was put after the Earls of Errol and Marischal In which Decreet there is a Reservation to any to be heard before the Judge Ordinar upon production of more ancient Evidents whereupon the Earl of Sutherland pursues Reduction of the Decreet of Ranking containing an Improbation of all VVrits Patents and other Evidents granted to the Defenders or their Predecessors whereby they are Constitute or Designed Earls they did produce the Decreet of Ranking and the Earl of Errols Retour whereupon the Pursuer craved Certification contra non producta after all the Terms were run The Defenders alleadged no Certification because they had produced sufficiently by producing the Decreet of Ranking and their Retoures and the Pursuer had only produced his own Retoure which was since the Decreet of Ranking so that the Decreet of Ranking was sufficient to exclude all his Titles produced It was answered the Retour being the Sentence of a Court Serving this Earl as Heir to his Fore-Grandsire Grandsires Grandsires Fore-Grandsires Goodsire who is Designed Earl by King Alexander the second It was sufficient in initio litis Likeas he did formerly produce the Original Evidents and which was now in the Clerks hands and might have been seen by the Defenders if they pleased The Lords found the Retoures not sufficient alone and Ordained the rest to be Reproduced and seen by the Defenders Smeatoun contra Crawfoord Eodem die UMquhilâ— Patrick Smeatoun granted a Disposition to Crawfoord his VVife and her Heirs of a Tenement of Land whereupon nothing followed during her Lifetime her younger Brothre Iames Crawfoord Served himself Heir-General to her and obtained a Decreet of Implement against Iohn Smeaton as Heir to his Father and having used Horning thereon obtained Adjudication against Smeatoun and his Superiour and thereupon was Infeft which Right was Disponed by him with consent of William Crawfoord elder Brother to the VVife The said Iohn Smeatoun Dispones the same Tenement to Alexandor Smeatoun and he is Infeft and thereupon pursues a Reduction of Iames Crawfoords Retour and of all that followed thereupon in consequence on this Reason that the Disposition to the VVife belonged not to Iames Crawfoord her younger Brother who was Heir of Line but to William Crawfoord her elder Brother as Heir of Conquest and so the Service was null following thereupon and the Pursuer being first Infeft from Smeatoun he hath the only Right because any Infeftment to William the Heir of Conquest will be posterior It was answered that it was jus tertij to the Pursuer whether the Heir of Line was Served or Infeft or the Heir of Conquest likeas the Heir of Conquest did concur and had consented to the Disposition The Lords found not the Defenses Relevant but considering the Case as Calumnious seing it was but of late cleared by Decisions whether the Heirs of Line had right to Dispositions without Infeftment they did superceed to give answer but ordained the Defender to give in what Evidences he could give of the onerous cause of his Disposition Paul Henrison contra Laird of Ludquharn and Captain Seatoun Ianuary 4. 1667. THe Debate betwixt Paul Henrison and Ludquharn was this day heard again and it was alleadged that the Kings Proclamation declared War against the King of Denmark and his Subjects Ita est the Owners of the Ship are Subjects to the King of Denmark because it is notour that this Isle is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark and till of late was in the same condition as any other of his Territories and albeit the Duke of Holstein have now an Interest by Possession or Infeodation that alters not their subjection to the Crown of Denmark but the same is still presumed unless they will positively prove that the same is alter'd and the Duke of
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
before Declarator obtained as being rigorous and penal and so abiding the Lords Modification as well as Penalties in Bonds Modified of consent of Parties especially in this case where the performance is not of a single liquid sum but comprehends a general Clause of all Debts that were or should be after due The Defender answered that Clauses Irritant in Wodsets are not rejected by our Law but are valide only where Declarators are requisit The Lords may Reduce them to the just Interest of Parties before Declarator But here there needs no Declarator because the Defender is in Possession and may except upon the Clause Irritant committed and the Clause bears to be Effectual without Declarator and albeit this Clause could now be Reduced to the just Interest it is only this that seing Tullibardine hath sold the Land the Defender should give as great a price as it is sold for to Sir Iohn Drummond which the Defender is willing to do The Lords sustained the Order in so far as it is at the Instance of Tullibardine but not as to Sir John Drummond but prejudice to Sir John Drummonds Disposition They found also that this Clause Irritant might be purged now at the Bar or any time before Declarator which is always necessar though Renunced that medio tempore Parties may purge And the Lords inclined that Ochtertyre should have the Lands for the Price Sir John Drummond gave which is eighty eight thousand merks but upon Examining him and my Lord it appeared that my Lord had offered the Land to him re integra and that he had never been special as to so great a Price as this but only general that he would give as great a price as any other would give which they thought not sufficient seing any other thereby would be scarred from Bargaining Executors of Lady Pilton contra Hay of Balhousy Feb. 2. 1667. MR. Francis Hay granted a Bond to his Wifes Sister the Lady Piltoun bearing That for good Considerations he obliged him to pay her a 1000 merks yearly during her Life with this Provision that it should be Leisum to her to Employ the same for the Abuliaments and Ornaments of her Body or any other use she pleased and but any Right and Interest in her Husband thereto jure mariti her Executors do now pursue Balhousie as Heir for payment who alleadged-Absolvitor because he had payed to Piltoun her Husband and albeit it was provided that it might be leisum to his Wife to Dispose upon the sum yet she had not done it but the Husband had provided her with all Abuiliaments necessar It was answered that the Husbands jus mariti was excluded by Mr. Francis himself And whatever might be alleadged of what belongs to a Wife proprio jure that nothing more can remain with her but her necessary Aliment and all the rest being in the Person of the Wife doth return to the Husband jure mariti albeit the jus mariti were renunced in her favours yet the Right here is freely given by a third Party excluding the Husband which third Party might gift with what Provisions he pleas'd and his gift returns to himself unless these Provisions be observed and this must be thought to be a gift seing it bears no Cause onerous It was answered that it bears good Considerations and Expresses not to be a Gift or done for love and favour 2ly If the Gifter were opposing the Husband or his Creditors Right and making use of that Provision that his Gift might return seing the Provision was not keeped it might have weight but here the Donators Heir makes not use of the Provision but concurreth with the Husband and payeth him The Lords found the payment made by the Donator or his Heir to the Husband Relevant to exclude the Executors of the Wife Pourie contra Dykes Eodem die UMquhil Dykes having Subscrybed a Bond to Pourie of this Tenor That he acknowledged himself to be resting to Pourie 56 pounds yearly as the annualrent of a 1400 hundred merks which sum of 56 pounds he oblieged himself to pay yearly This was the Tenor of the Bond whereupon Pourie pursued Dykes his Successors not only for the payment of the annualrent but for payment of the principal sum of 1400 merks alleadging that she being but a simple Woman had entrusted Dykes with the drawing of the Bond and he had deceived her and not mentioned the payment of the principal but that the acknowledgement that the Annualrent was due as the Annualrent of 1400 merks behoved to infer that the 1400 merks was also due this Ticket being holograph without Witness there was no clearing of the meaning by the Witnesses insert Therefore the Lords allowed the Pursuer to adduce such adminicles and witnesses as she would use for clearing of the same She adduced an Instrument bearing Umquhil Dykes upon his Death-bed to have acknowledged that he thought the principal sum had been contained in the Obligatory Clause and that it was through his neglect or unskilfulness all the Witnesses in the Instrument being now dead the Nottar and he who is mentioned as Procurator to have taken Instruments in the Pursuers Name were Examined both acknowledged that Dykes had exprest his mind in the matter before them but they were contrary in the particular the Nottar Deponed conform to the Instrument but the Procurator Deponed contrary that the woman had quite the principal sum and had taken her to the Annualrent The Lords having considered the whole matter And first Whether the Ticket could import that the principal sum was due They found neither by the Ticket nor by the Instrument that that could be Instructed They considered next Whether the Annualrent was due during the womans Lifetime only or as a perpetual Annualrent to her her Heirs or Assigneys The difficulty was that the Obligement bore that Dykes should pay the Annualrent yearly but did not express neither to her her Heirs nor Assigneys but simply in these Terms To pay the 56 pounds yearly Which the Lords found to carry a perpetual Annualrent though Heirs and Assigneys were not exprest Lady Traquair contra Marion Houatson Feb. 5. 1667. THe Lady Traquair pursues Marion Houatson for the Mails and Duties of a part of the liferent-Liferent-Lands who alleadged Absolvitor because her umquhil Husband who was immediat Tennent to the umquhil Earl had bona fide made payment to him Likeas the Defender being only Sub-tennent to her Son had bona fide made payment to her Son of her Duty The Pursuer answered that neither of the Alleadgances were Relevant because any payment that was made by the Defender or her umquhil Husband was before the Term of payment and so could neither be said to be bona fide nam ex nimia diligentia suspecta est fides neither could it prejudge the Pursuer The Lords were all clear that the payment made by the principal Tacks-man before the Term was not Relevant but as to the payment made by the
Sub-tennent to the principal Tennent The Lords Debate the same amongst themselves some being of opinion that the Sub-tennents payment bona fide before the Term was sufficient because he was only obliged to the principal Tennent and he might have a Tack for a less Duty then he or for an elusory Duty which if he payed and were Discharged he was not conveenable and oft times the Sub-tennents Term was before the principal Tennents Yet the Lords found that payment made bona fide by the Sub-tennent to the principal Tennent was not Relevant and that because the Master of the Ground has Action not only against the Tennent but also against the Sub-tennent or any who enjoyed the Fruits of his Ground and may conveen them personally for his Rent as well as really he has an Hypothick in the Fruits neither can the Sub-tennent prejudge the Master of the Ground of that Obligation and Action by paying before the Term otherways he might pay the whole Terms of the Tack at the very entry thereof and so Evacuat the Heretors Interest as to the Sub-tennent yeaâ— though the Sub-tennents Tack-duty were less then the principal Tennents it would not Exclude the Heretor pursuing him as Possessor for the whole but only give him Regress for Warrandice against the principal Tacks-man but the Term being come if the Heretor Arrested nor pursued not the Sub-tacksman he might impute it to himself and the Sub-tacks-man might justly presume that the principal Tacks-man had payed and so might pay him bona fide Countess of Hume contra Tennents of Alcambus and Mr. Rodger Hoge Eodem die THe Countess of Hume being provided by her Contract of Marriage to the Lands of Alcambus Pyperlaw and Windilaw extended to 24 Husband-Lands she gets a Charter upon her Contract bearing For Implement thereof to Dispone to her the Lands and Barony of Alcambus c. with a Seasine taken at Alcambus She thereupon pursues the Tennents Compearance is made for Mr. Roger Hog and other Creditors who bought these Lands from Wauchtoun who had bought them from the Earl of Hume and alleadged Absolvitor from the Mails and Duties of the Miln of Alcambus because my Lady by her Contract of Marriage was not provided to the Miln neither was she Infeft therein per expressum and Milns do not pass as Pertinents without a special Infeftment 2ly Absolvitor for the Rents of Pyperlaw and Windilaw because my Ladies Seasineâ— bears Only Inâ—eftment in the Lands of Alcambus and mentions not these Lands which are particularly in the Contract The Pursuer answered to the first That by her Charter she was Infeft in the Lands of Alcambus with the Milns with other Lands mentioned therein c. 2ly That Alcambus bore by her Charter to be a Barony which is nomen universitatis and carries Milns albeit not exprest To the second It is offered to be proven that Alcambus is the common known Designation and is commonly known to comprehend Pyperlaw and Windilaw as Parts and Pertinents thereof and that they are all holden of one Superiour and lyes contigue so that they are naturally unite and without any further union in a Barony or Tenement and a Seasine upon any place of them serves for all It was answered for the Defender to the first Point That Alcambus was not a Barony neither doth the Designation thereof by the Earl of Hume make it a Barony unless it were instructed 2ly The adding of Milns in the Charter if the Lady had not Right thereto by the Contract is a Donation by a Husband and is Revocked by his Disposition of the Lands of Alcambus and Miln thereof to the Laird of Wauchtoun the Defenders Author The Pursuer answered that the Charter was but an Explication of the meaning of the Parties that by the Contract the intention was to Dispone the Miln especially seing the Miln hath no Sucken but these Husband-Lands of Alcambus which are Disponed without any Restâ—iction of the Multure so that the Miln would be of little consequence without the Thirâ—e The Lords having compared the Contract and Charter found that by the Contract the Lady could not have Right to the Miln 〈◊〉 she would be free of the Multures and found that the Charter did not only bear for Implement of the Contract but also for love and favour and so found the Adjection of the Miln to be a donation Revocked Nor had they respect to the Designation of the Lands as a Barony but they found it Relevanâ— if the Lady should â—rove that it was a Barony to carry the Right of the Miâ—n or that in my Lords Infeftments there was no express menâ—â—â—n of the Miln but that my Lady had them in the same Terms my Lord had them They found also that Reply Relevant that Alcambus was the Name of the whole Lands to extend the Sea sine to the Lands of Pypâ—rlaw and Windilaw though not named and that they might be yet Parts and Pertinents of the Tenement under one Common Name Andrew Smeatoun contra Tabbert Feb. 7. 1667. ANdrew Smeatoun being Infeft in an Annulrent out of a Tenement in the Canongate pursues a Poinding of the Ground and produces his own Infeftment and his Authors but not the original Infeftment of the Annualrent It was alleadged no Process until the original Infeftment were produced constituting the Annualrent especially seing the Pursuit is for all bygones since the date of the Authors Infeftment so that neither the Pursuer nor his immediat Author hath been in Possession 2ly If need beis it was offered to be proven that before the Rights produced the Authors were denuded It was answered that the Pursuer hath produced sufficiently and that his Right was cled with Possession in the Person of his mediat Author before the years in question To the second this Pursuer hath the benefit of a possessory judgement by his Infeftment cled with Possession and is not obliged to Dispute whether his Author were denuded or not unless it were in a Reduction The Lords sustained the Pursuers Title unless the Defender produced a Right anterior thereto in whiâ—h case they ordained the Parties to be heard thereupon and so inclined not to exclude the Pursuer upon the alleadgeance of a possâ—ssory judgement but that Point came not fully to be debated It is certain that a possessory judgement is not relevant in favours of a Proprietar against an Annualrenter to put him to Reduce because an Annualrent is debitum fundi but whether an Annualrenter possessing seven years could exâ—â—ude a Proprietar until he Reduce had not been decided but in this case the Lords inclined to the Negative Mr. Alexander Foulis and Lord Collingtoun contra Tennents of Innertyle and La. Collingtoun Feb. 9. 1667. SIr Iames Foulis of Collingtoun being in treaty of Marriage with Dam Margaret Erskin Lady Tarbet She did dispone 36 Chalders of Victual of her Joynture in the North to a confident Person that she might make use thereof for the benefit of
her Children and Disponed 36 Chalders of her Liferent of the Lands of Innertyle to Cuninghame of Woodhal who transferred the same to Mr. Alexander Fâ—ulis of Ratho who granted a Back-bond bearing That his Name was made use of for the use and behove of Collingtoun and his Lady and that to this effect that the profit of the Liferent should be applyed to the Aliment of their Families joyntly and therefore obliged himself to Dispone in their favours and de presenti did Dispone The next day after this Disposition there is a Contract of Marriage betwixt Collingtoun and the Lady wherein there is this Clause that Colâ—ingtoun Renunces his jus mariti to the Lady's Liferent or any other Right he might have thereto by the subsequent Marriage and takes his hazard for what he may have any other way Mr. Alexander pursues the Tennents upon his Disposition Compearance is made for the Lady who alleadges he hath no interestâ— because he is denuded by the Back-bond Compearance is made for Collingtoun who declared he concurred with Ratho and consented he should have the Mails and Duties to the effect contained in the Back-bond and that he would not make further use of the Re-disposition contained therein It was answered for the Lady that Collingtouns concourse could not sustain this Process because Ratho was already de presenit denuded in favours of Collingtoun and her Likeas Collingtoun was denuded by his Contract of Marriage whereby he renunces his jus maâ—iti and all other Right he can have to the Liferent Laâ—ds in favours of the Lady and so renunces the Clause of the Back-bond in so far as it is in his favours It was answered that the Contract of Marriage could not derogat to the Back-bond unless the Back-bond had been per expressum Discharged or Renunced therein because albeit the Contract of Marriage be a day posterior to the Back-bond yet both are parts of one Treaty of Marriage and so in the same condition as if they were in one Writ so that a posterior Clause in general Terms cannot take away a prior special Clause of this moment yea though it were in a Contract leâ—s favourable then a Contract of Marriage which is ubeâ—â—mae fidei general Clauses are not extended above what is specially exprest and the jus mariti being exprest and the Back-bond not exprest it cannot be presumed that they changed their minds in one night to Renunce the benefit of the Back-bond but this Conveyance was made of purpose because Collingtoun being in Debt if the Right were Constitute in a third Party and only to their behove as an aliment the Creditors could not reach the same but it were the greatest Cheat imaginable to conceive that the general Clause subsequent should evacuat the whole design and take away the provision of the Back-bond Neither doth the general Clause renunce all Right that Collingtoun had or might have to the Liferent-lands any manner of way but only all Right he could have by the subsequent Marriage any manner of way Ita est that he doth not claim Right jure mariti nor by the subsequent Marriage but by the Paction contained in the Back-bond and it is most certain that the jus Mariti which is most peculiar to this Nation doth not comprehend all Rights a Husband hath in relation to the Person or Means of his Wife but only the Right of moveable Goods or Sums which without any Paction whatsoever way they come in her Person belong ipso facto to him not by Paction but by Law and that jure mariti or by vertue of the Marriage so thaâ— albeit he could not have Right even by the Paction except that he were Husband or that Marriage had followed yet his Paction is his Title and not the Marriage which is but tacita conditio or causa sine qua non so that Discharging or Renuncing of the jus mariti or the benefit by the Marriage if it were posterior to the Contract of Marriage would not take away the Contract and being in the Contract cannot take away the prior â—action and Disposition granted by the Wife in favours of a Husband or a third Party to his behove It was answered for the Lady that she adheres to the clear express Terms of the Contract of Marriage which Renunces not only the jus mariti but all other Right to the Liferent-lands by the subsequent Marriage which being a several Writ and a Day posterior most necessâ—rly take away the Back-bond without considering the meaning of Parties quia in claris non est loâ—us conjecturis at least the meaning can be no otherways cleared but by Writ or the Ladies Oath otherwise the most clear and solemn Contract shall be arbitrary and may be taken away by presumptions or conjectures and no man shall be secure of any Right 2ly Verba sumendasunt cum effeâ—â—u iâ— this did not take away the Back-bond it had no effect for the Lâ—dy before the Contract was denuded of her whole Liferent both of Inneâ—tyle and in the North so that there was no need to Renunce the jus mariti or Right by the Marriage to the Liferent-lands It was further alleadged by the Lady that albeit the Renunciation could not reach the Back-bond in so far as it is a Paction so that it yet stood effectal for application of the Liferent right for the aliment of the Lady and Collingtouns Family joyntly yet thereby they both had a Communion and Society equally and the Husband could pretend no Right in the administration or manadgement but only jure mariti in so far as he is Husband and therefore he acknowledging that he has renunced his jus mariti cannot pretend to the administration of this aliment but it must remain intirely to the Lady The Lords found that the Clausâ— in the Contract of Marriage did not derogat to the Back-bond and as to the Point of administration they considâ—red it to consist in two things in uplifting the Rent and manadging the liferent-Liferent-lands and in the application thereof to the use of the Family and manadging the Affairs of the Family As to the first they found thâ—â— both Parties having entrusted Ratho the Trust of manadgement of the Rent could not be taken from him without Collingtouns consent and as for the manadgement of the Family it self they found that it neither was nor could be reâ—unâ—ed by the Husband in favours of the Wife and that any such Paction though it had been clear and express taking the Power and Government of the Family from the Husband and â—â—ating it in the Wife is contra bonos moresâ— and void aâ—d that the jus maritiâ— as it is properly taken in our Law for the Husbands interest to the Wifes Moveables being Renunced cannot be understood to reâ—â—h to the Renunciation of the Husbands power to Rule his Wife and Family and to administrat the aliment thereof Elizabeth Ramsay contra Ker of Westnisbet Eodem die ELizabeth Ramsay having pursued an adjudication of
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
answered that Inhibitions are personal Prohibitions Restraining the Person Inhibit and the Leiges to Alienat Buy or Sell any Lands in prejudice of the User of the Inhibition and until he be satisfied of the Ground thereof Which Prohibition respecteth the Person Inhibit directly and the Lands but indirectly as they belong to him so that there is no difference whether they belonged to him before or after for hoc ipso that they are his they fall under the restraint and the alienation thereof is to the prejudice of the User of the Inhibition because if they were not Sold they might Appryze the same so that albeit he be not in worse case then he was the time of the Inhibition yet he is in worse case then he would be if the Land had not been sold And albeit upon uncertainty men will not Registrat Inhibitions through all the Kingdom that infers not but they might and that they would be effectual to Lands thereafter acquired in these shires neither is there any ground to except the Renuncing of Wodsets which are Alienations of the Wodset Lands but the Redeemer before he declare or deliver the Money and take Renunciation he ought to search the Registers and to call these persons who have used Inhibitions for their Interests The Lords found that Inhibitions reached to Lands acquired after the Inhibition but were not clear that Inhibition hindred Renunciations of Wodsets but superceeded to give answer to that Point till the first of June Laird of Dury contra Anna Gibson Feb. 28. 1667. UMquhil Sir Alexander Gibson of Dury having given Bond to his three Daughters for twenty thousand Merks of portion a Piece and in case of Decease of any of them her Portion to belong to his Heir-male but upon the Margent there is added that the Portion of the Deceasing should accresce to the Survivers This Dury Brother and Heir-male pursues Reduction and Improbation of this Bond in so far as concerns the Marginal addition upon these grounds that the samine was not Subscribed before the Witnesses insert in the Bond nor insert at that time And that it is written by another Hand then his that wrote the body of the Bond. And that it is contrair to the substitution of the body of the Bond. And that albeit the writer of the body be insert in the Bond and that the Bond bears that the Date and Witnesses are insert by Dury himself yet it does not bear that he insert the Marginal addition which is of greater importance It was answered that Bonds being Subscribed before Witnessâ—s their Testimony reaches not only to the Subscription on the foot but to the Subscription of joyning the Sheets and whole Marginal additions which are as valide as any part of the body unless it were positively proven by the Witnesses that they remember that there was no addition on the Margent when they Subscribed and albeit the Marginal addition be of another Hand it is offered to be proven that it is the Hand-writing of Dury himself who insert the Date and Witnesses which is more Solemn then any other writer especially seing the writer was not present or witness but only drew the draught of the Bond and albeit he mentions not the inserting of the Marginal addition but only the inserting of Date and VVitnesses that has been because of the ordinar Stile of Bonds whereof the Date and VVitnesses are filled in by another Hand not being ordinar for these to write Marginal additions and as for the importance or contrariety of the Margent to the Body that is most ordinar especially where the body is but a draught drawen by another Hand who has erred in his intention in the Substitution it was answered for the Pursuer that albeit the Marginal addition should be proven to be Holograph yet unless it were proven to have been truely written and subscribed at the Date of the Bond. It cannot prove that it is of the same Date or of any Date before the Defunct was on Death-bed and so it is null and cannot prejudge the Pursuer as Heir especially seing the Defunct having then no Sons might probably adject this in favours of his Daughters contrair his former Intention which if it should take effect would ruine the Heir-male The Lords having taken the Deposition of the Witnesses insert and both Deponing that they did not remember whether the Marginal addition was upon the Bond when it was Subscribed or no and that it did appear by inspection that the Marginal addition was by another Hand then that that wrote the body and that it was not mentioned at the conclusion where the Defunct exprest that he himself was Filler up of the Date and Witnesses and nothing was adduced to astruct that it was of a true Date before his taking Bed Vpon all these considerations joyntly the Lords found that the Marginal addition was not of the Date of the Bond and that having no Date of it self it was not instructed to have been done before the Defunct was on Death-bed and so was null as to the Heir but the Lords did not find that these alleadgeances severally could have derogat to the Marginal addition but only that all joyntly was sufficient the matter being also accorded amongst the Parties Antrobus contra William Anderson Provost of Glasgow Iune 13. 1667. WIlliam Antrobus having Caption against Iohn Herbertson in Glasgow the Messenger having therewith taken Herbertson in his own House and having required William Anderson present Provost to Concur and put him in Prison and he refusing pursues now the Provost for payment of the Debt The Defender alleadged first that the Lybel was not relevant because it did not subsume that the Rebel was showen to the Defender 2ly The Defender was required at an unlawful time being betwixt eleven and twelve at night 3ly The Defender offered the concourse of the Town Officers 4ly The Army being come to Glasgow that night the Provost was taken up at the time he was required with the ordering of their Quarters which being a publick Service of greater Importance he offering of the Officers was sufficient 5ly This subsidiary Action being but for the Pursuers damnage he can pretend none because the Rebel was Bankrupt and insolvent long before and he was Incarcerat within some few dayes where he remained a long time during which the Pursuer might have Arrested him and the Defender yet offers to put him in Prison in as good case as he then was The Pursuer answered that his Lybel was most Relevant because the Letters being directed to Provost and Bailies of Burghs and if they be required albeit the Rebel be not in their sight they must go with the User thereof to any place within their Jurisdiction which they must do in their own persons and it will not be sufficient to send their Officers and as to the time of requiring any time that men do use to go about their Affairs is sufficient and the Defender was required between
bare no Annualrent The Lords found that the Tutor behoved to have a competent time to uplift and Re-imploy these Sums for which they allowed him a year and that he was lyable for Annualrent after that year 2ly How soon a Tutor was obliged to do Diligence to uplift his Pupils Means so that if the Debitor became Irresponsable the Tutor was lyable The Lords found that if the Pupils Sums were in the hands of Debitors unquestionably Solvendo the Tutor was not obliged to lift the same unlesse the condition of some of the Debitors or Cautioners became worse at which time he was obliged to do all Diligence for uplifting the sums unlesse the Debitors became to be known to be altogether broken upon a sudden which he could not foresee 3ly VVhat Diligence a Tutor was obliged to do whether Horning was sufficient or if Captionâ— Poynding and Appryzing were necessary The Lords found that in different Cases different Executions were requisite viz. If the Debitor were known to have Lands appryzable or Goods poyndable or Sums arrestable that the Tutor was obliged to do Diligence accordingly and if not to use personal Execution 4ly Whether the Tutor should have allowance of such Sums as he payed without Sentence The Lords found such sums allowable unless a competent Defense could now be proponed which was known and probable to the Tutor at the time of payment Iohn Watson contra Iames Law Iuly 12. 1667. JAmes Law having Disponed certain Lands to Iohn Watson with absolute warrandice and after the Disposition there being a Designation of a part of the Land for Horse and Kines Grasse to the Minister conform to the Act of Parliament 1661. Watson pursues for Warrandice upon that distresse The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the distresse is by a subsequent Law falling after the Disposition It was answered first That absolute Warrandice does even take place in the case of a subsequent Law at least in so far as the Pursuer suffers detriment because if the Lands had continued the Defenders had been so burdened and therefore is lyable in quantum lucratus est 2ldy This is no supervenient Law because the Act of Parliament 1661 Is a Reviving of the Parliament 1649. which being Rescinded in the said Parliament 1661. By a posterior Act thereof concerning Manses and Gleibs is declared to be valid as if it had been made in the year 1649. It was answered to the first that nothing can infer Eviction or Recourse but that which had a Cause anterior to the Warrandice unlesse it had been otherwise exprest Nor is it any ground that if the Disponer remained Heretor he had been lyable otherwise all other supervenient Burdens would Return not only upon the Immediat but upon all the Disponers but all such accidental Superveniencies are upon the Purchasers hazard as well as the Advantages are to his benefit To the second the time of this Disposition the Parliament 1649 was Rescinded and the new Act was not Enacted Neither by the new Act is it declared to be effectual from the year 1649. As to the Horse and Kines Grasse but only as to the Manse It was answered that was but a mistake of the Draught of the Act of Parliament there being no Reason wherefore it should be drawn back as to Manses more then to the rest but it was the meaning of the Act of Parliament to Revive the former Act in all points It was answered that the meaning of Acts of Parliament may not be extended contrair to the words neither can any thing be supplyed that is omitted in a Statutory Act. The Lords found no Recourse upon the Distress arysing from the Act of Parliament 1661. and that the drawing back thereof being expresly as to Manses which is adjected as a limitation could not be extended to the Ministers Grass which is statute in a different way in this then in the Act of Parliament 1649. From this the Heretors are only to pay twenty pounds of Money and in the former Lands were only to be designed therefore found the Distress that being by a supervenient Law that the Warrandice did not reach thereto Margaret Scot contra Sir Laurence Scot. Iuly 14. 1667. SIr William Scot of Clerkingtoun having granted Assignation to his Daughter Margaret Scot of a Sum due by Wauchtoun Pursues Sir Laurence his Son as Haver to deliver the same It was alleadged for the Defender that there was a Clause in the Assignation reserving a power to Sir William to alter and Dispone during his Life and that he did Assign this Bond to Iohn Scot. It was answered that he took a Back-bond from Iohn Scot bearing that the Assignation was granted in Trust to this effect only that Iohn Scot should do diligence thereupon It was answered that the Back-bond bears Iohn Scot to be obliged to denude in favours of Sir William Scot his Heirs and Assigneys whereby the Assignation is altered The Pursuer answered that there appears nothing of the alteration of the Defuncts mind more then if he had appryzed in his own name whereby the Bond would have been adjudged to him his Heirs and Assigneys which is no more then if an Assigney should use the name of the Cedent which would no ways infer that by adjudging Land to the Cedent and his Heirs they pass from the Assignation The Lords found no alteration in the Pursuers Assignation by the Right made to John Scot in his Back-bond which also bare the Right to John Scot was made to do Diligence and for no other end Mr. John Eleis contra Elizabeth Keith Mary Steuart and Keith Iuly 16. 1667. THis Cause at the Instance of Mr. Iohn Eleis against Keiths being Dispute the twenty seventh of February last The Lords found Inhibitions to reach Lands Acquired after the Inhibition but superceeded to give answer to that Point whether the Inhibitions were to be extended to take away Renunciations of Wodset Lands which being now Debated It was alleadged that an Inhibition could not hinder the Granter of a Wodset to pay his Debt and accept of a Renunciation from the Person Inhibit because a Renunciation is but a Discharge and Inhibitions were never found to take away Discharges of Heretable Bonds nor to hinder any Party to pay their Debt but on the contrair It was an universal Custom over all the Kingdom that Debtors should pay their Debts and did accept Discharges and Renunciations without looking into the Registers which hath been most frequent not only in Wodsets but mainly in Infeftments of Annualrent upon Heretable Bonds which no man ever doubted to pay till he searched the Registers of Inhibitions et communis consuetudo pro lege habetur It was answered first That the Inhibition bears expresly a Prohibition to grant Renunciations but no Prohibition to grant Discharges and as to the Custom it cannot be showen that persons did pay Wodsets and take Renunciations from these that were Inhibit much lesse that the Lords by their Decisions did approve
the same which Decisions can only make a Custom equivalent to Law 2dly Albeit where Wodsets were before the Inhibition the Debtor might accept Renunciation because by the Reversion the Wodsetter is obliged to grant Renunciation upon payment so that the granting of the Renunciation being upon an obligment Anterior to the Inhibition could not be prejudged by the Inhibition as is found in all cases but here the Wodset was contracted after the Inhibition 3dly The Renunciation here granted was voluntarly accepted and payment was voluntarly made because there was a Clause of Premonition and Requisition in the Wodset which was not used It was answered that the Stile of Inhibitions is no Rule seing it prohibits the Selling of Goods and Geir to which no Inhibition is extended and there being no Law nor any Dicision that an Inhibition should be extended against a Renunciation of a Wodset the common Opinion and common Custom of the Nation to the contrair is sufficient neither is there any difference in the Custom whether the Wodset be contracted after the Inhibition or before and if there were there is much more reason that Wodsets contracted before should rather be subject to the Inhibition then Wodsets contracted after by which the Creditor Inhibiter is in no worse condition when they are Renunced then he was the time of his Inhibition neither was the payment here made voluntar albeit Requisition was not used because there being an obligement to pay the delay upon the Requisition being only for a few days no prudent Man would suffer himself to be charged upon the Requisition and it is no more voluntar then if a Creditor should pay before the Registration of his Bond because he could not be compelled before it were Registrat and he charged but seing Law and Custom obliged not Debtors to inquire for Inhibitions they may pay what way they please and albeit there had been a Requisition yea and a Consignation unless the Debtor after Inhibition had been obliged to call the Inhibiter it could operat nothing as to the Inhibiter It was answered that there would be a great Detriment to Creditors if they cannot affect Wodseâ—s by Inhibition seing these cannot be Arrested It was answered they might be Appryzed It was answered they might be Renunced before the Term of payment of the Creditors Debt so that Appryzing could not proceed and that a Debtors whole Estate may consist in a Wodset It was answered that that case could seldom occur and that there was neither Law nor Custom introduced upon that account The Lords found that the Inhibition could not operat against the Renunciation of the Woose and decided that general point by it self for clearing the I ieges and ordaiâ—ed the Parties to be heard upon some other Points in this particular Case as that payment of this Wodset was made after the parties was in mala fide after processe intented against him by Mr. John Eleis Hamiltoun contra Symintoun Eodem die DAvid Hamiltoun as Assigney by Robert Steel to a Bond granted by Andrew Symintoun pursues Grissel Symintoun as representing him for payment who alleadged absolvitor because the alleadged Bond is manifestly null in so far as on that side where the Subscriptions is there is only the Clause of Registration and all the rest is filled on the other side with another Hand and there is not one word on the Subscribed side of the Matter of the Bond that might have Connexion with the back-side which is unsubscribed so that this has been the last Sheet of a Writ taken off and filled upon the back upon which anything might have been filled up that the Pursuer pleased The pursuer answered that he oponed his Bond subscribed by VVitnesses which he byds by as a true Deed and is valide unless it were improven The Lords found this Writ null and yet declared that if the pursuer could adduce VVrits or Adminicles to astruct the same they would Examine the same ex officio as the VVriter and VVitnesses if they were alive The said pursuer did also insist against the Defender for her own Aliment as having Right thereto from his own Son who had Married her Mother It was alleadged for the Defender that her Mother Liferented her whole Estate and so by Act of parliament was obliged to Aliment the appearand Heir It was answered the Defender had Renunced to be Heir to the same Pursuer and so could not crave that Benefite It was answered that as Appearand Heir She had Right to the Aliment and her offering to Renunce was but to save her from personal Excution and it could not prejudge her of her Aliment which she had received before she Renunced Which the Lords found Relevant Lady Burgy contra Her Tennants and Sir John Strachan Iuly 18. 1667. THe Lady Burgy pursues the Tennants of her liferent-Liferent-lands to Remove Compearance is made for Sir Iohn Strachan who alleadges that he stands publickly Infeft in this Land and in Possession and will not suffer his Tennents to Remove It was replyed that the Pursuers Infeftment in Liferent is long before Sir Iohns and could take no effect till now that her Husband is dead It is answered that the Ladies Infeftment is base and therefore though it be prior to Sir Iohns publick Infeftment it cannot be preferred thereto unless it were alleadged it was cled with Possession before the publick Infeftment either by the Ladies own possession or at least by her Husbands possession but she cannot alleadge either because these parties were in possession from the Date of her Infeftment till the Date of this publick Infeftment It was answered for the Lady that she offered her to prove her Husband was in possession after her Infeftment and before the Defenderes Infeftment by himself or at least by these who derived Temporary or Redeemable Rights from him or his Authors as Liferents Wodsets and unexpired Comprysings It was answered that albeit favore Matrimonij the Husbands possession though common author be counted the Wifes possession yet the possession of a Wodsetter or Appryzer are neither said to be the Wifes possession nor the Husbands because they possess propâ—io jure and the Husband had only a Reversion The Lords found the alleadgeance Relevant for the Lady that her Husband possest after her Infeftment and before the publick Infeftment either by himself or by any deriving a Temporary Right from him or his Authors Executors of the Earl of Dirletoun contra Duke Hamiltoun Earl of Crawford and others Eodem die IN August 1645. the Earls of Crawford Lanerk and several other Noblemen and Gentlemen granted Bond to the Earl of Dirletoun bearing an Obligement therein Conjunctly and Severally to pay ten Merks for ilk Boll of 6000 Bolls of Victual that should be Delivered by Dirletoun to Iames Riddel or his Deputes the said Earl always obtaining Iames Riddels Receipt thereupon which Delivery and Receipt were to be betwixt and a blank day and the Receipt to be Delivered before
payment the Term of payment of the price was Candlemas 1646. Whereupon Dirletouns Executors pursues the Subscribers of the Bond who alleadged that this Bond was clearly Conditional that the Victual should be Delivered betwixt and such a Time which though it be blank yet must be understood to be before Candlemas which was before the Term of payment of the pryce and upon obtaining Iames Riddels Receipt thereof Ita est there is nothing to instruct the Delivery to Iames Riddel or the obtaining his Receipt Debito tempore It was answered that the Condition bears Delivery to Iames Riddel or his Deputes which Terms signifies only persons under him in Office and therefore it must relate to James Riddel as he was then a publick person one of the Commissars of the Army under Humby Ita est there is produced Humbies Discharge and Receipt of the Victual which is better then Riddels who was his Depute and there is also a Declaration by Riddel that the Victual was truely Delivered It was answered for the Defenders that their Obligation being Conditional must be performed in forma specifica so that it being in Dirletouns option to Deliver or nâ—t if he Delivered on other Terms then the Bond bears it was on his own peril neither is there anything to show that this Victual was destinat for pulick use and albeit it had been the purpose of the Defenders so to have employed the Victual yet they might choise their own way of putting it in the hands of a Person whom they did Trust who without their Warrand could have given it out to none and whose trust they only followed thus qualified that a Receipt were then obtained from him so that they are not obliged to trust Humbies Receipt nor can that prove against them for his Oath much less his acknowledgment could not bind upon them his Debt neither is Humbies Receipt Debito tempore and likewise Humbies Receipt relates not to this Bond but bears to be conform to a Contract betwixt Dirletoun and the Committee of Estates neither can Riddels Declaration ex post facto prove against the Defenders or burden them because they have qualified Riddels Trust not to his Write at any time yea not to his Oath but to his Receipt within the time limited and there is no reason to enforce the Defenders Contract to the Tenor of their Bond to trust the Declaration of Iames Riddel Emitted at any time for his Condition mighht change both as to his Estate and to his Trustinesse and they were not obliged though they were to Trust his Receipt within such a time therefore to trust his Declaration for ever and albeit the Victual had been appointed for publick use yet the Delivery and Receipt should have been made forthcoming to the Defenders that they might have obtained Releif of the publick but never having been delivered to this day the Defenders cannot be burdened therewith It was answered that Dirletoun was known to be an Illiterat Person and albeit he takes Humbiâ—es Discharge relative to a Contract of the Committee of Estates yet this same Bond is understood for the name of Contract may well comprehend a Bond and the Subscrivers of this Bond albeit they be not so Designed in the Bond yet all of them were Members of the Committee of Estates and a Quorum thereof and the quantity of Victual was the same and the Date of that Contract is the day of August 1645. which showes it was not then present and this Bond is in August 1645. and it cannot be imagined that Dirletoun would have engaged in the same Moneth for 6000. Bolls of Victual twice and as to the time of the Receipt and Declaration there is no Clause irritant upon nor obtaining it at such a time and that is no Detriment to the Defenders neither can it be presumed that they would have obtained Releif seing they attained no Releif of many publick Bonds they were ingaged into at that same time The Lords found the Defense founded upon the Conditional Clause relevant and the Condition was not fulfilled chiefly upon this consideration that Iames Riddels Receipts were not obtained in the time limited after which the Defenders were not obliged to trust any Declaration of Riddels or Humbies Iohn Ker contra Iean Ker Eodem die Iohn Ker being Executor dative ad omissa et male appreciata pursues Iean Ker as principal Executrix for payment and referred the particulars to her Oath she alleadged that she had made Faith at the time of the Confirmation that nothing was Omitted or wrong Prized she could not be obliged to Depone again It was answered that this was the ordinar Custome and was no more then a Re-examination and that it would not infer Perjury though it were different because if she had any thing Omitted that had come to her Possession and Knowledge after the Inventar or if she had then possest it but did not know or remember that it was in her Possession or in bonis defuncti and ordinarly the Prices are made be the Commissar and but upon Conjecture and may by much better known thereafter The Lords Repelled the Defense and ordained the Executrix to Depone Mr. Iames Daes contra Kyle July 10. 1667. MAster James Daes being Infeft by the Earl of Hadingtoun in certain Husband Lands and Aikers in Earlstoun with a general Clause of all Lands within such bounds pursues Robert Kyle to remove from certain Aikers within that bounds who alleadged Absolvitor because he has Tacks standing from the Earl of Hadingtoun of all the Lands possest by him and produces the Tack bearing the Earl to have Set him fourteen Aikers of Land presently possest by himself and declares he has no other then what he possest before the Tack and during the time of the Tack now by the space of thirty years The Pursuer answered that his Tack gave him only Right to fourteen Aikers so that the Pursuer by the general Clause must have all the rest It was answered that the Defender was not obliged now to Dispute the extent or quantity of his Aikers nor to restrict to the present extent of Aikers especially seing that which he did possess the time of the Tack was Set to him by his Tack simply without Reservation and albeit designed fourteen Aikers and were more it is nothing for an Erronious Designation vitiats not unless it did appear to be Restrictive or Taxative likeas the Pursuers Aikers in his Infeftment will be as large proportionally as the Defenders The Pursuer answered that whatever the extent of his Aikers were the general Clause gave him all that was not reserved to the Defender and he offered him to prove that there were six aikers beside the fourteen aikers severally kend and known and possest by different Possessors before this Tack The Defender answered that he opponed his Tack bearing the Lands to be then in his own Possession at the granting of the Tack and he having possest thirty years
been declared at Buirran it does not infer that Lubeck being a free State at so far distance behoved to know the same much lesse that thereby there was a War betwixt the King and Denmark The Lords having considered the whole Debate were of different opinions whether the Victual could be called Counterband Goods simply or only when imported for relieving of Sieges or for the like War-like use and whetheâ— Ships could be seised in their return not having actually Counterband Goods in but especially whether they could be seised without evidence at the time of the seisure at Sea that in that Voyage they had in Counterband Goods but they did only Determine the first Reason and found it relevant to infer that the Lubeckers was in bona fide to continue the Commerce having Loused within to few days of the Kings Manifesto and that no other Act of Hostility before were to be presumed to have come to the knowledge of Lubeck or that thereby they were obliged to know that there was an actual War unlesse these Strangers knowledge were instructed by their own Oaths or that it was the common Fame notour at Lubeck before they Loused that there was War betwixt the King and Denmark and the Defenders offering to prove the same The Lords granted Commission to the Kings Resident at Hamburgh to receive Witnesses above exception and in the mean time ordains the Strangers Ship and Goods to be Inventared and Estimate and delivered again to the Strangers upon Caution to make the same or price forthcoming in case the Defender prov'd and prevail'd and with the burden of the Strangers damnage and expences if they betook themselves to this manner of Probation and not to the Oaths of the Strangers who were present reserving to the Lords the remanent Points to be Decided if the Strangers knowledge of the War were known In this Processe the Lords found also that competent and emitted before the Admiral could not operat against thir Strangers qui utuntur communi jure gentium Sir Harie Hume contra Tenents of Kello and Sir Alexander Hume Iuly 23. 1667. SIr Harie Hume having Comprized the Lands of Kello compearance is made for some Annualrenters who craved preference because their Infeftments of Annualrent was before the Apprizing It was answered that the Infeftment of Annualrent was base never cled with Possession It was answered for the Annualrenter that he produced an Antaphocha bearing the Receipt of a Discharge granted by the Debtor of the Annualrent which did instruct the Annualrenter was in Possession before the Apprizing by uplifting the Annualrent from the Debtor It was answered that the Sum was of fourscore Merks which was far within an Terms Annualrent and that it related only to the personal Bond and not to the Infeftment and that there was more then this Sum due of Annualrent by the personal Bond before the Date of the Infeftment to which only it behoved to be imputed It was answered that the Receipt being general in part of payment of the Annualrent he that payed the Sum might impute it to what Term he pleased and so would impute it to a Term after his Infeftment It was answered that before that Discharge the Pursuers Apprizing was led though no Infeftment thereon after which so small a part of the Annualrent could not be impute to any but the first Annualrent due and could not validat the base Infeftment The Lords found it sufficient to validat the base Infeftment notwithstanding of what was alleadged on the contrair Sir George Mckenzie contra Iohn Fairholm Iuly 25. 1667. SIr George Mckenzie Advocat having formerly pursued Reduction of a Bond granted to Umquhil Iohn Fairholm wherein he was Cautioner for his Father and Pluscardy upon this Reason that he then being Minor intertained by his Father as in his Family his Father was his Administrator and in place of a Curator so that Deeds done without his Fathers authorizing as Curator was null neither could his Father authorize him to his Fathers own behove as Cautioner for his Father which the Lords found relevant to annul Sir George's Subscription and now Sir George desiring the Extract of the Interloquitor It was further alleadged that Sir George was not only Cautioner for his Father but also for Pluscardy and that his Father might authorize him to Subscrive Cautioner for Pluscardy and therefore the Bond behoved to stand against him as Cautioner for Pluscardy It was answered that albeit his Father might authorize him as Cautioner for Pluscardy in a Bond apart wherein his Father was not concerned yet if his being Cautioner to Pluscardy were to the behove of his Father he could not authorize him therein but this Bond is of that nature for Pluscardy and the pursuers Father being bound Conjunctly and Severally Caution adjected for any of the correi debendi could not but be to the behove of both because in so far the Obligation was strengthned and the payment made by the Cautioner would liberat both and if Sir George should be Decerned Cautioner for Pluscardy it would Liberat his Father and so is clearly to his behove In respect whereof the Lords repelled also this new Defense and adhered to their former Interlocutor and found Sir George's Subscription for his Father and for Pluscardy to be to his Fathers behove and that he could not authorize him therein neither did he at all directly authorize him but in so far as they both Subscrived as Principal and Cautioner in one Bond. Mr. Iohn Philip contra Mr. Iohn Cheap Iuly 26. 1667. MAster Iohn Philip pursues his Tenents upon a Disposition granted by Michael Philip Compearance is made for Mr. Iames Cheap who Apprized from Michael Philips Heir who alleadged that the Disposition is null neither being Subscribed by the Disponer nor by two Notars for him for albeit it mention the Subscription of three Notars yet two of them Subscribed not at the same time with the third and neither of these two bear that they did Subscribe at command but that they Subscribed only for Michael Philip because that he could not Subscribe himself and albeit the Body of the Writ mention such Witnesses to the Command given to these Notars yet it is written with another Ink and does not appear to be Written at the time of the Subscriptions being the Hand-writ of him that Wrote the Body which mentions to be Written by him at Edinburgh and the Subscription is at Newburgh and because the Notars Subscription must give Faith to the Body of the Writ and not the Body to it It was answered that they offer to prove by the Witnesses insert that the Command was given It was answered that the Command being the most substantial point of the Subscription could not be proven or supplied by Witnesses for the Subscription of the Notar because the party could not Subscribe signifies nothing without the Command of the party for whom they subscribe and Warrand or Command in most ordinary Matters is not
as the King of Sweden is not to be Retrenched nor Limited but by the exceptions contained in it self and in it there is no such exception but generally the Pass as is there qualified excludes all search or question of Men or Goods which is also the Kings meaning which appears expresly by the foresaid Letter which albeit it could not Derogat from a privat Right yet may well clear the dubious interpretation of a Treaty and is sufficient in this Case where the King alone dat leges bello The Lords upon consideration of the last Dispute did ordain the President to state the Case and represent it by the Secretary to the King both as to the meaning of the Treaty and the Letters and specially whether Counterband Goods not being the Growth of nor Loaden in Sweden were priviledged to the Swedes thereby November 6. 1667. THe said Cause being again called the President presented the Lord Secretaries Letter bearing the Kings Answer that the Treaty or Letter did not warrand the Swedes to carry Counterband Goods to the Countrey of his Enemies except their own Countrey Commodities Loaden within their own Dominions Whereupon The Lords sustained the Admirals Decreet as to that Reason of Reduction but gave the Parties a time to be further hear'd before Exâ—ract Hendâ—â—son contra Henderson November 14. 1667. HEnderson insisted in the Cause mentioned Ianuary 31. 1667. which was again fully Debated above and it was alleadged that the Writ in question was a Testament or at least donatio mortis causa or at least a Conditional Donation to take effect only in case the Disponer died before he returned so that his simple returning without any further purified the Condition and made it null The Lords having considered the Writ found that albeit it was not formal yet it had the Essentials of a Disposition and Donation interviros and that it was not null by the Disponers return unlesse he had revocked it for they found that the words being that he Nominat and Constitute Henderson his Heir and Successor and Donatar irrevockably to certain Tenements in particular with power to him in case the Disponer returned not to enter by the Superior and Enter to Possession and transferring all Right he had in that case which words Constituting him Donaâ—ar they found were Dispositive words and Effectual and the adding of Heir and Successor could not Evocuat the same and found the Condition of his not returning was not annext to the Dispositive words but to the Executive Clause of Entering by the Superior and taking Possession which was cleared by the Posterior Reservation to recal it after his return It was further offered to be proven that the Disponer not only returned but recalled the Disposition in so far as he had it in his own hands and power after his return It was answered that it was no way relevant unlesse the Delivery of it hoc intuitu were proven for he might have had it in his hands upon many other accounts It was answered that the very having of the Writ did presume that it was Delivered unlesse the other Party would offer them to prove that it came in his hands alio nomine Which the Lords found Relevant Thereafter it was alleadged that as the Disponers having of it presumed Revocation so the Acquirers having of it hereafter presumed a passing from that Revocation and a Reviving of the Right and now it is in the Acquirers hands as to this point the Parties did not Debate but it occurred to the Lords that the Disponers having might be sufficient to infer Delivery but would not infer that the Acquirers having thereafter would presume passing from the Revocation because the Clause reserving to the Disponer a power to Recal made the naked Recovery of the Writ sufficient to him and did annul it but it was more dubious what was requisit to revive it whether naked Having or expresse Delivery hoc intuitu or if something were not requisite in Writ and therefore before answer to that point The Lords ordained the Pursuers who now had the Writ to condescend and prove how they got it Iames Maxwel contra Adam Maxwel November 15. 1667. JAmes Maxwel and the Umquhil Lady Hiltoun his Spouse having Disponed their Land to Adam Maxwel Iames now pursues a Declarator of Trust whereupon the Lords formerly ordained Compt and Reckoning that it might appear what Adam had Expended upon the accompt of the Trust. In which Accompt Adam gives up certain Bonds by Iames whereunto he had taken Assignation against which he could alleadge no more then what he truely payed out in respect the time of the Assignation he was intrusted by the Pursuer The Defender alleadged non relevant unlesse it were alleadged he was intrusted to Compone for the Pursuers Debts but if it was only a Trust of his Land and not a general Trust of all his Affairs it could not reach their Bonds and albeit upon the account of Friendship or Charity the Defender might be desired to take no more then he gave there lyes no Obligation in Law or Equity upon him so to do but he may demand what the Creditors his Cedents or any other Assigney might demand The Pursuer answered that the intent of his Trust in his Lands being to preserve him from the rigour of his Creditors it was against that Trust to the Trusty to use the same rigour himself Which the Lords found relevant and ordained Adam only to get allowance of what he payed out Laird of Culteraes contra Silvester Chapman November 16. 1667. CVlteraes having pursued Silvester Chapman for payment of a Bond of two hundreth Merks subscribed by the initial Letters of the Defenders Name The Lords sustained the pursute the Defender being in use thus to subscribe and that he did subscribe this Bond the Notar and three Witnesses insert being Examined they proved the Defenders custom so to subscribe but as to the Actual subscribing of this Bond two were affirmative and two were negative denying their subscription Deponing that they remembred not they saw the Defender subscribe The Pursuers own Oath was also taken ex officio who affirmed the truth of the subscription and that the Witnesses insert were present the question arose whether the verity of the subscription were proven The Lords found that it was sufficiently proven the Pursuer being a man above all suspition and no improbation proponed Chalmers and Gardner contra Colvils Eodem die CHalmers and her Children pursues Hugh Colvil and others for Ejecting them out of their House and Lands of Lady kirk and spuilzy of their Goods therein the Lybel being admitted to Probation not only a Witnesse Deponed that he saw the Defender open the Pursuers Doors they being absent in Edinburgh and the Keys with them and cast out their Goods and enter in Possession who was admitted cum nota as being Interessed as Tennant and concurring with these Pursuers in a pursute with the same Defenders before the Council upon the
sisti but also judicatum solvi that he may be ordained to do the same before the Lords Which the Lords refused but granted the Advocation in common form Sir Robert Montgomery contra Alexander Rankein November 23. 1667. SIr Robert Montgomery having obtained Decreet against Antonia Brown as representing Sir Iohn Brown her Father for two thousand Merks Arrests the price of a chain due to Antonia in the hands of the Lord Melvil and pursues to make forthcoming Compears Alexander Rankein and produces a Decreet obtained against Antonia and thereupon an Arrestment by the Sheriff of Fifes Precept and a Decreet of the Sheriff thereupon in July last the Arrestment being in the same Moneth and craves preference because he had the first compleat Diligence It was answered that Sir Robert having first Arrested in March last and first intented Processe thereupon before the Lords and having insisted therein the last Session was kept off by the compearance of the Lady Cullerny who also pretended Right to the Chain and has failed in no Diligence and therefore ought to be preferred to a posterior Arrestment albeit it have the first Decreet of an inferiour Court both Arrestment and Citation being after his for he having affected the Sum by an Arrestment the matter became litigious and no posterior Diligence nor Sentence of an inferiour Court could exclude him he using all Diligence before the Supream Court and not living within the Sheriffs Jurisdiction and the Sheriffs Decreet being only in absence otherwise no Process upon any Arrestment before the Lords can be secure but others may anticipat them by obtaining Decreets before inferiour Courts which are far sooner obtained It was answered that it was not the Arrestment but the Sentence to make forthcoming that transmitted the Right as being a Judicial Assignation and therefore the first Decreet is preferable for as Poinding might have been used upon the Sheriffs Precept notwithstanding of a prior Arrestment and Dependance before the Lords so must the Sheriffs Decreet which is equivalent have the same effect and Sir Robert ought to impute it to himself that took not the shortest way in pursuing before the Sheriff The Lords found the first Arrestment pursued before themselves sine mora and the first Citation preferable to a posterior Citation and Arrestment though obtaining the first Decreet and therefore preferred Sir Robert Montgomery and would not bring in the Parties pari passu the first Arrestment and Citation being several Moneths before the other Lord Iustice Clerk contra the Laird of Lambertoun Eodem die THe Lord Rentoun Justice Clerk having pursued Lambertoun for the Spoiling of his Woods and Planting in the beginning of the Troubles the Parties did agree that what Detriment of the Wood should be proven by Witnesses to be Adduced hinc inde the one half thereof should be payed by Lambertoun The Lords granted Commission to five of their Number who Examined Witnesses upon the place three of the Pursuers Witnesses proved the half of the Damnage to be eleven thousand Merks and gave clear Reasons of their knowledge two of them were used by the Defender also and two or three of the Defenders other Witnesses Deponed that the whole Damnage was about two thousand Merks and a third ex auditu agreed in some points At the Advising of the Cause the question arose whether the Lords might modifie betwixt the two Extreams or if they ought to Judge according to any two of the highest Testimonies or according to the most pregnant Testimonies giving the clearest ground of their Knowledge The Lords found the most pregnant Testimonies to be the Rule and Decerned according to the least that the Pursuers Witnesses did prove as being that wherein all did agree and not according to the most quantities that some proved Mr. Iohn Hay of Haystoun contra Mr. Iohn Drummond and Patrick Hepburn November 26. 1667. MAster Iohn Hay having pursued a Reduction of the Rights of some Lands against Mr. Iohn Drummond and called for the Rights made to him by Umquhil Patrick Hepburn Mr. Iohn Drummond got three Terms to produce reserving his Defenses and at the last Term alleadged no Certification against the Rights granted by Patrick Hepburn because none to Represent Patrick Hepburn were called a Diligence was granted Incidenter to the Pursuer to call the Representatives of Patrick Hepburn whereupon he Cited Patrick Hepburn his eldest Son and appearand Heir who having gotten one very short Term and that circumduced against him It was now alleadged that all the Terms ought to be granted to Patrick Hepburn seing he was a Party necessar to be called and his Rights were to be Reduced The Pursuer answered that this being a single Reduction de jure there was no more due but one Term. 2dly Albeit more were due yet Mr. Iohn Drummond having run three Terms already he can crave no more but one upon the account of Patrick Hepburn his Author The Lords in respect the Term Assigned to Patrick Hepburn was but on six dayes allowed him a second Term and ordained it to be Intimat by the Ordinar to the Advocats that in single Reductions of Rights of Lands they would grant two Terms for production and in Reductions and Improbations three only Captain Bood contra George Strachan November 28. 1667. CAptain Bood Captain of one of His Majesties Friggats pursues George Strachan who had Commanded that Friggat for a time and was sent a Voyage therewith from Brassie-found to London to restore a part of the Out-reick of the Ship which he had not Delivered but had excepted in his Discharge as being worn stollen or lost and now it was offered to be proven that he Sold and Disponed upon the same particulars he so reserved The Defender alleadged Absolvitor from such particulars as he condescended upon because he did waire out a considerable Sum of Money fot Repairing the Out-rige and necessars to the Ship during the Voyage for which in case of necessity he might have Sold a part of the Out-rige 2dly Albeit he might not have Sold the same yet he may retain or compence the price thereof with what he waired out necessarly and profitably for the Out-rige of the Ship 3dly He offered him to prove that such parts of the Out-rige in questionâ— as he should condescend upon were worne and stollen which being his Defense he ought to be preferred in the Probation unto the Pursuer who ought to have no other Probation against him being a Person Intrusted but his own Oath much less a contrair probation by Witnesses that they were not Lost but Disposed upon by the Defender The Lords Repelled the first and second Defenses and found that albeit the Captain might have Hypothecat his Ship or Out-rige for the necessar Expences waired upon her yet that he could not Sell the same and that de facto he did not Sell the same because the Pursuer offered to prove he Sold them at Lieth after his Return and found the same probable by
Witnesses and preferred the Pursuer in probation thereof and in respect of so unwarrantable a way of Disposing they would neither allow Retention nor Compensation but left the Defender to make his Application to the Exchequher for his payment Margaret Pringle and her Spouse contra Robert Pringle of Stichel November 29. 1667. MArgaret Pringle pursues an Exhibition of all Writs granted by or to her Umquhil Brother ad deliberandum It was alleadged no Process for Writs granted by him to Strangers except such as were in his Family conform to the late Decision Schaw of Sornbeg contra Tailzifare which they declared they would follow as a Rule The Pursuer answered that he Insisted for Exhibition of such Writs as were granted by the Defunct to any person which were in his possession or Charter Chist the time of his Death Which the Lords Sustained Duke Hamiltoun contra the Laird of Allardine December 6. 1667. THe Duke of Hamiltoun having Charged the Laird of Allardine for the six Terms Taxation Imposed anno 1633. He Suspends on this Reason that four Terms were payed by the Earl of Marishal Sheriff which must Exoner him and all other persons of the Shire and is instructed by the Books of the Clerk to the Taxations It was answered that the Reason is not relevant because the Sheriffs did ordinarly Lift a part of all the six Terms and albeit the Sheriff compleated the first four yet he might have done it out of his own Money or out of the other two and so when the King Charges for the other two the Sheriffs Discharges will Exclude him so that he shall not want the first four but so much of the other two and therefore unless the Suspender can produce a Discharge of the first four the general Discharge granted to the Sheriff cannot Liberat him It was answered that when the King or his Collector Charges the Collectors general Discharges cannot but meet himself and whether the Suspender had payed or not the general Collector cannot seek these Terms twice It is true â—f the Sheriff were Charged the Suspender behoved to show to him his Discharge but the Earl of Marishal Sheriff could not Charge the Suspender for the Taxation of these Lands because the Earl of Marishal was both Sheriff and Heretor at that time and Sold the Lands to the Suspender with Warrandice The Lords found the general Discharge sufficient to the Suspender against the general Collector or any authorised by him Earl of Lauderdale and Iohn Wachop contra Major Biggar December 7. 1661. THe Earl of Lauderdale and Iohn Wachop Macer pursue a Reduction and Improbation of the Rights of the Lands of Hill against Major Biggar and craved Certification contra non producta The Defender alleadged no Certification because he had produced sufficient Rights to exclude the Pursuers Title viz. Infeftments long prior to the Pursuers Right It was answered that this could not stop the Certification unless the Defender would declare he would make use of no other Rights in this Instance otherwise the Pursuers behoved to Dispute with him upon every single Writ he produced and behoved to Dispute the Reasons of Reduction with him before the Production were closed The Pursuer answered that his alleadgeance as it is proponed was alwise Sustained without declaring that he woâ—ld make use of no more The Lords found the Defenses as proponed relevant and ordained the ordinar to hear the Parties Debate upon the Rights produced and if these should not prove sufficient the Lords thought that the Defender might be forced at the next time to produce all he would make use of in this Cause that so the Pursuers were not delayed upon Disputing upon every single Writ Earl of Cassils contra Sheriff of Galloway December 10. 1667. THe Earl of Cassils pursues the Sheriff of Galloway and the Tennents of Achnotorâ—ch for abstracted Multures and Insists on this ground against the Sheriff that he being Heretor of the Lands and Vassal to the Pursuer did command them to leave the Pursuers Miln and come to his own Miln and so was Liable The Defender alleadged that this Member of the Summons is not relevant because any man may desire any persons he pleases to come to his Miln and there was never a pursute Sustained against any others then the Abstracters and not against these to whose Miln they came 2dly It is not Libelled that the Defender got a greater Duty upon the Tennents coming to his Miln and although he had it were not relevant 3dly By the Defenders Rights he is Liberat of all Multures except Knavship and Bannock which is only the Hire due to the Millers for their Service and there is no obligement upon him to cause his Tennents come to the Miln It was answered the Pursuer offered to prove the Defender had gotten a greater Duty upon the Tennents coming to his miln and albeit the Astriction be only of Knavship and Bannock that is not alone due for the Millers service but there is a profit thence arising to the Master that the Sheriff being Heretor and Vassal albeit he be not personally obliged to cause the Tennents come to his Miln yet the Lands being Astricted by his Infeftment it was his fault to remove them The Lords Assoilzied from that Member of the Lybel and found it not relevant against the Heretor but only against the Tennents Mr. Rodger Hog contra the Countess of Home Eodem die MAster Rodger Hog having Appryzed certain Lands from the Laird of Wauchtoun in Alcambus which were Sold to Wauchtoun by the Earl of Home with absolute Warrandice Upon which Warrandice there was Inhibition used whereupon Mr. Rodger pursues Reduction of an Infeftment of Warrandice of these Lands granted by the Earl of Home to my Lady in Warrandice of the Lands of Hirsil and that because the said Infeftment of Warrandice is posterior to the Inhibition The Defender alleadged that there could be no Reduction upon the Inhibition because therewas yet no Distress which with a Decreet of the Liquidation of the Distress behoved to preceed any Reduction and albeit there might be a Declarator that my Ladies Infeftment should not be prejudicial to the Clause of Warrandice or any Distress following thereupon yet there could be no Reduction till the Distress were Existent and Liquidat The Pursuer answered that a Reduction upon an Inhibition was in effect a Declarator that the posterior Rights should not prejudge the Ground of the Inhibition for no Reduction is absolute but only in so far as the Rights Reduced may be prejudicial to the Rights whereupon the Reduction proceeds The Lords Sustained the Reduction to take effect so soon as any Distresse should occur Mr. Iames Straiton contra the Countess of Home Eodem die MAster Iames Straiton Minister of Gordoun having obtained Decreet conform upon an old Locality Charges my Lady Home for payment who Suspends and alleadges that she must be liberat of a Chalder of Victual contained in the
contra the Magistrats of Queens-ferry Ianuary 2. 1668. ARchibald Wilson being Elected on of the Baillies of the South Queens-ferry and being Charged to Accept and Exerce the Office Suspends on this Reason that by the 29. Act Parliament 5. King Iames the 3. No Magistrate of Burgh is to be continued in Office longer then one year and by a particular Act of that Burgh no Magistrat is to continue above two years and true it is that the Suspender hath served as Baillie two years already It was answered that the Act of Parliament is long since in desuetude and as to the Act of the Burgh the Election of the Suspender being done by them who have power to make that Act is in effect an alterationt hereof and this Burgh being poor and penury of persons to Serve it will dissolve the same and discourage all others to Serve if the Suspender be Liberat. The Lords found the Reasons of Suspension relevantâ—â— and found that the Suspender could not be compelled to serve longer then one year at once in the same Office Dow of Arnho contraâ— Campbel of Calder Ianuary 4. 1668. DOw of Aricho having pursued Campbel of Calder as Heir to his Father for payment of a Bond wherein his Father was Cautioner for the Marquess of Argyl the Bond bore but one Witnesse to Calders subscription and George Campbel one of the Witnesses being Examined if he saw him subscribe Deponed negative but that it was Calders hand Writ to the best of his knowledge there was also other writs produced subscribed by Calder to compare the subscriptions The Lords would not sustain the Bond having but one Witnesse insert to Calders subscrsption upon the foresaid Testimony and Adminicles Mr. Iohn Forbes contra Innis Ianuary 1. 1668 MAster John Forbes as Assigney to Margaret Allerdes having obtained Decreet of Removing against Margaret Innis for Removing from the Lands of Savet wherein the said Margaret Allardes is Infeft in Liferent which being suspended It was alleadged first That this pursuâ—e is to the behove of Margaret Allerdes who could not obtain a Removing against the Defender because the Defenders Husband being Infeft by the said Margaret Allardes Husband and Author of the Lands of Savet principally and of the Lands of Govan and others in Warrandice The said Margaret Allardes did consent to the Disposition of the Warrandice-lands by which she obliged her self to do no Deed in the contrair of that Right and is also bound in Warrandice with her Husband ita est her pursuing this Action is a Deed in prejudice of the Right of Warrandice-lands in so far as thereby the Person having Right to the principal Lands upon Eviction recurrs upon the Warrandice-lands and so the Consenters own Deed prejudges the same It was answered that by Deeds contrair to Warrandice were only understood some Right granted by the Disponer or Consenter in prejudice of the Right consented to but no wayes a pursute upon any other Right of the Consenter for it were against Reason and Justice that a Purchaser to make himself secure requiring a Wifes consent to Lands to which she had no Right either Principal or in Warrandice of other Lands that her Consent should prejudge her as to her Liferent lands of which there was no mention and as to her Personal Obligement to Warrand the Lands wherein she was never Infeft it is null and can never oblige her being a Wife The Lords found that this Warrandice did not oblige the Wife and that her Consent did not hinder her to pursue upon her own Liferent albeit ex consequente her pursute excluded one having a posterior Right to her liferent-Liferent-lands who thereupon had recourse to the Warrandice-lands to which she Consented seing she had granted no Right prejudicial to the Right Consented to It was further alleadged that the said Margaret Allardes agreed with the Person having Right to her Liferent-lands principally that she should accept the Warrandice-lands in stead of her Liferent-lands which excambion putting the Right of the Warrandice-lands now in her Person she who consented to the Right thereof can never come in the contrair of her own Consent to prejudge the same It was answered that a Consâ—nt cannot exclude any supervenient Right of the Consenter but only such Rights as the Consenter had the time of the Consent it is true that a Disponer with absolute Warrandice if he acquire a Right it accresces to his Successor but it is not so in a Consenter whose warrandice is not found to be Obligator further then as to the Rights in the Consenters Person at that time Which the Lords Sustained It was further alleadged that the Pursute as to the behove of the Heir of the Disponer of the Lands in question whose Predecessor being bound in absolute Warrandice he can make no use of no Right prejudicial to his Warrandice 2dly Albeit he be not Heir yet he hath behaved himself as Heir and thereby is lyable to fulfil the Defuncts Warrandice and so cannot come against it It was answered that behaving as Heir being a vitious passive Title is not sustainable by way of exception in this case The Lords Sustained the same and found both members of the alleadgeance relevant Margaret Forbes contra 〈…〉 Eodem die MArgaret Forbes having granted a Tack of her liferent-Liferent-lands to 〈…〉 bearing expresly for payment of such a Sum of Money and bearing to endure for 19. years she did receive a Back-bond of that same Date bearing that so soon as the Sum was payed the Tack should become void the Tack coming to a singular Successor she pursues him for Compt and Reckoning and Removing and insists upon the Tenor of the Tack and Back-bond It was alleadged for the Defender that the Back-bond did not militat against him being a singular Successor neither being Registrat nor Intimat to him before his Right in respect the Tack is a real Right and no Obligement or Provision of the Tacks-man can prejudge a singular Successor The Lords Repelled the Defense and Sustained Processe against the Defender in respect of the Tack and Back-bond The old Lady Clerkingtoun contra Clerkingtoun and the young Lady Ianuary 9. 1668. THe old Lady Clerkingtoun being Infeft in an Annualrent of seven Chalders of Victual out of the Mains of Clerkingtoun for thirty six years bygone she pursues a Poinding of the ground It was answered for the Laird and his Mother that the Pursuer having been so long out of Possession cannot make use of a Possessory Judgement but must first declare her Right 2dly The young Lady is also Infeft in an Annualrent and hath been by vertue thereof more then seven years in Possession and so hath the benefit of a Possessory Judgement till her Right be reduced and cannot be Dispossest by the old Ladies posterior Infeftment The Lords Repelled both the Defenses and found that an Annualrent is debitum fundi and is not excluded by Possession of a posterior Right and needs no Declarator and
returns and therefore ordered an other Letter to be written to the Secretary to know the Kings Mind and the Custom of England in that point before answer and ordained the opinion of some Merchants to be taken whether Parkmans Ship Fraught in Norway to Holland and Disloaden there and thence going to France with Ballast not upon the account of the former Fraught but the Owners if it should be accounted one Voyage or two so that the return from France might be accounted the immediat return of the Voyage to Holland In this Processe the Lords by a former Interlocutor had found the taking on of the Men as they were qualified and proven to be no ground of seasure Dowgal Mcferson contra Alexander Wedderburn Eodem die DOwgal Mcferson having Charged Alexander Wedderburn of Kingennie Provost of Dundee for payment of a Sum of Money he Suspends on this Reason that the Sum was payable to Dowgal and his Wise in Liferent and contained a Clause of premonition and Requisition and the Sum to be Consigned in the Hands of the Dean of Gild of Dundee which was Consigned accordingly The Charger answered that he offered to prove by the Suspenders Oath that he took up the Money from the Dean of Gild and therefore he must re-produce the same with the Annualrents thereof since the Consignation It was answered that it being the Chargers fault that the Suspender was put to Consigne because he had not a Discharge granted by his Wife judicially that therefore he could not be lyable for Annualrent in that he uplifted the Soum unlesse it were proven he had made Profit thereof but he offered to Depone that he had all the Money still lying by him and got no Profit of the same and that he ought to have uplifted in regard he was lyable for the hazard of the Consignation The Lords found the Suspender lyable to produce the Money Consigned with the Annualrent since seing he uplifted the same without difference whether he made Profit or not The Baillie of the Regality of Killimure contra Burgh of Killimure Eodem die THe Heretable Baillie of the Regality of Killimure having Conveened and Amerciat a Person in the Burgh they Suspend on this Reason that the Burgh being a Burgh of Regality having its own Magistrats Inhabitants are only lyable to the Jurisdiction It was answered that the Burghs Jurisdiction being granted by the Lord of Regality is only cumulative and not exclusive of the Lord of Regality or his Baillie in the same way as the Jurisdiction of all Vassals is not exclusive of their Superiors Jurisdiction for the Burgh are Vassals Holding of him and therefore est locus preventioni and the first Citation without negligence is preferable Which the Lords found Relevant Earl of Argyle contra George Campbel Ianuary 15. 1668. THe Earl of Argyle pursues George Campbel to Remove from a Tenement of Land in Inerera who alleadged no Processe because the Pursuer produces no Infeftment of this Burgh or Tenement therein The Pursuer answered that he produced his Infeftment of the Barony of Lochow and offered him to prove that this is part and pertinent of the Barony The Defender answered that this Burgh cannot be carried as part and pertinent but requires a special Infeftment first Because by the late Marquess of Argyls Infeftment in anno 1610. produced this Burgh is exprest and not in the Pursuers Infeftment 2dly Because in the Pursuers Infeftment there is exprest particulars of far lesse moment 3dly Because a Burgh of Barony is of that nature that cannot be convoyed without special Infeftment The Pursuer opponed his Infeftment of the Barony of Lochow which is nomen universitatis and comprehends all parts of the Barony although there were none exprest and therefore the expressing of this particular in a former Charter or lesse particulars in this Charter derogat nothing it being in the Pursuers option to expresse none or any he pleases and albeit in an Infeftment of an ordinary Holding without Erection in a Barony Milns Fortalices Salmond Fishings and Burghs of Barony cannot be conveyed under the name of part and pertinent yet they are all carried in baronia without being exprest The Lords Repelled the Defence in respect of the Reply and found that this being a Barony might carry a Burgh of Barony as part and pertinent though not exprest albeit it was exprest in a former Infeftment and lesser Rights expressed in this Infeftment The Defender further alleadged no Processe because the Pursuers Infeftment is qualified and restricted to so much of the Estate as was worth and payed yearly fifteen thousand Pounds and the superplus belongs to the Creditors conform to the Kings Gift likeas the King granted a Commission to clear the Rental and Set out the Lands to the Pursuer and to the Creditors who accordingly did Establish a Rental wherein there is no mention of the Lands of Innerera and therefore they cannot belong to the Pursuer It was answered for the Pursuer that he oppones his Infeftment which is of the whole Estate and whatever Reservation be in Favours of the Creditors it is jus tertij to the Defender It was answered that the Defenders Advocats concurred for a number of the Creditors whom they named and alleadged that they would not suffer the Defender to be Removed seing they only can have Interest to these Lands in question The Pursuer answered that the Creditors Concourse or Interest was not Relevant because they have no Real Right or Infeftment but only a personal Provision that this Pursuer shall dispone and Resigne the superplus of the Estate in their Favours or otherwise pay them eighteen years purchase therefore at his option whensoever they shall insist Via actionis the Earl shall declare his option but they having no Infeftment cannot hinder the Donatar to Remove Parties having no Right which is the Creditors advantage and cannot be stopped by a Few of them likeas the whole Barony of Lochow is Set out by the said Commission to the Pursuer himself conform to their Sentence produced The Lords did also Repel this Defence and found that the Provision in Favours of the Creditors could not stop this Removing Earl of Kinghorn contra the Laird of Vdney Eodem die THe Earl of Kinghorn pursues the Laird of Vdney as representing his Father to Denude himself of a Wodset Right granted by the late Earl to the Defenders Father conform to the Defuncts Missive Letter acknowledging the Receipt of the Sums of the Wodset and obliging himself all written with his own Hand and craved that the Defender might Enter and Infeftâ— himself in the Wodset and Resigne in Favours of the Pursuer that the Lands might be purged thereof and insisted against the Defender first As lawfully Charged to enter Heir who offered to Renunce to be Heir The Pursuer answered he would not suffer him to Renunce because he offered himâ— to prove that he was lucrative Successor by the Disposition of the
third of the Rents of the Lands The Lords Sustained the Infeftment only for a third Mary Dowglasse Lady of Wamphray contra the Laird of Wamphray Ianuary 22. 1668. UMquhil Wamphray having Infeft his Lady in two thousand Merks of Liferent yearly by her Contract of Marriage out of certain Lands therein mentioned and being obliged to pay her as well Infeft as not Infeft and to warrand the Lands to be worth two thousand Merks of Free Rent She pursues this Wamphray for payment who alleadged Deductions of publick Burdens It was answered that an Annualrent was not lyable to publick Burdens for the Act of Parliament 1647. made thereanent was Rescinded and not Revived and this Provision is payable not only really but personally though there had been no Infeftment and that the obligement to make the Land worth two thousand Merks of free Rent could be to no other End but to make the Annualrent free especially the Contract being in anno 1647. after Maintainance was imposed which was the heaviest Burden It was answered that an obligement for payment of an Annualrent relating to no particular Land could not be burdened with the Land or if it did relate to a stock of Money the ordinar Annualrent of the Money behoved to be free but this Annualrent relates to no stock and its first Constitution is out of the Lands mentioned in the Contract so that albeit there had been no Infeftment it must bear proportionably with the Land and albeit the Act of Parliament be Rescinded yet the common ground of Law and Equity and the Custom thereupon remains neither doth the provision to make the Land worth so much of free Rent infer that therefore the Annualrent must be free which would have been so exprest at the Constitution of the Annualrent if it had been so meaned The Lords found this Annualrent lyable for the Assesment notwithstanding the Act of Parliament was Rescinded and all that was alleadged against the same was repelled Iohn Iustice contra Mary Stirling his Mother Ianuary 23. 1668. THere was a Bond granted by Stirling of Coldoch whereby he granted him to have received from Umquhil Iohn Iustice and Mary Stirling his Spouse the Sum of 1300. Merks and obliged him to pay to the said Husband and his Spouse and longest liver of them two and the Heirs gotten between them or their Assigneys which failzying to the Heirs of the last liver the said Mary having survived did uplift the Sum and now Iohn Iustice as Heir of the Marriage to his Father pursues his Mother to make forthcoming the Sum and imploy the same to her in Liferent and to him in Fee It was alleadged for the Defender Absolvitor because by the conception of the Bond she is Feear and so may dispose of the Money at her pleasure The Pursuer answered that the conception of the Bond did no wayes make the Wife Feear but the Husband according to the ordinar Interpretation of Law in Conjunct-fees betwixt Husband and Wife and as to the Clause in relation to the longest liver their Heirs and Assigneys the Fee could not be Constitute thereby otherwise the Fee behoved to be pendent and uncertain and in effect be in no Person so long as they live together but after the Death of either the Fee should then begin to be Constitute in the Surviver which is inconsistent and therefore the Fee behoved to be Constitute by the first words obliging to pay the Sum to the Husband and Wife the longest liver of them two whereby the Husband was Feear and might have disposed thereupon during his Life but without prejudice of his Wifes Liferent there is no doubt but this Sum might have been Arrested for his Debt and it could not be then pretended that ex evenâ—u the Wife by surviving might become the Feear It was answered for the Wife that albeit Conjunct-fees between Man and Wife do ordinarly Constitute the Husband Feear yet there are many Cases in which such Conjunct fees the Wife may be Feear and here the termination being upon the Surviver makes her the Surviver sole Feear although both were Conjunct Feears before and neither of them properly a Liferenter till by the event it did appear who should Survive neither can any such subtilty of the dependence or uncertainty of the Fee render the intention of the Parties ineffectual The Lords found that by the foresaid Clause the Husband was Feear and the Heirs of the Marriage were Heirs of Provision to him and that failzying the Heirs of the Marriage the Wifes Heirs were substitute as Heirs of Tailzie and therefore ordained the Sum to be so imployed and secured that if the Pursuer being the only Heir of the Marriage should Die before he dispose thereupon it should return to the Heirs and Assigneys of the Mother The Lady Wolmet and Dankeith her Spouse contra Major Biggar and Iames Todrig Ianuary 24. 1668. THe Lady Wolmet and Dankeith her Spouse pursues Major Biggar and the Tennents of Wolmet for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for Iames Todrig who being Assigned to an Annualrent due out of the Lands of Wolmet to the old Lady Wolmet by an Infeftment long prior to this Ladies Infeftment upon which Right there was also raised an Inhibition whereupon Todrig as Assigney pursues Reduction of the Pursuers Right and several others and obtained Decreet thereupon and now alleadges that the Lady can have no Mails and Duties because her Right stands Reduced at the Instance of the said Iames Todrig who hath also Appryzed upon his anterior Annualrent The Pursuer answered that the alleadgeance ought to be repelled because the Right of his Annualrent Appryzing and Reduction has been several years in the Person of Major Biggar who has been all that time in Possession of the Lands and therefore by his Intromission Todrigs Appryzing is satisfied within the legal It was answered for Major Biggar albeit the Right was and had been his and he in Possession yet the Appryzing cannot be satisfied thereby unlesse he had Possest by vertue of the Appryzing which cannot be alleadged because he offers him to prove that he Entered and continued in Possession many years before he got this Right by vertue of other Infeftments The Pursuer answered that by the Reduction at Todrigs Instance all Major Biggars Rights stands reduced so that albeit by them he entered in Possession yet he cannot ascribe his Possession to them after they were Reduced It was answered that albeit his Rights were Reduced there was no Removing or Action of Mails and Duties intented against him upon the prevailing Right and therefore his Possession behoved to be ascribed to his prior Possession though Reduced 2dly He having now divers Rights in his Person may ascribe his Possession to any of them he pleases against this Pursuer from whom he derived not his Possession nor the Cause thereof 3dly It was answered that the Pursuer might acquire this Right ad hunc effectum to purge it
Defender offers to prove uses to be done in the like case Which the Lords found relevant albeit the Intimation was not mentioned in the Designation Robert Dobby contra the Lady Stanyhil his mother Eodem die RObert Dobby pursues the Lady Stanyhil his Mother for an Aliment upon this ground that she being provided to an plentiful Liferent being an Annualrent of 2800. Merks yearly there remains nothing to Aliment him the Heir of free Rent being all exhausted by the Liferent and Annualrent of the Debt The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because there is no ground in Law nor Custom for an Aliment to the Heir except the Rents were exhausted by real burdens by Infeftment but here at the Defuncts Death there was only this Liferent which was not the half of the Rent and there was no Infeftment more 2dly Aliments is only competent to Minors the Pursuer is Major and may do for himself The Pursuer answered that it was alike whether the Debts were personal or real for if Apprysings had been used they would all have been real but the Pursuer did prevent the same by Selling a part of the Land at a great Rate which was all applyed to the Creditors and yet the Liferent and Annualrent of the Debt is more then the Rent neither is there any distinction in the Law as to Majors and Minors who were not bred with a Calling and therefore Carberry who was a man of age got an Aliment and Anthonia Brown got an Aliment from her Mother who had an Annualrent in Liferent and the Debts were all personal at her Fathers Death albeit some of them were Appryzed for before she got her Aliment The Defender answered that there was a sufficient Superplus because she offered to take the Lands or find sufficient Tennents therefore for 4300. Merks yearly which was a 1000. Pounds above her Liferent and would exceed the Annualrents of all the Debts The Lords found this last Defence relevant but did not proceed to determinâ— whether an Aliment would be due where the burden was but by personal Debt Alexander Binny contra Margaret Binny Eodem die MArgaret Binny granted a Bond obliging her self to Enter Heir of Line to her Father and to Resign the Lands in Favours of her Self and the Heirs to be Procreat of her own Body which failzying to the Heirs of Alexander Binny her Father and obliged her self to do nothing contrair to that Succession and having Married William Brotherstanes by her Contract of Marriage nomine dotis she Dispones the Lands to him This Margaret was the only Child of Alexander Binnies first Marriage and there was an Inhibition used upon the Bond before her Contract of Marriage Alexander Binny being Son of the second Marriage and Heir of Line to his Father pursues the said Margaret to fulfil the Bond and to Enter and Resign the Land conform thereto and thereupon did obtain Decreet which being now Suspended It was alleadged that this being but an obligement to Constitute a Tailzy could have no effect to hinder her to Dispone to her Husband in name of Tocher which is the most favourable Debt or to Contract any other Debt which the Pursuer who behoved to be her Heir could never quarrel 2dly It was alleadged for the Husband that he could not be Decerned as Husband to consent to this Resignation contrair to his own Contract It was answered that this was not only a Bond of Tailzy but an obligement to do nothing that might change the Succession and so she could not voluntarly Dispone but the Husbands Provision might be Competent enough seing both she has the Liferent and the Children of the Marriage will succeed in the Feeâ— and albeit the Pursuer must be Heir of Tailzy yet obligements in favours of Heirs of Tailzy are alwayes effectual against Heirs of Line in relation to whom the Heir of Tailzy is but as an stranger The Lords repelled the Reason and found the Letters orderly proceeded till the Wife Entered and Resigned with Consent of her Husband conform to the Bond seing there was Inhibition used before the Contract but they did not Decide whether this Clause would have excluded the Debts to be Contracted by the said Margaret or her Heirs upon a just ground without Collusion but found that she could not make a voluntare Disposition to exclude that Succession in respect of the obligement to do nothing in the contrair Eâ—phan Brown contra Thomas Happiland Ianuary 29. 1668. MArjory Brown being first Married to Happiland and thereafter to Robert Brown she Acquired Right to a Tenement of Land to her self in Liferent and Euphan Happiland her Daughter of the first Marriage in Fee which Infeftment is given by the said Thomas Brown her Husband being then Bailly for the time Agnes Happiland Dispones this Tenement to Thomas Brown Heir of the Marriage betwixt the said Umquhil Thomas Brown and Marjory Bruce and for the price thereof gets a Bond relative thereto Thomas Brown being Charged upon this Bond raises Reduction upon Minority and Lesion To the which it was answered there was no Lesion because the Disposition of the Land was an equivalent Onerous Cause It was answered that the Disposition was no Onerous Cause because the Lands Disponed belonged not to the Disponer but to the Suspender himself in so far as they were Conquest by Marjory Bruce while she was Spouse to his Father so that the Money wherewith she Acquired the same belonging to the Husband jure Mariti the Land must also be his unlesse it were condescended and instructed that she had Heretable Sums not falling within the jus Mariti wherewith this Right was Acquired It was duplyed that this was but a â—aked Conjecture and Presumption which is sufficiently taken off by the Husbands giving Seising as Bailly It was answered that this was actus officij which he could not refuse but he knew that the Infeftment in favours of his Wife would accresce to himself The Lords repelled the Reasons of Suspension and Reply in respect of the Answer and Duply and found that the Fee of the Land belonged to the Wife and her Daughter and that there was no Lesion in giving Bond therefore Laird Aitoun contra Iames Fairy Eodem die THe Laird of Aitoun having bought a Horse from Iames Fairy pursues for repetition of the price and for entertainment of the Horse since upon this ground that he offered to prove by the Witnesses at the buying of the Horse that Iames Fairy promised to uphold him but six years old and that he was truly twelve years old The question was whether this was only probable by Oath or Witnesses But the Lords perceiving an anterior question how soon the Horse was offered back by the Pursuer they ordained him to condescend that very shortly thereafter he offered the Horse back otherwise they would not sustain the Processe John Papla contra the Magistrats of Edinburgh Ianuary 31. 1668. JOhn Papla pursues the present Magistrats of Edinburgh for
payment of a Debt due to him by a Person Incarcerat in their Tolbooth who escaped The Defenders alleadged no Processe till the Magistrats who then were especially Bailly Boyd by whose Warrand the Rebel came out be called 2dly The present Magistrats cannot be lyable Personally having done no Fault neither can they be lyable as representing the Burgh at least but subsidiarie after the Magistrats who then were in culpa were Discussed now after six or seven years time The Pursuer answered that the Prison being the Prison of the Burgh the Burgh was lyable principaliter and if only the Magistrat doing the Fault were lyable the Creditor might oftimes loose his Debt these being oftimes of no Fortune or sit to Govern and the Town who Choiseth them is answerable for them neither is the Pursuer obliged to know who were Baillies at that time or who did the fault and so is not bound to Cite them The Lords Repelled the Defences and found the present Magistrats as representing the Town lyable but prejudice to them to Cite them who did the Fault Robert Ker contra Henry Ker February 5. 1668. RObert Ker of Graden having granted Bond to Robert Ker his Son for 3000. Merks of borrowed Money and 3000. Merks of Portion for which Sum he did Infeft him in an Annualrent of 240. Pound yearly Suspending the Payment of the one half of the Annualrent till his Death whereupon Robert pursues a Poinding of the Ground It was alleadged for Henry Ker the eldest Son who stands now Infeft in the Lands Absolvitor because he stands Infeft in the Lands before this Infeftment of Annualrent being but base took effect by Possession The Pursuer answered first That the Defenders Infeftment being posterior and granted to the appearand Heir without a Cause Onerous it is perceptio Haereditatis and if the Father were Dead it would make the Defender lyable as Heir and therefore now he cannot make use thereof in prejudice of the Pursuer 2dly The Pursuer offered to prove that his Annualrent was cled with Possession before the Defenders Infeftment in so far as he Received the half of the Annualâ—ent which is sufficient to validat the Infeftment for the whole seing there are not two Annualrents but one for the whole Sum and seing the 〈◊〉 could do no more the one half of the Annualrent being Suspended till his Fathers Death The Lords found this second Reply relevant and found the Possession of the half was sufficient to validat the Possession for the whole but superceded to give answer to the former Reply till the conclusion of the Cause not being clear that the Defense upon the Defenders Inseftment could be taken away summarly though he was appearand Heir without Reduction upon the Act of Parliament 1621. Mr. George Iohnstoun contra Sir Charles Erskin February 6. 1668. THe Lands of Knockâ—â—â— being part of the Lands of Houdon did belong to Umquhil Richard Irwing Umquhile Mr. Iohn Alexander Minister having Charged Robert Irwing to enter Heir in special to the said Richard his Grand-sir in these Lands he did Appryze the same from Robert as specially Charged to enter Heir but Robert died before he was Infeft or Charged the Superior Sir Charles Erskine hath Appryzed from Mr. Iohn Alexander all Right competent to him in these Lands and thereby having Right to Mr. Iohn Alexanders Appryzing he is Infeft thereupon After Robert Irwings Decease his Sisters served themselves Heir to Richard their Grand-sir and are Infeft do Dispone to Mr. George Iohnstoun who is also Inseft Mr. George pursues for Mails and Duties in the Name of Irwings his Authors Compearance is made for Sir Charles Erskine who alleadged Absolvitor First Because he hath been seven years in Possession of the Lands in question by vertue of Mr. Iohn Alexanders Appryzing and his own and so is tulus exceptione in judicio possessâ—rio and cannot be quarrelled till his Right be Reduced 2dly He is potior jure and his Right must exclude the Pursuers because he having Right to Mr. Iohn Alexanders Appryzing which was Deduced against Robert Irwing as specially Charged to enter Heir so Richard as to him is in as good case as Robert had been actually Entered and Infeft by the Act of Parliament declaring that when Parties are Charged to enter Heir and lyes out sicklike Processe and Execution shall be against them as they were actually Entered likeas the Tenor of the special Charge introduced by Custom to perfect the foresaid Act of Parliament bears expresly that the Person Charged shall enter specially and obtain himself Infeft with Certification that the user of the Charge shall have the like Execution against him as if he were Entered and Infeft and therefore Mr. Iohn Alexanders Appryzing against Robert Iâ—wing so Charged was as effectual to him as if Robert had been actually Infeft in which case there is no question but the Appryzer might obtain himself Infeft upon the Appryzing after the Death of him against whom he Appryzed and that summarly without new Processe and there is no difference whether the Superior were Charged during the Life of the Debtor or not The Pursuer answered to the first that no Party can claim the benefit of a Possessory judgement unlesse he have a real Right by Infeftment at least by Tack but a naked Appryzing thoug it may carry Mails and Duties as a naked Assigation and is valide against the Debtor or his Heir â—et in it self it is an incompleat Right and not become real It was answered that the Appryzing alone was sufficient as was lately found in the Case of Mr. Rodger Hog against the Tennent of Wauchtoun The Lords repelled the first Defense and found there was no grond for a Possessory judgement here there was neither Infeftment nor Charge upon the Appryzing The Pursuer answered to the second Defense that it was not relevant to exclude him because Richard Irving having Dyed last vest and seised in the Lands and Robert Irving never having been Inâ—eft the Pursuers Roberts Sisters who were Heirs appearand buth to Richard their Grand-sir and Robert their Brother could not possibly obtain themselves Infeft as Heirs to their Brother becuse the Inquest could not find that Robert Dyed last vest and seised as of Fee but Richard and any Appryzing against Robert who was never Infeft evanished seing no Infeftment was obtained upon the Appryzing nor no Charge used against the Supperior during Roberts Life so that the Appryzer ought to have Charged de novo these Pursuers to Enter Heir to Richard and ought to have Appryzed from them as lawfully Chaged and to have obtained Infeftment upon the Appryzing in their Life and as the Sisters would exclude the imperfect Diligence against the Brother so much more may Mr. George Iohnstoun who is their singular Successor It was duplyed by the Defender that Mr. George Iohnstoun albeit he be singular Successor yet he is Infeft after Sir Charles Erskin and therefore the question now is only betwixt
he refused without an equal division and several of the Witnesses having Deponed that that difference was referred to the Owners without dissolving the consortship Mastertoun himself having also Deponed that in contemplation of the consortship Coningsbies Men waâ— put Aboard of him and the Prize and the Witnesses having variously Deponed anent the distance when the first Prize streiked Sail and was taken The Lords found a consortship sufficiently proven and that there was a concourse as to the first Prize and therefore found Coningsby to have a Right to a share which they found to be the equal share seing Mastertoun was most instrumental and did actually seize upon both Prizes The Minister of Cockburns-path contra his Parochiners Eodem die THe Minister of Cockburns-path having obtained a Designation of a Horse and two Kines Grasse conform to the Act of Parliament 1661. pursues a Declarator of his Right thereby It was alleadged Absolvitor because the Designation was null in respect it was by the Bishops Warrand direct to three Ministers Nominatim and it was performed only by two the third not having come and a Commission to the three must be understood joyntly and not to empower any two of them unlesse it had been exprest likeas the Act of Parliament anent the Grasse requires the Designation of three Ministers The Pursuer answered that by the Act of Parliament 1661. the Designation of Grasse is appointed to be according to the old standing Acts anent Manses and Gleibs which do not require three Ministers that number being only required by the Act of Parliament 1649. which is Rescinded and not revived as to that point and seing three Ministers are not necesâ—ar but that two are sufficient the Designation done by two is sufficient The Lords Sustained the Designation unlesse the Defender shew weighty Reasons of prejudice upon the matter Sir John Weyms contra the Laird of Touchon February 8. 1668. SIr Iohn Weyms having a Commission from the Parliament to lift the Maintainance when he was General Commissar Charges the Laird of Touchon for his Lands who Suspended on this Reason that by that Act and Commission singular Successors are excepted The Pursuer answered that the Act excepteth singular Successors who Bought the Lands but the Suspender is appearand Heir and Bought in Appryzings for small Sums and as Wodsetters are not freed as singular Successors nor Appryzers within the legal so neither can the Suspender for albeit the legal as to the Appryzer be expired yet the Act of Parliament between Debtor and Creditor makes all Apprizings Bought in by appearand Heirs Redeemable from them on payment of the Sums they Bought them in for within ten years after they Bought them and therefore as to Touchon who is apperand Heir he is in the same case with an Appryzer within the legal Which the Lords found relevant and Decerned against Touchon Andrew Greirson contra Patrick Mcilroy Messenger February 13. 1668. ANdrew Greirson having employed Patrick Mcilroy Messenger to use Inhibition and Arrestment against Sir Iames Mcdougal of Garthland and having failed to make use thereof in time before he Disponed did pursue him and Houstoun of Cutreoch his Cautioner before the Lord Lyon whereupon the said Patrick and his Cautioner were Decerned to make payment of 500 Merks of Penalty and of the Damnage and Interest sustained by the Pursuer to the value of the Sums whereupon the Inhibition and Arrestment should have been used The Messenger and his Cautioner raises Suspension and Reduction and insists upon this Reason that the Decreet is null as a non suo judice because albeit the Lyon be Authorized by Act of Parliament 1587. cap. 46. to take Caution for Messengers Discharge of their Office and upon default may Summond Messengers and their Cautioners and may Deprive the Messengers and Decern them and their Cautioners in the pains and penalty for which they became Cautioners yet the Lyon is not warranted thereby to Determine the Damnage of Parties through Default of Messengers which may be of the greatest Moment and Intricacy and would be of dangerous consequence to give the Lyon such Jurisdiction over all the Kingdom The Charger answered that the Messenger was unquestionably lyable to the Lyons Juridiction and that both he and the Cautioner had made themselves lyable thereto by Enacting themselves in the Lyons Books â—nd granting Bond Registerable therein and it would be great inconvenience to pursue Messengers before the Lyon only for Deprivation and Penalty and have need of another Process for Damnage and Interest and that the Lyon has been accustomed to Decern Cautioners so before The Lords found the Reason of Reduction relevant and turned the Decreet into a Lybel but Sustained the Decreet as to the Penalty of 500. Merks in which the Messenger was Enacted but nâ—t for the Damnage and Interest neâ—â—her against the Messenger nor Cautioner William Borthwick contra Lord Borthwick February 14. 1668. WIlliam Borthwick having Charged the Lord Borthwick for payment of a Sum of Money he Suspends and alleadges that William is Debtor to him in an equivalent Sum for the price of the Lands of Halâ—eriot Sold by my Lord to the Charger conform to a Minut produced The Charger answered that the Reason was not relevant unlâ—sse the Suspender would extend and perfect the Minut which my Lord refuses especially and particularly to Subscribe a Disposition of the Lands with common Pasturage in Borthwick Moor. The Suspender answered that he was most willing to extend the Minut but would not insert that Clause because the Minut could not carry nor import the same bearing only a Disposition of the Lands with Parts Pendicles and Pertinents thereof which he was content should be insert in the extended Disposition and it was only proper after the Infeftment was perfected that the Charger should make use of it so far as it could reach which he was content should be reserved as accords 2dly If he were obliged to Dispute the effect of it it could not extend to Pasturage in the Moor of Borthwickâ— first Because a special servitude of a Pasturage in such a Moor requires an express Infeftment and cannot be carried under the name of Pendicles Parts or Pertinents albeit the Moor were contiguous and the common Moor of a Barony but 2dly This Moor lyes discontiguous from the Lands of Halheriot and my Lords Lands lyes betwixt and does not belong to the whole Barony but to some of the Tennents of it only The Charger answered that this being a Minut behâ—ved to be extended in ample form expressing all Rights particularly that the Right de jure could carry and there was no Reason to make him accept of Lands with a Plea and de jure Pendicles and Pertinents do well extend to common Pasturage when the said Pasturage is so Possessed and it cannot be contraverted but the Heretors and Possessors of Halheriot have been in undoubted Possession of common Pasturage in this Moor and that the Rent payable therefore is
upon consideration of the Pasturage without which it could neither give the Rent it payes nor the Price so that when my Lord Dispones the Lands with the Pertinents and at the time of the Disposition this Pasturage is unquestionably Possest as a Pertinent of the Land the extended Charter and Disposition ought in all Reason to comprehend it expresly neither is there any difference whether the Pasturage be of a Moor contiguous or belonging to the whole Barony seing it cannot be Contraverted but it was Possest as Pertinent of this Room the time of the Bargain and to clear that it was so Possest the Charger produced a Wodset granted by the Lord Borthwick to himself of the same Room bearing expresly Pasturage in the common Moor of Borthwick The Suspender answered that the Wodset made against the Charger in respect this Clause being express in the Wodset he had not put it in the Minut which as jus nobilius absorbed the Wodset and cannot be looked upon as a Discharge of the Reversion only because my Lord was Superior by the Wodset and by the Minut he is to Resign likeas in the minut there is a Disposition of the Teinds which is not in the Wodset The Lords found that the Minut ought to be extended bearing expresly the common Pasturage in the Moor of Borthwick in respect the same was a Pertinent of the Lands Sold the time of the Bargain and was not excepted Sir George Mckenzy contra Iohn Fairholm Eodem die SIr George Mckenzie insisted in the Reduction of the Bond Subscribed by him as Cautioner for his Father in his Minority It was alleadged for Iohn Fairholm that he could not Reduce upon Minority because he had Homologat the Bonds after his Majority in so far as he had accepted Discharges of the Annualrent bearing Deduction of the Bond by his Father as Principal and him as Cautioner and Discharging them both which Discharges Sir George himself did Receive from Iohn Fairholm and payed the Money Sir George answered that the Discharges do not bear that he payed the Money but bears that the same was payed by the Principal Debtor and his Receiving of a Discharge not having payed cannot import his Homologation or acknowledgement of the Bond for to prevent question and trouble one may take Discharge of what he denyes to be Due and the Bond being then standing Unreduced he may well accept a Discharge not knowing the event of the relevancy or probation of his Minority The Lords Repelled the Defense and found that the Discharges imported no Homologation unlesse it were instructed that Sir George out of his own Money payed the Annualrent The Laird of Haining contra the Town of Selkirk February 15. 1668. THere being mutual Pursuits betwixt the Town of Selkirk and the Laird of Haining the Town pursuing a Declarator of the Right of Property of the Commonty of Selkirk and Haining pursuing a Declarator of his Right of Pasturage in the said Commonty by vertue of his Infeftments of the Lands of Haining which Lands are a part of the Kings Property of the Barony of Selkirk and that this Common is the Commonty of the said Barony Possest by all the adjacent Fewars of the Barony and whereof they have been in immemorial Possession The Lords did before answer ordain both Parties to produce all Rights Writs or Evidents they would make use of in the Cause and also to adduce Witnesses hinc inde of both their Possessions and interrupting others Haining produced a Charter by the King in anno 1505. of the Lands of Haining being a part of the Kings Property bearing cum partibus et pertinentibus cum pascuis et pasturis but not bearing in communi pastura or cum communiis generally or particularly in the Common of Selkirk he did also produce posterior Charters of the same Land bearing cum communi pastura and did adduce several Witnesses proving 40. years continual Possession but some of his Witnesses proved Interruptions by the Town of Selkirk's cutting of Divots cast by him and his Predecessors upon the Moor. The Town of Selkirk produced their Charter of the Burgh posterior to Hainings first Charter bearing that their Ancient Evidents were burnt by the English and therefore the King gives them the Priviledge of the Burgh of Selkirk with the Burgage Lands thereof cum communiis ad dictum Burgum spectantibus which the King confirms by a posterior Charter giving the Town warrand to Ryve out 1000. Aikers of Land of the Common they did also produce several Instruments of interruption not only by cutting of the Fail and Divots cast by Haining or his Tennents but by turning their Cattel off the Moor as proper to themselves and turning off all the Heretors Cattel they found thereupon and by yearly Riding about the whole Marches of the Moor. They did also produce a Decreet at the Towns Instance against the Tennents of Haining Decerning them to Defist and Cease from the Moor in which Decreet Hainings Predecessor was Provost of Selkirk and is Pursuer of the Cause they also produced two Missives Written by Umquhil Haining acknowledging that the Town had cut his Divots Casten upon the Head Room and making apollogy for Casting of the same denying it to be by his Warrand or Knowledge they did also produce two Acts of the Town Court bearing Haining to have desired liberty to draw Stones off the Common to Build a Park Dike and to Cast some Divots for his Tennents Houses they did also adduce several Witnesses proving their continual and uninterrupted Possession of the Moor this fourty years and more which proved also frequent interruptions against Haining especially by cutting of Divots and also by turning off his Cattel upon which probation it was alleadged for the Town that they had instructed sufficient Right to the Property of this Moor and that they had debarred the Laird of Haining and his Tennents therefrom whenever they heard they came upon the same It was answered for Haining that he did not deny the Town of Selkirks Right of Pasturage in the Moor but did deny they had Right of Property therein but that the property did yet remain in the King as a part of the Barony of Selkirk being of the Kings annexed Property but that the said Property as to the Moor was now burdened with a Common Pasturage belonging to the Town of Selkirk and also belonging to the Laird of Haining and the other Feuars of the Barony of Selkirk and therefore alleadged that his Charter in the year of God 1507. being long before any Charter granted by the King to the Town did Feu to his Predecessors the Lands of Haining cum pertinentibus cum pascuis pasturis and this Common being the Commonty of the Barony of Selkirk the King Feuing a part of the Barony cum pertinentibus et pascuis did certainly thereby grant all that belonged to these Lands as Pertinent thereof as it was the time of the Feu being then Possessed by the
Kings Farmorers but that they had Common Pasturage in the Moor of Selkirk is not only presumed because it is the Common of the whole Barony and Possest by all the adjacent Feuars thereof but also by their continual Possession since for Possession 40. years is sufficient to prove all bygone Possession since the Right capable of that Possession it being impossible to adduce Witnesses to prove Possession eight score years since otherways and therefore as in the Case of the Lord Borthwick and William Borthwick Decided the 14th of this Instant The Lord Borthwicks Minut Disponing the Lands cum pertinentibus without any word of Pasturage was found to carry Common Pasturage in the Moor of Borthwick as being a Pertinent of the Lands Disponed the time of the Minut and not Reserved much more the King Disponing the Lands of Haining not only cum pertnenâ—tibus but cum pascuis et pasturis did carry to Haining the Right of Common Pasturage in the Common of Selkirk being then the Commonty of the Barony so that any Interruptions done since cannot take away the Right of Common Pasturage once constitute by the King and albeit the King had unquestionably granted the Right of Property to the Town thereafter yet that could not prejudge the Common Pasturage of another Constitute before For if Haining claimed this Common Pasturage only by Possession and Prescription Interruptions might be Sustained to exclude the famine but he claimes it chiefly by vertue of his Infeftment as having Right thereto the first day he was Infeft so that his Possession since albeit troubled by this Commonalty yet preserves his Right that the Town cannot alleadge a total and compleat Possession excluding him and thereby taking away his Right by Prescription in their Favour and as to the Towns Charter cum communiis it contains nothing per expressum of this Moor or Pasturage therein nor gives any thing de novo but bears cum communiis adâ—urgum spectantibus which the King might have given though there had not been a Commonty within 40. Miles in the same manner as the common Clauses in all Charters bearing Coal and Chalk Cuningars or Ducats whether there be any or not and the most the Town can pretend by their Charter is that they being a Burgh Erected within the Barony of Selkirk cum communiis may therefore claim Pasturage with the rest of the Feuars of the Barony but cannot exclude them as to the Liberty granted by the King to Ryve out a 1000. Aikers it clearly evinceth that they had not the Property before neither did that take any effect nor could it because the common Pasturage constitute to the Feuars before would have hindered any posterior power of Tillage As to the Decreet against the Tennents of Haining it is in absence the Heretor for the time not being callâ—d and albeit it bears Hainings Predecessor as Provost to be present that will neither import his Consent nor Knowledge Countrey Gentlemen being then ordinarly Provosts of Towns who lived not with them their Affairs at Law were Managed by their Town Clerk and Baillies though the Provosts Name behoved to be insert neither did this Decreet take effect for Hainings Tennents never ceased to pasture as to the Letters they do only acknowledge the towns Head Rooms because in great Commonties it is ordinar for several proprietars to have peculiar Places most convenient for them where they law their Cattel and casts Fail and Divot and which doth sufficiently consist with the Commonty as for the Acts of Court they can prove nothing against Haining The Lords found that the Town of Selkirk had undoubted Right of Pâ—sturage Fewel Fail and Divot in this Commonty and that they had immemorial Possession thereof without any interruption and found that Haining had no Right by vertue of Possession and Prescription but found that by vertue of his Charter anterior to the Towns Right he had Right to common Pasturage in this Moor it being the Common Moor of the Barony but seing he did not sufficiently prove Possession of Fail and Divot but was therein continually interrupted much more then in the Pasturage and that nothing appeared that in the time of his Original Right the Feuars had priviledge of Fail and Divot Therefore the Lords found that he had no Right thereto albeit common Pasturage doth ordinarly carry therewith Fail and Divot yet they found that it was a several Servitude separable therefrom either by Consent or Custom and found that the Town should enjoy their Head Rooms excluding Haining therefrom Iames Colquhoun contra Watson Eodem die JAmes Colquhoun Pipe-maker in Glasgow having gotten a tollerance from George Blair Heretor of Lunloch to dig Clay for Pipes there for certain years excluding all others there being an anterior Tack of the Lands the Tennents grants licence to one Watson for digging Clay there for Pipes the Heretor also concurrs with Watson Colquhoun pursues Watson for Intrusion and to desist from medling with any Clay there and for paying the value of what he had medled with Watson alleadged Absolvitor First Because the licence granted to the Pursuer being exclusive of all others was contra bonum publicum 2dly The licence was posterior to the Tennents Tack who thereby had Right to the whole profits of the Ground and accordingly gave tollerance to the Defender 3dly The Heretor having granted the Tack could not in prejudice thereof give power to the Pursuer to break the arable Ground and there being much more Clay nor the Pursuer could make use of ought to give power to the Defender to make use thereof for that effect The Pursuer answered that a total and negative licence was legal as well as any other total and sole Right and it was free to the Heretor to grant the same but could do no posterior Deed contrair thereto because he had bound up his own hands thereby â— and as to the Tack whether posterior or anterior to the licence it can only give Right to the Tennent uli fruiut colonus to Manure the Ground and reap the profits thereof but cannot give him Right to any Mineral under the superfice whether Coal Lime-stone Clay c. which is reserved to the Heretor and he may make use thereof which necessarly imports that he may break up the Ground to come at it or else the Right were not reserved to him and he is most willing to satisfie the Tennents damnage by opening the Ground neither needs any reservation thereof be exprest because it s implyed in the nature of the Tack which gives only power of the Superfice Tillage Pasturage and Profits thereof but the Tennent has no power to take away part of the Ground or to give licence to any other so to do The Lords Repelled the Defenses and found the Pursuer had the only Right by the Heretors exclusive licence and that the Tennent by his Tack had no Right to this Clay and that albeit his Tack was prior to the
Pursuers licence he could give licence to no other Mr. Iohn Forbes contra Innes February 20. 1668. MAster Iohn Forbes insisted in the Cause against Margaret Innes mentioned in the 8th of Ianuary last for Mails and Duties as Assigney by Margaret Allardice who being Infeft in Liferent in principal Lands and Warrandice Lands and the principal Lands being evicted she and the Pursuer her Assigney returns upon the Warrandice Lands wherein Margaret Innes is Infeft in Liferent by her Husband who stood publickly Infeft therein upon the Resignation of Margaret Allerdices Husband and who alleadged Absolvitor because the Defender and her Husband being Infeft and in Possession these 20. years past have the benefit of a Possessory judgement and so cannot be put from her Possession till her Right be Reduced The Pursuer answered that the benefit of a Possessory judgement can take no place against a pursuit upon an Infeftment in Warrandice unlesse the Possession had been seven or more years after the Eviction for before the Eviction there could be no Pursuit upon the Infeftment of Warrandice in the same case as an Infeftment of Liferent is not excluded by a Possession during the Husbands Lifetime when the Wife could not pursue The Defender answered that the Pursuer ought in a petitory judgement to have declared the Distresse before he could put the Defender from her Possession The Pursuer answered there was no Declarator required but only the Eviction which gives immediat recourse upon the Warrandice Lands The Lords repelled the Defense and found no need of a Declarator or Reduction to attain recourse and that a Possessory judgement was not compent upon any Possession anterior to the Eviction The Defender further alleadged Absolvitor because this pursuit is founded upon Margaret Allardice her Infeftment in Warrandice which is base holden of her Husband and the Defender and her Husbands Infeftment are publick holden of the Superior and albeit posterior to the Infeftment of Warrandice yet is preferable the Infeftment of Warrandice being base never cled with Possession The Pursuer answered that Infeftments in the Warrandice are sufficiently validat by Possession of the principal Lands especially now when all Seisings must be Registrat as was lately found in the Case of Iohn Scot and the said Margaret Allardice has not only been in Possession of the principal Lands since her Husbands Death but her Husband was in full Possession of both which is more then sufficient The Pursuer answered that in Scots Case this was singular that in Iohn Scots Case both the Principal and Warrandice Lands were granted in an Infeftment and so the Person Infeft being in Possession of the principal Lands his Infeftment could not be partly publick and partly privat but this Infeftment in Warrandice is ex intervallo The Lords repelled also the Defence and found the Infeftment in Warrandice though base sufficient the Person Infeft being in Possession of the principal Lands albeit the Infeftment in the Warrandice Lands was ex intervallo Farquhar of Tonley contra Gordoun Eodem die FArquhar of Tonley pursues Reduction of a Bond granted by him upon Minority and Lesion It was alleadged Absolvitor because he had Homologat the Bond in so far as he being Cautioner in the Bond he had pursued releif and obtained Decreet for releif which did necessarly import that he acknowledged himself bound else he could not have craved releif The Pursuer answered that seing the Bond stood unreduced at that time he might lawfully pursue the principal Debitor to releive him against which he could have no objection for the benefit of Reduction upon Minority is peculiar to the Minor himself and no other can make use of it and in his pursuit of releif he might very well have declared that in case he obtained not releif against the principal Debitor he might free himself by Reduction against the Creditor so that Homologation being a tacite consent can never be presumed where the Deed done might have another intent and his pursuit for relief was not to bind himself but to louse himself he did also alleadge that the pursuit of releif was at his Fathers instance and his own promiscuously and after the Decreet was thereupon extracted he gave it in again and took a new Extract which bears not a releif for him of this Debt The Lords found the Pursuit and Decreet of releif to be no Homologation to exclude this Reduction The Defender then offered him to prove that the Pursuer was Major when he Subscribed so that the Lybel and Defence being contrary and great advantage arising to him who had the benefit of Probation by Highland Witnesses The Lords resolved to prefer neither to probation but before answer ordained to adduce such Evidents and Adminicles as they would use to prove the Pursuers age that they might prefer the strongest and clearest Probation Sir Laurence Scot of Clerkingtoun contra the Lady Clerkingtoun February 21. 1668. SIr Laurence Scot of Clerkingtoun having obtained himself to be Executor surrogat ad omissa et male appreciata of his Fathers Testament and having obtained licence to pursue pursues the Lady Clerkingtoun as principal Executrix who alleadged no Processe upon the licence because licences are only competent to Executors principal before there be any Confirmation after which the Commissars neither use nor may give licence ad omissa as was found the 14. of December 1621. Halliday contra observed by Dury The Pursuer answered that there was more reason to sustain licences after the principal Confirmation when the best of the Inventar was given up and what remained was uncertain and for the practique the Lords had since allowed licences after Confirmation The Lords repelled the Defense and Sustained the Processe upon the licence Bartholomew Parkman contra Captain Allan Eodem die CAptain Allan a Privateer having taken Bartholomew Parkman an Swede he obtained him to be Declared Pryze by the Admiral upon this ground mainly that he had carried Tar being Counterband Goods from Norway to Holland then in Enmity with the King and from thence carried ballast to France and returning with a Loadning of Salt was taken because by the Captains Commission from the Admiral he was warranted to to take Ships carrying Counterband Goods or to take the saids Ships in their immediat return after they have carried Counterband Goods to the Kings Enemies which hath always been the Custom of Scotland as appears by Commissions granted by the Admiral Anno 1627. of the same Tenor and by a Decreet of the Admiral at that time finding the Lybel relevant bearing that a Ship was taken in her return having taken in Counterband to the Enemy in that Voyage which is founded upon evident reason because that while Ships are going towards the Enemy it is but an intention of Delinquence against the King and assisting his Enemies but when they have actually gone in and sold the Counterband it is delictum Commissum and though it might infer a quarrel against the Delinquent
when ever he could be found yet the Law of Nations hath for the freedom of Trade abridged it to the immediat return of the same Voyage because quarrels would be multiplied upon pretence of any former Voyage Parkman having raised Reduction of the Admirals Decreet insists on these grounds First That by the Kings proclamation Denuncing the War it is evident that the King gives only Command to seise upon Ships having in them Enemies Goods or Counterband Goods without any mention of seising them in their return which would destroy the freedom of all Trade for upon that pretence every Ship that were met with at Sea might be brought up and therefore the Kings Proclamation did justly and humanly Warrand the seisure of Ships only when the Enemies Goods or Counterband Goods is found Aboard in which case for most part the cause of seisure is sensible to the Eye wherewith there was also produced a Testificat from Judge Ienkins Judge of the Admirality Court of England by the Kings Warrand upon the Petition of the Kings Resident of Sweden wherein he having advised with the Kings Advocat general who dayly attended that Court declareth that none of them remembers that in this War any Neuter were made Pryze in their return with the product of Enemies Goods and that he knew no Law nor Custom for the same 2dly There was produced the Treaties betwixt the King and the Crown of Sweden bearing that the Swedes should be made Pryze carrying Enemies Goods or Counterband Goods si deprehendantur It was also answered to the Reasons of Adjudication that the Stile of a Commission not granted by the King immediatly but by the Admiral could be no ground of Adjudication of Friends and Allies who were not obliged to know the same or what was the Tenor of the Admiral of Scotlands Commissions but were only obliged to take notice of the Law and Custom of Nations and of the Kings Proclamations of War and as to the Admirals Commission and Decreet thereupon in Anno 1627. It could not evidence the Custom of Scotland being but a Decreet in absence and upon a Lybel bearing not only the carrying of Counterband before in that Voyage but having actually Aboard Enemies Goods the time of the seisure which Lybel is found relevant by the Admiral but it appears not that he would have found it relevant alone upon the product of Counterband much lesse that that was proven and in Decreets in absence the Lords themselves suffers Decreets to pass with far less consideration and ofttimes of course so that it were strange to fortifie the Admirals Decreets that are now quarrelled after full hearing upon an Decreet of the Admirals in absence It was answered for Captain Allan that the Pursuer could not enjoy the benefit of the Swedish Treaty because he had transgrest the Treaty and served the Kings Enemies and as to the Testificat of Judge Ienkins or Custom of England this being a distinct Kingdom is not Ruled by the Custom of England and Judge Ienkins Testificat was impetrat by the Pursuer and not upon any Commission or proposal made by the Lords and the case therein mentioned is only anent the seisures in the return with the product of Enemies Goods and says only that they do not remember that ever the Case was decided there but says not that the Courts of Admirality had found that upon any Plea or Dispute that Ships could not be taken unless they had Aboard Counterband or Enemies Goods The Lords having formerly in this Cause desired to know the Kings Pleasure whether by the Swedish Treaty which maketh far fewer things Counterband then what are such by the Law of Nations and by which Tar is not Counterband the Swedes might Loaden Tar in Norway not being their own Growth and carry it to the Kings Enemies The King returned answer negative in which the Lords acquiesced and as to the present Dispute The Lords did not find the grounds alleadged for the Privatâ—er relevant or sufficient to instruct the Custom of Scotland or the Rule of the War and had litle respect to Judge Ienkins Testimony and therefore were not clear to approve the Adjudication but before answer did declare that the Lords by their own Commission would inquire in the Custom of Nations concerning the return of Counterband or Enemies Goods both by Commissions direct to England and other places Captain Strachan contra Morison February 22. 1668. CAptain Srachan pursues the Heirs of Umquhile George Morison before the Admiral for a Ship and Goods mâ—dâ—ed with wrongously by George and others in Anno 1638. They raise Reduction on this Reason that there was no Probation but one Witness and Captain Strachans Oath taken in supplement The Lords having considered the Probation in relation to the Ship found it sufficiently proven that Captain Strachan was an Owner of an eight part of the Sâ—â—p but found that the value thereof was not proven and seing Morison and the other partners sold the Ship after they had long made use of her without Strachans consent they found that Strachans Oath in litem ought to be taken as to the value and would not put him to prove the same after so long time and for the profits thereof ordained him Annualrent since he was dispossest This question arose to the Lords whether there being three Partners beside Captain Strachan who all medled whether Morison should be lyable in solidum or only for his third part in which the Lords found the Ship being corpus indivisibile and all the Partners in a Society and that Captain Strachan being absent in the Kings Service from the time of their medling to the Kings return and the other Parties in the mean time becoming insolvent The Lords found George Morison lyable in solidum for the eight part of the Ship but as to the Wines and others that were in the Ship whereanent there was no co-partinery proven and but one Witness of George Morisons Intromission and Captain Srachans own Oath in supplement The Lords found the same not sufficient and yet allowed Captain Strachan in fortification of the Decreet to adduce further probation Gavin Cochran contra 〈…〉 Eodem die GAvin Cochran as Donator to the Recognition of certain Land holden Waird of my Lord Cochran pursues the Vassal as having Alienat the Major part and also the Subvassal to hear and see it found and declared that the Lands had Recognosced by the Alienation made by the Vassal so the Subvassal It was alleadged for the Subvassal that he was Minor and therefore During his Minority non tenetur placitari super haereditate paterna It was answered that that holds only in Disputing the Minors Rights but is not sufficient against the Obligation or the Delinquence of the Defunct 2dly The Party principally called in this Process is the Vassal who is Major and whose Fee falls to the Superior by his Alieanation and the Subvassals Right falls only in consequence so that no priviledge of
Lords found the alleadgeance relevant that at Land and about the time of their Testimony the Witnesses were so threatned but would not sustain that they were so threatned at Sea when they were taken unlesse it were alleadged that at Sea they were forced to Swear or Depoâ—e upon Oath whereupon it might have been presumed that by Reason thereof they would adhere to it when they came to Land George Graham contra Grissel Tours and the Laird of Kilhead her Husband February 26. 1668. GEorge Graham having obtained a Decreet before the Baillie against Grissel Tours and her Husband for Furnishing to her first Husbands Funerals her Husband Suspends and raises Reduction on these Reasons that albeit he stayed sometimes in a Chamber in Edinburgh he was not in this Jurisdiction and that his Wifes Oath could infer no burden upon him and that the Baillies did unwarrantably hold him as Confest for not giving his Oath of Calumny whether he had reason to distrust his Wifes Oath The Lords found this unwarrantable and therefore Reduced the Decreet as to the Husband but Decerned against the Wife ad hunc effectum to affect her if she survive or her Executors after her Death or otherwise to affect any other Goods she had excepted from her Husbands jus mariti The Laird of Milntoun contra the Lady of Milntoun Eodem die THe Lady Milntoun having obtained Decreet of Divorce against Iohn Maxwel her Husband the Laird of Milntoun having Right from her Husband to her Liferent which Right fell by the Divorce pursued a Reduction of the Decreet of Divorce wherein the Witnesses being Examined and Re-examined The Lords adheres to the Decreet of Divorce and Assoilzies from the Reduction at which time the Lords having allowed him to insist as in Reprobators he now pursues the same for Convelling the Testimonies of the Witnesses because they were corrupted and suborned both by promises and getting of good Deed and being prompted how to swear as their Oath on Re-examination bears And because their Oath is not only suspicious but impossible because it is offered to be proven that the Parties were alibi at a great distance from the place where the Witnesses Deponed that they committed Adultery and that for several dayes and nights thereafter and before The Defender alleadged that the Lybel was no wayes relevant First In so far as it would Convel the Testimonies as to the principal points referred to Probation against which no contrair Testimonies either of the same or other Witnesses can be admitted by the Law of all Nations otherwise Plea's should be infinit for if the second Witnesses might improve the Testimonies of the first third Witnesses might improve their's and so without end and the alleadgeances that the Parties were alibi are most irrelevant and is ordinarly rejected as being a contrair and incompatible Probation for this being a Crime unlawful at all times and places albeit the Witnesses should have forgotten or mistaken the time if they be positive in the Act non obest and so proving alibi at that time which is not essential is of no moment 3dly The Reprobators in so far as they would improve and convel the extrinsick points of the Testimonies ad hunc effectum to render the Witnesses infamous and their Testimonie invalide as to the whole which is the proper and only subject of Reprobators the famine is not now competent unless first at the time of the taking of the Testimonies the Pursuer had protested for Reprobators and had not referred his objections against the habilitie of the Witnesses to their own Oaths but had only interrogat them of their Age Marriage Residence freedom of partial Counsel or Corruption c. And upon the reason of their Knowledge in that case Reprobators might have been competent to prove the contrair of these extrinsick points and so infirm the Testimony but here the Witnesses being Examined especially as to the Interrogators of partial Counsel and as to the reason of their Knowledge and no protestation taken at that time for Reprobators he cannot now make use thereof and albeit that Reprobators were reserved by the Lords yet that was not at the taking but at the advising of the Testimonies when all that is now alleadged as to their corruption arising from the Re-examination did appear to the Lords and yet the Lords adhered to the Decreet of Divorce and first Testimonies The Pursuer answered that he did not intend to Convel principally the intrinsick points of the Testmonies but mainly to prove their partiality and corruption and therewith also to prove their Testimonies were false and impossible neither is it essential to protest at the taking of the Testimonies nor is there any necessity that the Witnesses Oathes should not be taken on the extrinsick points but on the contrair the intent of Reprobators being that their Oaths as to these extrinsicks being false they should be found perjured and infamous and the whole Testimonies to fall There was no Interloqutor at this time upon this Debate Reoch contra Cowan Eodem die REoch pursues Cowan as representing a Defunct to pay a Debt due by the Defunct to the Pursuer who alleadged Absolvitor because Reoâ—h was vitious Intrometter with the Defuncts Goods in so far as he lifted 50. Pound belonging to the Defunct and gave his Discharge produced and albeit thereafter he Confirmed himself Executor Dative yet he wilfully omited that Sum out of the Confirmation and so as vitious Intrometter is both Debitor and Creditor and cannot pursue the Heir It was answered that this was res modica and could not infer the passive Title The Lords found that this Sum inferred not a general passive Title but only that is made him comptabâ—e for the Sum. Maitland contra Lesly February 27. 1668. IN a concluded Cause of abstracted Multers betwixt Maitland and Lesly The Pursuer being â—nfeft in the Miln with the Multers and Sequels and having proven the astriction of Intown Multers and Witnesses being adduced concerning the Services for upholding the Miln and Dam and bringing home Milnstones who proved that some of the Lands were not in use of these Services but by two or three several Acts as once laying in the Dam at which the Heretor was offended and brake the Tennents Head and twice going to help home the Milnstones whether these Lands were lyable to the Services Whereupon the Lords considered whether the constitution of a Thirlage with Multers and Sequels did by the nature of the Right give the ordinary Miln service without relation to Possession so that immediatly after the constitution thes might be demanded Which the Lords decided affirmative and then found that these Lands were lyable to the service unlesse they had either by Paction or Prescriptioâ— attained freedom from the service and found that the Testimonies did not prove freedom for fourty years and that these Acts were enough to interrupt and so Decerned for the ordinary services David Henderson contra Mr. Andrew Birny
many Witnesses on either side proved not only that the â—eithes Lybeled by the Party who Adduced them were holden and repute the true Marches for a very long time but did not express how long but some of them Deponed that Stones in the meithes were commonly holden and repute to be March Stones and so the Testimonies were contrary and if there had not been mutual Probation either Party would have proven sufficiently and neither Party having bounding Charters the question arose whether the â—pregâ—antest Probation should be preferred to give the property to that Party and exclude the other or if both Parties proving so long Possession and mutual interruptions the Probation should infer a promiscuous Possession and Right of the contraverted peice of Land and so resolve into a Commonty albeit neither Party Claimed nor Lybeled Commonty The Lords found the Testimonies of the Witnesses to infer a Commonty to either Party of the Ground in controversie albeit they found that Sir Iohn Gibsons Witnesses were more pregnant yet not so far as to exclude the others but declared that if either Party desired that piece to de divided they would grant Commission for dividing the same and setting down of March-Stones Burnet contra Nasmith Iune 19. 1668. ALexaâ— deâ— Burnet of Carlâ—ps being Creditor to Sir Michael Nasmith of â—osso pursues a Declarator against Iames Nasmith his eldest Son to hear and see it found and declared that an expired Appryzing of the Estate of Pâ—sso now standing in the Person of the said Iames is Redeemable by the Pursuer as a Creditor from the said Iames as appearing Heir of the Party against whom it was deduced within ten years after the appearand Heirs Right upon payment of the Sums that the appearand Heir truly gave out conform to the Act of Parliament betwixt Debitor and Creditor The Defender alleadged Absolâ—itor because the Act of Parliament could not extend as to his Case because the Act bears where appearand Heirs takes Right to Appyzing of their Predecessors Lands but the Defenders Father being living cannot be said to be his Predecessor or that the Defender is his appearand Heir and Statutes are stricti juris not to be extended to like Cases It was answered that Reason of the Law given in that part of the Statute being the same and rather more in this Case where there may be Collusion betwixt the Father and the Son there is no ground to except the same from the Act of Parliament the words whereof do bear this Case for in the ordinar Stile it uses to be thus express such a person to be eldest Son and appearand Heir to his Father and albeit his Father be not dead he may well be said to be his Predecessor not only in regard of his age but as being his Predecessor in the Right of these Lands whereunto the Son is a Successor albâ—it he be a singular Successor The Lords found the Clause of the Act of Parliament to comprehend Rights acquired by appearand Heirs in their Predecâ—ssors Life and therefore declared Agnes Hadden and Mary Lawder contra Shorswood Eodem die THomas Shorswood having granted an Assignation to a Bond of 500. merks in favours of Agnes Hadden and Mary Lâ—wder they pursue Magdalen Shorswood his nearest of kin to dâ—liver the same who alleadged Absolvitorâ— because the Assignation was never delivered but being made a year before the Defunctsdeath remained by him till his death and was never delivered and it is not the Subscribing of a Writ but the Delivery thereof that makes it that Parties in whose favours it is conceived unless the Party were in Family as a Fathers Câ—stody is the Childs Custody and equivalent to Delivery and unless the Writ had contained a Clause to be valide without Delivery which this doth not The Pursuer answered that this Assignation reserveth expresly the Defuncts Liferent and a power to dispose thereof during his Life which sheweth his mind not to deliver the Assignation even when he made it otherwise the Reservation in his own favour would not have been in his own hand which sufficiently shews his mind that the Writ should be valide though not delivered in his life 2. This being a moveable sum this Assignation is in effect dâ—natio mortis causa and so must be valide without Delivery for a Testament or Legacy is valide without Delivery It was answered to the first Alleadgance that the Defunct might have Delivered the Assignation and keeped the Bond so that the keeping of the Assignation was not necessary and so did not import his meaning to be that the Assignation should be valide without Delivery To the second this Assignation is in the Terms and Nature of a proper Assignation and is a Right inter vivos and not donatio morâ— is câ—usa because donatio mortis causa is but as a Legacy affecting only the Deads part but if this Assignation had been Delivered it would have affected all and so could be no donatio mortis causa and albeit it was not Delivered it remains the same kind of Right The Lords Repâ—lled the Defenses and decerned Delivery in regard of the Tenor of the Assignation and that it was a moveable sum it being also infoâ—med that the Defunct had no Children and the said Agnes Hadden who was to have 400. merks of the sum was Cousin-german to the Defunct Relict of Galrigs contra Wallace of Galrigs Eodem die THe Relict of Galrigs pursues for Mails and Duties upon her Seasine given propriis manibus It was alleadged for Galrigs no Process because the Seasine is but assertio notarij without a Warrand there being neither a Contract nor Obligation to give such a Seasine It was answered that Instruments of Seasine given to a Wife pâ—oprâ—is manibus have a sufficient Adminicle and presumption by the Marriage and the duty of the Husband to provide the Wife especially where there is no Contract nor other Provision but most of all where the Wife Renunced her Joynture she had with a former Husband in favours of the Granter of the Seasine and his Creditors which is a strong presumption he would give her something in lieu thereof Which the Lords sustained Steuart of Torrence contra Feuars of Ernock Iune 24. 1668. JAmes Steuart as Donator to the Ward of the Laird of Ernock by the Lord Semple of whom Ernock held the Lands Ward pursues the Possessors for Removing who alleadged absolvitor because they brooked their Lands by Feues granted by the Laird of Ernock The pursuer answered non relevat unless the Feues were consented to or Confirmed by the Superiour for by the Feudal Law no deed of the Vassal can prejudge the Superiour when the Lands are Ward The Defenders alleadged their Feues needed no Confirmation because they are warranted by Law by the 72d Act K. Iam. 2. which stood valide until the Act of Parliament 1606. Prohibiting Feues granted but by immediat Vassals of the King Ita est The first Act cannot
extend to the Kings Sub-vassals because it bears only Free-holders and bears that the King shall accept of the Feu Duty during the Ward but the Ward of his Sub-vassals would never fall in the Kings hand and this meaning of the Act of Parliament is evident by the Act of Parliament 1606. bearing expresly that there was no warrand by the first Act for any Feues but such as were granted by the Kings immediat Vassals It was answered for the Defenders that they oppone the first Act of Parliament bearing expresly a general Reason of granting Feues for the policy of the Kingdom and that the King would give Example to the rest and that the Act no wayes restricteth to Free-holders of the King but others who hold of Subjects Ward are called Free-holders in opposition to Feues which is also cleared by the 91. Act Parliament 1503. The Title whereof bears a power to all persons Spiritual and Temporal to set their Ward Lands Feu which clears the meaning of the Parliament and the common custom till the year 1606. which is acknowledged in the Narrative of the Act 1606. which doth only annul Feues set to Sub-vassals in time thereafter and as to the Narrative thereof the Statutory part and not the Narratives of the Acts of Parliament which the Parliament doth not much notice are our Rules and this Narrative is contradicted by the Narrative of the Act of Parliament 1633. bearing that there is no reason why the Kings immediat Vassals should grant Feues more then Sub-vassals The Lords sustained the Feues being granted before the Act of Parliament 1606. Andrew Gray contra Howison and Gray Eodem die ANdrew Gray being Infeâ—t as Heir to his Grandsire in certain Lands of the Barony of Foules holden blensh of the House of Gray pursues a Reduction of a late Infeftment in Anno 1655. granted to Walter Watson as long Posterior to his Right Compearance is made for William Gray of Haystoun as being Infeft by the Lord Gray and Sir George Kinnard who was Donator to the Recognition of the Estate of Gray by the alienation of this Lords Father which Recognition hath been declared by the Lords and alleadged that he hath the only Right because by the Recognition the old Rights of the House of Gray being void the Pursuers Subaltern Right fell in consequence therewith The Pursuer answered that before the Defenders Right he had obtained a Precept of clarè constat acknowledging his old Right whereupon he was Infeft It was answered that the Precept doth bear expreslly to be in obedience of Precepts out of the Chancellary upon the Pursuers Retour and so being a necessar Act and not voluntar it could be no acknowledgement or Ratification of the Pursuers Right The Lords having considered the Precept that albeit it mentioned the Retour in obedience to the Precept yet it bore also quoniam mihi clare constat c. in the common strain of a Precept of clarè constat acknowledging the Pursuers Predecessors Right and his Own They found that it did exclude the Donator and all having Right from him thereafter and after the Seasine past thereon George Heriot contra Town of Edinburgh Iune 25. 1668. GEorge Heriots Father being Infeft in an Annualrent out of certain Tenements in the Canongate obtained himself to be Served Heir in special therein before the Baillies of the Canongate and because the samine is within a Regality having a proper Chappel and was not to be Retoured to the Kings Chancellary So that Precepts were not to be had out of the Chancellary against the Town of Edinburgh Superiours to Charge them to Infeft him therefore George upon Supplication obtained Letters from the Lords to Charge them and they being now Charged he pursues a Poinding of the Ground It was alleadged for the Town no Process for poinding of the Ground till the Pursuer were Infeft in the Annualrent It was answered that he having done Diligence against the Town it was equivalent and did exclude them from proponing that alleadgance It was answered that no personal objection against the Town could be a sufficient Title against this Action without a real Right The Lords found no Process till Infeftment but declared that so soon as the Magistrates should be Denunced they would grant Warrand to the Director of the Chancellary to issue a Precept for Infefting the Pursuer for supplying the place of the Magistrates and their Contumacy Black contra Scot. Eodem die ALexander Black having obtained a Decreet before the Commissar of St. Andrews against Iames Scot for 126. pounds pursues a Transferrence thereof against the Representatives of Iames Scot who alleadged absolvitor because the Decreet is ipso jure null being given by a Commissar in a matter not Consistorial far above the quantity allowed by the Injunctions and there being nothing to instruct but the Defenders being holden as confest the Decreet at least must be turned to a Libel and yet proven 2. If the Defunct had been obliged to have compeared he would not only have denyed the Receipt of the Vinegar and Grapes Libelled but he would have offered to prove and the Defender offers yet to prove that they were refused and lay publickly upon the Shore where they were disloaded 3. It was offered to be proven the Defunct was lying on Death-bed the time he was Cited to Depone and was holden as confest The Pursuer answered that albeit these Reasons were relevant to Repone a Party holden as confest to their Oath yet were not sufficient to annual the Decreet seing the Pursuer lost his Probation the Receipt of the Goods having been two years agoe and albeit this sum exceeded the Commissars Injunctions yet the violation thereof does not annual his Sentence or take away his power unlesse the samine had been objected upon Compearance The Lords found not the Defenses Relevant to annul the Decreet or to hazard the loss of the Pursuers Probation but seing the Defender burdened himself with a contrair Probation The Lords inclined to admit the same if it were sufficiently pregnant and therefore ordained the Pursuer before answer to adduce Witnesses that the Goods were never taken off the Shore but Boated there Inglis contra Laird Balfour Eodem die THere being an Un-printed Act of Parliament for uplifting the Taxt and Loan of the Shire of Fife for Relief of some Noblemen ingaged for the Shire in Anno 1661. The Council did thereafter give Commission to certain persons in the Shire to conveen the persons resting and accordingly Cited the Laird of Balfour and he not compearing ordered quartering against him he Suspends on this Reason that this being a privat and particular Act of Parliament to which he was not called is salvo jure and could not burden his Lands of Creik because he is singular Successor therein to the Laird of Creik It was answered that there is no exception of singular Successors in the Act of Parliament so that this Act being a Reviving of the
Suspenders Oâ—th or VVrit The Lords fâ—und that the granting of the Bond was no Hâ—mologation of the Decreet but that â—e might quarrel the same and that the giving of the Bond was no Transaction if he payed or gave Bond for the whole Sums contained in the Decreet but found that â—f in consideration of the Grounds upon which he might quarrel the same he had gâ—â—â—en an abatement by Arbitration or otherwise that he could not quarrel the same and found it only probable by his Oath or â—â—rit Iames Donaldson contra Harrower Eodem die JAmes Donaldson pursues Iohn Harrower as representing his Father for whom the Pursuer became Cautioner to the Lord Rollo for 100. pound for relief of the Defuncts Goods that were then a poinding for which the Defunct promised payment and did pay the Lord Rollo and produces a Testificat of the Lord Rollo's thereof and craves payment and offers to prove the Libel by VVitnesses the Libel not being above an hundred pound It was alleadged for the Defender that this being a Cautionry and a Promise it was not probable by VVitnesses especially after so long a time the Promiser being dead who might either qualifie the Promise or instruct payment there being nothing more ordinar then to Transact such Affairs without any VVrit The Lords found the Libel not probable by Witnesses Frazer contra Frazer Eodem die JOhn Frazer having obtained a Decreet against William Frazer his Brother to deliver a Tack of the Lands of Boghead granted to their Father and his Heirs to whom the said Iohn is Heir William Suspends on this Reason that he is Heir to his Father of the second Marriage and produces his Retour and produces the Contract of Marriage including a Clause that all Tacks Conquest during the Marriage should belong to the Heirs of the Marriage and this Tack being Acquired during the Marriage the same belongs to him and albeit it he conceived to the Heirs generally yet by the Contract the Pursuer as Heir general will be oblieged to Assign It was answered that this Tack was no new Conquest but had been the old Possession of the Father and the Tack bare the Lands to be presently possest by him The Lords found this Tack to fall under the Clause of Conquest unless the Pursuer prove that there was an old Tack standing which expyred not till the second Marriage was Dissolved in lieu whereof this new Tack was taken Hamiltoun contra Callender Iuly 7. 1668. JAmes Hamiltoun having taken his Debitor with Caption offered him to Iames Callender Baillie of Falkirk to be Incarcerat in the Tolbooth of Falkirk and he refusing he now pursues a subsidiary Action against the Baillie for payment of the Debt who alleadged Absolvitor because he is no Magistrate of a Burgh Royal but of a Burgh of Regality the Baillies whereof were never in custom to be Charged with Rebels The Pursuer opponed the Act of Parliament 1597. cap. 279. bearing expresly Baillies of Stewartries and Regalities according to which the Tenor of all Captions bears the Letters to be direct against all Baillies of Regalities The Defender answered that for the Letters it is but stylus curiae and for the Act of Parliament the Narrative and Reason thereof relates only to Burghs having Provest Baillies and Common Good The Lords having considered the Act of Parliament Repelled the Defense and Decerned here the Rebel was Residenter within the Burgh of Regality where there was known to be a convenient Prison Relict of William Pattoun contra Relict of Archibald Pattoun Eodem die THE Relict and Executors of William Pattoun pursues the Relict and Executors of Archibald Pattoun for Compt and Reckoning of Sums and Goods belonging to the said umquhil William Pattoun by Archibald and craves the Defender to produce Archiâ—alds Compt Books who alleadgen nemo tenetur edere instrumenta sua contra se ad fundandam â—item so that the desire was no wayes reasonable unless the Pursuer had given in a particular Charge and Litiscontestation had been made thereon in which case the Defender might have been compelled ad modum probationis to have produced the Books It was answered the contrair was found in the Compt and Reckoning betwixt the Children of George Suiâ—ty against the Representatives of William Suitty their Tutor and that there was as great reason here the two Defuncts having been Brothers and being in Copartnery together and the one Factor for the other It was answered that the case of a Tutor and his Pupil was no way alike because the Tutors Compt Book was in effect the Pupils and the Copartinery and Factory was denyed The Lords ordained the Book to be put in the hands of the Auditor and if he found by inspection thereof any Accompts appeared as betwixt Partners and Factors he should produce the same to the other Party even ad fundandam litem otherwise that the same should be given back and not showen to the Pursuer Margaret Alexander contra Laird of Clackmannan Iuly 9. 1668. MArgaret Alexander being Infeft in an annualrent out of the Lands of Sauchie by a posterior Infeftment in Corroboration of the former Right she was Infeft in that same Annualrent out of other Lands whereof she was in Possession but this posterior Infeftment being Reduced upon an Inhibition prior thereto she pursues poinding of the Ground of the Lands of Sauchie upon the first Infeftment It was alleadged for Clackmannan Absolvitor because the Pursuers Right of Annualrent is base never cled with Possession and now he is Infeft in the Lands either publickly or by another Infeftment cled with Possession The Pursuer answered that the Infeftment in the Lands of Sauchie was sufficiently cled with Possession in so far as the posterior Infeftment of Annualrent in Corroboration thereof was cled with Possession and as payment made by the Heretor by himself for his Tennents or by Assignation to Mails and Duties of other Lands in satisfaction of the Annualrent infers Possession so payment made by his Tennents by the posterior Infeftment in Corroboration can be no worse then an Assignation to the Mails and Duties of these Lands which as it payes some Terms Annualrent of the first Infeftment so it must cloath it sufficiently with Possession It was answered that here being two distinct Infeftments at several times albeit for the Annualrent of the same sum yet the Possession of the last cannot relate to the first The Lord Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and found that Possession by the last Infeftment did from that time sufficiently validat the first Heugh Boog contra Robert Davidson Eodem die HEugh Boog having arrested Robert Davidsons Fee as Keeper of Herlots Hospital Pursues the Town of Edinburgh to make it forthcoming It was alleadged for Robert Davidson Absolvitor because Robert Davidson had made cessionem bonorum in favours of this Pursuer and his other Creditors and thereupon was Assoilzied The Pursuer answered that a Honorum did no
to the Tolbooth there to remain during their pleasure and Fined him in 500. Merks Earl of Wintoun contra Gordoun of Letterfary Iuly 15. 1668. THe Earl of Wintoun having Appryzed certain Lands in the North pursues for Mails and Duties It was alleadged for Gordoun of Letterfary that he stands Infeft in these Lands and by vertue of that Infeftment is seven years in Possession and thereby has the benefit of a possessory Judgement and must enjoy the Mails and Duties till his Right be Reduced The Pursuer answered that he had Intented Process upon his Right for Mails and Duties Anno 1658. whereby the matter became litigious and which stops the course of any possessory Judgement till that Citation expyre by the course of 40. years in the same way as it is in Removings or Ejections where Summons once Intented does not Prescribe by three years thereafter but lasts for 40. years The Defender answered that the case is not alike for the benefit of a possâ—ssory Judgement is introduced for the Security of Persons Infeft that they be not summarly put to Dispute their Authors Rights which are oftimes not in their hands but in the hands of their Authors or Superiours and there was never any Reply Sustained against the same unless it were Vitious or Violent or Interrupted but here the last seven years Possession after that Citation is neither Interrupted nor Vitious and these being no stop to take away the Effect of that Citation it were of bad consequence if Persons Infeft 39. years after a Citation behoved Summarly to Dispute their Rights The Lords Sustained the Defense of the Possessory Judgement upon seven years peaceable Possession before the Citation and Repelled the Reply The Pursuer further Replyed that in the seven years after the Citation there were some years wherein there was a surcease of Justice and no Courts in Scotland 2dly The Citation was by his Tutors and Curators and he was minor during the seven years It was answered that a possessory Judgement was competent against minors and there was no respect of minority therein which is only excepted in the great Prescription extinguishing the Right but in the possessory Judgement in Relation to the way of Process and the Fruits in the mean time as in all Prescriptions tempus continâ—um and not tempus utile is respected The Lords also Repelled both these Replyes and notwithstanding thereof Sustained the Exception on the possessory Iudgement Sir William Steuart contra Murrays Iuly 17. 1668. SIr Iames Murray his Estate being Appryzed by many of his Creditors Sir William Steuart one of the Appryzers pursues the rest for Compt and Reckoning of a proportionable part of the Rents in respect that his Appryzing is within a year of the first effectual Appryzing and comes in therewith pari passu by the late Act of Parliament betwixt Dâ—bitor and Creditor It was alleadged Absolvitor First Because the Pursuers Appryzing is incompleat nothing having followed thereupon now these 16. or 18. years and by the Act of the late Parliament anent the Registration of the allowance of Appryzings that is declared to be a necessar Solemnity for all Appryzings led since Iune 1652. and this Appryzing is not yet allowed It was answered that by the late Act of Parliament the Certification of the want of allowance is not that the Appryzing shall be null but that posterior Appryzings first allowed shall be preferred but the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor brings in Appryzings together deduced within a year according to their Dates without mention of allowance and is posterior to the said other Act and cannot be Derogat from thereby nor does the Act require Infeftment or any thing else but takes away the preference of Appryzings by the former Act as to such as are led within a year The Lords Repelled this Defense and Ordained the Pursuer now to allow his Appryzing which they found sufficient The Defenders further alleadged Absolvitor because the Pursuer had accepted a Disposition from Sir Iames Murray the common Debitor of a Tenement in Edinburgh bearing expresly in satisfaction of his Debt which is now produced by himself The Pursuer answered First That he was excluded from the benefit of that Disposition by Eviction by the Earl of Panmure who Appryzed before he was Infeft 2dly That whatever it bear it was but truely granted for Security for there is produced an Assignation by Sir Iames of certain sums to the Pursuer for the same Debt which could never have been if the first had been made in satisfaction The Defenders opponed the Disposition bearing expresly in Satisfaction the benefite whereof accrescing to them upon the Pursuers Receiving the Disposition cannot be taken from them by any posterior Writ of the Common Debitor nor are they obliged to Dispute whether it was valid or effectual seing it was accepted and the Eviction doth not annul the Acceptance but giveth place to the Clause of Warrandice contained in the Disposition which is Personal and reacheth only the Common Debitor and not the Defenders 2dly It was the Pursuers own fault that he was excluded in not Infefting himself upon his Disposition which he received before Panmuire's Appryzing It was answered that he could not compel the Superiour to receive him and that the Baillies of Edinburgh required bygone Sess and Feu-duties to be payed before he were Infeft which he was not obliged to pay seing by the Disposition he was to be free of all Incumberances It was answered that the Baillies of Edinburgh refuse no body as is known and these Incumberances were but to be purged by a personal obligement of the common Debitors neither did the Pursuer ever give back the Disposition The Lords Sustained this Defense and found the receiving and retaining the Disposition in Satisfaction sufficient to exclude the Pursuer It was further alleadged for Patrick Murray of Deuchar that he has Right to the Lands of Deuchar not only by Appryzing but by a voluntar Disposition whereupon he was Infeft before the Pursuers Appryzing and hath been by vertue thereof in peaceable Possession these 16. years and so hath the benefit of a possessory Judgement and a prior more valide Right It was answered that this voluntar Disposition was granted after the Denunciation of the Pursuers Appryzing after which the common Debitor could not prefer any other Creditor by his voluntar Deed and so the Denunciation making the matter litigious any posterior Possession is Vitious and cannot give the benefit of a possessory Judgement neither is the Disposition being after the Denunciation a valide Right but especially it being considered that the Act of Parliament brings in this Pursuer with the other prior Appryzers as if they had been in one Appryzing and several of the other Appryzings are led and Infeftment thereon before the Disposition The Lords Sustained this Defense and found that the Denunciation did not take away the benefite of a posterior possessory Iudgement Lord Dumfreis contra Smart Iuly 18. 1668.
THe Laird of Wamphray being due a yearly Annuity to his Good-mother the Lady Wamphray which now belongs to the Laird of Castlemaines her Husband jure mariti there is a competition thereanent betwixt Factor to the Earl of Dumfress whose Name was used in the Gift to Dumfreis behove as Donator to the Escheat of Castlemaines and Smart as having appryzed from Castlemaines the Right to this Liferent jure mariti who alleadged that he ought to be preferred to the Donator because albeit his Appryzing was after the Rebellion yet it was upon a Debt anterior to the Rebellion and was long before the Donators Gift and therefore according to the known Custom Diligences of Creditors being before the Gift or Declarator are alwayes preferred to the Donators of single Escheat It was answered for the Donator that that Custom was never further extended then to Moveables or Moveable Sums poynded or made forthcoming upon Arrestments but never to Rights having tractum futuri temporis which cannot be carried by poynding or Arrestment but by Appryzing or Adjudication as Tacks or Liferents when Assigned so that the jus mariti being a Legal Assignation and thereby falling under the Husbands single Escheat falls to the King and Donator by the Rebellion and cannot be taken away by an Appryzing pesterior to the Rebellion Which the Lords found Relevant and preferred the Donator Mr. George Iohnstoun contra Parichloners of Hodony Eodom die MR. George Iohnstoun having Right to a Tack set by the Parson of Hodony for his Lifetime and three years thereafter and having used Inhibition pursues the Possessors of the Lands who alleadged Absolvitor because the Tack is null being set for more nor three years without consent of the Patron by the Act of Parliament 1621. It was answered that the Pursuer restricts his Tack to three years The Defender opponed the Act of Parliament declaring such Tacks simply null as were set for more then three year The Lords Sustained the Tack for three years as allowed by the Act of Parliament Râ—bert Thomson contra Earl of Glencairn Iuly 21. 1668. RObert Thomson having pursued the Earl of Glencairn for a Compt of Wright Work wherein he was Imployed by the late Earl for his Lodging and Yeards when he dwelt in my Lord Oxfoords House It was alleadged for the Earl that the Imployment being a Direction was only probable scripto vel juramento The Lords before answer having ordained Witnesses to be Examined and their Testimonies being clear and pregnant that the late Earl did imploy the Pursuer in this Work and called for him frequently and ordered the Work from time to time they Sustained the Witnesses in the Probation and found it proveâ— It did not appear that this Pursuer was within three years of the Work but the Defender did not insist in any Defense thereupon Patoun contra Patoun Eodem die PAtoun in his Sonâ— Contract of Marriage Dispones to him his Estate and the Tocher was payable to the Father after the Contract and before the Marriage the Father takes a Bond of 2800. Merks from his Son the Wife and her Brother pursues a Reduction of this Bond as fraudulent contra bonos more 's contra pacta dotalia It was alleadged for the Father that he might very lawfully take a Bond from his Son for provision of his Children after the Contract and before the Marriage having Infeft his Son in his whole Estate which was worth 1000. Merks yearly and getting but 2500. Merks of Tocher and having some Debt and many Children It was answered that the Estate was not worth 600. Merks of Rent and the Fathers Liferent of 400. Merks reserved so that the Annualrent of this Bond would exhaust the remainder and they would have nothing to live upon The Lords having considered the Contract and Alleadgances thought that it was not sufficient to annul the Bond that it was after the Contract and before the Marriage if there was any reasonable cause Therefore and before answer ordained the Commuuers at the Marriage to be Examined whether it was communed and agreed that the Tocher should be accepted for fâ—tisfaction of the Debt and Bairns Portions and they having Deponed Affirmative The Lords Reduced the Bond as contrair to the Communing at the Contract of Marriage the Estate being very mean Sir Iohn Weems contra Campbel of Ednample Eodem die SIr Iohn Weems having Charged Ednample for Maintainance due in Anno 1648. He Suspends on this Reason that upon consideration of the burning of his House in the time of the Troubles he got an Exemption and Discharge from the King and Parliament Anno 1651. It was answered that that Parliament was Rescinded and the Charger had a Commission to uplift all Maintainance in Anno 1648. from the Heretors notwithstanding of any exemptions granted by these pretended Parliaments and their Committees The Suspender answered that the Act Rescissory has an express Reservation of all privat Rights acquired by Authority of these Parliaments for the time and so this Exoneration of his becoming his privat Right falls not by the Act Rescissory and as to the Act of Parliament and Commission to the Charger it must be understood salvo jure and cannot take away the Suspenders anterior Right acquired Which the Lords found Relevant and Suspended the Letters and found that the Suspenders Exoneration was not taken away either by the Act Rescissory or by the Act and Commission in favours of Bogie Lord Rentoun contra Laird Lamertoun Eodem die THe Lord Rentoun Justice Clerk having pursued Lamertoun as Representing his Father for the Pursuers Rents and Goods intrometted with by the Defenders Father in Anno 1641. The Defender excepted upon the Act of Pacification in Anno 1641. and upon the Act of Indemnity in Anno 1661. and produced his Fathers Commission by which he medled so that having done by publick Authority for the time in relation to the War and differences of the time he was secured by both these Acts. The Pursuer answered that the Act of Pacification and that whole Parliament was Rescinded and the Act of Indemnity had an express exception of all that medled with publick Monies of Fines Forefaultors or Sequestrat Estates and had applyed the same to their own use and had not duly counted therefore and the Pursuer insisted for what the Defenders Father had applyed to his own use or had not duly counted for The Defender Duplyed that his Father had duly counted for his whole Intromission and had made Faith to the Committee of Estates particularly that he had truly given up his Charge without omission and thereupon was Discharged The Pursuer answered that he had instructed much more Intromission and was content to allow the particulars in the Compt produced and craved the superplus which he had now proven by Witnesses adduced before answer and as for the Oath it could only be understood as an Oath of Credulity like that of Executors Confirming Testaments which doth not
time Duncan Campbel contra the Laird of Glenorchy Iuly 25. 1668. DVncan Campbel pursues the Laird of Glenorchy for Ejecting him from certain Lands and especially that his Brother by his Direction did violently cast out the Pursuers Children and Servants out of a part of the Land Laboured by himself and perswaded and enticed his Tennents to receive Tacks from and pay the Mails and Duties to him and therefore craves Re-possession and Double Mail as the violent Profits of the whole Lands during the Defenders Possession The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because he had obtained Improbation against the Pursuer of all his Rights of these Lands and others and likewise Decreet of Removing The Pursuer answered that the Defense ought to be Repelled because the Improbation was only by a Certification when he was Prisoner in Irland and the Defender by Articles of Agreement produced had acknowledged the Pursuers Right and obliged himself to Infest him in the Lands in question 2dly Though the Pursuer had but Possession without any Right he might not be Ejected but by a Precept of Ejection from a Judge which is not alleadged The Defender answered that these Articles of Agreement were never perfected nor extended and could only import a Personal Action against the Defender for extention or implement wherein when the Pursuer insists he will get this answer that he can have no benefit of the Articles being mutual until he perform his part thereof which is not done The Lords Repelled the Defence and Duply and Sustained the Ejection The Defender alleadged further that that Member of the Libel craving violent profits for that part of the Land Possest by Tennents because by the Defenders perswasion they became his Tennents is not Relevant because Ejection is only competent to the natural Possess or upon violence and perswasion is no violence The Pursuer answered that the prevailing with the Tennents was consequent to the casting out of the Defender out of his own House and natural Possession and was as great a fault as Intrusion and equivalent thereto The Defender answered that the Law has allowed violent profits only in Ejection or Intrusion which can be drawn to no other Case though it were as great or an greater fault The Lords sustained the Defence and found violent profits only competent for that part that the Pursuer Possest naturally but if the whole Lands had been an united Tenement or Labouring that the Pursuer had been Ejected out of the principal messuage of the Barony and the Ejecter had thereby gotten Possession of the whole it is like the Lords would have sustained Ejection for the whole but this was not Pleaded Lord Rentoun contra Lambertoun Iuly 28. 1668. THis day the Lord Rentouns Processe against Lambertoun mentioned the 21. Instant was Advised by the Probation it appeared that the Corns in the Girnels of Haymouth and the Cattel in the Mains of Rentoun and Horses were taken away by Lambertoun with a Troop or Troopers and that the Corns were carried to Dunss the Army being thereabout at that time whereupon the question arose whether or not Lambertoun were lyable for these which by the Probation did not appear to be applyed to his use but to the use of the Army The Lords Assoilzied him therefrom as they had done in several cases formerly upon the Act of Indemnity whereby whatsoever was acted in the Troubles by Warrand of any Authority in Being was totally discharged and the Lords did thereupon find that the Actors were not obliged to produce or show a Warrand but that it was enough the Deeds were done manâ— militari unlesse the contrair were proven by the Actors own Oath that what was medled with was not employed to entertainment of Souldiers or any other publick use but to their own private use Laird of Milntoun contra Lady Milntoun Iuly 30. 1668. THe Laird of Milntoun infifted in his Action of Reprobator wherein this point of the Dispute was only Discust whether Reprobators were competent unlesse they were protested for at the taking of the Witnesses Testimonies or whether it were sufficient to Protest at any time before Sentence or if there were no necessity at all and especially as to this Case It was alleadged there was no necessity of a Protestation and if it were there was a Protestation at the Re-examination of the Witnesses and also before Sentence It was answered that a Protestation was most necessar because the want of it was an acquiescence in the hability and honesty of the Witnesses and if it should not be necessar all Process this five years might come in question upon Reprobation which were of dangerous consequence and therefore as Incidents are not competent but when Protested for no more Reprobations as to the alleadged Protestation at the Examining of the Witnesses it is but subjoined to the Interrogators only Subscribed by one of the four Examinators who Subscribed the Testimonies and who does not remember of his Subscription so that it has been surreptitiously obtained from him as to the other Protestation the same was not when the Witnesses were taken but at the conclusion of the Cause It was answered that it was in competent time even at the conclusion and that Reprobators were not only not rejected but expresly allowed by the Pursuer by way of Action The Lords found this Reprobator competent in this Case but did not resolve the point generally whether they were competent when not at all Protested for as to which the Lords were of different Judgements but most seemed to require a Protestation ante rem Iudicatam yet so that if it were omitted the Lords might repone the Party to Reprobators if any emergent made the Testimonies suspect through inhability or corruption in the same manner as the Lords will repone Parties against Certifications Circumductions of the Term and being holden as Confest Sir George Mckenzie contra the Laird of Newhal Eodem die SIr George Mckenzie Advocat having Married a Daughter of Iohn Dickson of Hartrie they pursue a Proving of the Tenor of an Inventar of Harâ—ries Lands wherein he altered the former Substitution of his Children in several Bonds and paricularly of a Bond of 5000. Merks granted by Whitehead of Park payable to himself and after his Decease to Helen Dickson his youngest Daughter who was Married to Ballenden of Newhal and by the Inventar the Substitution was altered and the one half of the Bond appointed to pertain to Elizabeth now Spouse to Sir George Mckenzie and the other to Helen and Michael to prove that the samine was Holograph because it wanted Witnesses there was produced for Adminicles the Copy of it written by Iohn Kelloes Hand Hartries Nephew and an judicial Instrument containing the Tenor of it by way of Transumpt but there was some words of difference between the Instrument and the Copy which was Subscribed by Iohn Ramsay Hartries Good-brother and Mr. Iohn Pringle Hariries Good-son who and several others being adduced as Witnesses Deponed
Father being Infeft in an Annualrent effeirand to the principal sum due to him by the Lord Balcombie they did thereafter obtain Decreet for the principal sum and thereupon Appryzed the Property wherein they stand Infeft holden of the King in which Appryzing there is a Reservation exprest but prejudice of the Infeftment of Annualrent and now being desirous to be Infeft in the Annualrent as Heirs to their Father and that themselves were Superiours by the Infeftment on the Appryzing and conceived it not proper for them to Infeft themselves did therefore desire the Lords to grant VVarrand to direct Precepts forth of the Chancellary for the King to Infeft them The Lords having considered the case and argued the matter amongst themselves whether it were more secure and legal that they should be Infeft by the King upon their Supplication or that they as having Right to the Property by their Infeftment on the Appryzing should grant Precepts for Infefting themselves in the Annualrent as Heirs to the Annualrenter or whether their Infeftment in the Superiority would consolidat the Annualrent without Infeftment The difficulty against the Kings Infefting of them was that the King Infefts none but these that holds immediatly of Him or upon the disobedience of the immediat Superiour supplendo vices To which it was answered that the King may supply the place of the immediat Superiour either when he will not or cannot Infeft his Vassal and the Petitioners conceive that in this case they cannot and both being extraordinary Remeeds the Lords may do the same and have done it in former Cases The difficulty as to Infefting themselves was that the Right of Property and jus nobilius did extinguish the Right of Annualrent and yet the Right of Property may be Reduced and then they would be necessitat to Defend themselves by the Annualrent and therefore it is not an absolute Extinction but in tali casu and therefore they have reserved the same in the Appryzing The difficulty as to the third way was that if the Right of Superiority should be Reduced they should be without Infeftment at all The Lords found that they might either Infeft themselves by their own Precept or might get Precepts from the King as was desired periculo petentium or they might make use of both together Mr. Alexander Seaton contra George Seaton of Menzies December 2. 1668. MR. Alexander Seaton Heir and Executor to Iames Seaton his Brother pursues George Seaton as Heir to his Father Iames Seaton for making his Fathers Tutor Accompts as being Tutor to the Pursuers Brother and for instructing that he was Tutor produced several Writs Subscribed by him as Tutor Testamentar The Defender alleadged First That the condescendence was not relevant to Instruct the Defenders Father Tutor unless the Testament whereby he was nominat were produced otherwayes his acknowledgement can only make him but Pro-tutor and so not lyable for all omissions and no sooner lyable then after the date of these Writs 2dly Albeit the Defenders Father had been Tutor yet by the Writs produced it is evident that he was but one of more Tutors and therefore no Process against him till they be all called The Pursuer answered that the acknowledgement to have been Tutor was sufficient against him who Subscribed the same and that there was no necessity to call all the rest seing the whole Tutors were lyable in solidum and as ordinarly parties bound conjunctly and severally may be conveened conjunctly or severally so may Tutors who as others may except upon the performance of other Tutors as well as their own neither is the case of Tutors alike with Cautioners who are not lyable in solidum for Tutors as they are lyable conjunctly and severally for the whole Office so are they conveenable conjunctly and severally for the same The Lords Repelled the first alleadgance and found the Writs produced instructed the Defenders Father Tutor and not only Pro-tutor for if the Testament had been produced shewing other Tutors so that the Acknowledger could not have been tutor testamentar it would have made him but Pro-Tutor but that not being it instructed him Tutor As to the other point in respect the Tutor was dead and his Heir only but conveened who could not know the Administration the Lords would not sustain Process till they were also called Agnes Goodlat contra George Nairn December 8. 1668. AGnes Goodlat as representing the umquhil Wife of George Nairn pursues for the third of the Moveables belonging to him the time of his Wifes Decease It was alleadged for the Husband that before Division the Heirship moveable behoved to be drawn It was answered that there could be no Heirship of a man that was living It was answered that albeit there was no actual Heirship yet the best of every kind was Heirship Moveable wherein the Wife had no Interest Which the Lords sustained and Ordained the Heirship to be first drawn Earl of Argile contra George Stirling December 9. 1668. THe Earl of Argile having pursued George Stirling to Remove he alleadged Absolvitor because he stood Infeft on an Appryzing It was Replyed that the Appryzing and Infeftment could not defend him because the Person from whom he Appryzed being a Vassal of the Earl of Argiles and his Right not being Confirmed by the King the same could not exclude the Pursuer the Kings Donator and the Appryzer could be in no better case then his Author The Defender Duplyed that he was in better case because he being Infeft by the King before the Pursuers Gift when the King had both Superiority and Property it is equivalent to him as if the King had Confirmed his Authors Right It was answered that Infeftments upon Appryzings that pass in Course and are not noticed in Exchequer cannot prejudge the King and take away the benefit of the Gift which must pass by a several Signature Which the Lords found Relevant and Repelled the Defense and Duply and Decerned Scot contra Aitoun December 11. 1668. MR. Iames Aitoun having Disponed the Lands of Grainge with the burden of 12000. Merks to be payed to his Daughters Iohn Scot having Married one of the Daughters in their Contract of Marriage the Daughter Anna Aitoun Assigns her part of the 12000. Merks to her future Spouse and in the same Contract he acknowledgeth the Receipt of the Money from Mr. Robert Aitoun the Debitor and therefore with consent of the said Anna Discharges the said Mr. Robert by a Contract of the same Date betwixt Iohn Scot and Mr. Robert relating the Contract of Marriage but acknowledges there was no Sums payed for the Discharge contained in the said Contract but that the Security contained in this Contract was granted therefore and therefore he gives a new Heretable Security to Iohn Scot the Marriage Dissolves within year and day by the Death of the said Anna without Children she in her Testament names the said Iohn Scot her Husband her Executor and universal Legator George Scot as
Fathers Life It is an evidence he acquiesced to his Fathers Provision and cannot seek Annualrent against his Fathers Executors his Father having Alimented him neither is he lyable for that rigor that other Tutors are The Lords Repelled the Reasons as to the principal Sum and found that the Fathers Legacy was not in satisfaction of the Grand-Fathers Legacy but found no Annualrent due but Suspended the Letters simpliciter as to Annualrent Sir Alexander Frazer contra Alexander Keith December 16. 1668. SIr Alexander Frazer Doctor of medecine having purchased the Lands of Mâ—ekelty from Andrew Frazer who had Appryzed the same from Alexander Keith pursues a Declarator of the expiring of the Appryzing and of his Right of the Lands thereby It was alleadged for Alexander Keith that he had Depending Actions of Reduction against the Grounds of the Appryzing and thereupon alleadged that the saids Sums were satisfied before the Appryzing at least by the Pursuer or his Authors Intromissions with the Rents of the Appryzed Lands within ten years after the Deducing thereof During which time the Legal was unexpired by the late Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor whereby the Legal of Appryzings led since 1652. are prorogat for three years And as to the first point he alleadged that the ground of the Appryzing being a minut of Alienation betwixt the said Alexander Keith and Andrew Frazer whereby Andrew Dispones the Lands of Miekeltie and Stranduff to the Defender the Tenor of which minute is that the said Andrew obliges himself to Infeft and Secure the said Alexander in the said Lands and to purge all Incumberances thereupon and that the price shall not be payable till the said Alexander be put in Possession There is also a Commission therein granted to the Defender to purchase two expired Appryzings and to satisfie any other Incumberances and to Serve the said Andrew Heir to Thomas Frazer his Father and to obtain the said Andrew Infeft as Heir to his Father and likewise the Defender himself in the Lands so that the Right the Disponer had being only a back Bond granted by Frazer to Staniwood thereafter Lord Frazer by which he obliged himself to Denude himself of the Lands of Mickeltie in favours of the said Andrew Disponer Which back Bond was Appryzed by the two expired Appryzings but could not reach the Lands of Stranduff because Staniwood was not Infeft therein nor did the back Bond bear the same and therefore the Defender was necessitat to purchase the Right of a third Appryzing led at the Instance of Craigivar against Andrew Frazer the Disponer as lawfully Charged to Enter Heir to Thomas Frazer his Father who died last Infeft in the Lands of Stranduff and which would have excluded any Right that the Defender had from Andrew Frazer especially seing the Sum on which Craigivars Appryzing proceeded was a Debt due by the said Thomas Frazer to William Frazer which William Frazer raised a Pursuit thereupon against the said Andrew Frazer as Representing Thomas his Father and raised Inhibition upon a Dependence which Inhibition is Execute and Registrate against Andrew Frazer before he Disponed the Lands after which Dependence the matter being referred to Arbiters they Decerned Andrew Frazer to pay to the said William Frazer two thousand merks out of the first and readiest of the price of Miekeltie due by the Defender Alexander Keith or out of any other Goods or Sums belonging to the said Andrew so that the Decreet Arbitral upon the Submission being in the same Terms was equivalent to an Assignation or a Precept and the Defender Alexander Keith satisfying that Sum it is in effect payment of so much of the price and Craigivars Appryzing proceeding on that same Sum it was most necessar for the Defender to Acquire that Appryzing as proceeding upon a Right whereupon Inhibition was used before the Minute and upon a Decreet Arbitral in effect Assigning William Frazer to so much of the Sum due by Alexander Keith The Pursuer answered that the Defenders alleadgence ought to be Repelled because the Acquiring of Craigivars Appryzing was altogether needless and no way warranted by the Minute and so cannot exhaust the price because that Appryzing was led 10. years after the Minute and the Defender having accepted a Commission to do all things necessar for Establishing of his own Right he ought to have Served the Disponer Heir to his Father and to have Infeft him in Stranduff and to have Infeft himself upon the Disponers Resignation Or if he had found that the Lands were Disponed to Frazer of Staniwood upon Trust he ought to have procured the same to have been Established in his Person as coming in the place of Andrew Frazer to whose behove the Trust was which would for ever have Excluded Craigivars Appryzing being long posterior to the Defenders Commission contained in the Minute so that it was his own fault that he suffered another to Appryze neither could the Inhibition have prejudged him though prior to the Minut in respect it was upon a Dependence upon which no Decreet in favours of the Inhibiter could ever follow the Cause being Extinct by Transaction and Decreet Arbitral neither is there any Process Extant neither is the Decreet Arbitral equivalent to an Assignation and Precept because it doth not Decern Andrew Frazer to Assign the Sum due by the Defender nor doth it declare that that Sum shall belong to him but only Decerns Andrew Frazer to pay out of Keiths Sum or any other so that thereupon no Action could have been effectual against Keith to pay the Sum but only against Frazer himself The Defender answered that albeit no Sentence of a Judge proceeded upon the Dependence the Sentence of the Arbiters being in eadem causa was equivalent and whereas it is alleadged that the Defender had a Commission to perfect his own Security by the price left in his hand It was answered that the Commission being for his own behove and for his own Security he might make use of it or not make use of it as he pleased especially seing the Disponer was obliged to perfect the Defenders Security 2dly In the Minute there was no Procuratory of Resignation neither were the old Evidents Delivered to the Defender so that he could neither obtain Frazer to be Infeft much less himself upon Frazers Resignation wanting a Procuratory The Pursuer answered that the Commission being a Mandat accepted by the Defender did ex natura mandati bind the Accepter to do Diligence neither is it to his own behove but was also to the Disponers behove that his obligements might be fulfilled and his price not stopped and although the Minute want a Procuratory of Resignation that is no way Relevant for if the Defender had required a Procuratory of Resignation from the Disponer or had required the Writs to instruct the Service being in the Disponers hand and had been refused of either he had been in no fault but without any Diligence to suffer another Appryzing
found that the Cedents Oath could not be taken in prejudice of the Assigney to astruct the verity of the Subscription unless the Assignation had been gratuitous or the matter had been litigious before the same In which case they found that there was no place to Resile after the Subscription of the first Nottar the verity and warrand of the Subscription being proven by the said Margarets Oath The Suspender further alleadged that he could not Remove because the Liferenter being year and day at the Horn he had a Gift of her Liferent Escheat and thereby had right to possess her Liferent-Land The Charger answered non relevat because the Gift was not declared 2dly It could not be declared because it proceeded upon a Horning against a VVife cled with a Husband who being sub potestate viri cannot be Contumacious or Denunced Rebel thereupon The Suspender answered that he needed no Declarator himself being in possession of the only Right to which the Declarator could reach 3dly The Horning albeit against a VVife was valid unless it had been upon a Debt contracted during the Marriage but this Horning proceeding upon a Decreet against a VVife as Executrix and vitious Intromissatrix with her Husbands Goods a Horning upon her own Fact or Fault was alwayes effectual The Lords would not sustain the Gift without a Declarator and superceeded any Extract at the Chargers Instance till a day betwixt and which he might insist in his Declarator and superceeded till that time to give answer in relation to the Horning because the Kings Officers behoved to be called Mr. Alexander Seaton contra Menzies December 19. 1668. MR. Alexander Seaton as Executor to his Brother Pitmedden pursues Seaton of Menzies as Representing his Father who was one of the Pursuers Brothers Tutors for his Fathers Intromission with the Pupils Means who alleadged Absolvitor because the Pupil after his Pupillarity had granted a Discharge to one of the Co-tutors which did extinguish the whole Debt of that Co-tutor and consequently of all the rest they being all correi delendi â—yable by one individual Obligation which cannot be Discharged as to one and stand as to all the rest for albeit pactum de non petendo may be granted to one and not be profitable to the rest a simple Discharge which dissolveth the Obligation of the Bond must be profitable to all The Lords Repelled this Defense unless the Discharge had born payment or satisfaction given and in tantum they found it would be Relevant but not a simple Discharge which could only be Relevant in so far as they by this Tutor would be excluded from the Co-tutors bearing a share with this Tutor in omissis male administratis there being nothing here but this Tutors own proper Intromission now insisted for The Lords Repelled the Defense simply Margaret Mckenzie contra Robertsons December 23. 1668. MArgaret Mckenzie pursues the Executors of her Husband to pay her share of the Moveables who alleaged Absolvitor because there was as much Debt as would exhaust the whole Moveables It was answered non relevat unless it were alleadged that the Executors had payed the Debt for the Debts being yet due it is jâ—s tertij for them to alleadge thereupon neither can this Pursuer propone alleadgances of payment Compensation or any other or the Defenders Reply upon the Debts belonging to third Parties unless they were pursuing themselves but the Pursuer is content to find Caution to repeat her share in case they were Distrest The Lords Repelled the Defense but prejudice to the Executor to Suspend upon double Poinding calling the Creditors It was further alleadged for the Defenders that they must have allowance of Sums bearing Annualrent since 1641. It was answered that no such Sums can burden the Relict her part because by the Act of Parliament the Relict has no share of such Sums if they were due to the Defunct and therefore a pari she cannot be burdened with such Sums being due by the Defunct The Defenders answered that the Act of Parliament excludes Relicts from such Sums as bear Annualrent being due to their Husbands but doth not bear that they shall be free of such Sums due by their Husbands and Statutes being stricti juris the Lords cannot extend them beyond their Sense to like cases The Pursuer answered that the Lords always did and might Explain and Extend Acts of Parliament to Cases implyed and consequent albeit not verbatim exprest and as to this Act of Parliament it bears expresly that all such Bonds shall remain in their condition as they were before the Act of Parliament 1641. quoad fiscum relictam before which the Bonds bearing Annualrent could not have burdened the Relict for the word such Bonds may not only be extended to Bonds due to Defuncts but to Bonds due by Defuncts The Lords Repelled also this Defense and found the Relicts part not to be burdened with any Bonds due by her Husband bearing Annualrent unless they had become Moveable by a Charge or that the Term of payment of the Annualrent was not come at the Defuncts death Smith contra Muire Eodem die JEan Smith having pursued Margaret Muire as vitious Intromissatrix with the Goods of George Smith her Husband to pay the sum of 110. pounds due by Bond by the said George to this Pursuer his Sister obtained Decreet thereupon and Appryzed the Liferent of the said Margaret Muire who Suspended and raised Reduction on this Ground that she could not be lyable as vitious Intromissatrix because she possest her Husbands Moveables by a Title in so far as by her Contract of Marriage she was provided to all the Goods and Gear acquired during the Marriage for her Liferent use and so she could only be lyable for making forthcoming the true value after her Death The Charger answered First That there could be no Liferent of Moveables quae usu consumuntur and all Liferents of usus fructus must be salvâ rei substantiâ 2dly Though a Liferent could consist in Moveables yet the meaning of such a Clause of all Moveables acquired during the Marriage must be understood the free Moveables deducing Moveable Debt and cannot be understood to exclude lawful Creditors The Lords found the Clause to be understood only of free Gear and not to exclude the Pursuers Debt but found it a sufficient ground to free the Suspender from vitious Intromission and to Retrench the Decreet to the true value Sir Iohn Weems contra Forbes of Tochâ—n Ianuary 2. 1669. SIr Iohn Weems having Charged Tochon for Maintainance due in Anno 1648. or 1650. conform to Act of Parliament and Commission granted to him and Decreet of the Lords Tochon Suspends on this Reason that singular Successors are free by the Act and he is a singular Successor by Appryzing It was answered that the exception of the Act was only in favours of singular Successors who had bought the Lands which cannot be extended to Appryzers who oftimes have the
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
Reversion and the Liferents in favours of Mr. Iohn and also his own power of preference of the Creditors and Mr. Iohn his Infeftment upon the Disposition whereupon he alleadged that he ought to be preferred to the Mails and Duties because he stands publickly Infeft by vertue of the said Disposition before any Infeftment in the Person of the Pursuer It was answered for the Pursuer that the Infeftment produced cannot Exclude him because it is expresly granted for satisfying of the Sum whereupon his Infeftment proceeds It was answered for Mr. Iohn Prestoun that he having a power to prefer any Creditor he pleased he payed other Creditors to the value of the Estate whereby Newman is excluded It was answered for Newman that this Disposition was fraudulent and fimulat in prejudice of lawful Creditors whereof he has Reduction upon the Act of Parliament 1621. as being granted by a Brother to another with a power of preference of Creditors at the Purchasers option which Clause is altogether null especially as to the preferences done since lawful Diligence was used by this Pursuer by Horning Inhibition Arrestment and Appryzing and as no Debitor can so prefer himself so neither can he give such a power to any other and therefore the Pursuer ought to be preferred to all the Creditors conform to his Diligence It was answered for Mr. Iohn Prestoun that there being no Diligences done before the Disposition by any Creditor Craigmiller might Dispone being for an onerous Cause as he pleased and might prefer one Creditor to another 2dly Albeit this power of preference were not simply to be allowed after Diligence done by Creditors to prefer others to them Yet it ought to be Sustained in so far as Craigmiller might lawfully have done viz. to prefer Mr. Iohn for the Sums due to himself and for his relief of such Sums as he was Cautioner in The Pursuer answered that such a Disposition was not made nor doth this Disposition any way relate to Mr. Iohns Sum and his Relief but generally and equally to all and there is no difference but the unwarrantable power of preference which can have no effect after Diligence done The Lords found the power of preference not to be Sustained as to any other Debts then to such as were due to Mr. Iohn himself and for which he was Cautioner before the Disposition and found as to these that the power of preference was lawful and valide and was equivalent to this Clause with power to Mr. Iohn to satisfie himself and those to whom he was Cautioner primo loco Wallace of Galrigs contra Mckernel Ianuary 9. 1669. UMquhil Wallacâ— of Galrigs being alleadged to have given a Seasine propriis manibus to his second Wife of two Chalders of Victual The Lords Sustained the Seasine without any other Adminicle But that the Wife had quite her former Liferent by a former Husband in favours of Galrigs whereupon Galrigs offered to improve the Seasine by the Witnesses insert which being four two Deponed positively that they were never Witnesses to a Seasine given by Galrigs to his Wife and the third Deponed that he remembred not that he was Witness the fourth Deponed that he was Witness but said that this Seasine was in Summer whereas it bore to be in Winter the Nottar abode by the Seasine but was not Examined The Lords found the Seasine improven but would not Examine the Nottar nor any other Person mainly in consideration that the Seasine was prâ—priis manibus without any other Adminicle otherways the Nottar and one Witness affirming the Lords would have Examined the Nottar or any other persons or Evidences for astructing the verity of the Seasine George Hume contra Seaton of Menzies Ianuary 13. 1669. GEorge Hume as Assigney by the Earl of Wintoun to a Bond granted to the Earls Factor for his behove having Charged thereupon The Creditor Suspends in Discussing whereof it was alleadged for George Huâ—â— that he ought to have Annualrent because the Suspender by a missive Letter produced written to the Umquhil Earl of Wintoun obliged him to pay Annualrent for the time by gone and therefore ought to continue the same till payment The Suspender answered it contained nothing as to the Annualrents in time coming The Lords found Annualrents due from the beginning both before and after the Letter though they exceeded the Principal Sum seing once Annualrent was promised for some Terms Alexander Mckenzie of Pitglasse contra Ross of Auchinleck Ianuary 14. 1669. ALexander Mckenzie having Right to two Compryzings of the Lands of Auchinleck one in Anno 1644. and another in Anno 1647. which being alleadged to have been satisfied within the Legals and the matter referred to an Auditor who reported these Points to the Lords First Whether the Appryzer should Compt for the Mails and Duties so as to impute the same to both Appryzings as to years after the second Appryzing or to impute them wholly to the first Appryzing during its Legal and then to the second Appryzing during its Legal It was alleadged for the Appryzer that he having two Titles in his Person it was free for him to impute his Possession to either of them and yet he was so favourable as not to crave his option but to impute proportionally to both albeit in Law when Receipts are not specially as to one Cause electio est Debitoris 2dly When any payment is made by a Debitor to his Creditor indefinitly it is still imputed to the Annualrents in the first place before it can satisfy any Stock so that any satisfaction gotten by him must first be imputed to the Annualrent of both the Sums and then to the Stock of the first It was alleadged for Auchinleck that the Intromission could only be attribute to the first Appryzing First Because by that Right the Appryzer entered in Possession and cannot invert his Possession to a third Parties prejudice 2dly The first Appryzing est potior jure for if the two Appryzings were in different Persons he that had the second could never attain Possession against the first 3dly In dubio solutio est imputanda in duriorem sortem and therefore to the first Appryzing for if imputation be made to both the first Appryzing will not be satisfied within the Legal and the Debitors Right will be taken away which is most infavourable 4thly The Appryzer as he did not Possess by the second Appryzing so he could not because the first Appryzing carries the Right of Property and the second carries only the Right of Reversion The Lords found the Possession was only to be attribute to the first Appryzing and not to the second while the first were satisfied The next point was that it was alleadged the Appryzer had sold a part of the Lands within the Legal and therefore the worth of these Lands ought to be allowed in satisfaction of the Sums It was answered that the Appryzer could not Dispone the Lands simply but only his Right of Appryzing which
would still be Redeemable from his Assigney as well as from himself The Lords found that he was not Comptable for the whole value of the Lands Disponed but for what Sums he actually Received for the Lands Disponed to be proven scripto vel juramento The next point was as to the prices of the Victual whether the Feers or greatest prices were due The Lords allowed the Debitor to prove the greatest Prices and also to produce the Feers reserving to themselves the modification Next as to the Rental the Appryzer desired a joynt Probation especially it being in the Highlands where the Witnesses are suspect The Lords would not grant a joynt Probation but ordained the Probation to be by Witnesses above exception Hamiltoun contra Bain Ianuary 15. 1669. UMquhile Agnes Anderson having Disponed all her Goods and Moveables to Bains Bairns of the first Marriage and made Delivery thereof conform to an Instrument produced and having thereafter Married Iohn Hamiltoun he Ratified the former Deed done by his Wife in favours of her Bairns she being now Dead both Parties give in Supplications desiring Possession of these Goods Disponed to the Bairns they alleadged upon the Mothers Disposition Ratified by her second Husband And the Husband alleadging that it being but a fictitious Possession by an Instrument he as Husband being Dominus bonâ—rum is in the natural Possession seing his Wifes Liferent use was reserved and cannot summarly be put therefrom hoc ordine upon a Supplication without Process 2dly If he were in a Process he would exclude the Bairns because the Disposition being made after his Contract of Marriage and Proclamation no Deed of his Wifes could then prejudge him and as for his Ratification he did it to satisfie his Wifes importunity but being granted to a Wife during the Marriage he may and does recal it It was answered that it was not a Donation to his Wife but to his Wifes Children which no Law makes Revockable Which the Lords Sustained and found the Husband could not recal his Ratification not being in Favours of his Wife but in Favours of her Children at her desire Earl of Athol contra Robertson of strowan Ianuary 19. 1669. MAster Walter Stuart as Parson of the Kirk of Blair in Atâ—ol whereof Tillibairn was Patron gave a Tack to Tillibairn's Brother of the whole Teinds of the Paroch which Tack he within a few days Assigned to Tillibairn the Patron himself Tillibairn's Escheet and Liferent having fallen the Viscount of Stormont obtained the Gift thereof and as Donator Assigned the Right of this Tack to the Earl of Atâ—ol who now pursues Robertson of Strowan for the Teinds of his Lands for many more nor 40. years from the Date of the Tack The Defender alleadged First that the Tack is null being Set for more nor three years without consent of the Patron contrair to the Act of Parliament 1594. The Pursuer answered that the alleadgeance was justertij to the Defender and was only competent to the Pursuer or some deriving Right from him for the Defender being lyable for his whole Teind had no Interest to quarrel the Pursuers Tack 2dly Albeit the consent of the Patron be necessar yet it is not necessar to be in the very Tack it self but a subsequent consent is sufficient and here the Patron has given a subsequent consent in so far as within a few dayes after the granting of the Tack he accepted an Assignation thereof himself and did obtain a Decreet of prorogation of the same The Defender answered that the Patrons consent being a solemnity requisit in Law behoved to be in the Tack it self and not being then adhibit the Tack of it self was null ab initiâ— and a subsequent consent not by subscription but by acceptance or homologation was not sufficient and the Defender had good interest to propone the nullity not being founded super jure tertij but simply exclusive juris agentis as wanting the essential solemnities and also because the Defender has payed the Minister the accustomed Teind-duty for all years bygone and having his Discharge of the whole Teind-duty due by him eatenus he is in the Ministers place The Lords found the Defender to have sufficient interest to alleadge the nullity upon the Discharges but found the Patrons acceptance of a Right to the â—ack a sufficient consent to validat the same and that it required no consent expresly by subscription of the Tack The Defender further alleadged Absolvitor because this Tack never having attained Possession nor no action following thereupon for more then 40. years it is prescribed and void and so likewise is the Decreet of prorogation being more then 40. years since The Pursuer answered that the Defender having no Right to his Teinds had no interest to quarrel his Right 2dly That a Tack being but a Right to an annual Prestation it is all one as if a Right had been granted to every year a part in which case 39. years would be entire and the Pursuer insists for no further The Defender answered that prescription being a total extinction of the Right and not a transmission thereof by vertue of an other Right It is not jus tertij to the Defender to alleadge the same and to exclude any from troubling him upon a null and prescribed Right and he is lyable only to the Minister to whom he has made payment and obtained his Discharge for bygones and for time coming likeas it is better to be in the hand of an Ecclesiastical Person thâ—n in the hand of a powerful secular Person To the second that there is not here granted distinct Tacks of several years but one individual Tack for many years all which years are expired but it subsists only by the prorogation and albeit it be true that if the Tack had been once cled with Possession and so become a real Right the Defender would only have been fred of the Duties before fourty years but the very Tack it self being never cled with Possession is singly expired and void The Lords found the Defense Relevant and competent to the Defender to Liberat him of all bygones payed to the Minister but not to exclude the Pursuer for time coming in respect that by the Decreet of Provision and prorogation of the Tack the benefice is no more a Parsonage but the Minister is a Stipendiary and is in Possession by vertue of a Modified Stipend the Right of the Teinds remaining by the Tack and prorogation forsaid in the Tacksman and in his Successors But because the Pursuer alleadged Minority and Lesion the Defender proponed a third Defense viz. That he had made payment bona fide to the Minister and had received a Discharge for his whole Teind duty and could be lyable for no further for bygones till his use of payment was interrupted by Citation or Inhibition The Pursuer answered that any payment the Defender made was but an inconsiderable Duty allocat out of his Teinds by vertue of the samine Decreet
proven they were not obliged to take Terms to produce or otherwise upon this pretence of Part and Pertinent before the samine were instructed any party might necessitate all his Neighbours to make patent to him their Charter Chists The Pursuer answered that the Defenders ought to take a Term to produce and that before Certification at that Term he would prove Part and Pertinent and alleadged the Practique in the Case of the Town of Sterling observed by Dury the 24. of Iune 1625. The Lords Sustained the Defense and would not put the Defenders to take Terms till the Lands in question were first proven to be Part and Pertinent and allowed the Pursuer to insist primo loco in this Declarator for that effect and as to the Practique alleadged they found in that Case the Defenders alleadged upon no Right whereas the Defenders propone here upon an expresse Infeftment Laird Kilburny contra the Heirs of Tailzie of Kilburny and Schaw of Greinock Eodem die UMquhile Sir Iohn Crawford of Kilburny having only two Daughters the eldest Married to Blackhal Dispones his Estate to Margaret the younger and to the Heirs-male of her Body which failing to the eldest Heir Female without division throughout all the Succession and failling the Issue of this Daughter his eldest Daughter and her Issue and failling of these Iordanhil and Kilburny their Issue all which failling his own Heirs and Assigneys whatsomever In which Disposition there is a Clause that the said Margaret and the Heirs of Tailzie should not alter the Tailzie nor Dispone or burden the Lands ' or contract Debts whereby they might be Apprized and carried from the Heirs of Tailzie otherwise the Contraveeners should lose their Right ipso facto and there should be place to the next Heir of Tailzie but there is a Clause subjoined that the said Margaret and the Heirs of Tailzie might Sell Dispone and Wodset the Lands of Easter Greinock and Carsburn and might burden the same with Sums of Money for paying and satisfying of the Defuncts Debts The said Margaret Crawford having Married the Earl of Crawfords Son Patrick they did Sell the Lands of Easter Crawford and Carsburn to Sir Iohn Schaw of Greinock at a Rate far above the ordinar Price having expected a Bargain with the Town of Glasgow for a Harbour there but the Town having made another Bargain with New-wark Greinock pursued Kilburny either to annul the Minut or fulfil the same and to secure him in relation to the Clause de non alienando and to that effect Kilburny raises a Declarator against the Heirs of Tailzie to hear and see it found and Declared that by the Right granted to the Lady by her Father she might lawfully Sell the Lands of Easter Greinock and Carsburn The Heirs of Tailzie compeared not but Greinock compeared and was admitted for his Interest which was that the Processe being for his security he might propone all the Defenses which he thought competent to the Heirs of Tailzie and alleadged that the Libel was no ways Relevant bearing a power to Sell simply but that it ought to have been conform to the Clause in the Disposition viz. to Sell Wodset or Burden for payment of the Defuncts Debts which did necessarly import that no further could be Sold then what was sufficient to pay the Debt and therefore no Processe till the Libel were so ordered and the Debts produced The Pursuer answered that he opponed the Clause having two Members one bearing with full power to Dispone the Lands of Easter Grienock and Carsburn and the other bearing to affect the same with Sums for paying of the Defuncts Debts which payment of the Defuncts Debts was but the end motive and consideration for which the power was granted but was no restriction quality or limitation of the power 2dly It did only relate to the second Member of the Clause and not to the first Member which bore with full power to Sell and Wodset c. which full power is directly opposit to a limited power 3dly Albeit the Pursuer were obliged to instruct the Debt and apply the price for satisfying thereof yet the Clause doth not limit him to Sell only so much as will be equivalent to the Debt but he satisfying the Debt more or lesse hath acted conform to the Clause which uses to be so exprest in Clauses of this nature as that the Heirs of Tailzie may Dispone so much as will be sufficient for payment of the Debt which not being exprest these restrictive Clauses being against common Law are strictissimi juris and not to be extended beyond what the words expresly bears 4thly Albeit the Pursuer were obliged to instruct that there were Debt which might be a price yet he were not obliged to instruct that they would be equivalent to this price but to such a price as were not a third part within the ordinar Rate in which latitude every Seller hath power and the alienation cannot be quarrelled and albeit that price would be more then the Debt yet these Lands being two intire Tenements which none would Buy by Parcels the Pursuer could only be comptable to the Heirs of Tailzie for the superplus The Defender answered that he opponed the Clause being one and copulative and that these Lands being put per expressum in the Clause de non alienando It could not be thought that the immediat following Clause would give the Lady as much power as to these Lands as if they had not been in the former Clause but the intent to satisfie the Defuncts Debt being the last words in the Clause is relative to the whole Clause and natively resolves into an Restriction or Quality not bearing that they night be the more able to pay the Debts but for payment and satisfaction of the Debts The Lords considering that Heirs of Tailzie were absent and that as to them the Interlocutor would be in absence found it most just and safe for both Parties to declare conform to the Clause that the Alienation was valide for satisfying the Defuncts Debts and found not that the Debts behoved to be equivalent to this price The Creditors of John Pollock contra James Pollock his Son January 21. 1669. THe Creditors of John Pollock having Adjudged his Tenement for their Debt and James Pollock having gotten a Bond of 5000. Merks from his Father payable after his Fathers death which was granted after he was Married he did also Apprize thereupon within year and day of the Adjudication The Adjudgers raise a Reduction of this Bond and the Apprizing following thereupon upon these Reasons First Because the Bond was granted for Love and Favour and albeit it bear borrowed Money yet the said Iames has acknowledged by his Oath that it was for Love and Favour and so being granted betwixt most conjunct Persons after the contracting of their Debts it is null by the Act of Parliament 1621. The Defender alleadged that the Reason was not Relevant as to such Debts
Moâ—ison of Darsie and Dam Nicolas Bruce now Lady Braid then his Spouse bearing Annualrent and a Clause stating the Principal Sum after ilk Term as a Stock to bear Annualrent and Termly Penalties in case of failzie This being called in praesentia It was alleadged for Kinghorne that Annual of Annual was a most Usurary Paction rejected by all Law and our Custom and cannot subsist in whatever Terms it be conceived otherwise by the like Paction the Annual of that Annual might bear Annual and so perpetually multiply and if this were Sustained there would never be a Bond hereafter in other Terms It was answered that Bonds of Corroboration stating Annualrents into Principals by Accumulation have ever been allowed and though that be done after the Annualrent is become due making it then to bear Annualrent there is no material difference to make it bear Annualrent by a paction ab ante but not to take Effect till the Annualrent be effectually due It was answered that Custom had allowed the stating of Annualrents after they were due into a Principal because then being presently due they might instantly be Exacted but Law and Custom hath rejected the other Case The Pursuer further alleadged that she being a Widow and this her Liveliehood Annualrent at least should be due for the Annualrents seing she is ready to Depone that she borrowed money to live upon and payed Annualrent therefore or otherwise the Termly Failzies ought to be Sustained The Lords Sustained the Defense and found no Annualrent due of the Annual nor Termly Failzies seing there was no Charge at the Pursuers Instance against this Defender and that he was a Cautioner but modified for all 100. pound of Expences Bell of Belfoord contra L. Rutherfoord Ianuary 27. 1669. BEll of Belfoord being Infeft in an Annualrent by the Deceast Lord Rutherfoord out of certain Lands pursues a poinding of the ground Compearance is made for my Lady Rutherfoord who alleadged she ought to be preferred as being Infeft in an Annualrent of 2000. merks yearly upon her Contract of Marriage before this Pursuer 2dly That she ought to be preferred for an Annualrent of 2000. merks yearly of additional Joynture wherein she stands also Infeft publickly and albeit her Infeftment be posterior to the Pursuers yet his Infeftment being base not cled with Possession before her publick Infeftment she is preferable The Pursuer answered that before the Ladies Infeftment on her additional Jointure he had used a Citation for poinding of the Ground and is now Insisting for a Decreet thereupon which must be drawn back to the Citation and is sufficient to validat the base Infeftment that it be no more from that time forth repute Clandestine Which alleadgance the Lords found Relevant and preferred the Pursuer to the Ladies additional Jointure It was further alleadged for the Lady that she was Served and kenned to a Terce of the Lands in question and must be preferred as to a third part of the profits of the Lands conform to her Infeftment upon her Terce The Pursuer answered that her Service Kenning and Infeftment of Terce are posteriour to his Infeftment of Annualrent and posterior to his Citation foresaid thereupon It was answered for the Lady that her Terce being a Right Constitute by Law by the Death of her Husband albeit it be Served and Kenned after these Acts are but Declaratory of her Right by her Husbands Death and do Constitute her Right not from the date of the Service but from her Husbands Death which is before the Pursuers Citation so that his Infeftment granted by her Husband before his Death not having been cled with Possession in the Husbands Life it remained at his Death as an incompleat Right which cannot exclude her from her Terce It was answered that a base Infeftment is of it self a valid Right although by a special Act of Parliament posterior publick Infeftments are preferred thereto unless the base Infeftment hath been cled with Possession which cannot be extended beyond the Terms of the Act of Parliament and so cannot be extended to a Terce but as the base Infeftment would have been a sufficient Right against the Husband and his Heirs so it must be esteemed as debitum reale affecting the Ground and his Lady can have no more by her Terce then the third of what was free unaffected before his Death The Lords found the base Infeftment sufficient to exclude the Terce pro tanto and that as to the Husbands Heir or Relict it was a sufficient Right Stirling contra Heriot Eodem die Stirling Son to Commissar Stirling pursues for a modification of an Aliment out of the Liferent of Helen Heriot his Fathers Wife as having the Liferent of the whole Estate The Lords Sustained not the Aliment in respect the Defenders Liferent was very mean and the Pursuer was major and keeped a Brewary and she kept one of his Children and that he was not frugi aut bonae famae Robert Brown contra Iohnstoun of Clacherie February 1. 1669. RObert Brown pursues Iohnstoun of Clacherie for payment of 1200. pounds contained in a Bill of Exchange subscribed before two subscribing Witnesses and marked with Clacheries hand there was several other Bills for greater Sums produced marked with the like mark and none compearing for Clacherie The Lords caused Examine the Witnesses insert who Deponed that Clacherie was accustomed so to Subscribe and one of them Deponed that he saw him put to this mark to the Bill in question several others Deponed that they had accepted such Bills in regard of his Custom and had obtained payment from him without any Debate thereupon The question arose to the Lords whether a Sum above an hundred pound could be proven by such a Writ that had only a mark and having demured upon it before till they should try if any such case had been Sustained formerly and none having been found Sustaining any Writ not being Subscribed with the whole Name or at least the Initial Letters of the Debitors whole Name It was offered by some that Clacheries Oath might be taken ex officio or de calumniâ— not simply to refer the Debt to his Oath but whether that truly he set to this mark before these Witnesses but Robert Brown being a dying the Lords would not defer but decided the Case and found that this Writ being a Bill of Exchange among Merchants and Clacheries custom so to grant Bills of greater importance then this being clearly proven and none appearing for him they decerned against him upon the Bill and Testimonies many of the Lords being of different Judgement and that it was of dangerous preparative to encourage Forgerie but it was Sustained only in all the particular Circumstances aforesaid and not to be a general Rule Iohn Boswel contra Town of Kirkaldie Eodem die THe Town of Kirkaldie having given a in Bill to stop the Interlocutor of the 22. of Iuly 1668. of the Process against them and having objected against that
Bargain or to necessitat her to quite the same and give only a Wodset seing the Clause gives her power both to Sell and Affect and does not limit her to either of them The Lords Repelled the Defenses aâ—d declared that the Lady had warrantably Sold these Lands and that the principal Sums being so considerable although the Rental had been more they were sufficient and found that the Clause laid no necessity upon her to exhaust the Moveables and that she might thereby Wodset or Sell at her pleasure Iames Deanes contra Alexander Bothwel February 5. 1669. ALexander Bothwel of Glencorsse being conveened before the Commissars of Edinburgh for Slandering Iames Deanes Procurator before the Commissars in calling him a false knave publickly in the Parliament House and at the Crosse the samine being proven by Witnesses he was Decerned to stand at the Kirk Door of Glencorsse where both Parties dwelt and acknowledge his Fault and to pay 100. pound to the Poor and 100. pound to the Party Bothwel Suspends on these Reasons first That the Commissars could not ordain him to stand at an Congregation which is an Ecclesiastical Censure 2dly That they could not also Fyne him to the Poor nor Decern any thing to the Party but the Expences of Plae seing there was no other Damnage Lybelled nor proven 3dly That the Witnesses were not habile being the Pursuers own Servants The Charger opponed the Decreet wherein the Suspender was compearing and objected nothing against the hability of the Witnesses then and therefore cannot now quarrel their Testimonies and that it was most proper for the Commissars to cognosce upon Slander or Defamation neither was his standing in order to Repentance but in order to restoring the party to his Fame The Lords Repelled the Reasons and Sustained the Decreet in all Points Cleiland contra Stevinson Eodem die William Cleiland Charges Iohn Stevinson upon a Bond of 400. Merks bearing Annualrent he Suspends on this Reason that the Charger was owing him more for Victual being his Tennent which was now liquidat before this time but after the Date of this Bond and craved compensation thereupon not only from the Date of the liquidation but from the time the Victualrent was due Which the Lords Sustained Rule contra Rule February 6. 1669. MArgaret Rule having made a Consignation of certain Bonds and in general of all other Rights with a Disposition of all her Goods to Umquhile Robert Rule her Brother who having named Mr. David Rule his Executor and universal Legator did upon his Death-bed acknowledge that his Sisters Disposition was in trust to her own behove granted upon that consideration that she being a Bastard unless she Disponed in her leige poustie her Means would be Confiscat by her Bastardy she thereupon pursues the said Mr. David Rule to deliver back her Assignation with her own Writs The Defender alleadged the Lybel was no way Relevant there being nothing Libelled but the Defuncts acknowledgement of a Trust upon Death-bed and that offered to be proven by Witnesses only but First The Trust behoved to be declared by a Declarator and not thus by an Exhibition 2dly Trust is only probabable scripto vel juramento being a matter of so great importance 3dly Some of the Rights Assigned and Disponed are Heretable and nothing done upon Death-bed can prejudge the Defuncts Heir thereof 4thly An extrajudicial Confession without Writ albeit it were acknowledged hath no effect for it cannot be known quo animo such words might have been exprest The Pursuer answered that the Trust might be very well Lybelled with the Exhibition and albeit the Defuncts Confession would not alone be sufficient to prejudge his Heir yet it may very well stand as an evidence of Trust which cannot be astricted to probation by Witnesses but hath ever been found probable by other evidences especially where the Person trusted is Dead and the Pursuer condescends upon these evidences and adminicles of Trust. First Communis fama 2dly The Assignation and Disposition bears no Reservation of the Disponers Liferent and yet she continued still in Possession and her Brother whom she Entrusted never medled which he would not have done if the Disposition had been for a Cause Onerous or to his own behove 3dly He did solemnly in presence of Witnesses above exception acknowledge the Trust on his Death-bed The Lords Sustained the Summons and would not astrict the Pursuer to prove by Write or Oath of Party but ordained Witnesses to be Examined ex officio anent the evidences and adminicles condescended on by the Pursuer Black contra Dawid French February 9. 1669. THe Lands of Miln-burn being holden Waird of the Dutchess of Hamiltoun after Miln burns Death the Duke and Dutchess grants a Gift of the Waird to Mr. â—oâ—ert Black who pursued for Mails and Duties and likewise David French having Appryzed from Miln burn and having Charged the Dutchess before Miln-burns Death to Receive him he pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties who Suspend upon double Poynding In the Competition it was alleadged for the Appryzer First That his Appryzing being a Judicial Sentence did Denude Miln-burn the Vassal in the same way as if Miln-burn had Resigned in the Dukes Hands in favours of David French after which Miln burn was totally Divested and no Casualty could befall to the Superior by his Death Ita est that Law hath stated a Decreet of Appryzing in the same Case as an Resignation accepted for though the Vassal against whom the Appryzing was led should Die the Appryzer will summarly upon a Charge obtain himself Infeft so that the former Vassal was totally Denuded 2dly Here not only there is Appryzing but a Charge against the Superior which fictione juris is in all points as if the Appryzer were actually Infeft and therefore the Appryzer who first Charges albeit he inâ—iâ—t not to use any further Diligence is ever preferred to all other Appryzers Infeft after It was answered for Black the Donator that he ought to be preferred because the Superior who gave his Giâ—t could not want a Vassal nor loss the Casualty of his Superiority without his own fault but the Appryzer did not become Vassal neither by the Appryzing nor by the Charge nor was it ever found that the Liferent or Waird of an Appryzer fell unless he had been actually Infeft and it would be of very great disadvantage to Creditors if the naked Charge should make their VVaird to fall which they may pass from at their pleasure therefore seing the Appryzer could not be Vassal the former Vassal behoved to remain Vassal and seing the Superior could not have a Waird by the Appryzers Death he behoved to have it by the former Vassels Death and albeit the Charge be â—qulparat to an Infeftment as to the Competition of Appryzers whom the Superior may not prefer but according to their Diligences yet it is not holden as an Infeftment to any other Case for thereupon the Appryzer cannot remove the
the same only to anterior Creditors without mention of posterior Creditors the same might be thought to be of purpose omitted and cannot be extended by the Lords The Lords found the matter of fact and circumstances alleadged Relevant to infer a presumptive fraud and contrivance betwixt the Father and the Son which did insnare the Creditors who continued to Trade and therefore Reduced the same as to the Creditors and preferred them and the Relict in so far as she was a Creditor but not for any posterior or gratuitous Provision to her or to her Children but they did not find the two first grounds Relevant to prefer a posterior onerous obligation to a prior gratuitous or that this Bond was as a â—egitâ—ime Revockable and the Lords were chiefly moved because of the inconvenience to Creditors acting bona fide with a person Trading and repute in a good Condition And where in eventu his Estate is not sufficient both to pay his Creditors and this Bond for if it had been sufficient for both they would have come in paâ—â— passu having both done Diligence within the year Iohn Brown contra Robert Sibbald Eodem die IOhn Brown having taken a Feu of some Aikers of Land at a great Rent in Victual and Money pursue Robert Sibbald now his Superior to hear and see it found and declared that he might Renunce and be free of the Feu Duty The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because this Feu was by a mutual Conâ—ract by which the Vassal had bound him and his Heirs to pay the Feu Duty yearly and which obligation he could not louse at his pleasure for albeit Feues which are proper and gratuirously given without any obligement on the Vassals part but given by a Charter or Disposition as being presumed to be in favorem of the Vassal he might Renunce the same nam cuivis licet favori pro se introducto renunciare but here the Vassal being expresly obliged for the Feu Duty cannot take off his own obligation this case being like unto that of a Tack which being by mutual Contract cannot be Renunced though by a Tack only granted and Subscribed by the Setter it may The Pursuer answered that he opponed the common opinion of all Feudists de feudo refutando wherein there is no exception whether the Feudal Contract be Subscrived by both Parties for every Contract must necessarly import the Consent of both Parties and the acceptance of a Vassal to a Feu by way of Dispoâ—ition is all one with his express obligation in a mutual Contract 2dly Though such a Contract could not be Renunced yet this Pursuer may Renunce because by a Back-bond by the Superior who granted the Feu under his Hand he has liberty to Renunce when he pleaâ—es The Defender answered that this Back-bond not being in corpore juris nor any part of the Investiture it was only personal against that Superior who granted the same but not against the Defender who is a singular Successor It was answered that the mutual Contract not being de natura feudi but at most importing an obligement not to Renunce the Feu any personal Deed before this Superiors Right under the Hand of his Author is Relevant against him as well as his Author The Lords found the alleadgeances upon the Back-bond Relevant against the Supeâ—â—or though singular Successor it being granted of the same Date with the Feudal Contract and relating to a matter extrinsick to the nature of the Feu and so suffered the Pursuer to Renunce the same Gilbert Mcclellan contra Lady Kirkcudbright February 13. 1669. GIlbert Mcclellan being Infeft by the Lord Kirkcudbright in an Annualrent effeirand to four thousand Merks out of the Lands of Auchinâ—lour thereafter my Lady was Infeft in Property or an Annualrent out of the Lands at her pleasure for her Liferent use and after my Ladies Infeftment my Lord gave a Corroborative Security of the Property of Auchinflour and stated the four thousand Merks of principal and the two thousand and five hundreth Merks of Annualrent in one principal and Infeft him thereupon in Property wherein Gilbert was many years in Possession before my Lords Death In the Competition betwixt my Lady and him he craved preference because he was seven years in Possession 2dlie Because his first Right of Annualrent still stands and was Corroborat and therefore as he would undoubtedly have been preferred to my Lady for all his Annualrents for the sum of four thousand merks by his first Infeftment which is prior to my Ladies and as an appryzing by poinding of the Ground for these annualrents though posterior to my Ladies Infeftment would be drawen back ad suam causam to his Infeftment of annualrent and be preferred so my Lord having voluntarly granted-this Corroborative Security to prevent an appryzing it should work the same effect as if an appryzing had been then led and an Infeftment thereupon which would have accumulat the annualrents then past and made them bear annualrent in the same manner as this Corroborative security does The Lords preferred Gilbert for the whole annualrents of his four thousand Merks conform to his first Infeftment but would not Sustain the Corroborative Security being posterior to my Ladies Infeftment as if it had been upon an appryzing to give him annualrent for 2500. merks then accumulate but found no moment in his alleadgance of the Possessory Judgement unless it had been seven years after my Lords death when my Lady might have preferred her Right and not contra non valentem agere The Creditors of Balmerino and Couper contra my Lady Couper Februarie 16. 1669. THe Deceased Lord Cowper having Disponed his Estate to his Lady some of his Creditors and some of Balmerino's Creditors who was his Heir appearand did raise Reduction of the said Disposition as done on Death-bed and before the day of Compearance they give in a Supplication desiring Witnesses to be Examined and to remain in retentis that Cowper had Contracted his Disease whereof he died before the Subscribing of this Disposition and that he never went out thereafter but once to the Kirk and Mercat of Cowper which times he was supported and fell down Dead a Swoon before he was gotten home It was answered for the Lady Cowper First That Witnesses ought not to be Examined until the Relevancy of the Libel were Discust unless they were old or Valetudinary or penury of Witnesses whereas there are here fourty Witnesses ctaved to be Examined and the coming to Kirk and Mercat being publick Deeds there would be no hazard of wanting Witnesses 2dly The Creditors or appearand Heir have no interest unless the Heir were Entered or they had appryzed or had a real Right neither can the Creditors be prejudged by the Disposition as being on Death-bed because they may Reduce the same as being posterior to their Debts upon the Act of Parliament 1621. and the reason of Death-bed is only competent to Heirs and to these having real Rights from the
for the Earl of Hume and was content that Witnesses should be Examined anent the Inhibition and Apprizings being still in the Possession of the Earl of Hume in his Charter Chist but not upon any other ground to take away his Assignation and solemne Right which cannot be taken away by Witnesses but scripto vel juramento and most of these presumptions are but weak conjectures no wayes inferring that Ioussie was payed by the Earl of Humes Means and the great friendship that was betwixt Annandail and Hume alleviats the same it being the cause for which Annandail forbore to take Infeftment or do Diligence thereby to allarum Humes Creditors that his Inhibition would always work his preference and on that same ground did consent to several Creditors Rights there being enough remaining for him and which was an evidence that this Right was generally known and that without it Hume could not give Security The Lords ordained Witnesse sexâ— officio to be Examined upon all the points alleadged for â—learing of the Trust. The Kings Advocat contra the Earl of Mortoun and Viscount of Grandison February 29. 1669. THe Kings Advocat pursues a Reduction of the Rights of the Earldom of Orkney and Zetland granted by the Deceast King Charles the first or by this King himself to the Earl of Mortoun or Viscount of Grandison and produces a Contract betwixt the King and the Earl of Mortoun in Anno 1643. and a Charter following thereupon whereby the Lands are granted and Disponed blench with several extraordinaâ— Priviledgâ—s as having right to the Bullion and other Customs of Goods Imported there and also a Charter in Anno 1646. by the King to the said Earl relating to a Dissolution in the Parliament 1644. containing nova daâ—tus and bearing also blench there is also produced an Infeftment granted to the Viscount of Grandison and after the said Infeftment a Ratification by the Parliament 1661. In the which Ratification there is contained a Dissolution of the Earldom of Orkney and Zetland in favours of Grandison wherein also the Dissolution formerly made in favours of Mortoun in Anno 1644. is particularly Rescinded upon this consideration that neither the King nor his Commissioner were present in the Parliament 1644. and that his annexed Property could not be Disponed nor Dilapidat without an express aâ—t of his own Ratified by Parliament After this Dissolution in favourâ— of Grandison the King granted no new Infeftment to Grandison The Advocat having holden the production satisfied with the Writs produced Mâ—â—toun and Grandison compeared not at all and some others having publick Rights from them being called did also pass from their compearance and submitted to the Kings favour and compearance being made for some of the Vassals holding of Mortoun they were not admitted because they produced no Wâ—its to instruct there Interest so the Lords proceeded to Advise the Reasons of Reduction which were upon these points First That by the Law and several particular Acts of Parlâ—ament the Patrimony of the Crown being the Lands and Customs annexed to the Crown might not be Disponed by the King unless the samine upon weighty Motives and Considerations had been Dissolved by his Majesty and the Parliament and Dissolutionsâ— made after Infeftments are not valide Parliament 1597. cap. 236. and by the 234. Act of that same Parliament the annexed Property can not be Seâ— otherwise but in Feu Ferm so that the Earldom of Orkney being annexed to the Crown by the annexation produced in Process and the Contract and Charter 1643. being before any Dissolution is absolutely null and the Infeftment in Anno 1646. albeit relating to a Dissolution in Anno 1644. yet no such Dissolution is found in the Records and though it were it is Rescinded in the Ratification in favours of Grandison in the Parliament 1661. upon so weighty a Reason as the King or his Commissioner not being present And because the Parliament 1644. is Rescinded by the Parliament 1661. wherein albeit there be a salvo of privat Rights yet that cannot reach to the Patrimony of the Crown especially seing in that same Parliamentâ— 1661. His Majesty having Revocked all Deeds done by Him or his Father since 1637. which by the Laws of the Nation he might not do to the Derogation of his Honour or Crown the Parliament has Ratified the same Revocation as to all Rights granted since 1637. Contrair to the Laws and Acts of Parliament preceeding 1637. and likewise by an express Act of Parliament it is provided that no Ratification in Parliament shall prejudge the Crownâ— or supply a Dissolution and that none of the Kings Customs which are also annexed can be effectually Gifted The Lords found these Reasons Relevant and proven and Reduced all the Rights produced before the Dissolution in Anno 1661. since which there is no Infeftment granted Pargilleis contra Pargilleis February 26. 1669. UMquhile Abraham Pargilleis having no Children but one Bastard Daughter Dispones some Lands acquired by him to Abraham Pargilleis eldest lawful Son of that Daughter Iohn Pargilleis his Brother Son and nearest Heir pursues a Reduction of that Disposition as being done in lecto and the Defender alleadged that the Defunct went abroad to Kirk and Mercat thereafter unsupported and the Pursuer replying that he was supported and either Party contending for Preference the one that he walked free of himself and the other that he was supported The Lords considering the advantage to the Party that had the sole Probation would prefer neither but before answer ordained Witnesses to be adduced for either Party concerning the Condition the Defunct was in as to Sicknesse or Health when he Subscribed the Disposition and the manner of his going abroad whether free or supported and now the Lords having Advised the Testimonies by which it was proven that the Defunct was Sick the time of the Subscribing of the Disposition and that he continued Sick till his Death It was also proven that he went unsupported a quarter of a Mile when the Seisine was taken six days after the Disposition and that after the same he went three times to Calder and about three quarters of a Mile off and that he was helped to his Horse and from his Horse and that he was helped up Stairs and down Stairs but that he walked a foot unsupported in the Mercat of Calder and up and down from my Lords House being three pair of Buts of rising Ground It occurred to the Lords to consider whether the Sickness proven would have been sufficient not being â—â—orbus sonticus or in extremis or whether the presumption of Health sufficient to leige poustie was enough that he came out to Kirk and Mercat albeit the Sickness remained and whether the probation of the Sickness remaining could take away that presumption and whether his being helped to his Horse and from his Horse or up and down Stairs and his Man holding his Bridle as he Rode to and returned from Calder did infer that supportation
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
young Garner was then an Infant in his Fathers Family and albeit the Right be granted by his Uncle yet it is necessarly inferred to be Acquired by the Fathers Means because it bears not for Love and Favour but for Sums of Money and the Uncle had Bairns of his own It was answered that albeit the Right had been Acquired by the Fathers Means yet its anterior to the Apprizing and Sums on which it proceeds whereupon nothing can be taken away but what is posterior thereto albeit there were a Declarator and Reduction intented for that purpose as there is none The Lords Sustained the alleadgeance and Reduced the Apprizing as to these Tenements 2dly The Pursuer alleadges the Apprizing as to Lady-kirk must be Reduced because the Pursuers produce a prior Infeftment granted by Iohn Garner to his Wife in Liferent and his Bairns in Fee it was answered that the said Infeftment was base never cled with Possession The Pursuers Replyed that the Fathers Liferent not being Reserved the continuation of Possession was as lawful Administrator to the Pursuers Bairns and if need be 's its offered to be proven he had a Factory from them The Defender answered that a Fathers Possession being continued was never found to validate a base Infeftment granted to his Children albeit his Liferent were expresly Reserved but it s ever accounted a latent fraudulent Deed and a Factory can be of no more force then a Reservation otherwise it were impossible to obviat fraudulent conveyances betwixt Fathers and Children The Pursuer answered that albeit such Reservations are not valide in Rights freely granted by Fathers yet it meets not this case especially where there was an anterior Onerous Cause Iohn Garner being obliged by his Contract of Marriage that what Lands he should Acquire should be to his Wife in Liferent and to the Bairns of the Marriage The Lords found that the Bairns Infeftment granted by their Father albeit he had Possest by a Factory from them was not cled with Possession or sufficient to exclude a posterior publick Infeftment and that the Clause in the Contract was but to substitute the Children Heirs to their Father in the Conquest Here it was not alleadged that the Factory was made publick by Process founded at the Fathers Instance or otherwise in this Process The Defender to satisfie the Production of an Assignation upon which the Apprizing proceeded which the Pursuers offered to improve as false in the Date and the Defender now produced another Assignation of the same Date and declared he abade by the same as of that Date and that it being a missing he had caused the Cedent to Subscribe another of the same Date with the first which did expresly bear Reservation of another Assignation formerly Subscribed which he did also bide be as truly Subscribed but not of the Date it bears but of the Date of the true Assignation insert therein The Lords Sustained the Assignation now last produced and did not quarrel the other Assignation though another Date was insert then when it was Subscribed for the Cause foresaid Alexander Glasse contra Iohn Haddin Eodem die ALexander Glasse and William Reid having a proper Wodset of the Lands of Alairtnenie and Iohn Haddin being also Infeft in an Annualrent forth thereof some days prior compet for the Maills and Duties Haddin alleadged that both infeftments being base from the same Author his Infeftment of Annualrent is preferable because prior and first cled with Possession It was answered any Possession he had was by a Factory from Glass It was replyed that he offered to prove Possession before that Factory It was duplyed that by Haddins back Bond produced bearing expresly that Glasse had had a valide Right to the Maills and Duties of the Lands and that he was in Possession thereof and that Haddin had accepted a Factory from him and was obliged to compt to him for the Maills and Duties without any Reservation of his own Right this was an unquestionable Homologation and acknowledgement of the Right and equivalent to a Ratification thereof The Lords found by the back Bond produced of the Tenor foresaid that Haddin had so far acknowledged Reid and Glasses Right that he could not quarrel it upon his own Right but he proponing that there was a Reservation of his own Right related to in the back Bond the Lords found the same Relevant he proving Possession before the other Party and before the Factory The Old Colledge of Aberdeen contra the Town of Aberdeen Iuly 13. 1669. THe Principal and the remanent Members of the old Colledge of Aberdeen having Set a Tack to Doctor Dun of his Teinds during the Principals Life and five years thereafter and bearing an Obligement to renew the like Tack from time to time for ever The Doctor Mortified the same to the Town for plous uses after the Death of that Principal many years The Colledge now pursues the Possessors of the Lands upon an Inhibition for the full value of the Teinds and the Town Defends upon the foresaid Tack It was answered for the Colledge that the Tack is only for the Principals Life and five years after which is expired and as for the new Obligement to renew such Tacks for ever It was answered First Albeita Tack were conceived in these Terms it would be null as wanting an ish 2dly Obligements of the present Incumbents in Universities are not obligator but where there is an equivalent Cause Onerous Received for the good of the University It was replyed for the Town that an Obligement to grant a Tack by them who can grant it is equiparat to the Tack it self which requires no other solemnity as an obligement to grant an Assignation is equivalent to an Assignation and that there is here a Cause Onerous of the Universities Obligement because the Tack bears expresly 300. Merks of grassum and that the former Tack-duty was only ten Merks which by this Tack is made 50. Merks and albeit it want a desinit ish yet it must be valide for a Renovation during this Principals Life and five years after and it is Homologat by the Colledge who have received the same Duties several years since the first Tack expired It was duplyed for the Colledge that this Tack is not valide for any time after the first ish because by the Act of Parliament 1617. Tacks by beneficed Persons under Prelats are prohibit for longer time nor their own Life and five years after and these Teinds are a part of the benefice Mortified to the Colledge and they must be accounted as beneficed Persons and albeit the Teinds were augmented to 50. Merks yet they are worth 200. Merks and for the Receipt of the Duties after the first Tack it is per tacitamrelocatiâ—nem and no Homologation of the Obligement to renew the Tack The Lords found that the Colledge was not comprehended under beneficed Persons but found that there was no sufficient Cause Onerous alleadged for this Obligement of Renewing
modo by Dissolution The Pursuer answered First That albeit the King or his Officers might quarrel his Right as not proceeding upon Dissolution or any other having their Right upon Dissolution yet the Defender cannot especially seing he hath Homologat the Pursuers Right his Predecessors to whom he is Heir having taken Infeftment thereupon likeas the Pursuer has satisfyed the Kings Interest by giving Bond to the Kings Advocat to hold the Lands Waird of the King in the same way as the Defender would therefore the Advocat hath declared he will not concern himself 2dly the Pursuer having obtained a new Right of the King since the Act of Parliament 1661. the same must be valide to him as to these Vassals who have or shall consent because the exception of the Act expresly bears that such a consent is equivalent as if the Vassal had Resigned in the Kings Hands in favour and for new Infeftment to the interposed Superior and had then taken a subaltern Right of him against which there can be no pretence so that by a Right in the exception it cannot be meaned a perfect Right proceeding upon Dissolution because that would be valide without the Vassals consent but that the Vassals consent being equivalent to a Resignation makes the Right valide without Dissolution Which the Lords found Relevant the Duke proving a sufficient consent but it was not Decided whether Major Ballantines taking Infeftment would import a sufficient consent conform to the exception of the Act so that he might not thereafter return to the King Iack contra Iack Iuly 15. 1669. PAtrick Iack having only three Daughters Margaret his eldest Daughter Married Iohn Dowglas and there is a Contract betwixt Iohn Dowglas and the Tutors of the other two Daughters dividing there Fathers Inheritance in three parts and mutally Disponing the same with Procuratory and Precept and there being a Salmond Fishing holding Waird of the King which fell to Margarets share Iohn Dowglas takes Infeftment upon the Tutors Precept Disponing for the other two that Fishing after his Death the said Margaret takes a Gift of Recognition of the said Salmond Fishing as falling by the Infeftment taken by Iohn Dowglas without consent of the Superior and thereupon pursues Declarator Katharin Iack and Robertson her Spouse and the other Sister pursue a Reduction of the Contract of Division as done by their Tutors in their Minority to their Lesion and in answer to the Recognition alleadged First That this Recognition occurred in the time of the English when Recognitions were excluded and such Infeftments by the Law then in use were allowed 2dly The Infeftment here granted proceeded only upon the Disposition of their Tutors whose acts except in what is proper to the Administration of their Office is void It was answered as to the first that they opponed the Decision in the case of Sir George Kinaired against the Vassals of the Master of Gray by which it was found that Infeftments taken of Waird-lands without the Superiors consent even during the Usurpation inferred Recognition and to the second that the Division among the Daughters was an act of Administration that the Daughters might have been compelled to do It was answered that there is no such Decision produced and that in the case of the Vassals of Gray they did continue in Possession several years after the Kings Restitution and did not take Confirmations but here the said Margaret one of the Sisters who should have taken Confirmation before she had continued Possession cannot have benefit by her own fault and make use of a Gift of Recognition in her own Person proceeding upon her own and her Husbands fault neither can the Division be a lawful act of Administration of the Tutors in so far as they granted them Precepts of Seising to be holden of their Pupil which no Law could have compelled them to do but only Procuratories of Resignation likeas it was Iohn Dowglas fault not to make use of the Procuratory but of the Prccept The Lords found no Recognition incurred but because the Parties might have been troubled if any other had taken the Gift they ordained the other two Sisters to pay their part of the expences of the Gift Mr. Archibald Dennistoun contra Semple of Fulwood Iuly 16 1669. THe Lairds of Fulwood elder and younger and Dennistoun being appointed Overseers by Culgrain to his Daughters the eldest Daughter being Married to Mr. Archibald Dennistouns Son there is a Contract betwixt Mr. Archibald and the three Overseers taking burden for the Daughters by which the Estate of Culgrain and Mr. Archibalds Estate are both settled in the Person of his Son and the Overseers are obliged to cause the Minors and their Curators become obliged to relieve Mr. Archibald of 17000. Merks Mr. Archibald Charges Fulwood upon the Contract who Suspends alleadging that the Clause can only import that he is lyable for his own part but not in solidum seing the Clause bears not the Overseers to be bound conjunctly and severally It was answered that the obligement is not for payment of a Sum which is divisible but for doing a Fact which is indivisible viz. the Minors being become bound to relieve which is all one as if the Overseers had been obliged to cause the Minors Subscribe a Bond of releif which could not divide but would have obliged every one of them in solidum It was answered that the result of the obligation being releif of Sums which are divisible the obligation at least the Damnadge and Interest succeeding in place thereof ought to be devisible for the obligation being factum alienum imprestable to the Overseer and the third Overseers that refuses to concur being the Chargers own Brother there is no reason that the Overseers who had no Office or obligement but were only Overseers which is not nomen juris should be lyable for the Chargers own Brother his third part thereof The Lords found them only lyable pro rata Barclay contra Barclay Iuly 20. 1669. THe Laird of Towy having only one Daughter Elizabeth Barclay and his Lands being provided to Heirs Male Dispones his Estate to his Daughter In which Disposition there being not only a Procuratory of Resignation but a Prcept of Seising the said Elizabeth was Infeft upon the Precept and being an Infant her Friends thinking it might infer Recognition took a Gift of the Recognition and now pursues Declarator thereon against the Tutor of Towy Heir Male and Captain Barclay as pretending Right by Disposition to the Estate It was alleadged for the Defenders Absolvitor because the Disposition granted by umquhile Towy to the Pursuer his Daughter was granted on Death-bed at the least it was retained by the Defunct and never delivered till he was on Death-bed and thereby it is null and cannot infer Recognition because the Law upon just consideration that Parties are presumed to be weak in their Minds and easily wrought upon after contracting of the Disease of which they Died has
from the Marquess of Hamiltoun upon Blackwoods Resignation and upon the Resignation of two Apprizers in Anno 164â— The Marquesse then having a Right to the Superiority granted by the King in Anno 1636. Which albeit it was not then valide because the Lands were then annexed to the Crown by the Act of Parliament 1633. and were not Dissolved yet the Major having taken Infeftment as to his part his Heirs could not quarrel the Superiority though the King might and now the King and Parliament by the Act 1661. having declared such Rights of Superiority valide as to these Vassals who had or should Consent and the Duke having gotten a new Right of the Superiority since the Act the former Consent is valide Likeas William Lowry Blackwoods Father and Tutor gave a Bond that so soon as the Duke should obtain the Superiority the Son should become Vassal The Defender alleadged that his Fathers Bond was only effectual against his Father but not against himself and his Father never being Feear of the Estate his Bond could never be a Consent of the Vassal neither can the Consent of any Tutor or lawful Administrator be sufficient to give such a Consent which is not an Act of Office or Administration and as to the Infeftment taken by Major Ballantine First The simple taking of Infeftmen from a Lord of Erection by the Vassals of kirk-Kirk-lands cannot import their passing from the King and the benefit of the Act of Annexation so that they may not return to the King thereafter neither can it be such a Consent as it is meant in this Act of Parliament otherwise the King and the Leidges should both losse the benefit of the Annexation seing most part of the Vassals have continued to take Infeftment of the Lords of Erection through ignorance or inadvertance finding their Infeftments flowing from the Lords of Erection and in respect that the Lords of Erection have still Right to the Feu-duties till they be Redeemed which being a common Error that they may safely so do till the Redemption and yet may still take Infeftment from the King when they please it were a very evil consequence if thereupon they should not only lose the benefit to be Vassals to the King but by disclamation lose the Property 2dly As to this case it cannot be presumed but Major Ballantine is in the same case with other Vassals of Kirk-lands and also in this much better case that he is in a manifest and palpable Error in so far as the Disposition that he takes from the Apprizers bears expresly that the Apprizers are informed that the Marquess of Hamiltoun was Superior and their Procuratory bears warrand either to Resign in the Kings hands or the Marquess hands or in the hands of any other lawful Superior and Blackwoods Procuratory in the Contract of Marriage bears warrand to Resign in the hands of the King the Marquess of Hamiltoun or the Earl of Roxburgh who had Right of Erection before the Marquess or any other lawful Superior so that by Resigning in the Marquess hand it is evident that the Resigner and the Major believed that the Marquess was Superior whereas he was not any Right he then had being absolutely null by the Act of Annexation 1633. and the King was the only Superior yea by the taking of that Infeftment he incurred disclamation unless it were excused by his error but the Consent requisit here must be such as the Party knowing the King was his Superior did choose to interject another Superior and become his perpetual Vassal It was answered for the Pursuer that the acceptance of the Infeftment as it is now stated can be no Error because it is evidenced by the Apprizers Rights now produced that they hold of the King and were Infeft by him and yet the Major took the Infeftment upon their Resignation in the Dukes hands likeas the Rights produced relate to the Right of Annexation which being a most publick Law and recent at that time cannot be thought but to be known to any at that time ignorantia juris neminem excusat It was answered that the Error was the greater that the Apprizers Infeftment was holden of the King seing in their Disposition and Procuratory they mention they were informed the Marquess was Superior and therefore the Procuratory is to Resign in the hands of the King the Marquess or any other lawful Superior and the other Procuratory is in the like Terms so that the Accepter of the Writs did not intend nor do any new or free Deed in favours of the Marquess but did only that Deed that they supposed was necessar and so did not by this Infeftment make the Marquess Superior as that his Right should be valide by their Consent but did take the Right from the Marquess as being Superior before they took it which was an palpable Error so prejudicial to them that it might infer disclamation if it were not excusable upon Error and if it had been intended that the Major minded to make the Marquess his Superior where he was not there is no doubt but it would have been exprest in the Right it self being so great a deference to the Marquess and would not have been past over in common Form neither can it be thought that this was procured by the Marquess upon accompt and favouring the Major the Infeftment being granted by the Lady Marquess as her sons Commissioner he being then in England and having no great influence then being the time of the Troubles of the Countrey It was answered that the other Vassals of that Barony did voluntarly Accept the Marquess as their Superior and gave Bonds for that purpose which are produced and it is most like that Blackwood hath given Bond which hath been lost or given up to him upon taking this Infeftment which is an implement thereof The Lords did not see that the single taking of the Infeftment from a Lord of the Erection did import his Consent to become Vassal thereby for ever or that he might not thereafter return to the King neither did they find such a Consent as is meant in the Act of Parliament but considering the whole Circumstances of this Case and especially the Fathers clear Bond who procured and settled the Controverted Right of this Estate for his Son then an Infant they found there was no Error but a choise of the Marquess to be Superior in place of the King and therefore declared Lesly contra Cunningham Eodem die LEsly having Arrested certain Sums for payment of a Tack-duty due to him It was alleadged for the Party in whose hands Arrestment was made that the Arrestment could not reach any further then for the Tack-duty Arrested which was due the time of the Arrestment but not for any Term following the Arrestment because Arrestment being a Legal Execution can no more proceed upon a Debt before the Term that the Debt be due then Apprizing and further alleadged that they had made payment of
him and all danger and that he would be loath to bid him do any thing would do him harm whereupon he did Subscribe as VVitness and saw not the Tutor Subscribe at all nor saw not his Name put to the VVrit at that time and that this was not at the Barns of Towy the time of the Lairds Death as the Date of the Paper bears but at Achready five weeks thereafter Ferguson Deponed that Captain Barclay having been his Tutor he induced him to VVrite over the Bond of 100000. Pounds whereof he had formerly gotten a Draught from Iames Midletoun Notar wherein Debitor Creditor Sums and Date were blank and that he filled up Umquhâ—â—â— Towy Debitor and the Captain Creditor and the Sum 100000. Pound and put in a Date as if it had been before the Lairds Sickness albeit it was truly after his Death and that the Captain shew him Towies Subscription in a Letter and caused him feinzâ—e it to the Bond as near as he could and likewise Depones that the Captains Brother was the other VVitness but that he saw not what the Deponent had done nor knew not thereof He also Deponed that he filled up the Date and insert the VVitnesses in the Disposition of the Estate of Towy at the Captains desire and made the Date to be at the Barns of Towy at the Lairds Death albeit it was done at Achready about a Month or twenty days thereafter and that there was no Subscription put thereto at that time but that the Captain told him that he would get the Tutor to put his Hand to it thereafter and that the Deponent refused to Subscribe VVitness because the Tutors Name was not thereat Upon these Testimonies both these VVitnesses and Steel who was formerly out upon Bail were put in Prison Henderson contra Anderson November 18. 1669. HEwat having made a general Disposition of his whole Goods and Geir to Anderson and thereafter having Disponed to Henderson his Creditor Henderson pursues Anderson for Reduction of his Disposition as being fraudulent in prejudice of Creditors without any equivalent Cause Onerous contrare to the Act of Parliament 1621. against fraudulent Dispositions The Defender aâ—leadged that the Reason was not Relevant upon the said Act because Hewat and Anderson were not conjunct persons and because his Disposition buir an Onerous Cause viz. for Sums due to himself and for 2000. Merks and other Sums for which he was Cautioner for Hewat and gave in a condescendence of the particular Sums and offered not only to Depone thereupon himself but to astruct the same by the Oath of Hewats Creditors to whom he payed The Pursuer answered that albeit ordinarly Dispositions amongst persons not conjunct bearing Causes Onerous were sufficient yet this Disposition being manifestly fraudulent in that it is omnium bonorum which the Receiver thereof could not but know to be in prejudice of the Disponers other Creditors to whom there was nothing left and so is particeps fraudis and likewise the Sum of 2000. Merks which is the only Cause specially exprest being instructed to be false by Discharges of the most part of that Sum by the Creditor to Hewat himself the remainder of the Cause being general ought to be instructed not by Andersons Oath but by sufficient Probation at least the verity of the Debt by Hewats Oath and the payment thereof by the Oaths of Hewats Creditors to whom it was payed and that it wa payed by Anderson before the Disposition at least that he was bound for payment thereof before the Disposition The Defender answered that Dispositions of Moveables are valide without any VVrit especially before any Diligegence done by the Pursuer and if these who acquire Moveables were obliged to instruct the Cause otherwise then by their own Oaths all Commerce would cease and the Defender having taken a Disposition in VVrit can be in no worse case then if he had none The Lords having considered the Defenders condescendence found that what waâ— due to the Defender himself by Hewat before the Disposition should be sufficiently instructed by Anderson's own Oath but as to what was due to him or payed by him for Hâ—wat after the Disposition and before any Right or Diligence of Hendersons that the same should also be allowed being instructed by Howats Oath and these who received the Sums and that accordingly Anderson should accompt for the whole Goods he meddled with and pay the superplus thereof to Henderson the Pursuer over and above the saids Articles The Creditors of Cowper and Balmerino contra My Lady Cowper November 25. 1669. THe Deceast Lord Cowper having made a Disposition of his whole Estate in Fee to his Lady and thereby having excluded the Lord Balmerino his appearand Heir therein Balmerino being unwillingly to Enter Heir to Cowper before he knew whether the Disposition would stand or not moves some of Cowpers Creditors and some of his own Creditors having Charged him to Enter Heir to Cowper to insist in the Reduction of the Disposition made to the Lady as being done by Cowper in lecto agritudinis It was alleadged for the Lady no Process at the Creditors of Cowpers Instance First Because they insist only upon Personal Bonds granted by the Lord Cowper and have no real Right to the Land and so cannot Reduce a real Right but upon a real Right So till they have Apprized the Lands they have no Interest 2dly Albeit Cowpers Creditors might Reduce the Disposition as betwixt conjunct Persons without an onerous Cause yet not upon the Reason ex lecto because that is a priviledge particularly competent to Heirs but not to Creditors as they are Creditors unless by real Diligences they state themselves in place of the Heir and so make use of his Right and Priviledge It was answered for the Pursuers that in that they were Creditors they had sufficient interest to crave it to be declared that the Estate of Cowper should be Affected with Apprizings upon Cowpers Debts due to them notwithstanding this Disposition which is all the Effect of this Reduction and as they may without any real Right Reduce or Declare as aforesaid upon the Act of Parliament 1621. against fraudulent Dispositions so they may declare that any Disposition done on Death-bed as it could not prejudge the Heir so it cannot prejudge the Creditors of the Defunct or his appearand Heir but that they may affect the said Estate with their Legal Diligences It was answered for the Defender that she repeats the former Defense And further alleadges that she is content to take off the interest of Cowpers own Creditors and to Declare that the Disposition shall be burdened with their Debts but adhered to her Defense against Balmerino's Creditors who though they produce an Apprizing yet it is posterior to the Summons and their Personal Debts can be no sufficient Title nor is there any produced It was answered for Cowpers Creditors that the Declarator in their favours was no way sufficient nor would not give them
a real Right nor prevent the Diligence of other Creditors 2dly If they had a good interest to Reduce and thereupon to Apprize no offer could take away that interest but payment The Lords found the Creditors had sufficient Interest upon their Personal Bonds to insist upon the Reduction ex capite lecti but they found that a real Security given to Cowpers Creditors equivalent to an Apprizing and Infeftment was sufficient to exclude their Interest Monteith of Carâ—ubber contra Margaret Boyd December 2. 1669 UMquhil Mr. Robert Boyd of Kips dying Infeft in the Lands of Kips and Gourmyre and in a Miln and having left two Daughters Heirs portioners the younger having Married Monteith of Carrubber being dead her Son and Heir raised a Brief of Division against the eldest Sister whereupon Division was made in this manner viz. The Rent of the Miln being Rated at a 100. pound the Chalder being more than the Rent of the Land the whole Land was set on the one part and the Miln on the other and because the Mansion-House belonged to the eldest Sister the Land was Adjudged to her and the Miln Adjudged to the other and the superplus of the Rent of the Miln allowed in satisfaction of the youngest Sisters Interest in the House Carrubber raises Reduction of this Division upon these Reasons First That the Lands ought to have been divided in two shares and the House likewise having convenient Rooms and Lodgings for both Families in which they have Dwelt these 20. years and not to have Adjudged the Miln only to him stating the Victual being only Meal at a 100. pound the Chalder far above the just value and stating the Miln-Rent equivalent to the Land-Rent which is subject to many more Contingencies and Expenses in upholding the Miln and difficulties in recovering the Rent and in the common estimation is not accounted equivalent to Land Rent so that he is enormly les'd and offered a 1000 merks to Margaret the eldest Daughter to exchange shares albeit the Rent of either share be but about three Chalders of Victual The Defender answered that the Reasons of Reduction were no way Relevant because all Divisions ought to proceed as is most convenient for either Party and where least is left undividedâ— and the Division it self cannot have a precise Rule but is in arbitrio of the Inquest who were knowing Gentlemen of the Neighbourhead and upon Oath so that unless the Lesion were ultra dimidium justi valoris it cannot be recalled seing an Inquest has the irrecoverable determination of Life and Death which is of far greater moment than this and this Division proceeded upon Carrubbers own Process and the Inquest was called by himself And albeit it be true that if the Division could have been made by giving both a share of the Lands and a share of the Milns if there had been more Milns it might have been more equal but here if the Land had been Divided the Miln behoved to have remained for ever Common and so the Division not be compleat Likeas the Miln lies at a distance from the Land and near to Carrubbers own Land and is not a casual Rent arising from free Multures but has the whole Barrony of Torphichen astricted by Infeftment and the Defender is willing to give 2500. merks for each Chalder of the Miln Rent which is the ordinary rate of Land Rent and the reason why there was no Cavel or Lot was because the eldest Sister falling the Mansion House by Law she behoved to have the Land therewith The Lords Sustained the Reasons and Ordained a new Commission for a new Division here the Lords would not consider the Points severally whether the Mansion House ought to have been Adjudged to the eldest Sister and a Recompence to the second Or whether such a House being no Tower nor Fortalice but which would be comprehended as a Pertinent of the Land gave no preference so that Lots ought to have been cast upon the Division Or whether the House could be divided per contignaliones Or whether the Miln though it had been truly Rated could have been put to answer the whole Land Or that the Land behoved to be divided and the Miln remain common but only generally the Lords gave a new Commission for a new Division Weavers of Pearth contra Weavers at the Bridge-end of Pearth December 4. 1669. THE Weavers of Pearth having pursued the Weavers at the Bridge-end upon the 154. Act Par. 1592. prohibiting Trads-men in the Suburbs of Burghs to exercise their Trades whereof mention is made Iuly 21. 1669. The Defenders were then assoilzied Now the Pursuers further alleadge whereas it was then represented that that Act had never taken effect but was in desuetude They now produce a Decreet of the Lords at the instance of the Weavers of Edinburgh against the Weavers of the Suburbs compearing Decerning them to desist and cease from bringing any of their Work within the Liberties of Edinburgh and from coming within the same to receive Work and that upon the same Act of Parliament which cleares that the same is not in desuetude and it is founded upon a most just and necessar Ground viz. That Trads-men within Burgh pay Stent for their Trade which were impossible for them to do if the same Trads-men were permitted in the Suburbs who might work cheaper then they not being lyable to Stent The Lords Explained their former Interlocutor and declared conform to the foresaid Decreet of the Town of Edinburgh viz. That Weavers in Suburbs might serve any in the Landward but might not come within the Liberties of the Burgh for taking up the Work of the Burgesses in prejudice of the Free-men who were Free-men of the Burgh Iohn Iaffray contra Alexander Iaffray and Doctor Iaffray his Son Eodem die JOhn Iaffray late Provost of Aberdeen pursues a Declarator of the Escheat and Liferent of Alexander Iaffray his Brother Compearance is made for Doctor Iaffray Son to the Rebel who produced a prior Gift with general and special Declarator and alleadges no Declarator at the Pursuers instance upon this posterior Gift because the Right is fully Established in his Person by the prior Gift and Declarators The Pursuer answered First That the Doctors Gift is simulat to the Rebels behove and so accresced to the Pursuer which appears from these Evidences First That the Doctor is the Rebels own Son 2dly That it is retenta possessione the Doctor having suffered his Father to possess for many years 3dly It was offered to be proven per membra curiae of the Exchequer that the Gift was purchased by the Rebels Means and Moyen and severally it was offered to be proven by the Doctors and his Fathers Oath conjunctim that he had given a Back-bond declaring the Gift to be to his Fathers behove It was answered for the Doctor to the first that the Grounds of Simulation were no way Relevant for albeit he was the Rebels Son yet he had means of
his own and was not in his Family and albeit he were not eager to put his Father out of Possession of his House and Lands yet his continuance of Possession is not Relevant unless it had been to his death or for a longer time but any delay that was is because it is but of late that the Doctor hath obtained special Declarator till which he was not in capacity to discontinue his Fathers Possession Neither can Members of Court be admitted to prove that the Father wared out the Expence and procured the Gift because the Doctor at the passing of the Gift gave a Back-bond that he being satisfied of the Debts due to him and the Expences thereof there should be place for the Rebels Creditors and did make Faith at the passing of the Gift that it was to his own behove after which no Winesses can be admitted against him nor any other presumptive Probation of the simulation of the Gift Which the Lords found Relevant and found also the Pursuers Reply upon the Back-bond alleadged granted by the Doctor to his Father Relevant to be proven by the Doctors Oath only Sir Iohn Vrquhart Supplicant December 7. 1669. SIr Iohn Vrquhart gave in a Supplication to the Lords bearing that he being Cited before the Council upon several alleadged Riots and fearing that he might be excluded from appearing in his own defense by hornings against him therefore desired that the Lords would grant Suspension of all Hornings against him ad hunc effectum only to give him personam standi in judicio but prejudice to the Creditors of all other execution Which desire the Lords granted as to all Hornings he should condescend upon Pittrichie contra Laird of Geight December 15. 1669. MAitland of Pittrichie having obtained the Gift of Recognition from the King of certain waird-Waird-lands held by the Laird of Geight of His Majesty pursues Declarator of Recognition upon Geights Alienation of the Lands wherein compearance was made for the Purchasers thereof who alleadged Absolvitor because the time of their Alienation by the Law and custom in force for the time Such Alienations without consent of the Superiour were valide The Pursuer answered that any Law or Custom that then was is now Annulled and Rescinded as from the beginning The Defender answered that no Laws of whatsoever Tenor can be drawn back by invalidat Deeds done by the Law and Custom for the time especially as to Matters Penal such as Recognitions so that Parties having acted bona fide according to any thing they could know for a Rule cannot fall in the Penalty and certification of Recognition which imports a contempt of the Superiour and cannot be inferred by any Deed legal for the time The Pursuer answered that the contempt is the same when the Vassal alieâ— natâ— his Fee without the Superiours consent and when such Alienations being by Law become void and the Superiours Right of Recognition revived the Vassal did not after that time crave the Superiours Confirmation as Heir so he Laird of Geight having never sought Confirmation from the King since His Restauration it is no less contempt than if since the Kings Restauration he had Alienat especially seing the King refuses Confirmation to none who demand it It was answered for the Purchasers that the Vassal being Denuded in their favour according to the Law standing for the time his fault cannot lose their Right for though he should collude against them yet that ought not to prejudge them and there being no obliegment upon the Vassal to seek a Confirmation to the behove of the Purchasers they cannot be prejudged for not obtaining the same The Pursuer answered that the Purchasers might have craved the Kings Confirmation of their Right both for themselves and in name of Geight the immediat Vassal which Geight neither would nor could oppose The Lords Repelled the Defenses in respect of the Reply that no Confirmation was craved neither by the Vassal nor Purchasers his Sub-vassals which they might have done if they had pleased and therefore declared the Lands to be Recognosced Innes contra Innes Ianuary 5. 1670. Innes having granted an Assignation of an Heretable Bond of 6000. merks 4000. merks thereof to Robert Innes his eldest Son and 2000. merks thereof to William and Ianet Inness his younger Children and in case of Roberts Decease providing his part amongst the rest equally Ianes having died before Robert her Heirs and Roberts Heirs compet for the sum for Robert died without Children and William as Heir to Robert claimed the whole sum upon this Ground that Ianet being substitute by the Father to Robert without any mention of Ianets heirs Ianet having died before Robert she had never right and her Substitution became absolutely void and her Heirs not being exprest this Substitution cannot extend to them because though ordinarly Heirs are comprehended though not exprest qui acquirit sibi acquirit suis yet here is no Acquisition but a voluntary Substitution whereby it may be rationally conjectured the mind of the Defunct was that he would prefer Ianet to Roberts Heirs of line not being Heirs of his Body but not that he would prefer Ianets Heirs which were a degree further from his own other Bairns And the case of Substitutions in the Roman Law was urged that if the Substitute died before the Institute the Substitutes Heirs have never place It was answered that Institutions and Substitutions with us do far differ from the Roman Substitutions whereby if the Institute succeed the Substitute has never place as Heir to the Institute but the Institutes Heirs whatsomever which failing the Institute is there interpret so that if the Institute never be Heir then the Substitute has place as Heir of Tailzie and provision to the Substitute so that here Ianets Heirs are Heirs to Robert who had no Heirs of his Body and do exclude William his Brother and though Ianets Heirs be not mentioned yet they are understood and comprehended because in Tailzies and Provisions there uses never to be an Institution or Substitution of a single person without the Heirs of their Body And though there be some singular Cases in which Heirs not being exprest are not comprehended this is none of them It was further alleadged for William that William and Ianet being Substitute joyntly Ianet deceasing before Robert her share accresces to him jure accrescendi ex conjuncta substitutione It was answered that there is here only substitutio conjuncta verbis but disjuncta rebus for the sum is declared to belong to William and Ianet equally so that each of them has but Right to a half The Lords preferred the Heirs of Ianet and found that they had Right as Heirs of Provision to Robert and that they ought to be served to him and not to Ianet who had never Right her self having died before she was or could be Heir to Robert Elizabeth and Anna Boids contra Iames Boid of Temple Ianuary 6. 1670. JAmes Boid of Temple in his
a verbal Promise not in Writ it can be no more effectual than if it had been a verbal Tack which is only effectual for a year and thereafter the Setter may resile It was answered that here there is a Tack by the Husband for several years and the Wifes promise never to quarrel it needs no Solemnity in Writ but is valid as pactum de non petendo or de non repugnando The Lords found the Wifes Promise effectual and that she might not resile during the years of the Tack Lady Lucia Hamiltoun contra The Lands of Dunlap and Pitcon and the Creditors of Hay of Montcastle Ianuary 15. 1670. LAdy Lucia Hamiltoun being assigned to a Bond of 4400. merks grantted by George Hay of Montcastle to the Earl of Abercorn she Inhibits the said George and Denunces and Apprizes his Lands of Birklands and others and thereupon pursues Reduction against Dunlap and Pitcon and certain other Creditors in favours of whom there is a Disposition granted of the saids Lands by George Hay and insâ—sts on this Reason that albeit the Disposition bear to be for sums of Money and Causes onerous yet by a Clause therein it is expresly declared that it is granted to Dunlap and Pitcon for satisfying of the Debts due to them and to the effect they may sell the Lands for payment and satisfaction of the said Iohn Hay his other Creditors under-written for the sums after-specified after which words there was left a large blank which by ocular inspection is now filled up with another hand than he who Wrote the Body of the Disposition and which Article so filled up is in the same case as if it had been set upon the Margent and subscribed or as if it had been in a several Writ wanting Witnesses and cannot be holden to be of the same date of the Disposition but must be presumed to have been filled up after the Pursuers Inhibition and after she had Denunced and Apprized the Lands and therefore as to these Creditors so filled up their Rights which are granted by Dunlap and Pitâ—on the intrusted Persons long after the Pursuers Inhibition and Appryzing the same ought to be Reduced It was alleadged for the Creditors Defenders that the reason as it is qualified is no ways Relevant against them First Because the Disposition granted to Dunlap and Pitcon being of the whole Lands and they Infest accordingly being long before the Pursuers Inhibition and Appryzing and the said Disposition and Infeftment being to the Creditors behove albeit their Subaltern Rights from Dunlap and Pitcon be posterior nihil referi And whereas it is alleadged that their Names and Sums are filled up in the blank after the Inhibition and Appryzing with another hand and so must be presumed of another date It is answered that the Subscription at the Foot and Body of a Writ did necessarly infer that the whole blanks were then filled up unless the contrary be proven neither uses the Names of fillers up of blanks to be exprest and it cannot be presumed that any man in prudence would subscribe a blank Writ till the blanks were first filled up 2dly Though it could be proven that the blank was filled up after the Inhibition yet the general Terms of the Clause being insert a principio with the same hand viz. for satisfaction of the said George his Creditors it is sufficient although the particulars were insert after 3dly It is offered to be proven if need beis by the Oaths of Dunlap Pitcon and the Witnesses insert that before the subscribing of this Disposition thir Creditors filled up were particularly commâ—ned on to be filled up and no other The Pursuer answered that there being here pregnant Evidences of Fraud by interposing intrusted persons and preferring of some Creditors to others by the Debitor who was Insolvent and had no more Estate in that case the filling up of the blanks must be presumed fraudulent and posterior unless the Creditors prove it was trulyâ— filled up before the Inhibition otherwise it opens a Door to all Insolvent Persons in this manner to exclude any of their Creditors from payment and to have such Clauses ambulatory at their pleasure Neither doth the general part of the Clause suffice unless it had been in favours of the Disponers Creditors generally or indefinitly which would have comprehended the Pursuer but it being only of the Creditors under-written if these were not under-written till after the Inhibition they have no place And as for any verbal Communing or Agreement it cannot be effectual until it be redacted into Write which was not till after the Inhibition The Lords found that the blank being filled up with another hand and so substantial a Clause and the Writer not being exprest at the foot that it was to be presumed to be posterior to the Inhibition unless the Creditors prove by the Witnesses insert or others above exception that it was truly insert before the Inhibition and Apprizing wherein they would not admit the Oaths of the Persons intrusted and they had no respect to the alleadgeance that it was Communed and Agreed upon before the Subscription Doctor Balfour and his Spouse contra Mr. William Wood. Ianuary 18. 1670. UMquhil Mr. Iames Wood having been Tutor to his Wifes Daughter she being now Married to Doctor Balfour they pursue Mr. William Wood as Representing his Father for a Tutor accompt in which Accompt the Auditors reported these Points 1. The Pursuer insisted for the whole sums bearing Annualrent whereof no part belongs to the Wife as Relict she being excluded by the Act of Parliament The Defender answered that he opponed the Testament and Confirmation unreduced whereby there is a Tripartite Division of the whole Sums and the Relict has one Third which belonged to the Defunct Tutor her Husband jure mariti The Lords Repelled this alleadgeance and found that the Errour of the Confirmation was Corrigible without Reduction 2. The Defender alleadged that he was not comptable for the Annualrent of one of the Sums acclaimed because by the Bond it was provided in Liferent to the Relict whereto his Father had right jure mariti It was answered that the Tutor had given several Discharges of that Annualrent as Tutor and not as Husband and so had Homologat and acknowledged the Pupils right to the Annualrent It was answered that the Discharge was so granted by errour and mistake falsa designatio non obest ubi constat dere and offered to prove by the Bond that the Wife was Liferenter Which the Lords found Relevant Andrew Hadden contra Nicol Campbel Ianuary 25. 1670. ANdrew Hadden having Charged Nicol Campbel upon a Bond Subscribed by him as Cautioner for Samuel Meikle Gold-smith Nicol Campbel Suspends and raises Reduction on this Ground that he being an illiterate man and could not subscribe he was induced to be Cautioner for Samuel Meikle but on these express Terms that he should only be Cautioner for 1200. merks and accordingly he gave order
upon this Bond so unwarrantably filled up The Lords found the Declarator Relevant and Proven and therefore Decerned the said Bond null reserving Action against Kinghorn upon any Debt due by Kinghorn to Keith as accords Tutor of Colzean contra The nearest of Kin of the Pupil February 5. 1670. THe Tutor of Colzean having cited the nearest of Kin of his Pupil to hear and see it found and declared that the Pupils Lands were set too high and could not be keeped at these Rates and that the Tennents were in Arreir before his Tutory in great Sums which if he should exact would cast the Land waste and that it was for the good of the Pupil to set the Land at lower Rates which it might be able to pay and to quite so much of the Arreirs as the Tennents might pay the rest and be able to continue and Possess There being no compearance the Lords gave Commission to certain Gentlemen in the Countrey to Examine the Rate of the Land and the conditions of the Tennents who have reported several of the Rooms to be too high set and what ought to be given down and what behoved to be quite to each Tennent that was deep in Arreir to inable him to pay the rest and Lâ—bour the Ground The Lords approved the Report with these Qualifications First That the Tutor should Discharge nothing simply but only till the Pupillarity were past that himself and Curators might then proceed as they saw Cause and that the Tutor before any Abatement of the Rooms should cause make Intimation at the Mercat Cross of the Jurisdiction and at the Paroch Church that such Lands were to be set at such a place such a day and whoever bade most for them being sufficient Tennents should have them and that at the said day if a better Rate were not gotten the Tutor might then or thereafter set at the Rates contained in the Commission Daniel Cathcart contra Mccorquodail and Mr. Iames Mirk February 8. 1670. Mccorquodail having Married the Daughter of Mr. James Mirk he and the Barron of Mccorquodail his Brother are obliged to pay yearly 600. merks to the Wife after the Husbands Death and Mr. James Mirk is obliged to pay to Mccorquodail 7000. merks of Tocher Mccorquodail being Debitor to Daniel Cathcart Writer in Edinburgh in 600. merks He arrests the Tocher in Mirks hands and pursues to make forthcoming and for instructing produces the foresaid Contract of Marriage It was alleadged for Mirk that he is not obliged to pay or make furthcoming the Tocher unless his Daughter were secured in her Jointer for the Tocher and Jointer being the mutual causes of the Contract neither Mccorquodail nor any deriving Right from him by Assignation or Arrestment can demand the Tocher till they secure the Jointer and that exception is Relevant both against Mccorquodail and his Assignies It was answered for the Pursuer that if it had been provided by the Contract that the Tocher should have been employed for the Wifes security the Defense had been Relevant or there might be some pretence if there were an obligement upon the Husband to secure the Wife in Land or Annualrent for 600. Merks But the Contracters having agreed for no security for the future but having agreed upon a Personal security viz. of the Husband and his Brother the Husbands part of the Contract is performed and the Husband is no ways Creditor till his Death Which the Lords found Relevant and in respect of the conception of the Contract as aforesaid Repelled the Defense and Decerned Iohn Scot contra Alexander Cheisly and David Thomson February 9. 1670. IOhn Scot pursues a Declarator of Circumvention against Alexander Cheisly and David Thomson bearing that Alexander Cheisly having a Processe against the Magistrats of Glasgow for alleadged hindering the Executing of a Decreet and imprisoning him and being in an evil Condition in his Means he proposed to the said Iohn Scot his Good-brother that he must make use of his Name as Assigney to that Process lest his Creditors might affect any thing that might be obtained thereby and that Iohn Scot should give a Back-bond declaring that his Name was put in the Assignation upon Trust. In stead of which Back-bond he caused draw up a Bond bearing that forsomuch as Alexander Cheisly had Assigned Iohn Scot to a Process against the Town of Glasgow therefore and for other good Causes and Considerations Iohn Scot obliges him to pay to a blank Person 3850. Merks in which Bond Alexâ—nder Cheisly filled up David Thomsons Name and which Bond was obtained by Alexander Cheisly by gross Circumvention upon the absolute Trust the said Iohn Scot reposed upon the said Alexander for clearing whereof he condescends on these Points viz. that the said Iohn Scot was Goodbrother to the said Alexander Cheisly had been his Prentice and the said Alexander was his Curator and the said Iohn Scot is known to be a simple Person and the said Alexander Cheisly to be a subtile Person ready to take advantage Likeas it is evident that he did take advantage of the said Iohn Scot about that same time pretending that he was more able to act Iohn Scots Affairs then himself he procured Assignation from Iohn Scot to Bonds of twenty eight thousand Merks and put in the Assignationâ— Clause of absolute Warrandice albeit by a Back-bond of the same Date it be clear that the Assignation was only granted for Love and Favour and for Agenting the Matter and that the one half should belong to Cheisly for his pains and the other to Scot but prejudice to Scots obligements in the Assignation which could be no other but the Warrandice whereby albeit Cheisly knew that a part of the Debts were payed to Scots Father and a part was insolvent and that Scot who was Assigney by his Mother as Executrix had no more himself but Warrandice from her Deed yet by the absolute Warrandice he intended to be sure of the one half of the Sums although it s known that hardly the half will be recovered whereby Cheisly should have all and Scot who freely granted the Assignation should have nothing but less than nothing by being obliged to make up the half though so much were not recovered of the whole 2dly All the pretence of the Plea against Glasgow could never amount to 3850. Merks yet the Bond is conceived for absolute payment of that Sum albeit it was a meer Plea depending many years and Debated without success 3dly Cheisly himself did ever keep the Process and Assignation and did transact the Plea or a great part thereof with the Magistrats of Glasgow and got payment In this pursuit there was no Compearance for Cheisly but it was alleadged for David Thomson that whatever had past betwixt Cheisly and Scot no ground of Circumvention betwixt them could be Relevant to take away his Right who seeing the blank Bond filled up with his Name by Cheisly before it was brought to him and given to him for
Debt due to him by Cheisly and he being nowayes particeps fraudis Cheislies Fraud or Circumvention cannot prejudge him for albeit Extortion vi majori be vitium reale that follows the Right to all singular Successors yet fraud is not and reaches none but participes fraudis both by the Act of Parliament 1621. and by the civil Law L. It was answered for Scot that albeit it be true that an Assigney for an Oâ—erous Cause cannot be prejudged by the Oath of his Cedent and consequently by no Circumvention probable by his Oath yet in Personal Rights an Assigney is in no better case then the Cedent nisi quoad modum probandi but what is relevant against the Cedent and competent to be proven either by Writ or Witnesses is competent against the Assigney so that the Circumvention against Cheisly being inferred by pregnant Evidences and Witnesses and not by his Oath it must be effectual against Thomson whose Name being filled up by Cheisly is in effect Cheislies Assigney for so all blank Bonds are commonly found by the Lords to have the same effect with an Assignation 2dly Assignies without an Onerous Cause even as to the Oath of the Cedent or any other consideration are in no better case nor the Cedent but here there is no Onerous Cause appears for which Cheisly transmits this Right to Thomson for the Bond â—ears not that for Sums of Money due by Cheisly to Thomson or any other Cause Onerous on Thomsons part that Scot should be obliged at Cheislies desire to pay Thomson but only that because Cheisly had Assigned a Process to Scot therefore Scot becomes obliged to pay to Thomson 3dly As there is no Cause Onerous instructed on Thomsons part so his own Oath de calumnia being taken renders the matter most suspitious by which he acknowledges he got the Bond from Cheisly and that Cheisly was not then his Debitor for so great a Sum as in the Bond but that by payments made to him and for him thereafter he became his Debitor in an equivalent Sum but Depones that he hath nothing to instruct the Debt nor no Note thereof in his Compt Book though he be an exact Merchant and Factor so that there is no Evidence or Adminicle of an Onerous Cause instructed And lastly Albeit Parties getting blank Bonds bearing borrowed Money from the blank Person whosoevers Name is filled up the Bond then bears the Sums borrowed from him whose Name is filled up and cannot be taken away but by his Writ or his Oath but this Bond bears only a Process Assigned by Cheisly and no borrowed Money or other Cause by Thomson and Thomson living in the same Town with Scot whom he knew and is commonly known to be a simple Person and Cheisly a subdolous he ought before accepting of the Bond to have acquainted Scot of the filling up of his Name and if he had any thing to say and cannot now pretend that he acted bona fide but either must be in dolo or in lata culpa quae dolo aequiparatur The Lords found that having considered the Tenor of the Bond and Thomsons Oath Thomson was in the same condition as to the relevancy and probation of the Reasons of Circumvention against Cheisly and therefore found the Libel Relevant against them both to annul the Bond the Apprizings and Infeftment and all that had followed thereupon Naper contra Gordon of Grange Feb. 12. 1670. IOhn Naper as Representing his Father did Pursue William Gordon of Grange as Representing Hugh his Father for payment of 2000. Merks due by the said Umquhile Hugh his Bond and upon the said Williams Renuncing to be Heir obtaind Adjudication of the Lands of Grange and others in so far as might belong to the said Umquhile Hugh his Debitor his Heirs and thereupon did Pursue the Tennents for Mails and Duties In which Action it was alleadged for William Gordon now of Grange that he stands Infeft by Disposition from the said Umquhile Hugh Gordon of Grange his Father for Onerous Causes and Sums of Money undertaken and payed for his Father which was found Relevant and to evite the same the said Iohn Naper raised Reduction of Grange's Right granted by his Father ex capite Inhibitionis raised against his Father upon the said Bond before the Disposition made to this Grange which Inhibition being produced this day fourtnight it was alleadged for Grange that the samine was null because the Executions buir not a Copy to have been lest at the Mercat Cross at the publication of the Inhibition which the Lords found Relevant and now the Pursuer insisted on this Reason that the Disposition though it buir Onerous Causes yet being after the Contracting of his Debt by a Father to a Son the Narrative bearing the Cause thereof is not Probative against a third Party but the same must yet be instructed Which the Lords Sustained and ordained Grange to produce the Instructions thereof William Lowry contra Sir Iohn Drummond Feb. 18. 1670. UMquhile Sir Robert Drummond of Meidup having Disponed the Lands of Scotstoun to Sir Iohn Drummond of Burnbank Mr. Iohn Drummond Writer in Edinburgh his Grand Nevoy intending to Reduce that Disposition as on Death-bed grants a Bond to William Lowry of 12000. Merks who thereupon having Charged the said Mr. Iohn to enter Heir in special to the Lands of Scotstoun to the said Sir Robert his Grand Uncle Apprizes from him all the Right of the Lands that might be competent to him if he were entered Heir and thereupon raises Reduction of Sir Iohn his Right as being granted by Sir Robert on Death-bed in prejudice of his nearest Heirs in whose place the Pursuer now is by the Apprizing It was alleadged for the Defender no Process upon any Charge to enter Heir against Mr. Iohn Drummond because he is not the nearest appearand Heir but has an elder Brother living The Pursuer answered that the said elder Brother had gone out of the Countrey 18. years agoe and was commonly holden and repute Dead likeas he produced a Missive of one Creiâ—htoun his Commerad in the War abroad bearing the Circumstances of his Sickness Death and Burial Dated Iuly 6. 1667. It was answered that semel vivus semper presumitur vivus nisâ— contrarium probetur and what was alleadged could be no probation but some probabilities of Death The Pursuer answered that the brokard is but presumptio juris and not presumptio juris de jure and therefore only transâ—ert onus probandi which Probation may be valid without Witnesses by such adminicles as the Lords shall find sufficient which are here sufficiently alleadged viz. long Absence common Fame and a Missive Letter The Lords found that eighteen years Absence and being holden and repute Dead was sufficient Probation to take off the presumption of Life unless a stronger Probation for the Parties being on Life were showen then the naked presumption thereof Lauchlen Lesly contra Guthry Feb. 19. 1670. LAuchlen Lesly
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
Artrachy and others proceeding from Con in favours of Iohn Stuart Advocat William Neilson Mr. Iohn Alexander and Marjory Iameson his Relick or Andrew Alexander Brother to Mr. Iohn wherein there was produced an Apprizing against Con at the instance of George Stuartâ— Likewise a Liferent-seising of Helen Kinaird Relick of Con with a Liferent-tack to her of the Lands contained in the Seising and also of other Lands and another Tack of two nineteen years of the same Lands There is also produced a Disposition of the Apprized Lands by George Stuart to William Neilson and because William Neilson failzied in payment of four thousand Merks of the price George Apprized the Lands again from William Neilson and upon all these Rights there is publick Infeftments there is also a second Apprizing at the instance of Andrew Alexander long after George Stuarts Apprizing from Neilson but no Infeftment thereon and there is produced a Disposition by George Stuart as returning to the Right by the second Apprizing made to Mr. Iohn Alexander Advocat and by him to Marjory Iameson his Spouse and publick Infeftments on these and there is a Decreet of Cerification Extracted contra non producta And now the Doctor insists on this Reason of Reduction that George Stuarts first Apprizing against Con the common Debitor was satisâ—ied by Intromission within the Legal and so is extinct and all the subsequent Rights depending thereon fall therewith in consequence It was alleadged for the Defenders that George Stuart having in his Person the Apprizing and finding Helen Kinaird Cons Relick in Possession of a great part of the Lands by Liferent infeftment and a Liferent and two ninteen years Tacks which would have excluded him he purchased Right and Assignation thereto from the Relick and continued her Possession thereby and did ascrive his Possession to the Liferenters Right and not to the Apprizing so that his intromission being by another and more valide Title could not be ascrived to the Apprizing to extinguish it The Pursuer answered that the Defense ought to be Repelled because he had obtained Certification against the Defenders of all Rights not produced and albeit the Liferenters Seising be produced yet the Warrand thereof the Charter or Precept was not produced so that it is now declared as false and feinzied and the Seising being only the Assertion of a Nottar without a Warrand is no Title to which the Intromission can be ascrived and therefore it must be ascrived wholly to the Apprizing The Defenders answered First That albeit the Charter be now improven for not production yet it being a true Evident and now produced the effect of the Certification cannot be drawen back to make George Stuart countable who Possessed bona fide cum titulâ— which though now improven yet the effect of the improbation can only be a sententia lite contestata aut â—â—ta before all which the Liferenter was Dead and the intromission ended unless the Charter being produced had been by Witnesses or otherwayes proven to be false 2dly Albeit Certification be obtained against George Stuart and Marjory Iameson yet the Certification is not against Andrew Alexander from whom Marjory hath purchased Right after the Certification and produced the Appryzing at Andrews instance against Neilson and alleadges that albeit the Certification could take away George Stuarts Right in so far as concerns Marjory Iameson or her Authors yet that being no annulling of their Right by being Transmitted in favours of the Pursuer but only as being void through want of the necessary Evidents it cannot impede Andrew Alexander against whom no Certification is obtained to Defend George Stuart his Authors Right and to ascribe George his Possession to the Liferent Infeftment whereof he now produces the Charter The Pursuer answered that he was not obliged to take notice of Andrew Alexanderâ— Right because it was incompleat no Infeftment following thereon and because it was null being deduced against Neilson after Neilson was Denuded by the Appryzing led against him by George Stuart and Infeftment thereon so that the Pursuer having prevailed against George Stuarts Right which is the only valide Right and did exclude Andrew Alexander by the Rule vinco vincentem c. and if this were otherwise Sustained no Improbation could be effectual unless all the invalid and imperfect Rights were particularly improven which cannot be known and was never done 3dly Certification being Extracted against George Stuart himself all Subaltern Rights flowing from him fall in consequence and so Andrew Alexanders Right which is but incompleat and latent The Defender answered that albeit Andrew Alexander was not called or Certification taken against him as a party necessar yet before Conclusion of the Cause he has a good interest to produce his Appryzing and to alleadge that the Certification against George Stuart his Author who neglected to produce the Liferenters Charter could not prejudge him as deriving Right from George Stuart as a singular Successor much less could the neglect or Collusion of Marjorie Iameson prejudge any other but her self and therefore craved that if the Lords would Sustain the Certification of the Liferent Charter against Marjorie Iameson that it should be without prejudice to Andrew Alexander as to his Right of the said Liferent or to George Stuarts Right of the Liferent in so far as the same is Derived to Andrew Alexander The Lords adhered to the Certification in so far as concerned Marjory Iameson reserving Andrew Alexanders Right and his Authors in so far as concerned Andrew Alexander as accords This Cause being again Called the 9. of Iune the Defenders ascribed their Possession to the Liferent and two nineteen years Tacks against which there was no Certification The Pursuer answered First That the Liferenter having bruiked by a Liferent Infeftment and having ascribed her Possession to it it being improven she could not ascribe her Possession to the Tacks quia ex pluribus titulis ejusdem rei nemo fit Dominus 2dly George Stuart the Appryzer having both the Appryzing and these Liferent Rights in his Person and not having declared his mind by what Title he possessed his Possession must be attribute titulo nobilioti to the Apprizing and his intromission imputed thereto duriori â—orti as the Lords use ordinarly to do in â—dium of Appryzings if the Appryzer adhere to the expyring of the Legal but if the Defender will grant the Lands Redeemable the Pursuer is content that the Intromission be ascribed to the Liferent Right primo loco The Defender answered that though George Stuart Declared not by what Title he Possessed yet his intromission must be ascribed potiorâ— juri to that Right which was preferable and so to the Liferent which would undoubtedly exclude his Appryzing and therefore he acquired Right from the Liferenter being then in Possession and it is unquestionable that any party who hath many Titles though they first make use of one if that be Reduced they may make use of the rest and
the said Iudith leaves in Legacy 1200. Dollars due by the Estates of Bremen which was a part of her Inventar to her Husband and her three Children of the first Marriage there being no Children of the second Marriage whereupon Iohn Charles and Iudith Greigs pursues the Husband for the Legacy as having uplifted this Sum from the Estates of Bremen The Defender alleadged First That the Clause in the Contract of Marriage taking away the communion of Goods and making even the moveable Estate of either Party to return is against the Law of Scotland inconsistent and ineffectual for any Reservation or Provision in favours of the Wife doth ipso facto return to the Husband jure mariti which jus mariti neither is nor can be Discharged 2dly Albeit the first Contract of Marriage were consistent yet the Sum in question being provided to one of the Daughters of the first Marriage by her Contract upon condition to return to the Wife if the Marriage dissolved the Marriage dissolving it comes back to the Wife tanquam novum jus ex pacto acquisitum and so it falls under the Husbands jus mariti as well as any Sum acquired would 3dly The Husband uplifted this Sum by Commission from his Wife and so it must be presumed to have been spent in oneribus matrimonij at least the Husband must have Retention of his Expences in recovery thereof The Pursuers answered that albeit Provisions in Contracts of Marriage stating Rights in the Wifes Person to be enjoyed by her during the Marriage have not been Sustained in some cases yet this being a Provision of a return after the dissolution of the Marriage it is most consistent especially in this case where the Estate Contracted was abroad and the Contract it self made abroad where by the civil Law current there the Means of either Party doth return hinc inde and the profit thereof is only commonâ— stante matrimonio neither is the case altered by the Daughters Contract for both by the Law and that Paction the Tocher returning to the Mother who gave it in the same case it was it is hers by her first Right the second Right by the Marriage becoming void both by Law and Provision neither doth it import that the Husband lifted the Sum for by the Contract he is obliged to repay it and could only employ the Profit of it in oneribus matrimonij The Lords Repelled all these Defenses but allowed Expences to the Husband laid out by him in Recovery of the Sum. Lindsay and Swintoun her Spouse contra Inglish Supplicants Iuly 5. 1670. 〈…〉 Pursues his Debitor and craved him to be holden as Confest who not Compearing the Clerk was not clear to give out an Decreet because the Messengers Execution did not bear that the Defender was Personally Apprehended but that the Messeger came to his House and knew he was within and was forcibly keeped out by his Wife and thereupon Protested that the Defender might be holden as Personally Apprehended upon the Clerks stop the Pursuer gives in a Supplication desiring that he might either have out his Decreet holding the Defender as Confest upon this Execution or that he might have a Warrand to Cite the Defender at the Mercat Crosse of the Shire or Burgh where he dwells as being difficilis conventionis some were of opinion that he should be holden as Confest the Messenger proving that he was within or if the Execution had born that he and the Witnesses also had given a particular evidence of their Knowledge of his being within others thought that he should be holden as Confest unlesse the Defender could instruct he was alibi in regard of the Contumacy but the most resolved that holding as Confest being a solemn and important Certification peculiar to Scotland that this Assertion of the Messengers and his Execution should not be sufficient nor should put the Defender to alleadge alibi but that he should have a Warrand to Cite at the Mercat Crosse with Certification to be holden as Confest Arch-bishop and Presbitry of St. Andrews contra George Pittillo Iuly 6. 1670. GEorge Pittillo being called before the Prisbitry of St. Andrews for Scandalous Conversation with Agnes Mitchel two Ministers of the Presbitry were appointed to speak with him to whom he proponed he was Married to the said Agnes Mitchel and produced a Testificat of some Persons bearing that they were Witnesses to the Marriage but neither Designing themselves nor the Minister which being reported to the Presbitry they rejected the Testimonial unless the Minister and Witnesses were Designed and if they were Designed ordained the Party to make satisfaction for privat Marrying without Warrand and the said George not Compearing before the Presbitry so to do they for his Contumacy appoints the Process to be seen by the Arch-bishop who ordained the Party to be Excommunicat and accordingly he was Excommuâ—icat and now the Arch-bishop and Presbitry caused present a common Bill for Horning against the Excommunicat Person for Charging him to answer submit and obey the Censure of the Kirk this being brought by the Ordinar to the Lords to know whether they would pass the Horning in course or if they would consider whether the Sentence of Excomunication was orderly proceeded The Lords ordained two of their number to consider the Process of Excommunication and to hear any that did compear for the Party Excommunicat to Debate whether Horning should be direct thereon Before whom Compearance was made for the said George Pittillo who alleadged that Horning ought not to be direct because the Sentence was disorderly and unjust and because there was an Appeal to the Council yet undiscust and founded upon the late Act of Supremacy alleadging that the King and his Council were Supream in all Causes Ecclesiastick so that Appeals might be lawfully made from any Church-man or Church Judicature to the King and his Council And further alleadged that he being unclear to acknowledge the Bishop or his Presbitry and the King having now granted an Indulgence to many that did not acknowledge Episcopal Authority it could not be Contumacy in him not to Appear but he was content that it should be now cognosced whether he was in the Fault and if he were found Guilty he should Submit and make satisfaction which being Reported to the Lords and there being several other nullities in the Process of Excommunication which behoved to be cleared by the Warrands of the Process and having heard these of their number that are upon the Council declare that upon the Appeal the Council Remitted the Matter to the Arch-bishop The Lords ordained Letters of Horning unless Pittillo would presently offer satisfaction in which case they would give him a time and superceed the out-giving of the Letters Lady Lucie Hamiltoun contra Boid of Pitcon and others Iuly 8. 1670. THe Earl of Abercorn having Sold the Lands of Mountcastle to George Hay he gave the Earl a Bond of 4000. Merks bearing borrowed Money but being a part
Infants and that if Archibald should die Thomas would get all superceeded to give answer anent the Heretable Right of Succession until both Parties were Major and in the mean time allowed Thomas to Possesse the Profits of the Lands who had no Aliment nor Provision Kennedy contra Cunningham and Wallace Iuly 12. 1670. THere being an Apprizing of the Lands of Garleith belonging to Iohn Kennedy at the Instance of Edward Wallace the said Edward by his Back-bond declared that the Apprizing was to the behove of William Wallace of Burnbank his Brother and obliges him to denude himself thereof in his favours Thereafter the said Edward Assigns the Comprizing and Dispones the Lands to Adam Cunningham who stands Infeft and in a Debate for the Interest of this Apprizing It was alleadged that Edward Wallace the Apprizer having by his Back-bond declared that the Apprizing was to William his Brothers behove conform to his Back-bond produced the said William was satisfied by Payment or Intromission so that the Apprizing is extinct It was answered for Cunningham that the alleadgeance is not Relevant against him who stands Infeft as a singular Successor so that his real Right cannot be taken away by any Personal Back-bond granted by his Author whereby he was not denuded for though his Author had granted Assignation to the Apprizing if it had not been Intimat a posterior Assignation Intimat much more a Disposition and Infeftment would be preferred thereto for albeit satisfaction of an Apprizing by Intromission with the Mails and Duties be sufficient to extinguish even against a singular Successor though there was no Resignation made which the Lords had extended to any payment made by the Debitor yet this was never extended to any Personal Declaration of Trust or obligement to denude which cannot be valide against a singular Successor It was answered for Kennedy that Apprizings and Infeftments thereon do differ from other Infeftments in this that they require no Resignation or Re-seising to extinguish them but whatever may take away a Personal Right either by Intromission Payment or compensation will take them away even by exception and what is Relevant against the Author is Relevant against the singular Successor except as to the manner of Probation that it cannot be Proven by the Authors Oath but by Writ or Witnesses neither is there any odds as to this whether there be Infeftment on the Apprizing or not so then if Cunningham were but Assigney to the Decreet of Apprizing it would be Relevant against him that before his Assignation his Cedent had declared that the Apprizing was to the behove of another to whom the Debitor had made payment which Declaration being instructed by Writ anterior to the Assignation is valide against Cunningham the Assigney and whether he be Infeft on his Assignation and Disposition of the Apprizing or not as to this Point Law and Custom makes no difference neither doth the case quadrat with an Assignation unintimat compeating with a posterior Assignation intimat which might be preferred but if the Debitor made payment to the Assigney though he had not intimat it it would extinguish the Apprizing and no posterior Assignation though intimat would make the Debitor pay again and in this case there is a real Declaration of Trust which is most ordinar when Parties having small sums assign them all to one who Compryzeth for all and by several Back-bonds Declares that the Appryzing is to the behove of the several Creditors according to their sums who have alwayes rested therein and have sought no further and if this Back-bond were not sufficient against singular Successors the Appryzer might at any time thereafter Dispone and clearly exclude them The Lords found that the Back-bond was Relevant against singular Successors and that payment made to him to whose behove the appryzing was Deduced was sufficient against a singular Successor having right to the appryzing or Lands from the Appryzer after he granted his Back-bond The Daughters of Soutray contra The Eldest Daughter Iuly 13. 1670. THe Laird of Soutray having granted a Writ in favours of his Eldest Daughter beginning in the Stile of a Testament and after a blank Disponing his Lands of Soutray and his whole Moveables to the said Eldest Daughter with the burden of ten thousand merks to be payed to the remanent Daughters The saids remanent Daughters pursue a Declarator of the nullity of the Writ First In so far as being a Testament it contains a Disposition of the Lands 2dly In so far as the Eldest Daughter is nominate Executrix and universal Legatrix because by ocular inspection that part of the Writ was blank and is filled up with another hand which is offered to be proven to have been done since the Defuncts Death so that the Executor and Legator not being filled up by the Defunct in his own time and these being the Essentials of the Testament wanting the whole Falls even as to the Disposition of the Moveables The Defender answered that the Testament was valide albeit the Name of the Legator and universal Executor were filled up after the Defuncts Death yet it is offered to be proven that the Defunct when he subscribed the Testament did nominat his Eldest Daughter as Executrix and Legatrix and gave warrand to the Nottar to fill up the Name which though he neglected then and has done it since it ought not to prejudge her It was answered that our Law allows of no Nuncupative Testaments or nominations of Executors of Legators unless the Testament be perfected in Writ and therefore if the Executor or Legator be not filled up by the Defunct the Testament is not perfeited in Writ albeit the Defunct has Subscribed the same as he might have done in a blank Paper and given warrand to the Nottar to fill up his Testament upon such Terms which could not subsist though the Nottar and Witnesses should astruct the same as not being done habili modo The Lords found the Testament null as to the nomination of the Executor and Legator and also as to the Lands but they found it valide as to the Disposition of the Moveables with the burden of the ten thousand merks and found that the want of the nomination of the Executor or universal Legator did not hinder but that the Defunct might in any way Dispone his Moveables in Testament or on Death-bed which would stand valide as a Legacy which by our Law might consist without nomination of Executors but would extend to that part of the Moveables only the Defunct might Legat. Anna Raith and Iohn Wauchop of Edmistoun contra Wolmet and Major Bigger Eodem die IN Anno 1641. there was a Minute of Contract betwixt umquhil Wolmet Iames and Mr. Iames Raiths of Edmistoun and their Spouses whereby a Marriage was Contracted betwixt Iames Edmistoun Wolmets Son and Mr. Iames Raiths Eldest Daughter and in case of the Decease of either of these two the next Son and next Daughter to make
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
or Brybing the Witnesses it is most Relevant and express in Law l. 33. ff de re judicata bearing testibus pecunia corruptis conspiratione adversariorum c. which being pessimi exempli in odium corrumpentis not only are the Witnesses punishable but the Sentence annullable which is confirmed toto titulo Codicis si ex falsis instrumentis and that without regard whether they undertake or Depone falsly or not as is observed by Bartol l. in princ ff de falsis adict l. divans 33. de re judicata Num. 7. and Covaruvias in repet C. quamvis fol. 57. Col. 3. which he attests to be the common opinion and which is likewise attested by Boss. in tit de falsis num 1608. and by Will. 66. com opin fol. 2991. and especially by Hartman tit 15. de testibus observ 16. where he doth expresly maintain that it is not so much a lawful to instruct a Witness excitandae memoriae causa non si subito deprehendatur haesitet titubet in respect any such instruction is subornationis velamentum and which Opinion hath been likewise Confirmed by the Decisions of the most eminent and famous Courts of Justice as may appear per Capell tholos deces 2804. and others And which is likewise the Opinion of Clarus viz. That the foresaid Acts of Corruption are disjunctive and separatim Relevant as may appear by Fassum Num. 12 13. quâ—st 53. de exceptionibus quae contra testes opponi possunt And to the last alleadgeance against the Probation by Witnesses that it would infer an endless course of Reprobators It was answered that by the same Reason Reductions might be taken away because the Decreet Reductive might be Reduced and that Decreet by another Reduction without end But Reprobators have every where been Sustained and no such inconvenience ever found neither can it be imagined that every Pursuer of a Reprobator will prevail which this infinite progress must suppose only it may infer that Witnesses in Reprobators ought to be more unquestionable than the Witnesses called in question thereby The Lords found that Reprobators were competent albeit the Witnesses upon Oath Deponed upon their own Hability at the desire of the Party and albeit the Party Protested not for Reprobators seing he was not admitted to compear and found that Member of the Reprobators upon the poverty not Relevant in this Clandestine Crime neither that Member upon their alleadged Infamy unless it were alleadged that they were infamous infamia juris by any Deed which the Law expresly declares to infer Infamy or were declared infamous sententia judicis and found that Member of the Reprobators upon instructing or prompting the Witnesses Relevant without necessity to alleadge the Witnesses undertaking or Deponing conform and that in odium corrumpentiâ— without inferring any blemish upon the Witnesses so prompted who consented not or swore falsly and found that Member Relevant of Corrupting the Witnesses by giving or promising of good Deed more than might be suitable to the Witnesses for their Charges but as to the manner of Probation by Oath or Witnesses The Lords superceeded to give answer till a Practique alleadged upon were produced Pringle contra Pringle February 1 1971. PRingle of Soutray having only three Daughters does in his Testament done upon Death-bed Dispone his whole Lands to his eldest Daughter and Constitute her universal Legator with this provision that she pay 10000. merks to the other two Daughters the Disposition as to the Lands being Reduced as being in Testament and on Death-bed the universal Legacy was Sustained to give the eldest Daughter the Right of the Deads part whereupon it was alleadged for the other two Daughters that if the eldest insisted for the universal Legacy she behoved to have it with the burden of the ten thousand merks which was a burden both upon the Land and Moveables and doth no more relate to the one than the other so that albeit the Right of the Land be Evicted the Moveables remains burdened as if a Father should Dispone certain Lands to a Son with the burden of Portions to the other Children albeit a part of the Lands were Evicted the Portions would be wholly due without abatement It was answered for the eldest Daughter that in latter Wills the mind of the Defunct is chiefly regarded not only as to what is exprest but to what is implyed or presumed and here it is evident that the mind of the Defunct was that his two younger Daughters should only have ten thousand merks in satisfaction to all Rights of Lands or Moveables Now seing they have gotten two third parts of the Land which is much better than ten thousand merks It cannot be thought to be his meaning to give them any share of his Moveables also but that the half thereof which was at his disposal should belong to the eldest Daughter without burden Which the Lords found Relevant and declared the same to belong to the eldest Daughter without burden of the Provisions Alexander Ferguson contra Parochioners of Kingarth Eodem die ALexander Ferguson being one of the Prebands of the Chapel-Royal by His Majesties Presentation and Collation pursues the Heretors of the Paroch of Kingarth for the Teinds as being annexed to the Chappel-Royal as appears by the Books of Assumption and three Presentations from the King produced Compearance is made for the Minister of Rothsay who alleadged that he had Presentation to the Kirk of Kingarth from the King and Collation thereupon and so had best right to the Teinds of his Paroch because de jure communi decima debentur pâ—rocho and as for the Pursuer he shews no Right by any Mortification of these Teinds to the Chappel-Royal Neither can he make it appear that ever he or any other Prebander were in Possession civil or natural thereof 2dly Albeit the Prebanders had had a Right the same is now taken off by Prescription because it is offered to be proven that the Minister hath been 40. years in peaceable Possession before the Pursuers Citation which not only takes away the bygones but the whole Right and establishes the same in the Ministers person The Lords found the Books of Assumption and the three Presentations from the King sufficient to instruct the Pursuers Title and found the Defense of Prescription Relevant as to the bygones before the Citation but not to Establish the Right in the Minister or to take it from the Chappel-Royal as to years after the Citation and in time coming in respect of the Act of Parliament providing that the Kings Interest shall not be prejudged by the neglect of His Officers Blair of Bagillo contra Blair of Denhead February 3. 1671. BLair of Bagillo having granted Bond to Blair of Denhead he did Assign the same to Guthrie of Collistoun Bagilio raised Suspension against Collistoun as Assigney in Anno 1632. and now Collistoun insists in a Transferring of the old Suspension and Decreet Suspended against Bagillo's Heirs to the effect
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
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
whole production is specially insert It was answered that the Requisition was truly produced and that the omission of the Clerk to repeat it in the Production cannot annul the Decreet after so long a time without a Reduction thereof It was answered that albeit in favorabilibus the Lords may supply Defects upon Production ex post facto yet in odiosis such as Clauses irritant of Reversions the Lords ought not to admit the same The Lords found the Decreet of Declarator null Sir David Dumbar of Baldoun contra David Dick and others February 22. 1671. BAldoun pursues â—he Tennents of Bombie for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for David Dick who produced an Apprizing of the saids Lands against the Lord Kirkcudbright within year and day of the Pursuers Appryzing and craves to come in pari passu with the Pursuer conform to the Act 1661. anent Creditor and Debitor It was answered that by the same Act it is provided that where Comprizings are acquired by the appearand Heir or to his behove that the same should be satisfiable for such Sums as the appearand Heir payed and offers to satisfie the same It was answered that albeit the Act doth so provide as to the Estate that might belong to the appearand Heir it can extend no further But this Appryzing is not only of the Estate of Orchartoun but of the Estate of Kirkcudbright wherein Sir Robert Maxwel appearand Heir of Orchartoun hath no interest the Appryzing must be valide as to that It was answered that Kirkcudbright was but Cautioner for Orchartoun and that the Act bears that such Appryzings shall be satisfied by what the appearand Heir payed and such Appryzings being satisfied it is simply extinct and can have no effect Which the Lords found Relevant and seing David Dicks Appryzing is Assigned to Sir Roberts own Brother the Lords allowed Witnesses ex officio to be adduced for proving that it was for Sir Roberts behove William Gordoun contra Sir Alexander Mcculloch Eodem die WIlliam Gordoun pursues Sir Alexander Mcculloch for Spuilzying of certain Corns Who alleadged Absolvitor because the Defender having right by Appryzing to the Lands whereon the Corns grew did warn the Pursuer and obtained Decreet of Removing against him and thereupon dispossessed him and finding the Cropt upon the Ground he might lawfully intromet therewith nam sata cedunt solo especially where the Sower is in mala fide but here he was in Violence after a Warning and did continue to Sow after Decreet of Removing yea a part was Sown after he was Dispossessed by Letters of Ejection The Pursuer answered that by the Law and Custom of Scotland the Cropt of Corns or industrial Fruits are never accounted as pars soli or any accessory but are still moveable even when they are growing so that they belong not to the Heir but to the Executor and in case of a Disposition without mention of the Cropt albeit the Acquirer were Infeft after they were Sown and upon the Ground he would not have Right thereto neither doth mala fides or violent Possession alter the case for which the Law hath provided a special Remeid viz. the violent Profits but it can be no ground to meddle with the Parties Cropt brevi manu as accessory to the Ground for then the Parties should both lose the Cropt as pars soli and be lyable to the violent profits neither is there any Ground from the Warning nor yet from the Decreet of Removing which was Suspended before it attained full effect and the Defender continued in Possession of a House upon the Ground albeit he was put out of the principal House It was answered that the Decreet had attained full effect before the Suspension all the Pursuers Goods being off the Ground and he out of the Mansion-house wherein the Defender entered and brought all his Goods upon the Ground and though the Pursuers Mother being a valitudinary impotent Woman was suffered to remain in a Coat-house and the Pursuer with her upon that account that imports no continuance of Possession of the Land The Lords Repelled the Defense as to that part of the Cropt that was Sowen before the Appryzer entered by the Letters of Possession reserving to him the violent Profits for that time But found the Defense Relevant as to what the Pursuer did after the Defenders Dispossession and found the Defender only lyable for the Expences of the Labouring and the Seed as being eatenus Locupletior factus Lord Iustice Clerk contra Mr. Iohn Fairholm February 23. 1671. THe Earl of Levin being Debitor to Lambertoun in fourty thousand merks and having Infeft him in an Annualrent out of his Lands in security thereof Mr. Iohn Fairholm did upon a Debt due by Lambertoun Appryze the foresaid Heretable Bond and Annualrent which was holden of the Earl of Levin himself who was Charged upon the Appryzing but unwarrantably to Infeft Fairholm in the Lands whereas the Annual rent only was Appryzed and the Charge should have been to Infeft Fairholm in the Annualrent thereafter Fairholm did Arrest the bygone Annualrents in the Earl of Levins hands and after all did upon a Decreet against Lambertoun arrest the bygone Rents in Levins hand and Lambertouns Liferent of the Annualrent having fallen by his being year and day at the Horn the Justice Clerk as Donator to the Liferent and as Arrester competing with Fairholm did alleadge that Fairholms Appryzing being an incompleat Diligence and no Infeftment nor valide Charge thereon and having lyen over so many years the Arrester must be preferred for which he adduced a Practique observed by Dury the 14. of February 1623. Salicots contra Brown where it was so found and albeit Fairholm be the prior Arrester yet he hath done no Diligence upon his Arrestment whereas the Justice Clerk hath obtained Decreet and as Donator to the Liferent Escheat he is preferable for years after the Rebellion because the Liferent Escheat falling before any Infeftment or Charge on the Appryzing which was not used within year and day the Liferent excludes the Appryzer The Lords found the Appryzing preferable to the posterior Arrestment though no legal Diligence was done thereon for the space of nine years thereafter in respect the Appryzing being a Judicial Assignation required no Intimation and being prior it is preferable and they did not respect that single Practique the constant Custom since being contrary But found the Liferent Escheat preferable to the anterior Appryzing being without Infeftment or Charge as to the years after the Rebellion and preferred the Appryzer as to years preceeding Arnold of Barncaple contra Gordoun of Holm Eodem die THere being four Cautioners in a Bond and the principal Debitor having Suspended and found a Cautioner in the Suspension who having been Distressed and payed the Debt and having gotten Assignation from the Creditor Charges one of the Cautioners in the first Bond Gordoun of Holm who Suspends on this Reason that payment being made by the
this Bond as Witness is his Subscription but that he did not see Sir Lewis Subscribe nor any of the other Witnesses and remembers nothing of the matter and that he knows not Iohn Carnagie Serviture to the Earl of Southesk another Witness insert The Pursuer thereupon craved that the Defender would more particularly design the other Witness John Carnagie Serviture to the Earl of Southesk because there were several persons Servants or Attendents upon the Earl at that time of the same name and condescends upon two of them having several Designations beside this common one The Defender alleadged that he was obliged to condescend no further seing the Act of Parliament required no more than the Name Sirname and Designation It was answered that the intent of Designations being to find out the Person of the Witness that he might be adduced in the Improbation a general Designation would not suffice but behoved to be made special or otherways if the Pursuer should Cite any Person of that Designation and that Person should deny the Subscription his Testimony would improve or at the best the Defender behoved then to Design specially another of the same common Designation otherwise it were a compendious way to all Forgery as if Witnesses should be insert of such a Name Indwellers in Edinburgh or any other Town In that case if the Testimonie of none of them should Improve there were no remeed for the Falshood The Lords found that all the persons that were the Earl of Southesks Servants or Attendantsat that time and were called Iohn Carnagie that were alive should be Cited and the Hand-writs of any that wereso Designed that were dead should be produced by either Party to be compared with this Subscription that thereby it might appear if the Subscription could be astructed by the Testimony or hand writ of any other Sir Francis Scot of Thirlstoun contra Lord Drumlanrig Iune 10. 1671. SIr Francis Scot having obtained Decreet of Adjudication of the Lands of Brankinside and others and having Charged the Lord Drumlanrig to receive and Infeft him He Suspends on this Reason that he was willing to satisfie the Sums contained in the Adjudication upon Assignation made to him thereto and so was not obliged to receive the Charger It was answered that albeit King Iames the third his Act of Parliament anent Appryzings doth provide that for a years Rent Superiours shall receive Appryzers or otherways shall take the Land to themselves and pay the Sums yet that gives not the Superiour an option but bears failzying of paying a years Rent the Superiour may satisfie the Sums and take the Land in his own hands but where that was offered it was never by Custom or Practique allowed that the Superiour should exclude an Appryzer but whatever were in the case of Appryzings that power was never granted to Superiours in Adjudications whereupon they were still obliged to receive Adjudgers without a years Rent until the late Act of Parliament and the said old Statute giving an option to the Superiour is not to be extended to Adjudications nor was it ever by any subsequent Law or Consuetude extended thereto It was answered that by the ancient Feudal Law a Superiour could not have been compelled to receive a stranger Vassal albeit a Creditor yet the Statute of King Iames the 3d. did remeid this in favours of Creditors and obliged Superiours either to receive Appryzers for payment of a years Rent or else to pay the Sum Apprysed for but long after that time there was no mention of Adjudications which were a Supplement of the Lords that where the appearand Heir being Charged did renunce the Creditor should not be frustrate but might obtain Adjudication of the Lands contra haereditatem jacentem which except as to that point of Form is the same with an Appryzing under another Title and albeit as to the years Entry the Lords would not extend the same to an Adjudication It was upon this special Reason that in the Act of Parliament 1621. anent Appryzings the same is declared Redeemable upon the Sums Appryzed for and a years Rent for the Entry yet in the very next Act in the same Parliament anent Adjudications the years Entry is left out which was thought by the Lords to be done by the Parliament of purpose and so not to be extended by the Lords But otherways the same Reason was for the Entry in Adjudications as in Appryzings which the Parliament has now found by their late Act and therefore the matter of the Entry is not to be drawn in consequence to the Superiours option The Lords found that the Superiour had his option and might refuse to receive the Adjudger offering to satisfie the Sums in his Adjudication upon Assignation made to him thereof and declared that the same should be Redeemable from the Superiour upon the like Sums without any thing for a years Entry and that in all things else the Superiour and Vassal should be in the same case as if the Adjudger had been Entred to that Effect Town of Breichen contra Town of Dundee Iune 14. 1671. LAurence Dundass having been Debitor to the Earl of Seaforth in 200. pound Sterling was incarcerat in the Tolbooth of Breichen and being suffered to go out of Prison Mr. Rory Mckenzie as Assigney to the Earl obtained Decreet against the Town for payment of the Sum and took Assignation to the Caption and therewith Incarcerat Laurence in the Tolbooth of Dundee and now pursues the Town of Dundee for suffering Laurence to go out of Prison and condescends that they suffered him to go ordinarly to the Kirk on the Sabbath and that once they suffered him to go to the River by Boat and over to Fife another Shire and ordinarly to go to the Street and to Taverns without necessar Affairs The Defenders answered that the Prisoner returned still to the Prison every night and went always abroad with a Guard and his going to the Water was because of his Indisposition and for his Health that if he touched upon the other side in Fife he did return that same night to Prison and that his going to the Kirk with a Keeper can be no Relevant Ground and even the going out upon other occasions with a Keeper though not absolutely necessar cannot make the Magistrates lyable it being the constant Custom of all Burghs so to do and that a Prisoner being under a Guard is in Prison albeit not in the Tolbooth The Pursuers answered that Magistrates of Burghs were but publick Servants in Keeping of Prisoners and were obliged to give punctual Obedience to the Letters of Caption bearing to keep the Rebel in sure Firmance within their Tolbooth which is founded on very good Reason that the Prisoner may be necessitate squalore carceris to do all Deeds in his power to satisfie his Debt which would be eluded if the Magistrates at their pleasure might let them go out with a Guard and would but turn to a Confynement or
Exception by the Act of Parliament 1621. against fradulent Dispositions It was answered that the Disposition behoved at least to purge the vitious Intromission and did stand ay and while it was Redeemed For notwithstanding of the Tenor of the said Act the Lords do not Sustain that Nullity by way of Exception or Reply The Lords found the Nullity competent by way of Exception it being no Heretable Right requiring the production of Authors Rights but in respect of this colourable Title restricted the vitious Intromission to the single value Lord Lovet contra Lord Mcdonald Eodem die THe Lord Lovet pursues the Lord Mcdonald to count for the Superplus of a Wodset from the Date of his Instrument of Requisition in Anno 1663. whereupon he had raised Summons in Anno 1667. It was alleadged that the Instrument was at the Defenders Dwelling-house when he was out of the Countrey and bear no production of the Procutry and only an offer of a Bond with a Clause of Infeftment in all Lovets Land and did not bear an offer of Caution It was answered that the Act did not require Requisition by Instrument but quaevis insinuatio sufficit and the Instrument bear Delivery of a Copy to the Defenders Lady in his House there being no Procutry for the Pursuer offered now to produce the same and a surety by Infeftment was sufficient the Act of Parliament mentioning no Caution The Lords found that the Requisition behoved to be by Letters of Supplement at the Cross of Edinburgh and Pear of Leith seing the Defender was out of the Countrey but Sustained the same as to the Procutry it being now produced and sustained the offer of Surety and Ordained it to be produced Reserving the Objections and Answers of either Party thereanent Iohn Boyd contra Hugh Sinclar Iune 17. 1671. JOhn Boyd having a Right to some Teinds in Orknay pursues Hugh Sinclar as Intrometter therewith who alleadged Absolvitor because he had Right to a Tack set to umquhil Sinclar during his Life and to his first Heir after him during his Life and nineteen years thereafter which is not yet expyred for though the Defuncts eldect Son survived him yet he was never entered Heir to him neither did he possess thir Teinds and Died shortly after his Father but it is not nineteen years since the second Son Died whos 's Retour is produced as Heir to his Father The Lords found that the eldest Son Surviving his Father although he never Possest was the first Heir as to the Tack and that he needed not be served Heir Alexander Alexander contra The Lord Saltoun Iune 20. 1671. THe Earl of Hadingtoun having obtained a Gift of Bastardy and ultimus hares of umquhil William Gray Provost of Aberdere did assign the same to Alexander Alexander with a Process thereupon against the Lord Saltoun for payment of 5000. merks due by him by Bond to the said umquhil William Gray The Defender alleadged that this Bond being granted for the price of Land bought by him from the Bastard and of the same Date with the Contract of Alienation thereof there was a Back-bond also of the same Date by which the said William Gray was not only obliged in Warrandice but also to procure himself Infeft holden of the Earl of Mar to purge an Inhibition at the instance of Ramsay and to procure a Right of an Appryzing at the Instance of the Lord Newbeath The Pursuer answered that the King or his Donator was not obliged to fulfill these Obligements of the Bastard which were not liquide nor special It was answered that the Gift of Bastardy or ultimus haeres not falling to the King by Forefaulture or any Delinquence but by Deficience of the Bastards Heir the Donator was in no better case as to the fulfilling of these Obligements then the Bastard or his Heir would be if they were pursuing upon the Bond who could not seek payment till the Obligements in the Alienation or Back-bond which were the Causes of this Bond were fulfilled Which the Lords found Relevant as to the special Obligements of obtaining Infeftment and purging the Inhibition and Appryzing but not as to the general obligement of Warrandice wherein no Distresse was alleadged Thomas Crawford contra Iames Halliburtoun Eodem die THomas Crawford having Charged Iames Halliburtoun upon a Decreet Arbitral for payment of a sum He Suspends and alleadged that he was Interdicted at that time and that the Interdicters did not consent to the Submission or Decreet Arbitral The Pursuer answered First That the Alleadgeance was not competent by Exception but by Reduction 2dly That Interdictions had only the same Effect as Inhibitions and did operate nothing as to Moveables or personal Execution even by way of Reduction Both which Defenses the Lords found Relevant John Neilson contra Menzies of Enoch Iune 21. 1671. JOhn Neilson as Assigney Constitute by Iohn Creightoun pursues Menzies of Enoch for the Rents of certain Lands in Enoch upon this Ground that there was a Tack set by James Menzies of Enoch of the saids Lands to the said Iohn Creightoun for nineteen years for payment of fourscore pounds Scots yearly of Tack-duty thereafter by a Decreet Arbitral betwixt Enoch and his eldest Son Robert he is Decerned to Denude himself of the saids Lands in favours of Robert reserving his own Liferent After which Decreet Robert grants a second Tack to Creightoun relating and Confirming the first nineteen years Tack and setting the Land of new again for five merk of Tack Duty in stead of the fourscorepounds After which Tack Robert Dispones the Land irredeemably to Birthwood but at that time Robert was not Infeft but upon the very same day that the Disposition was granted to Birthwood Robert Menzies is Infeft and Birthwood is also Infeft Birthwoods Right by progress comes in the Person of Iames Menzies the Defender Roberts Brother The Pursuer insisted for the Duties of the Land over and above the fourscore pounds during the Life of old Iames Menzies and over and above the Tack-duty of five merks after his Death For which the Defender alleadged Absolvitor because he produces a Decreet at his instance against Creightoun the Tacks-man Decerning him to Remove because he was then resting several Terms Rent and failed to pay the same and to find Caution to pay the same in time coming The Pursuer answered that the said Decreet was in absence and was null because the Defender Libelled upon his own Infeftment and upon a Tack set to Creightoun the Tacks-man by himself and there was no such Tack produced by him or could be produced because the Tack albeit it bear to be set by Iames Menzies yet it was only set by James Menzies his Father and not by himself The Lords found the Decreet null by Exception Whereupon the Defender alleadged that the Decreet at least was a colourable Title and he possessed by it bona fide till it was found null bonae fidei possessor facit
Practique produced observed by Dury upon the 1â— of March 1637. betwixt Hume and Hume of Blackadder wherein Compt and Reckoning was Sustained at an appearand Heirs instance the Custom having been ever since contrair upon this Ground that no Party should be troubled to Compt at the Instance of those who when the Compt was closed cannot exoner them and yet may put them to make Litiscontestation and Probation in the Cause Duke of Buccleugh contra Parochioners of Eodem die THe Minister of Hasendein having obtained the Designation of a Gleib out of the Duke Land who alleadged that the Minister having a Gleib before extending at least to two Aikers the Earl upon this Designation had gotten Possession thereof and could only seek Relief for the Superplus It was answered that these two Aikers had never been designed as a Gleib but the Pursuers Predecessors were infeft therein and in Possession thereof before the Ministers and any Possession they had was but by their sufference and conâ—â—vance It was answered that decennalis triennalis possessor non tenesur docere de tâ—â—uâ—o and the Minister was not only in Possession thirteen years but thirty years It was answered that albeit Possession may be a Title yet it may be elided by the Pursuers Right which cannot be taken away but by Prescription whereupon the question arose how the Tollerance or Sufference of the Ministers Possession was probable whether by Witnesses or not seing Tollerances are not ordinarly so proven The Lords found that if the Ministers Possession were alleadged to have been 40. year as belonging to the Kirk that the Dukes Tollerance could only be proven by Writ to elide the same but if for fewer years they found the Tollerance or Sufference probable by Witnesses Mr. Arthur Gordoun contra Laird of Drum Eodem die MR. Arthur Gordoun as Assigney to a Decreet recovered against the Laird of Drum Charges him thereupon He Suspends on this Reason that the Debt being originally due to a Defunct his two Executors nominate recovered the Decreet and the one only assigned the whole to Mr. Arthur whereby he can only have Right to the half It was answered that the other Executor being Dead before the Assignation the Office accresced to the Surviver who might uplift all that was in bonis defuncti not uplifted It was answered that this Debt was no more in bonis defuncti but being established in the Executors Person by Sentence testamentum suit oxecatum and the Deceased Executor's half behoved to belong to their Executors and not to accresce Which the Lords Sustained Lady Ballagan contra Lord Drumlanrig Iune 23. 1671. THe Lady Ballagan being by her Contract of Marriage provided to certain Lands and amongst others to the Lands of Birks the Contract bears that she accepts of the saids Lands in full satisfaction of all further Conjunct-Fee Liferent or Terce she was Infeft in the Lands of Birks by her Husband but was not Confirmed by the Lord Drumlanrig Superiour of whom the Lands held Ward The Lady pursues the Tennents of Birks for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for the Lord Drumlanrig Superiour who craved preference because the Lands are now by Ward in his hands by the Death of the Husband and minority of the Heir And as for the Ladies Infeftment it can have no effect against the Ward because it is not Confirmed It was answered that the Lands being Ward and lesse then the third part of the Ward Lands holden of the Lord Drumlanrig the Lady has Right by Law thereto as her Terce It was answered That by her Contract of Marriage she had accepted the Lands provided therein in satisfaction of her Teroâ— which is the ordinar conception of a Renunciation as when a Sum is accepted in satisfaction of any prior Debt it imports a Renunciation and Discharge of the prior Debt and an Inhibition prior to the last Bond will Reduce any Right thereupon Neither can it be maintained as having an anterior Cause by the former Bonds yea any Appryzing upon them would be void because they are Renunced It was answered for the Lady First That there was here no formal Renunciation or Discharge of the Terce and the acceptance of Lands for it doth very well allow that the Land accepted may be bruiked as Terce at least a Terce of that Land must be due though no Terce of other Lands can be claimed and albeit the Clause in satisfaction in personal Rights is commonly understood to Renunce and extinguish the prior Rights unless they be Reserved Yet it is not so in real Rights for if any person have many Rights to Lands and doth thereafter accept a Disposition of a part of the Lands in satisfaction of all his interest that does not Renunce his former Rights to that Land but he may defend himself with them all So here accepting of Lands in satisfaction of a Terce does not Renunce the Terce as to the Lands accepted 2dly Albeit this Clause could import the Renuncing of all Terce that can never be extended to the benefite of the Superiour nor can it be understood the Contracters mind to exclude the Wife from the Terce to make it accresce to the Superiour in both their prejudices because the Husband by the Warrandice must make out the Joynture 3dly Albeit the Renunciation could be profitable to the Superiour yet it being by this Clause in the Contract the Superiour cannot question the Ladies Infeftment which is the cause of the Renunciation but must adhere to the whole Clause nam qui approbat non reprobat It was answered that the common Sense of this Clause of acceptance does still import a full Renunciation neither can the intention or meaning of the Parties import any thing unlesse they had acted accordingly for it had been easie for them to have said but prejudice of the Terce as to thir Lands so that the Terce being Renunced the Renunciation is profitable to all Parties having Interest because the Right thereby Renunced is simply extinct Neither needs the Superiour approve the Infeftment Un-confirmed by making use of the Renunciation for as there could be no pretence for that upon the naked Clause without any Infeftment so the meaning can only be that if the Clause had been perfected by a valide Infeftment he could not have quarrelled it The Lords preferred the Superiour and found the acceptance a full Renunciation of the Terce both as to the Lands accepted and others Helen Hume contra Lord Iustice Clerk Iune 28. 1671. UMquhile Hume of Rentoun having made several Provisions to his Children and amongst the rest to Helen Hume and having recommended the same to his Son now Justice Clerk he gave a Bond to the said Helen of two thousand Merks payable upon Requisition of fourty days the said Helen pursued Registration of the Bond wherein it being alleadged that any Requisition made was past from by acceptance of Annualrent for Terms after The Lords Assoilzied from that Charge until
Justice Clerk her Brother who alleadged upon the foresaid Clause that the effect thereof must necessarly be that the said Helen should make no voluntare gratuitous Right in prejudice of her Father or his Heirs that the Sum should return if she were not Married It was answered that this Clause not being the ordinar Clause of Substitution Provision or Return cannot be understood a Suspensive Clause hindring the lifting of the Money neither yet a resolutive Clause in case the Pursuer Marry not but it can only have the effect of a Clause of Substitution that if the Pursuer died Un-married and the Sum un-uplifted or Disponed her Fathers Heir is preferred to her own Heir or nearest of Kin for the Term of payment being her age of ten years she might then lift the Sum and there is no provision to reimploy it of this Tenor or to find Caution to Restore if she were not Married It was answered that this Clause cannot be interpreted as a naked Substitution but as a condition of the Bond equivalent to that which is frequent in Provisions of Children and Contracts of Marriage that in case the Party had no Children the sum should return which was always interpret more than a single Substitution and to import a Condition or Obligation against any voluntar Deed or Disposition And though the Party be thereby Feear of the Sum yet it imports a limited Fee with a Provision to do no Deed in the contrair without a Cause onerous and albeit Re-imployment of the sum be not exprest in this Bond it is implyed in the nature of it The Lords found that seing the Bond had a particular Term and no Condition to Re-imploy and the question now was only of voluntar Dispositions without Causes onerous whereof there was none at present existent The Lords Decerned the Sum to be payed to the Pursuer reserving to the Defender his Reason of preference against any Disposition or Assignation without a Cause onerous if the same should happen to be made Iohn Mccrae contra Lord Mcdonald Iuly 6. 1671. JOhn Mccrae as Heir to John Mccrae his Goodsire pursues the Lord Mcdonald as Heir to his Goodsire for payment of a Bond of 400. merks in Anno 1629. granted by the Defenders Goodsire to the Pursuers Goodsire The Defender alleadged absolvitor because the Bond is prescribed The Pursuer replyed that the Prescription was impeded partly by Minority and was interrupted by a Citation at his Instance against the Lord Mcdonald It was answered that the first Citation made was null being at the Mercat Cross of the Shire by Dispensation upon an unwarrantable suggestion that there was not safe access to him which has been past of Course by the Servants of the Bill-Chamber whereas they ought specially to have represented the same and the consideration thereof to the Lords and so being surreptitiously obtained periculo petentis it can import no interruption 2dly The Execution at the Mercat Cross bears no leaving or affixing of a Copy And as for the second Citation it is but one day before the fourty years be compleat which being so small a time is not to be regarded in Prescription nam Lex non spectat minima and it is also null though it be done personally as falling with the first Execution The Lords found that the first Citation was sufficient to interrupt Prescription although it had not been formal through want of a Copy and declared they would sustain the Process thereupon if the leaving of a Copy were added to the Execution subscribed by the Messenger and abidden by as true They found also that the second Citation was sufficient interruption though within a day of compleating the prescription which was to be reckoned punctually de momento in momentum Strachan contra Gordouns Iuly 7. 1671. STrachan pursues Gordouns for a Spuilzie of four Oxen taken away from them by violence being then in their Plough by George and William Gordouns and others The Defenders alleadged absolvitor because they offered them to prove that the Oxon were their proper Goods and were stollen from them and that thereafter they were found straying upon the Pursuers Ground and that they were proclaimed as Waith-goods by the Sheriff and that by the Sheriffs Order direct to his Majors the Defenders intrometted with them and so did no wrong The Pursuer Replyed that no way granting the verity of the Defense the same ought to be Repelled because they having the Oxen in question in their peaceable Possession four Months they ought not to have been disturbed in their Peaceable Possession in this Order without the Citation or Sentence of a Judge So that the Defenders having unwarrantably and violently Dispossessed them spoliatus ante omnia restituendus and they may pursue for Restitution as accords but the Pursuers are not now obliged to Dispute the Point of Right 2dly If need beis they offer to prove that they acquired the Goods from the Laird of Glenkindy their Master so that being Possessors bona fide cum titulo they could not be summarly Spuilzied or Dispossessed For albeit stollen or strayed Goods may be summarly Recovered de recenti or from the Thieves yet cannot so be taken from a lawful Possessor acquiring bona fide The Lords found the Defense Relevant and admitted the same to the Defenders Probation and found also that part of the Reply Relevant that the Pursuers did Possess bona fide by an onerous Title Relevant to elide the Defense though it were proven as to the Restitution of the Oxen to the Pursuer and the ordinar profits thereof but not the violent profits for they found the Sheriffs Warrand being instructed would excuse from the violent profits but they found that the Defenders naked Possession though for four months by having the Goods in the Plough would not infer Restitution or Spuilzie but that the Goods being stollen or strayed might be recovered Summarly Laird of Polmais contra The Tradsmen of Striveling Eodem die THe Tradsmen of Striveling having Charged and troubled the Laird of Polmais Tennents about St. Ninians Kirk upon the Act of Parliament prohibiting Workmen to exercise their Trades in the Suburbs of Royal Burrows Polmais raised a Declarator for freeing of himself and his Tennents of the saids Charges and that they might freely exercise all their Trades especially about the Kirk of St. Ninians which is about a Mile from Striveling which being Dispute and it condescended upon that St. Ninians being a mile from Striveling could no ways fall under the Act of Parliament and could not be interpret a Suburb being no ways adjacent to the Town The Lords found the Declarator and Condescendence Relevant and Decerned Andrew and Adam Stevins contra Cornelius Neilson Iuly 11. 1671. ANdrew Stevin having made a Disposition of his Lands to Cornelius Neilson his Good-brother and thereafter another Disposition to his Brother Adam Stevin They pursue a Reduction of Cornelius Disposition First As being upon Trust and only for the security
the Letters that ought not to have been granted because Appryzings should only be in the head Burgh of the Shire or in communi patriâ at Edinburgh but especially seing the Warrand was obtained from the Lords of course among the common Bills without being Read or considered and so is periculo petentis and cannot prejudge the more formal Diligence of other Comprizers especially seing Lundy Appryzed of new for the same sums which will come in pari passu with the rest being within year and day It was answered that it is inherent in all Jurisdictions to continue Processes to new Dyets having keeped the first Dyet and that the Messenger by the Letters is Constitute Sheriff and there is no question but Sheriffs might and did prorogate Dyets in Appryzings and the Letters bears Warrand to fix Courts one or more and for the continuation it was but to the next day in regard of a great Speat the Appryzing being upon the hill in the open field the time of Rain and it being mâ—dica mora to the next day which will give no Warrand to an Arbitrary continuation by Messengers to what Interval they please And as for the place The Lords by Dispensation may appoint what place they see convenient and albeit the Dispensation had been of course and that therein the Clerks had failed yet the Parties obtainers of such Dispensations are secure thereby and ought not to be prejudged The Lords Sustained the Appryzing and found the Requisition now produced sufficient and found that the continuing of the Dyet for so short a time to be no ground of nullity unless the Competitors could alleadge a special cause that they did or might alleadged whereby they were prejudged by leading the Appryzing the second day rather than the first The Lords did also Sustain the Dispensation of the place and having perused the Practique produced at the Instance of the Lady Lucia Hamiltoun anent an Appryzing led at Glasgow by Dispensation They found that the Lords did not annul the Appryzing on that Ground But the Lords ordained that no Bill bearing Dispensation should pass of Course in time coming but upon special Reasons to be conâ—idered by the Lords or the Ordinary upon the Bills and that Messengers should not continue the Dyets in Appryzings but upon necessar Causes and ordained an Act to be insert in the Books of Sederunt for that effect Adam Gairns contra Isobel Sandilands Eodem die ADam Gairns pursues Isobel Sandilands as Representing her Father to pay a Debt of his and specially as behaving as Heir by uplifting the Mails and Duties of a Tenement wherein the Father Died Infeft as of Fee in so far as by Contract of Marriage betwixt Thomas Sandilands her Father and Iohn Burn and Isobel Burn his Daughter The said Iohn Burn provided the said Tenement in thir Terms viz. after the Obligements upon the Husbands part it follows thus For the which Cause the said Iohn Burn binds and obliges him to Inseft Thomas Sandilands and the said Isobel Burn the longest liver of them two in Conjunctfee or Liferent and the Heirs between them Which failzying the said Isobel her Heirs and Assigneys whatsomever By which Provision her Father being Feear and Infeft the Defender is lyable The Defender alleadged absolvitor because by this Provision of the Conjunctfee of this Tenement Isobel Burn the Defenders Mother was Feear and her Father was but Liferenter in respect the Termination of the Succession is to the Mothers Heirs yea and to her Assigneys which necessarly imports that she had power to Dispone And it is a general Rule in Succession of Conjunct-Feears that that Person is Feear upon whose Heirs the last Termination of the Tailzie or Provision ended especially in this Case where the Right of the Tenement flowes from the Womans Father So that if there were any doubtfulness it must be presumed that the Fathers meaning was to give the Fee to his Daughter having no other Children Neither is this Land Disponed nomine dotis And the Defender stands Infeft by Precept of Favour as Heir to her Mother and thereby bruiks bona fide and her Infeftment must Defend her till it be Reduced The Pursuer answered that by the provision the Husband was Feear and the Wife was only Liferenter because though the last Termination doth ordinarly rule the Fee yet this is as favourable a Rule that in Conjunct Provisions potior est conditio masculi and though the Termination be upon the Wifes Heirs whatsomever yet they are but Heirs of Provision to the Husband and he might have Disponed and his Creditors may affect the Land which holds in all Cases except the Lands had been Disponed by the Wife her self without a Cause onerous But here the Husband is first named and it is but a small parcel of Land beside which there is no other Tocher So that though it be not Disponed nomine dotis Yet being Disponed for the which Causes it is equivalent and in the same Contract the Husband is obliged to provide all Lands that he shall Acquire or succeed to to himself and his Wife the longest liver of them two in Conjunct-fee or Liferent and to the Heirs between them Which failzying the one half to the Husbands Heirs and the other half to the Wifes Heirs and their Assigneys and it cannot be imagined that the meaning of these Clauses was that the Fee of the Mans Conquest and Succession should not be all Constitute in himself but that the Wife should be Feear of the half And in like manner the Fathers meaning is clear because the Clause bears not only in Contemplation of the Marriage but for sums of Money received by the Father which albeit left blank in the Contract yet it cannot be thought that in such a Narrative he intended to make his Daughter Feear And as for the adjection of her Assigneys it is only ex stilo for Assigneys is ever added after the last Termination of Heirs and does always relate to all the Feears and would extend to the Heirs of the Marriage their Assigneys as well as to the Wifes Heirs failing them Likeas Assigneys isin the same way adjected to the Clause of Conquest wherein there is no ground to imagine that the Wife is Feear and both bears the Husband and Wife to be Infeft in Conjunct-fee or Liferent The Lords found that by this Provision and Infeftment thereon the Husband was Feear and the Wife only Liferenter and found no necessity to Reduce the Defenders Infeftment as Heir to her Mother not proceeding upon a Retour but a Precept of Favour But they found that the dubiousness of the case was sufficient to free her from the passive Title of Behaviour but only for making forthcoming her intromission quoad valorem But it was not Debated nor Considered whether as bonae fidei Possessor by a colourable Title being Infeft as Heir to her Mother she would be free of the bygones before this
the Testament was only Conditional and became void by the Earls Returning and making use of the other Testament and therefore Repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply and had no necessity to determine anent the Confirmation and Error alleadged Lindsay of Mount contra Maxwel of Kirkonnel Iuly 20. 1671. LIndsay of Mount being Donator to the Waird of the Estate of Kirkonnel by the Death of the late Laird and Minority of this Laird pursues the Tennents for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for the appearand Heir as having Right by Disposition from his Grand-mother to an Appryzing led at her Instance against her Son and alleadged that there could be no Waird because Kirkonnel the Kings Vassal was Denuded before his Death and his Mother as Appryzer was Infeft It was answered first That this Apprizing was upon a Bond granted by the Defunct to his own Mother for the behove of his Son and appearand Heir without any onerous Cause and so was null and simulat and a fraudful Contrivance in prejudice of the King as Superiour of his Casuality of Waird and that it was found in the Case of the Lord Colvil that a Vassal having married his appearand Heir in lecto It was found a Fraudulent precipitation in defraud of the Waird It was answered that the alleadgeance was not Relevant because there was nothing to hinder the Defunct to have Resigned in favours of his appearand Heir without any Cause onerous or to grant him a Bond that he might be Infeft upon Appryzing or to grant such a Bond to any Person to the Heirs behove he being in leige poustie and there can be no presumption of Fraud seing he might have obtained his Son Infeft directly which the King refuses in no case when the Granter is in leige poustie The Lords Repelled the Alleadgeance for the Donator and Sustained the Appryzing The Donator further alleadged that by the Act of Parliament 1661. betwixt Debitor and Creditor It is provided that the Debitor may cause the Appryzer Restrict himself to as much as will pay his Annualrent and the Debitor may bruik the rest during the Legal and now the Donator is in place of the Debitor so that what superplus there is more than will pay the Appryzers Annualrent must belong to the Donator It was answered that this Clause is peculiar and personal to Debitors and cannot be extended to Donators who are not mentioned therein because Debitors when they crave Restriction they are presumed as provident men to uplift the rest for satisfying the Appryzing or their other Debts or for their Subsistence and so being introduced wholly in their favours it cannot be extended in favours of the Donator to their prejudice For if the Appryzer Possess all the superplus will satisfie the Appryzing whereas if the Donator uplift the Superplus the Debitor will be hudgely prejudged neither the Appryzing nor any other Debt of his being satisfied thereby nor his Heir intertained therewith The Lords found that this Clause could not be extended to a Donator and that there could not be a Waird both by the Decease of the Appryzer and Debitor The Donator further alleadged that the Appryzing was satisfied by Intromission within the Legal which did extinguish the Appryzing as to all Effects and Purposes as if it had never been and all Parties return to their Rights as they were before the Appryzing and so consequently the Superiour and his Donator has the Ward Duties during the appearand Heirs minority after the Appryzing is extinct for the Appryzing being but a Collateral Security like an Infeftment for Relief it is jus resolubile and doth not fully Divest the Debitor who needs not be Re-seased as he would be in the case of a Wodset holden publick but the Debitors own Infeftment Revives and stands valide and the appearand Heir must be Infeft as Heir to the Defunct which cannot be till he be legitimae aetatis after the Ward It was answered that the Alleadgeance is not Relevant unless the Appryzing had been satisfied in the Defuncts Life for then his Infeftment would have Revived But if any thing remained due the appearand Heir hath the Right of Reversion as appearand Heir and Intromission thereafter cannot Revive the Defuncts Infeftment The Lords found that so soon as the Appryzing was extinct whether before the Defuncts Death or after the Ward took effect and the Donator had Right Laird of Birkinbog contra Iohn Grahame of Craigie Eodem die IN a Competition amongst the Creditors of umquhile Sir Robert Dowglass of Tilliquhilly a Disposition granted by Sir Robert to Grahame of Craigie was called for to be Reduced upon this Reason that it was granted by Sir Robert when he was a notorious and known Bankrupt and fled and was latent so that by the Act of Parliament 1621. he could not prefer one Creditor to another being in that Condition for that Act annuls all Dispositions made by Bankrupts without a just and necessary cause and there was no necâ—ssity nor Justice for the Bankrupt to prefer one Creditor to another It was answered that unless there had been legal Diligence at the Pursuers instance or that the Defenders Disposition had been without a cause onerous there is no ground for that Act to hinder any Debitor though Bankrupt to prefer one Creditor to another for if he had had the Money he might have payed any he pleased and the Cause is both just and necessary because he might have been compelled by Law to have done the same and there was nothing to hinder the Creditor but that as he might have first Appryzed so he might have taken the first Disposition from his Debitor 2dly The Pursuers Debt was for a Bargain of Victual Sold and Delivered to the common Debitor but a Month before the Disposition in question when he was alleadged to be Bankrupt The Lords found the last Alleadgeance Relevant and Assoilzied from the Reduction but did not decide upon the former alleadgeance Guthrie contra Mackarstoun Eodem die IN a Competition betwixt an Heir and an Executor anent the Rent of a Miln where the Tacks-mans Entry was at Whitsunday where the first Terms of payment of the Rent was at Candlemas and the second at Whitesunday the Liferenter having survived Candlemas and died before Whitesunday The question arose how far the Executor of the Liferenter had Right it being alleadged that the Executor of the Liferenter could only have Right to the one half the Liferenter having only survived the first Term as in House Mails The Lords found that the legal Terms of a Miln Rent being Whitesunday and Mertinmas the Liferenter having survived both the legal Terms had Right to the whole years Rent in the same way as in Land Rents and not to the one Term as in House Mails Sir George Maxwel of Nether Pollock contra Maxwel of Kirkonnel Iuly 21. 1671. IN this pursuit related the 11th of Iuly instant It was further alleadged for the Defender that the
Apprizing but not by the Messenger being produced as a Title in a Process the same was not Sustained without the Messengers Subscription or his Executions but the Party was remitted to prove the Tenor thereof December 1665. Mâ—culloch contra Craig An Apprizing was found to be satisfied by Intromâ—ssion not only within the years but also within the three years added by the Act betwixt Debitor and Creditor though the Apprizing was led long before that Act Ianuary 20. 16â—6 Clappertoun contra Laird of Torsonce Here it was also found that a part of the Lands Apprized being sold irredeâ—mably by the Apprizer were Redeemable within thrâ—e years and that the singular Successor was only comptable for the Rents thereof and not the Apprizer who had sold the same before the Act. An Apprizing led upon several Sums of one whereof the Term of payment was not come the Apprizing was â—ound null as to that Sum but whether it would be null in totum or whether it would be valide to carry the whole Right of the Lands as that Sum had never been in or if a proportional part of the Land effeiring to that Sum would be free of the Apprâ—izing the Lords decided not but were of different Iudgements February 16. 1666. Sharp of Houstoun contra Glen An Apprizing was found extinct as being satisfied by the Debitor and retired by him with a blank Assignation thereto lying by him at his death though his Son thereafter filled up his Name therein which was instructed partly by the Sons Oath which was found not sufficient to prove alone and partly by Witnesses ex officio one of which who proved most clearly was his Brother February 27. 1666. Creditors of the Lord Grâ—y contra the Lord Gray An Apprizing on a Bond bearing a Sum to be payable without Requisition was found valide without either Requisition or Charge of Horning Iuly 21. 1666. Thomson contra Mâ—kitrick An Apprizing was found extinct as to a Party in whose favours the Apprizer granted a Back-bond bearing that the Apprizing should not be prejudicial to that Parties Right which was found Relevant against a singular Successor viz. The Kings Donator having right to the Apprizing by Foreâ—aulture Iuly 31. 1666. Earl of Southesk contra Marquess of Huntly An Apprizing was found satisfied within the Legal by Intromission and no part of the Martinmas Rent was ascribed to a Tercers Right not being served though she gave Tack to the Apprizer he having Entered on the Debitors Possession December 21. 1666. Zeaman contra Oâ—â—phant An Apprizing led against an appearand Heir as specially Charged to Enter Heir was preferred to the Infeftment â—f the next apparent Heir after the Heir Charged his death or the Infeâ—tment of their singular Successor granted after the matter became Litigious albeit the Apprizer from the apparent Heir Charged was never Infeft nor Charged the Superiour upon the Appâ—izing neither was the apparent Heir himself Infeft but that the Superiour might be Chaâ—ged at any time after the apparent Heirs death and albeit the next apparent Heirs could not Enter Heirs to the former apparent Heir Charged but to his Predecessor to the effect they might Reduce or Redeem the Apprizing led against the former apparent Heir February 6. 1668. Iohnstoun contra Erskin An Apprizing was found Redeemable from the eldest Son and apparent Heir of the Debitor within ten years for the sums he truly payed out by the Act of Parliament 1661. albeit his Father was living the time of this Process Iune 19. 1668. â—urnet contra Nâ—smith An Apprizer since 1652. pursuing the rest for his part of the Duties as coming in with them pari passu by the Act 1661. betwixt Debitor and Creditor his Apprizing was â—ound not to be effectual till the allowance thereof were Registrate conform to the late Act of the same Parliament anent Registration of allowances but that it required no determinate time to Registrate but whensoever Registrate it would be effectual as to all Rights not compleated before Registration Iuly 17. 1668. Steuart contra Murraâ—â— An Apprizing on an Assignation to a Cautioner or for his behove Apprizing for the whole sum without deduction of that Cautioners part was not found null in totum but Restricted to the Sum truly due being within the Legal Iuly 22. 1668. Iohnstoun of Sheins contra Arnold An Apprizing and Infeftment thereon granted by the Exchequeâ— of course without notice when the King by Forefaulture was imâ—ediate Superiour was found not to supplie a Confirmation or to exclude the Donator of the Forefaulture pursuing a Removing on a posterior Gift December 9. 1668. Earl of Argile contra Stirling Apprizing with a Charge against the Superiour does not exclude the Liferent Escheat of the Vassal against whom the Apprizing was led without consideration whether the Superiour was in culpa by not obeying the Charge Iune 28. 1667. Dowglat contra Lisk An Apprizer having at several times Apprized on several Sums and Entered in possession by the first Apprizing before the secoâ—d was led was found to impute his whole Intromission to the first Apprizing that thereby it might be satisfied within the Legal The Apprizer was also found comptable for what sums he received for a part of the Lands sold by him within the Legal but for no greater price and a joynt probation was refused though it was in the Highlands the Apprizer offering to prove by Witnesses above exception and the Lords ordained both the Feears to be produced and the greatest prices to be proven that they might choose what Rate to â—ollow Ianuary 14. 1669. Mckenzie of Puglasâ— contra Ross of Auchnacloich An Apprizing led against one Charged to Enter Heir who dying un-infeft his Sisters as Heirs to his Grand-Father to whom he was Charged to Enter Heir were â—ound to have the Right of Reversion of the Appriâ—ing albeit they were not Heirs to their Brother who was Charged to Enter Heir but dyed un-infeft Ianuary 1â— 1669. Iohnstoun contra Erskin Lord Lyon An Apprizer having Charged the Superior was found not thereby to become Vassal so as by his death the Lands would â—all Waird but by the Death of the Party against whom the Apprizing was led unless the Apprizer when he Charged the Superior had presented a Chatter with an offer of Money and a Bond for what â—urther the Lords should modifie for the years Rent and had put the Superior in culpa aut mora in not Infefting the Apprizer and that whether the Superior required the same or not February 9. 1669. Black Donator by the Duke of Hamilâ—oun contra French Vide Liferent Dowglas contra Lâ—â—k An Apprizing was found extinct by the Intromission of him to whom the Apprizer granted Back-bond declaring the Apprizing to be to his behove and that against a singular Successor who thereafter obtained Disposition and Inâ—eâ—tment upon the Apprizers Resignation Iuâ—y 12. 1670. Kennedy contra Cuninghame and Wallace An Apprizing posterior was preferred to a prior Appriâ—ing being less
declarator of Distress or Eviction but a pursuit of Removing or Mails and Duties upon Eviction is sufficient which cannot be excluded by a possessory judgement upon 7. years Possession by the publick Infeftment unless it were 7. years after the Eviction February 20. 1668. Forbes contra Innes Base Infeftments granted by a Father to his two Sons of the same date one of Property of Lands and another of annualrent forth thereof was found both valide as being cled with the Fathers possession reserved in both there being no suspition of defraud of Creditors or competition with them and that a singular Successor appryzing and Infeft from the one was not preferable to a posterior Adjudger from the other Iune 30. 1668. Chem contra Chrisly A base Infeftment of annualrent was found validate by Possession upon another Infeftment of annualrent in corroboration of the former out of distinct Lands whereby both Infeftments as to both Lands were found valide though no payment was made by the Debitor or by the Tennents in the first Infeftment Iuly 9. 1668. Alexander contra the Laird of Clackmannan A base Infeftment to a Creditor was preferred to a posterior publick Infeftment granted to a Wife by an additional Ioynture in respect there was a Citation on the base Infeftment anterior to the Wifes publick Infeftment which was found to validate the same and sentence of preference of poynding of the Ground was now granted therein Ianuary 27. 1669. Bell of Belfoord contra Lady Rutherâ—oord A base Infeftment never cled with Possession was found valide to exclude the Terce of the granters Relict Ibâ—dem A base Infeftment by a Father to his Children was found not validate by the Fathers Possession wherein he continued albeit he had a Factory from the Children here it was not alleadged that the Father had granted Discharges or used Citation expresly relative to the Factory Iuly 10. 1669. Gairdiner contra Colvil BASTARDY being gifted by the Vsurpers defends the Bastards Debitors no further than what they bona fide payed to the Donator but not for what was yet in their hands which belongs to the Kings Donator Iuly 19. 166â— Windrham contra Megregors Bastardy was found not to be relevantly Libelled that the Defuncts Father and Mother were not Married but that it behoved to be alleadged that the Defunct was commonly holden and repute Bastard But that it was also sufficient that the Defuncts taking a Legitimation had acknowledged his Bastardy February 19. 1669. Kings Advocate contra Craw. Bastardy was found not to be inferred by the negative presumption that the Father and the Mother were not Married but that it behoved to be proven positive that the Defunct was holden and repute Bastard Iune 15. 1670. Livingstoun contra Burn. Bastardy puts the Donator to no better case as to Back-bonds or mutual Obligements than the Bastard his Heir would have been in Iune 20. 1671. Alexander contra Lord Saâ—toun BEHAVING AS HEIR by intrometting with the Mails and Duties of the Defuncts Lands was elided because the Defender intrometted singulari titulo by an Appryzing though the Legal was not expired unless it had been clearly satisfied by intromission or otherwise Ianuary 10. 1662. Barclay contra Laird of Craigivar Behaving as Heir was found in no time coming to be â—lided by taking Right to any Appryzing or Adjudication led against the Intrometters for their own Debt real or simulate though such Rights were expired February 28. 1662. Act of Sederunt Vide Ianuary 22. 1662. Glendoning contra Earl of Nithisdail Behaving as Heir was not inferred by Inâ—romission with the Rents of the Lands which were disponed by the Defunct and Infeftment thereon but to the behove of the Defender the appearand Heir Ianuary 14. 1662. Harper contra Hume of Plandergaist Behaving as Heir was inferred by the appearand Heir his inâ—rometting with the Rents of Lands belonging to his Father the Debitor in so far as being disponed to the Defender they were Redeemed by him though no Declarator or new Infeftment followed and also found by intrometting with the Fathers whole Silver-work without alleadging a formal drawing of the Heirship or taking any of them as such and though the Lands were Appryzed from the Defunct seing the Legal was un-expired and the Defender had no Right from the Appryzer February 21. 1663. Hamiltoun contra Hamiltoun Behaving as Heir by intrometting with Heirship was not â—lided because the Defuncts Lands were apprized seing the Legal was not expired before his death February 26. 1663. Cuthbert of Drakies contra Mâ—nro of Foulis Behaving as Heir was not â—nferred by intromission with the Rents of the Defuncts Lands which were appryzed and whereunto the appearand Heir acquired Right before he fell to be apparent Heir though he continued to possess after the appryzing was satisfied by intromission February 26. 1663. Inter cosdem Behaving as Heir was elided as to Heirship because the Defunct dyed Rebel and his Escheat was gifted and declared Ibidem Behaving as Heir by medling with heirship was not elided because the Defunct dyed at the Horn and thereby nihil habuit in bonis nor yet that the Escheat was gifted before intenting of this cause but that it was gifted and declared before Iune 10. 1663. Gordoun of Lâ—smore contra Keith Behaving as Heir was elided because the Defunct was Rebel his Escheat gifted and the appearand Heir intrometted by the Donators Rights or Tollerance and that before intenting of the Cause albeit no declarator thereon Iuly 4. 1665. Innes contra Wilson Behaving as Heir was not Sustained upon Intromission had by a Tutor November 30. 1665. Boyd contra Tâ—lziâ—er Behaving as Heir was not Sustained by Heirs of Line their Renuncing to be Heirs in favours of the Heir-male to whom the Father had disponed seing they gave no Right thereby hurtful to Creditors but gave a Renunciation voluntarly which Law would have compelled them to give though for their kindness they got a sum of Money Iuly 5. 1666. Scot contra Heirs of Auchinleck Behaving as Heir by Intromission with the Rents of the Defuncts Lands was elided by Tollerance from a Donator of Recognition albeit not declared till after the Intromission the Defender paying the single value Iuly 17. 1666. Ogilby contra Lord Gray Behaving as Heir by intromission with the Duties of the Defuncts Lands was elided by a Disposition from the Defunct to the Intrometters Son the Defuncts oye though without Infeftment or by a Tack by the apparent Heirs Husband though expired before the Defuncts death as continuing per tacitam relocationem Ianuary 16. 1667. Reâ—d contra Salmond Behaving as Heir was Sustained by Exception Ianuary 8. 1668. Forbes contra Innes Behaving as Heir was found to be instructed by a Discharge granted by the Party as appearand Heir bearing receipt of the Defuncts Charter Chist without any Inventary or Protestation and keeping of it two years without necessity to alleadge that any use was made of the Writs but was not inferred by raising of
Liferenter seing the whole Estate was either affected with the Liferent or the remainder thereof was appryzed from the appeared Heir for the Defuncts debts exceeding the value thereof February 13. 1662. Brown contra Liferenters of Rossie An Heir apparent was allowed to have Aliment of his Grand-Father though he had voluntarly infeâ—t his Son the Pursuers Father and though the Pursuer had a stock of Money Liferented by his Mother here the Grand-Father was Iately fallen to a plenteous Estate Iune 17. 1662. Ruthven Feâ—ar of Gairn contra Laird of Gairn An Heir apparent taking Right to Land from his Grand-Father was found not to enjoy the priviledge of a singular Successor and to be in no better case as to that Right than his Grand-Father albeit his Grand-Father was living and the Oye then not immediate Successor Iuly 23. 1662 Lord Frazer contra Laird of Phillorth An Heir Apparent was found to have Right to the Rents of â—is predecessors Lands although he dyed before he was Infeft and that the next Heir intrometting with the Reâ—â—s of the years that the former appearand Heir lived was lyable to pay the said appearand Heirs Aliment in so far as he Intrometted December 20. 1662. Lady Tarsappie contra Laird of Tarsappie An Heir apparent pursuing for Inspection ad deliberandum was found not to have interest to cause a party compt and run Probation that he might know the condition of the Herâ—tage though there was a contrary Decision observed by Dury March 16. 1637. Hume contra Hume of Blacketer seing the ordinary course since hath been contrary Iune 22. 1671. Lâ—sâ—ies contra Iaâ—â—ray HEIRS IN A TACK found not to require service but that such as might be served Heirs might enjoy the benefite thereof Iune 17. 1671. Boyd contra Sinclar HEIRSHIP MOVEABLES was found competent to one who was infeft in Lands and though the same was appryzed and the Appryzer infeft yet the legal was unexpyred and the appryzing stood but as a collateral Security not as a full Right February 26. 1663. Cuthbert of Draikies contra Monroâ— of Foulâ—s Heirship moveable was found to belong to an Heir of person who dyed only infeft in an Annualrent Iuly 19. 1664. Scrymzeour contra Executors of Murray Heirship moveable was not found competent to a person who was only Heir apparent of Tailzie and dyed never Infeâ—t Ianuary 27. 1666. Collonel Montgomerie contra Steuart Heirship moveable being renunced from the Heir of Line in favours of his Father was found not to return to him after his Fathers death but to belong to his Fathers Executors 〈◊〉 18. 1666. Pollock contra Rutherfoord Heirs 〈◊〉 clause AN HERETABLE Obligement quoad creditorem may be moveable quoad debitorem Iuly 25. 1662. Nasmith contra Iaâ—â—ray An Heretable Sum was found so to remain notwithstanding of a Requisition not being made conform to the clause of Requisition and so null as being provided to be required by the Husband with consent of the Wife whose consent was not adhibite nor was the showing the Creditors intention to require his Money enough not being made debiro modo Ianuary 18. 166â— Steuart contra Steuarts An Heretable Bond was found moveable by a charge thogh but against one of the Caâ—tioners Ianuary 24. 1666. Montgomery and his Spouse contra Steuart An Heretable Bond bearing a clause of Annualrent was found not to be moveable though the principal sum was not payable till the debitors death seing the first Term of payment of the Annualrent was past Iuly 31. 1666. Gordoun contra Keith Vide Bond Iune 28. 1665. and Iunâ— 26. 1668. ONE HOLDEN AS CONFEST was reponed against a Decreet of an inferiour Iudge albeit a Procurator compeared and took a day to produce him but without a Procuratory or proponing any Defense that might show any Information of the cause and so no warrand to compear November 24. 1665. Chalmers contra Lady Tinnel Holden as confest was not admitted against a Defender absent where the Messengers Execution did not bear personally apprehended but that the Messenger knew that the Defender was in his House but was forcibly keeped from access by his Wife Iuly 5. 1670. Lindsay and Swintoun contra Inglis AN HOLOGRAPH Discharge was found not to prove its date against an Assigney unless it were astructed by Adminicles or Witnesses that knew it subscribed of that date Ianuary 4. 1662. Dickie contra Montgomery A Holograph Writ proves not quo ad datam yet the date may be astructed by Witnesses above exception but persons of ordinary credite one of two being a Towns Officer were not found such Witnesses albeit no exception was competent against them for being ordinary Witnesses Iune 21. 1665. Bradie contra the Laird of Fairny Holograph was found proven by production of a Transumpt done judicially and the Oaths of the Witnesses and Friends of the Defunct who made the Wriâ— Transumed amongst his Children altering their portions and though a part of it was written by another when the Defunct was so weak that he could not write yet the writ was found holograph as to the rest but not as to this Article albeit the principal writ was lost and not produced but only the judicial Transumpt taken off when it was produced Iuly 30. 1668. Mckenzie contra Ballaâ—dine of Newhall Vide Death-bed November 14. 1668. Calderwood contra Schaw HOMOLOGATION to communicate Appryzings was found not to be inferred by the singular Successors concurring de facto against third parties unless it were proven by the singular Successors Oath that he knew of such a Bond Iuly 6. 1661. Tailzifer contra Maxtoun and Cunninghamâ— Homologation of a Decreet was not inferred by payment thereof without a Charge seing the Givers thereof were Officers having no Commission or any civil Authority Iuly 24. 1661. Iack contra Feddes Homologation of a Decreet Arbitral quoad one of many Articles of different matters was found not sufficient for the whole November 22. 1662. Pringle contra Din. Homologation of a Fathers Legacy to his Children was inferred by his Wife Confirming the Testament without Protestation not to prove that Legacy here the Wife by her Contract was provided to the Liferent of all her Husbands Moveables February 19. 1663. More contra Stirling Homologation of an Infeftment granted to a Wife in satisfaction of her Contract of Marriage was inferred by her continuing six or seven years to possess and setting several Tacks as Liferentrix where the clause in the Contract was only in general to imploy Money on Land or Annualrent and no Infeftment followed thereon nor was the Husband in possession in his Life but the Wise began the Possession albeit the acceptance of the Infeftment was to her prejudice and was not in her hand nor did the Seasine repeat that provision particularly But only according to the conditions contained in the Bond the Seasine being Registrate and the Bond still in the Nottars hand Who took the Seasine in which case the Wife was presumed to know and not
being Extracted on the improbation though it be omnium exceptionum ultima Ianuary 23. 1666. contra Earl of Kinghorn In Improbations the Lords declared they would grant three Terms for production of Rights of Lands and appointed the Ordinary to intimate the same November 26. 1667. Hay of Haystoun contra Drummond and Hepburn Improbation upon certification was found null because the Defender was then Prisoner of War in Ireland and his Right was after acknowledged by an agreeement though not perfected Iuly 25. 16â—8 Campbeâ— câ—ntra Laird of Glenâ—rchy In an Improbation the Witnesses insert were examined ex officio what they knew of the Truth or Forgery of the Writs in question though the Writs were not produced there being pregnant presumptions and fragrant fame of Forgery Iuly 6. 1669. Barclay contra Barclay In an Improbation after certification was Extracted The Lords Examined Witnesses as to the Forgery in so far as it might be known without production of the Writs in question and though thâ— Witnesses were accessory to the Forgery November 9. 1669. Inter eosdem In an Improbation where the Writs were once judicially produced in Exchequer and wilfully keeped up certification being Extracted The Lords upon Copies Examined the Witnesses insert and Writer who confessed the Forgery and were moved thereto by the Defender whereupon the Writs were not improven as not being produced but the Writers and Witnesses were found Forgers and the Defender as user and accessory and all were declared infamous and remitted to the Council to use an extraordinary Remedy by Banishment against the Defender Ianuary 26. 1670 Inter eosdem In an Improbation where one of the Witnesses insert had a Designation alleadged competent to more persons all that were alleadged to be so designed that were alive were ordained to be Summoned and the hand writs of those that were dead to be produced Iune 8. 1671. Steuart contra Mckenzie and Kettlestoun In an Improbation of the Minute of a Tack wherein one Deponed that he had subscribed at the Defenders Instigation who told him that he caused the Pursuers Name to be set to the Writ and another that he did not see the Pursuer subscribe and the third who was Writer of the Minute and also Brother to the Defender Deponed that he saw the Pursuer subscribe with her own hand The Writ was found improven and false but there was not two Witnesses instructing who was the Forgeâ— Iuly 22. 1671. Miller contra Bothwel of Glâ—â—corse INCIDENT was not Sustained upon an Act before answer ordaining all Writs to be produced the parties would make use of which was found only to extend to such Writs as they then had Iuly 3. 1662. Kello contra Paâ—toun In an Incident four Terms were allowed for proving the having of the Writs by Witnesses but the Terms were to be short December 15. 1665. Moâ—teith contra Anderson An Incident was Rejected because the Pursuer of the principal Cause was not called thereby and the Executions suspect December 23. 1665. Laird of Câ—â—neck contra Lord Bargeniâ— Incident was not Sustained at the instance of any but these whose Names as Purshers were filled up in the Bill though it contained a blank but it was Sustained against the Defenders havers of the Writs for whom a blank was left though nor at first filled up in respect of the custom for the last and not for the first Iuly 3. 1667. Creditors of Waâ—chtoun contra Counteâ—s of Hume PRO INDIVISO was not sustained to hinder Removing of a Relick from an House as being a Tenement Indivisible though she had a Terce of it but the Heretor was found to have Right to possess yet so that if he dwelt not so himself she should be preferred to all others she giving like Mail as others would pay Ianuary 26. 1665. Logan contra Galbraith INFEFTMENT of Annualrent holden base was found valide against a posterior Publick Infeftment because thereon there was a Decreet of poinding the Ground though it could take no effect for a long time seing the Entry to the Annualrent was not till after the Constituents death February 26 and 27. 1662. Creditors of Kinglassie competing Infeftment past in Exchequer on an appryzing against one who was Infeft by his Authour not Confirmed was found not to supply or comprehend a Confirmation in prejudice of another Creditor who regularly had obtained Confirmation of that null Seasine in so far as might concern his base Right depending thereon Ianuary 16. 1663. Tennents of Kilchattan contra Laird of Kilchattan Major Campbel and Baillie Hamiltoun Infeftments graâ—uitous to a Wife after she was provided by her Contract of Marriage was found not to be taken away at the instance of Creditors upon the Act 1621. by Exception or Reply Iuly 22. 1664. Lord Loure contra Lady Craig An Infeftment to a Wife in Liferent was Sustained by her Seasine adminiculat by her Contract albeit the Seasine was not immediatly upon the Contract but related a Bond granted for the same Cause which was not produced Ianuary 29. 1665. Norvil contra Sunter Infeftment of warrandice Lands being in the same Investiture with the principal Lands and both holden base was preferred to a posterior publick Infeftment of thâ— same Warrandice Lands though cled with long possession and that upon an Action of Mails and Duties upon the Distresse without Reduction Ianuary 9. 1666. Brown contra Scot. An Infeftment of Kirklands was Sustained though it bear to be upon Resignation and had not the râ—ddendoâ—per expressum but relative to the former Infeftment without necessity to produce any original Right seing the Charter was subscribed by the Abbot with consent of the Convent Ianuary 17. 1666. Lord Rentoun contra Feuars of Coldinghame An Infeftment to a person on her own Resignation bearing expresly her to be Heir to her Father who was last Infeft The Charter was found equivalent to a precept of clare constat Ianuâ—ry 20. 1666. Inter eosdem Infeftment of the Office Forrestrie with a Duty out of the whole Lands of an Abbacy was found valide being granted by the Abbot and Convent without Confirmation by the King or Pope Ibidem Infeftment in warrandice granted by a Husband to his Wife though base holden of himself and ex intervallo after the principal Infeftment was found valide against a posterior publick Infeftment of the same warrandice Lands as being cled with the Husbands Possession in the principal Lands and that there needed no Declarator of Distress or Eviction but a pursuit of Removing or Mails and duties upon the Eviction is sufficient which cannot be excluded by a possessory Iudgement upon seven years Possession by the publick Infeftment unless it were seven years after the Eviction February 20. 1668. Forbes contra Innes An Infeftment of Annualrent being before a Liferenters Infeftment after which there followed a corroborative Security accumulating the bygone Annualrents and giving Infeftment for both which posterior Security was not Sustained against the Liferenter nor was it held as
if it has been a poinding of the Ground February 13. 1669. Mclellan contra Lady Kilcuâ—bright An Infeftment to be holden of the Superiour not Confirmed waâ— found null albeit it was only granted for Security of â— Wiâ—es â—iferent conform to her Contract of Marriage Iuly 2â— 1669. Gray contra Ker. An Infeftment of Annualrent was found extinct by the Annualrenters intrometting with the Annualrents of the Lands equivalent to the principal sum February 4. 1671. Wishart contra Arthur An Infeftment was found null by reply without Reduction whereby a Woman was served Heir to her Mother in a Teneâ—entâ— in which her Mother and Father were infeft in Conjunct â—ee albeit she had probable Ground to think her Mother was Feear seing her Father was found to be Feear and that she was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Retour but by precept of favour here seven years possession was not alleadged to give the benefite of a possessory judgement Iuly 1â— 1671. Gairns contra Saâ—â—ilands â— Infeftment Vide base Infeftment INHIBITION was found not to Reach Lands acquired after it lying in another jurisdiction then where it was published and Registrate Iuly 18. 1662. Smeateun contra An Inhibition was found to be valide to reduce or declare against the Person Inhibite not only for the Lands he had the time of the Inhibition but these acquired thereafter December 15. 1665. Eleâ—s contra Keith An Inhibition of Teinds was found sufficiently execute by a Sheriff in that part and not by a Messenger being direct to Messengers Sheriffs in that part which was sufficient to interrupt tacit Relocation Ianuary 27. 1666. Earl of Eglintoun contra Laird of Cunninghamehead Inhibition being used on a Sum was found sufficient to reduce and that the Inhibition and Reduction thereon could not be purged by payment of the sum whereon it proceeded with Annualrent and Expenses seing there was a supervenient appryzing upon the Sum which was now expyred February 24. 1666. Grant contra Grant Inhibition was found to extend to Rights acquired after the Inhibition but not to a Wodset acquired after and Renunced upon payment without abiding an Order albeit Renunciations be by the style of the Inhibitions prohibite yet they are but as Discharges of â—eretable debts or annualrents against which Inhibitions operate not to cause them pay again Iuly 16. 1667. Eleis contra Keith and Steuart Inhibition was found to extend to Lands acquired after the publication thereof lying in the Shire where it was published February 27. 1667. inter eosdem Inhibition on a Dependence was found to take no effect whâ—re no judicial Sentence followed but a Transaction on arbitriment December 16. 1668. Frazar contra Keith An Inhibition was found to reduce a disposition though its date was anterior to the Inhibition as to some Creditors whose Names and sums were filled up in it by another hand which was presumed to have been blank and filled up aâ—ter ter Inhibition unless the contrary were proven by Witnesses above exception Ianuary 15. 1670. Lady Lucia Hamiltoun contra Creditors of Montcastle An Inhibition was found null because the Executions thereof bear not a Copy to have been left at the Mercat Cross where it was published February 12. 1670. Naper contra Gordoun of Grange Inhibition of Teinds was found not to give Right to draw the Teind without Sentence where the Hereâ—or had any colourable Title Ianuary 27. 1665. Barefoord and Bennistoun contra Lord Kingstoun Inhibition was found Relevant to Reduce the Rights of Creditors albeit there was a Disposition to two Parties for themselves and for the behove of other Creditors under-written after which there was a large blank filled up with an other hand in which the Creditors in question were insert which blank so filled up was holden as after the Inhibition and a prior communing to take in these Creditors and undertaking their debts by the persons to whom the Disposition was made was not Sustained to be proven by their oaths or by the oathes of Witnesses but only by Writ or oath of knowledge of the Pursuer Iuly 8. 1670. Lady Lucia Hamiltoun contra Boyd of Pitcon and others Inhibition being pursued upon to Reduce and the Pursuer offering to accept the Sums in the Inhibition cum omni causa albeit there was an expyred Compryzing led upon the Sums the Defender craving that the Pursuer would assign the Sums The Lords found that the Pursuer could not be compelled to assign the same in respect the offer was only to take satisfaction and Renunce whereby the Cautioner might not be distrest Inter eosdem Inhibition was found null by Declarator because the Executions as they were Registrate did not bear a Copy given to the party inhibite albeit the publication at the Mercat Cross bear a Copy affixed and that the Messenger had added upon the Margent the delivery of a Copy which was found an essential requisite in the Execution and that not being Registrate with the Execution the same was null and could not be supplyed by proving by the Witnesses insert thaâ— a Copy was truely given against a singular Successor who had bought the Lands for a just price Iuly 28. 1671. Keith contra Iohnstoun â—INTERDICTION against a Defunct was found only to extend to the Lands lying within the lurisdiction where it was published and Registrate but not to the other Lands nor to Heirship moveable or other moveables so that the Heir succeeding therein is lyable notwithstanding February 11. 1662. Ramsay of Torbane contra Mcclellaâ— Interdiction albeit it be not Sustainable by way of Defense to delay a pursuit yet it was sustained by way of Reply seing the pursuer might delay himself â—â—d that otherwise he behoved to quite the Possession and then Reduce to recover it again February 13. 1663. Lockhart contra Kennedy Inâ—erdiction of a Man by â—ond bearing he should not sell nor dispone without consent of his Wife on the Narrative of his facility whereupon Inhibition was used was found not to stand as an Interdiction being inconsistent to bind a man to the direction of his Wife but that it stood in so far as might be interpret an obligement in the Wifes own favours for her proper interest to secure her an Aliment according to her quality February 27. 1665. Laird of Milntoun contra Lady Milntoun Interdiction was found to give interest to Appryzers or Adjudgers from the Heir of the Person interdicted to reduce any voluntary Disposition thereupon albeit they had no special Title to the Interdiction but had only appryzed the Lands of the person Interdicted cum omni jure and albeit there was an anterior Appryzer the benefite of the Interdiction was found appropriat to neither but common to both February 20. 1666. Lord Saltoun contra Laird of Park and Rothemay Interdiction was found not to have any effect as to Moveables or personal Execution by may of Exception without Reduction Iune 20. 1671. Crawfoord contra Hallyburtoun INTERRVPTION of the Prescription of a common Pasturage
Hamiltoun contra Harper Payment inferred by consecutive Discharges of all years preceeding was found not effectual where a preceeding year was acknowledged â—esting by these who obtained the discharge and where the Giver thereof had given a Warrand to a third party to liâ—t that year to his own behove albeit that was not intimate to the Tennents February 18. 1669. Cockburn and Gilespie her Husband contra Stâ—uarâ— and the Tennents of Lintoun Payment being proponed by one pursued as Representing if he deny not the passive Titles the Pursuer is liberate from proving thereof November 6. 1669. Scot of Hartwoodmires Supplicant Payment of a Tocher contracted by a Wife for her self was inferred by presumption that she lived twenty two years and that in his Testament he acknowledged his Tocher was payed which was not esteemed as legatum liberatioâ—â—s to affect the Deads part only but with the presumption did import an absolute Discharge February 16. 1671. Scot contra Dods A PENSION secular was â—ound only as an Assignation to Mails and Duties not to affect the Ground against singular Successors albeit it bear to be payed out of the readiest Fruits of such Lands and was cled with possession December 11. 1662. Clappâ—rtoun contra Laird of Edâ—em PERRIL of a Housâ— sold and thereafter burnt was found to â—e the buyers though the Disposition bear an obligement to put the buyer in possession seing he voluntarly took possession and Re-built the House and payed all the price December 13. 1667. Hunter contra Wilson PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS of Appryzers to communicat their appryzings are not effectual against the Appryzers singular Sucâ—essors Iuly 6. 1661. Telzifer contra Maxâ—oun and Cunninghâ—me Personal provision by a Back-bond of the same date with a Feu bearing that the Feuar might Renunce the Feu when he pleased was found valide against the singular Successor of the granter of the Feu seing it did not alter any thing of the real Right of the Feu but only the personal obligation in the Feudal Contract obliging the Feuer and his Heirs to pay the Feu-duty yearly February 12. 1669. Brown contra Sibbald POSSESSION of stollen Goods by using them in the Pleugh four moneths was found not to secure the possessors but that they might be recovered summarly by the Sheriffs warrand without citation but if the Possessors did acquire Right by an onerous Title they were not to be Restored but prejudice to the Owner to recover the same by Process yet so as the Sheriffs warrand did exclude from violent profites Iuly 6. 1671. Strachanâ— contra Gordouns POSSESSOR BONAE FIDEI facit fructus consumptos suos was found not to extend to a Mother who by several presumptions appeared to have known the Right of her Children wherein private knowledge was enough November 20. 1662. Children of Wolmet contra Lady Wolmet and Dankeith her Husband Possessor bonâ— fidei c. albeit his authors Right was Reduced in Parliament whereto he having but a Tack needed not be called and so he had no standing Title his Tack falling in consequence seing nothing was done to interrupt his possession Iuly 19. 1664. Dowglas and Sinclar her Spouse contra Laird of Wedderburn Possessor bonâ— fidei c. was extended to one who had a second Right to a Reversion and had first Redeemed and possessed thereby and was not found lyable to the other pursuing upon his prior Right as to bygones before Citation although he had not acquired the benefite of a possessory judgement by possessing 7. years November 18. 1664. Guthrie contra Laird of Sornbeg Possessor bonâ— fidei c. was found not to take effect to one who had obtained a Decreet to Removing for not payment of â—he duties in absence and produced not his Infeftment but 〈◊〉 infefâ—ment of another person of that same Name which being a fraudulent deed he could not thereby have a Title cum bona fidâ— Iune 21. 1671. Neilson contra Menzies of Knock. A POSSESSORY â—IVDGEMENT was not sustained upon five or six years possession or less then seven years December 13. 1669. Hamiltoun contra Tennents of Vppersheils and Rowan A possessory judgement was found not competent upon seven years after interruption but that the Interruption continued till prescription Iuly 22. 1664. Montgomerie contra Hume Here the interruption was by a Decreet of Removing which gave the other civil possession A possessory judgement was not admitted against an annualrent which is debitum fundi Iune 25. 1662. Adamfâ—nt contra Lord Balmerino A possessory judgement was found not competent to a Wife by her Husbands possession against another deriving Right from him the wifes infeftment not being oneroâ—s or upon her Contract but gratuitous December 7. 1664. Lady Craig and Green-head her Husband contra Lord Loure Possessory judgement is not competent upon Possession of Warrandice Lands against Recourse upon Eviction which may be without Reduction Ianuary 9. 1666. Brown contra Scoâ— A possessory ludgement on 7. years possession was found valide to a party infeft though entering by the Conjunct feâ—ar as Heir to her who was not Fâ—â—ar but Liâ—erenter February 20. 1667. Cranstoun contra Wilkison A possessory judgement was not found competent upon seven years possession by vertue of an Appryzing on which there neither followed Infeftment nor Charge against the Superiour to Infeft February 6. 1668. Iohnstoun contra Erskin A Possessory judgement upon a publick Infeftment and seven years possession was â—ound not Relevant against a Pursuit for Recourse upon Eviction by Infeftment of warrandice unlesse there were seven years Possession after the Eviction February 20. 1668. Forbes contra Iâ—nes A Possessory Iudgement was Sustained upon seven years possession peaceably before intenting of the Cause albeit there was interruption by Citation before these seven years and albeit there was â—urceals of lustice during the last seven years and that the Pursuer was Minor Iuly 15. 166â— Earl of Wintonn contra Gordoun of Letterâ—urry A Possessory Iudgement was sustained on an Infeftment on a voluntary Disposition against an appryzer who had denunced the Lands before that Disposition whoâ—e Denunciation was not found to render the matter so litigious as to exclude a possessory judgement by seven years uninterrupted Possession thereafter Iuly 17. 1668. Steuart contra Murrayes POYNDING OF THE GROVND for an annualrent deâ—â—rned was found to take effect not only against the Master and Tennents therein called but all others coming in after though singular Suncessors and not to be abated by vastation as a Feu-duty and to have access against the whole or any part of the Ground though now belonging to several Heretors but so as the payer should have Assignation to the debt and a time to recover relief oâ—â— the rest neither was the Decreet excluded by 20 or 30. years possession of a singular Successor as a possessory judgement Iune 26. 1662. Adamsons contra Lord Balmerino Poinding of the Ground was found competent against the apparent Heir of the Granter of the Annualrent without a
contra Strangers of Oâ—â—end but the Kings 10th part and Admirals 15th part were not allowed A Pryze Ship of Hamburgh taken as carrying Counterband-Goods to the Daâ—es after Acts of Hostility betwixt the King and them was liberate because she was taken before the Proclamation of the War against the Danes but the Captain was found to have probable Ground to Seaze and was found only lyable for what profite he had made of the Ship and Goods unless he had been thâ— culpa by the spoiling or mis-appryzing thereof February 25. 1668. Merchants of Hamburgh contra Captain Disâ—ingtoun A Pryze Ship belonging to the Sweds was found Warâ—antably taken because she was Navigat with Hollanders the Kings Enemies contrary the Kings Proclamaâ—ion of War albeit they hâ—d a pass conform to the Swedish Treaty wherein it is permitted to the Sweds to make use of Hollanders as Masters he becoming a sworn Burges of their Town without mention of what Nation the remnant company mighâ— be of February 25. 1668. Owners of the Ship called the Castle of Riga contra Captain Seaâ—oun A Prize Ship was found justly adjudged because a great part of the company were Hollanders in respect of the Kings Proclamation of War ordaining Ships to be taken that had in them any number of men or goods belonging to Enemies albeit the Ship was a Swedish Ship and had a pass conform to the Swedish Treaty which bear that such a pass being found there should be no further inquiry in men or goods â—isi gravis suspitiâ—o subsit seing that Treaty bear a liberty to the Sâ—eds to have a Hollands Master becoming a sworn Burges of any Town of Sweden and had no such priviledge for the mariners Iune 30. 1668. Paterson contra Captain Anderson A prize Ship was found justly taken being insisted against on several grounds as having a number of the Kings Enemies the Hollanders Sailers being only proven to be three and the company nine as having been two years with the Kings Enemies Merchandizing but not in the War and by having a small parcel of Tar as Counterband in the same Voyage upon all joyntly the Lords declared but not upon any point alone Iuly 9. 1668. Captaâ—â— Allan contra Parkman In prize Ships competent and omitted as a particular custom of Scotland was not sustained against the strangers but they were found to have the benefite of the Law of Nations Iune 15. 1669. Loyson contra Laird of Ludâ—uharâ— and Captain Wilson A prize Ship declared as carrying Counterband having on Board Oak cutted at three foot and an half for making Barrels in respect the Admirals Commission bear Clapboard as counterband though Testimonies from the Admiralities of England Holland and Flanders were produced that such Timber was not accompted counterband a great number of the Lords being of a contrary judgement Iune 29. 1669. Captain contra A prize Ship being in question which being alleadged to be fraughted from Norway to London with Timber by the Kings proclamation warranding Ships even of his Enemies Countreys to be imployed for bringing Timber for the Rebuilding of London they getting certificates and passes from the Duke of York the Ship having on Board 1500. Dails not belonging to the London Merchants the same was found sufficient to confiâ—cate the Ship and these Dails but not to confiscate the Cargo belonging to the English Merchands if he could produce a pass conform to the Proclamation and the Kings Letter bearing that he was sufficiently informed that this Ship had a valide pass and therefore ordering her to be restored was not found Relevant to liberate the Ship or Merchants Cargo without production of the pass but the Letter was understood to be â—alvo jure not proceeding upon the hearing of parties albeit the Duke of York did asset that he had formerly given a pass to that Ship Iuly 13. 1669. Captain Wood contra Neâ—lson here the Skippers Testimony alonâ— was received to prove against the Owners A prize Ship being adjudged by the Admiral and the Decreet being quarrelled because the Skipper had a pass declaring the Ship and Goods wholly belonging to the Sweds the Kings Allys the pass was conform to the Swedish Treaty which clears expresly that where such passes are â—eqâ—id amplâ—s exigatur in bonâ— aut homines nullo modo inquiratur The adjudication was sustained in respect that the pass by the oath of the Skipper and company was found to be a contrivance and there was no sufficient probation that the Ship and Goods belonged to the Sweds and that the Treaty bears si qua gravis suspâ—â—io subsit that seazure may be made Iune 29. 1671. Burrow contra Captain 〈◊〉 A PVPILS person was found to be keeped by her Mother who was Widow till her age of eleven years and then by a Friend of her Fathers side but not by the Tutor who was nearest to succeed February 6. 1666 Laird of Dâ—ry contra Relict and Daughter of his Brother RATIHABITION Vide Clause Ianuary 9. 1663. Mason contra Hunter RECOGNITION committed by a Defunct's alienation was not stopped upon the priviledge of Minority quo minor non tenetur placitare c. February 19. 1662. Lady Carnagy contra a Lord Cranburn Recognition was not clided because as importing ingratitude which is criminal it was purged with the death of the Committer but was sustained against his Successor Ibidem Recognition was found to be incurred by alienation of Ward Lands albeit the Seasine taken was without the Acquirers Mandat subscribed but by a general Mandat out of the Chancellary seing it was taken by his Grand-father giver of the Alienation and albeit the Disposition bear only â—ailing of the Disponers Heirs of his Body seing it had a Warrand for seasing this party de preseâ—ti nominatim nor was it reduced upon Minority to annul the Seasine and shun the Recognition Ianuary 30. 1663. Inter eosdem Recognition was incurred by giving an Infeftment base to a Grand child not being then alioqui successuruâ— of Ward Lands though Taxed Ward and though granted to Heirs and Assigneys which was only understood that the Disposion Charter or Precept before Seasine might be assigned but not after nor was it respected that the Seasine as not Confirmed was null nor that it implyed a tacit condition that the Superior consented nor that the Giver was an illiterat person and the case dubious here the case was favourable for the Donatar who was the Disponers eldest Daughter and who was past by and the second Daughters Heirs though strangers were preferred in all February 5. 1663. Inter eosdem A Donatar of Recognition granting a Precept to a Vassal in the Lands falling in Recognition acknowledging that Vassals predecessors Right and his own in the ordinary Terms of a precept of clare constat albeit the precept did also bear in obedience of Precepts out of the Chancellary yet the same with the Seasine following thereon was found to exclude the Donatat and all deriving Right from him thereafter Iune
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
as having bought the Oxen in which case Sentence was found necessary before the possessors were dispossessed Iuâ—y 7. 1671. Strachans contra Gordouns STIPENDS of Ministers affect the Teinds as a real burden and all intrometters even these who buy as Merchands buying the whole Teind of a Mans Land for a year so that they cannot pretend payment made to the Heretor bona fide seing they should know that real burden Iune 24. 1662. Vernor contra Brown Stipends quoad Intrants were found to divide in two Terms that the Intrant before Whitsondâ—y hath â—oth Terms but after Whitsonday and before Michalmass only one Term Iuly 24. 1662. Wâ—yms contra Cunninghame Stipends were not found to burden and Heretor where there is a Liferenter living Iune 24. 1663. Menzeis contra Laird of Glenâ—rchie Stipend of a Minister reponed shortly after Michalmass as having Presentation Collation and Possession before and wrongously put out was found not to prefer him to that years stipend against the lncumbent possessing and serving the Cure 〈◊〉 Michalmas bona fide Iuly 9. 1663. Kirkaldy contra Balcanquel A Stipend whereto a Stipendiar was presented at Lambass and served from thence and was admitted shortly after Michalmass reached not the whole stipend but the half though the Presentation was before Michalmass and the actual service seing the Admission was shortly after Iune 7. 1664. Hay contra Collector of Vaccand stipends A stipend was found to affect the whole Teinds unbought where there was not a Locality and so the Minister might take himself to any Hereâ—or for his whole free Teind and not pro rata without prejudice to him to pursue for Relief December 3. 1664. Hutcheson contra Earl of Casâ—â—ls A Stipend was found instructed by seven years possession without any Title in Writ so as to give a possessory judgement November 25. 1665. Petrie contra Mitchelson A stipend was found to belong to a Minister Transported in Ianuary who continued preaching till April and not to his Successors who was presented before Whitsonday but not admitted till Lâ—mbass none compearing for the Collector of the vaccand stipends Ianuary 26. 1670. Mcquâ—en contra Marquess of Dowglass and Purves STOLLEN GOODS were â—ound recoverable by the owner by warrand from the Sherifâ— summarly without citation of the possessors though they had peaceably possessed the Gooods four moneths in that pleugh unless they had acquired possession by an onerous Title Iuly 7. 1671 Strachanâ— contra Gordounâ— and others Vide Spuilzie SVBMISSION betwixt Commissars to the Bishop without any determinat Ish or time determined to be filled up or blank but generally referring all controversies that should arise to the Bishop was found valide and not determined by a year but a Term was affixed to determine what differences are now occurring February 3. 1669. Bosewel contra Lindsay of Wormisâ—oun SVBSTITVTION Vide Clause SVCCESSOR LVCRATIVE was not inferred by a Disposition by a Father to a Son having an elder Brother living or so presumed as lately before gone out of the Countrey and so not then alioqui successurus February 28. 1662. Hamiltoun contra Mâ—farlane of Kirktoun Successor lucrative being alleadged by a Disposition of Land by a Father to his Son in his contract of Marriage for a Tocher payed to the Father and debts and Bairns Portions far within the value of the Land he was not found lyable in solidum nor yet the pursuer put to a Reduction but the passive Title was sustained personaliter in so far as the onerous Cause was less then the ordinary price at that time with annualrent since the intenting of the Cause Iune 17. 1664. Lyâ—n of Muâ—resk contra 〈◊〉 Successor Lucrative was not inferred by a Disposition being only to a Nephew the brother being alive who was not â—ound alioqui successurus as in the case of an Oye November 22. 1665. Scot contra Bosâ—wâ—l of Auchmâ—eck Vide Lucrative Successor A SVMMONS whereof the Executions appeared visibly new and the user would not abide by it was found not to be transferred but whether an Inhibition raised on that summons would thereby fall or if warrand might be granted to use new Executions on that Summons though year and day was past and that by special priviledge to validate the Inhibition was not decided Ianuary 12. 1665. Wilson and Callender her Spouse contra Summons not being execuâ—e within year and day from the date thereof no process was sustained thereon Iuly 22. 1665. Row contra Viscount of Stormont Summons on an Assignation libelled at the Assignays instance was not sustained seing the date of the Assignation was posterior to the date of the summons albeit the Cedent concurred Novembâ—r 15. 1666. Abâ—rcrombâ—e contra Andersons A SVPERIOR not being called to a Cognition of Marches by Arbiters or legally cited doth not annul the same but it is but prejudice to the superiour when the Fee shall be in his hand February 8. 1662. Lord Torphichan contra A Superiour by receiving an Appryzer was found not to derogat from the Right of Ward in the Superiour though he made no reservation seing it was a necessary Act for him to receive Iuly 19. 1664. Hospital of Glasgow contra Campbell A Superiour bound in absolute warrandice against Ward having a gift of his own Ward to his own behove was found not to distress his Vassals thereby farder then for a proportional part of the composition and expenseâ— February 15. 1665. Boid of Penkil contra Tennents of Carsâ—uth A Superiour was decernâ—d to receive an Adjudger though the superiour himself had appryzed and alleadged a better right but the Infeftment to be salvo jur◠〈◊〉 sâ—o Iuly 4. 1667. Chein contra Christie A Superiour giving a disposition of his Vassals superiority reserving their property and which disposition bear that the Aâ—quirer should hold of the superiour himself The said disposition with the Infeftment thereon was found null as interponing the Acquirer betwixt the superiour and his vassal but was sustained as a gift of Non-entry in respect it bear an assignation to all the casualities of the superiority and the general declarator thereon was found to extend to the feâ—-duties after citation Ianuary 30. 1671. Dowglas of Kâ—â—head contra his Vassal A Superiour being charged to receive an Adjudger was â—ound to have his option either to receive him for a years rent or to pay his sums getting assignation to the adjudication but â—o that the Land should be redeemable from the superiour for the sums princâ—pal and annualrent contained in the adjudication without any sum for composition of Entry and that the adjudication was in this as an appryzing by the 36. Act King Iames 3d. Iune 10. 1671. Scot of Thirlâ—stane contra Lord Druâ—laâ—rig SVPERIORITY of Kirk Lands annexed to the Crown Anno 1633. reserving the Feu-duties to the Lords of Erection who consented to the surrender was â—ound not to be a ground for the Vassal to force the superiour to instruct his consent but that it is presumed Iuly
his Estate that she might not be abused in her Marriage by her Mother or her Freinds the same was sustained after the Pupils age of eleven years though the Mother was unmarried and the Daughter valiâ—udinary February 6. 1666. Laird of Dury contra Lady Dury A Tutor was found to have a year to imploy sums not bearing annualrent and not to be obliged to uplift sums where the Pupil was fully secured or where on a sudden the Debitor break but was found lyable for all Diligence according to the Debitors condition by Horning Caption Arrestment Poinding and Appryzing of the Debitors Estate which should be known to him and not for Horning only Iuly 9. 1667. Steâ—in contra Boyd In a Tutor compt the Tutor was not found lyable for the Services he got to the Pupils Tennents in kind and that where he was super-expended a Decreet might be at his instance against the Pupil on the Pupils own Process Ianuary 11 1668. Grant contra Grant A Tutor was found lyable to compt as Tutor and not as Pro-Tutor on production of a Writ under his hand designing himself and acting as Tutor Testamentar without necessity to the Pursuer to produce the Testament December 2. 1668. Sâ—atoun contra Sâ—atoun A Tutor was found lyable for the Annualrent of his Pupils sums which were in responsal Debitors hands but not to re-imploy the same upon annualrent in respect the Tutor dyed durante tutela and that what annualrents he had received his Successors were only lyable for the same and the annualrent thereof from the time the Pupil past pupillarity it being sufficient to lift and imploy the annualrents of Pupils sums at any time during the ordinary course of the Tutory afâ—er the Pupils passing pupillarity Iuly 9 1669. Kintor contra the Heirs and Successors of Logan of Coatfiâ—ld This was stopped on the Purâ—uers Bill till it were furder heard upon the grounds of the first Decision A Tutor having cited his Pupils Friends on both sides that â—t might be declared by the Lords that the Pupils Lands were â—racked above the true value and that they wâ—re not able to pay their Rents without casting the Land waste no party appearing the Process being considered by the Lords they granted Commission to Gentlemen in the Countrey to try the matter of Fact and report February 5. 1670. Tutor of colzâ—an contra nearest of kin of the Pupil A Tutory granted to two and bearing them to be joyntly was found void by the death of either Ianuary 17. 1671. Drummond of Riccartoun contra Feuars of Bothkenneth TVTOR DATIVE of a furious person was found not to exclude the nearest Agnat as Tutor of Law to be served quandocunque though the Idiot was necessitate to pay upon the Tutors citation to make forthcoming Ianuary 21. 1663. Mr. Iames Steuart and Robert his Tutor Dative contra Spreul Vâ—â—â—MUS HAERES being gifted was found to have no effect till there be be a declarator thereupon in the same way as in Bastardy Iuly 30. 1662. Laird of Balnagoun contra Dingwall The like Iuly 31. 1666. Crawfoord contra Town of Edinb VSE OF PAYMENT of a duty to a Minister for Teinds and his discharge for the whole Teinds for a long time was found sufficient against him who had the Tack and Prorogation of these Teinds until interruption by Citation or Inhibition thogh the duty was very smal the Minister was but stipendiaâ— having that quantity allocat out of these Teinds Ianuary 19. 1669. Earl of Athol coâ—tra Robertson of Strowan VSVRY was not inferred by a Creditors taking a Tack for his furder security for so much Victual or 20. shilling less than the 〈◊〉 at the setters option that abatement being for the setters pains and hazard in getting in the price November 23. 1664. Scot contra Laird of Barefoord VICCARAGE was not found due out of Yeards which were aparâ— of the Chanons Portions which had never paid Viccarage Iune 30. 1668. Minister of Elgin contra his Paâ—ochioners THE VIOLENT PROFITES of an Ox Spâ—ilzied in Labouring time was found to be 5. shilling every day during the Labouring time February 28. 1668. Lord Iustice Cleâ—k contra Hume of Linthil VITIATION of a Contract of Marriage diminishing the Tocher and Ioyntuâ—e by the Husband and Father after the marriage was found not to prejudge the Wife who consented not but her Right was extended as before the Vitiation in prejudice of the Husbands Creditors infeft by him albeit the Contract being Registrate the Viâ—â—ation could not not appear to the Creditors when they lent their Money Iune 11. 1670. Hunter contra The Creditors of Peter VITIOVS INTROMISSION was not â—lided because the Defunct dyed Rebel at the Horn and so there was nothing in bonis defuncti unless the Defender alleadged he had the gift of Escheat ante motam litem February 17. 1662. Gray contra Dalgarno Vitious Intromission was retrinched to single avail because the Defender entered in possession by a disposition of the moveables though no delivery or possession was in the Defuncts life February 27. 1662. Chalmers contra Dalgaâ—no Vitious Intromission was purged by the Intrometters confirming within year and day after the Defuncts death the Executry being his Wifes albeit after intenting of the pursuers cause Ianuary 28. 1663. Stevinson contra Ker and others Vitious Intromission was purged by a Disposition and Instrument of Possession in the Disponers Lifetime though the Defender judicially acknowledged there was no natural possession Iuly 6. 1664. Brown contra Lawson Vitious Intromission was not sustained after the Intrometters death against any representing him where there was nothing done to instruct it in his Life further than Quo ad valâ—rem but not as an universal passive Title Iuly 10. 1666. Cranstoun contra Wilkison Vitious Intromission was elided because the Intrometter had warrand from the Donator of the Defuncts Escheat thogh there was no Declarator seing the Warrand and Intromission was ante notam litem Iuly 4. 1665. Innes contra Watson Vitious Intromission was not inferred by intrometting with 50. pound the Intrometter having after his Intromission confirmed himself Executor and omited that sum but was only found lyable for the sum it self February 26. 1668. Râ—oth contra Cowan Vitious Intromission was found not receivable by Defense against an Assignay viz. That the Cedent who was Creditor to a Defunct was vitious Intrometter with his goods and so Debitor the Assignation being for an onerous cause Ianuary 20. 1671. Captain Ramsoy contra Henrison WARD was found not to fall by the death of an Appryzer who had Charged unless he had put the Superiour in culpa by preseâ—ting a Charter to be subscribed by him and offering a Sum with a Bond and Caution for what more the Lords should modifie for that years Rent and that therefore the Ward fell by the death of him against whom the appryzing was led February 9. 1669. Black contra French Ward being gifted by the King the Donatâ—r was found to have
Eodem die JOhnstoun having Appryzed the Lands of Achincorse and charged the Lord Dumfries his Superiour to receive him pursues the Tennents thereof for Mails and Duties Compearance is made for the Lord Dumfries Superiour who alleadged no Process till a years Rent were payed to him as Superiour 2ly It is offered to be proven that Achincorse the Vassal was in nonentrie or the Liferent Escheat fallen by his Rebellion and therefore the Superiour ought to be preferred The Pursuer answered to the first that seing it was the Superiours fault he received not him upon the charge albeit he offered to receive him now he could not have a years Rent till the Pursuer insisted to be infeft To the second the Defense ought to be Repelled seing there was no Declarator intentit The Defender answered that seing he was to change his Vassal and the Appryzer sought possession before he had access he behoved to pay the years Rent seing by the Appryzing and the charge the Superiour will be excluded from his Casualities To the second the Superiour being acknowledged by the charge he might crave the Casualities of the Superiority by way of competition and offered to produce the Horning cum processu The Lords sustained the first Defense but not the second seing there was no Horning produced nor Declarator intentit Janet Brotherstones contra Ogil and Orrocks Iuly 26. 1665. JAnet Brotherstones by her Contract of Marriage declaring that she had in Money Bonds and Goods 4000 merks is provided to all the conquest and to the Liferent of the whole Means and Moveables she pursues her Husbands Heirs for implement who alleadged absolvitor because she has not fulfilled her part of the Contract and instructs not that she delivered to her Husband 4000. merks in worth or wair It was answered it must be presumed that she has done it after so long time seing all she had came in the Possession of her Husband The Lords found the presumption not sufficient but before answer ordained the pursuer to condescend by Witnesses or otherwise how she would prove that she had that means the time of the Marriage and ordained these to be examined ex officio Thomas Kennedie of Kirkhill contra Agnew of Lochnaw Iuly 27. 1665. KEnnedie of Kirkhill as Assigney by Thomas Hay of Park to a Bond of 1000 lib. granted by Andrew Agnew younger of Lochnaw charges him thereupon who Suspends and raises Reduction on this Reason that the Bond was granted at the time of his Contract of Marriage clandestinelie without the knowledge of his Father who was Contracter contra pacta dotalia contra bonos more 's The Defender answered that he having given a very great Tochar viz. 10000. lib. above his Estate which is all payed to his Good Sons Father he did declare that he was not able to give so much and thereupon he got this Bond not to have Execution till after his death which he might lawfully do having given a Tochar suitable to the condition of the Receiver and above the condition of the Giver The Lords repelled the Reason in respect of the Answer This was thereafter stopt to be further heard Lilias Hamiltoun contra Her Tennents Eodem die LIlias Hamiltoun being Infeft by her Husband in Liferent pursues her Tennents compearance is made for their present Master who alleadged that her Husbands Right was only a Wodset granted by him and that he had used an Order and had Redeemed the Wodset and payed the money to the Pursuers Husband and neither knew nor was oblidged to know the Pursuers base Infeftment from her Husband the Wodsetter which had never any other Possession but the Husbands It was answered that the Pursuers Seasine being Registrate he was oblidged to know the same as well as if it had been an Inhibition especially seing there was no Process of Declarator in which case all Parties having intress should have been called at the Mercat Cross but a voluntar Redemption albeit upon an Order The Lords sustained the Defense notwithstanding of the Reply Adam Rae contra Heretors of Clackmannan Eodem die UMquhile Colonel Rae having advanced Victual to the Armie at Leith in Anno 1650. And gotten an Assignation to the Maintenance of August and September from Sir Iohn Smith then General Commissar in satisfaction thereof pursues the Heretors of Clackmannan for their proportions who alleadged that by their quartering of the Kings Armie their whole Rents Anno 1650. was exhausted It was answered that it was not our that the exhausting was after the Battel of Dumbar which was upon the third of September 1650. And so could not extend to the maintenance of August and September which was Assigned before for so onerous a cause The Lords repelled the Defense in respect of the Reply Captain Muire contra Frazer Iuly 27. 1665. CAptain Muir having obtained Decreet against the Heir of Colonel Hugh Frazer for 1000 merks before the Commissioners in Anno 1658. Charges thereupon They Suspend and raise Reduction on this Reason that the Decreet was null without probation proceeding only upon a Copy of an obligation alleadged taken out of the Register by one William Baily who keeped the same at London which could not prove not being under the hand of the Clerk Register or his Deputes which being proponed in the Decreet was unjustly repelled The Pursuer answered First There was no review raised within a year conform to the Act of Parliament and so the Decreet was not quarrellable upon iniquity 2ly Bailies Oath was taken by Commission that the Extract was subscribed by him 3ly The Defender proponed a Defense of payment and so acknowledged the Debt Debt It was answered that the Suspenders were and are minors and in the Act of Parliament there is an exception of Minors that they may Reduce these Decreets within a year after their Majority 2ly They ought to be reponed against their proponing of payment being Minors and as to Bailies Oath neither his Subscription nor Oath can make a probative Extract unless the new Extract were now produced seing the Registers are returned The Chargers answered that if the Suspender would alleadge that any Book of the Register containing Writs Registrat about the time of this Extract were extant and returned relevat but it is known that several of the Books are lost and this amongst the rest The Lords would not sustain the Decreet upon Bailies extract simplie neither did they put the Charger to the proving of a tenor but allowed the charger to condescend upon the way of his Instruction that such a Bond was truly subscribed by the Witnesses insent or otherwayes and ordained the Witnesses to be examined Adam Rae contra Heritors of Clackmannan Iuly 28. 1665. IN the Cause of Adam Rae mentioned yesterday some of the Heretors alleadged absolvitor because they were singular Successors and by the Act of Parliament for the Old Maintenance Singular Successors were excepted The Lords repelled this alleadgeance and found that exception only to be
old Rescinded Act pro tanâ—o it must be in the same case as Taxation and Maintenance which is ever accounted debitum fundi It was answered that these burdens Imposed by the Rescinded Parliaments are not in the same case with other publick Burdens especially where it is but a particular Act relating to particular persons and Shires without Citation of them for if they had known of this Act they would have petitioned the Parliament that singular Successors might have been excepted as they were in other Acts of this nature The Lords Suspended the Decreet and found that as they were singular Successors they were not lyable David Dick contra Ker. Iune 26. 1668. DAvid Dick as Donator to the Escheat of Ker insists in a special Declarator for payment of a sum due to the Rebel The Defender alleadged Absolvitor because it being a Bond bearing Annualrent it fell not under the single Escheat It was Replyed that Bonds bearing Annualrent are still holden moveable until the first Term of payment of Annualrent and is Disposeable by Testament if the Defunct die before that Term but here the Rebellion was before the date of the Bond and so the sum fell to the Fisk the day it was Subscribed It was answered that the 32. Act Parliament 1661. declares Bonds bearing Annualrent to exclude the Fisk without any exception or limitation The Lords having considered the Act found that it left Bonds bearing Annualrent in the same case that they were formerly and found that before the Term of payment of Annualrent they were moveable Peterson contra Captain Anderson Iune 30. 1668. CAptain Anderson having taken a Ship whereof Peter Peterson was Master and obtained the same declared Prize by the Admiral upon two grounds one that the Ship was sailed a great part of the company being Hollanders then the Kings enemies The other that albeit it was pretended that the Ship belonged to Swedes yet by several presumptions and evidences it appeared that is was but a conveyance and that the Ship truely belonged to Hollanders There is now a Reduction raised of the Decreet and the first ground thereupon Debated and Decided It was alleadged for the Strangers that they being Swedes their case was only to be ruled by the Treaty betwixt the King and the Crown of Sweden by which it is expresly provided that the Subjects of Sweden having such Passes as are exprest in the Articles shall not be Seased or brought up and particularly in bona homines nullo modo inquirâ—tur viz. Where such a Pass is found aboard and the said Pass being here found aboard the Ship was unwarrantably Seased and unwarrantably declared Prize upon pretence of being sailed with Hollanders because that Article takes away all question about the men and so gives liberty to the Swedes to make use of any Mariners they please It was answered that the Reason of Adjudication was most just and this Reason of Reduction ought to be repelled because the Kings Proclamation denuncing the War gives express warrand to sease all such Ships as had any number of Hollanders therein which must stand as the Rule unless the Swedes had by their Treaty a particular exception derogating from that Rule which they have not but on the contrary the Treaty contains an express provision that they may make use of a Hollands Master and not unless he became a Citizen of some City of Sweden and be sworn Burgess thereof but upon the former ground there needed no such Article for Masters and all might thereby be Hollanders And as to the Article of the Treaty concerning no further inquiry there is subjoyned quod si gravis aliqua suspitio subsit in which case notwithstanding of the Pass Seasure might be made but here there was gravis suspitio that the Ship or Goods belonged to the Hollanders the Master and major part of the Company being Hollanders and the Pass mentioning a Ship of an hundred Tuns whereas this Ship was two hundreth Tuns It was answered for the Strangers that the Kings Proclamation could be no Rule to the Subjects of any other free Prince but the Law of Nations or their own Treaties behoved to be the Rule and by the Law of Nations the King could not hinder his Allies of any Commerce or Trade with His Enemies which they were accustomed or free to do before the War except such Acts only wherein they partaked with his Enemies by furnishing provisions of War or Counterband Goods and so the King by no Proclamation could hinder the Swedes to hire and make use of Hollanders which rather weakned then strengthned his Enemies and in this case the making use of Hollanders was necessar because other Sailers could not be had when the Ship was bought and that Article of the Proclamation ought to be benignly interpret that when any Ship carries Hollenders as Passengers the same should be Seased but not when these were Servants and Mariners to other Nations It was answered for the Captain that the Kings Proclamation of the War behoved to be a Rule to the Kings Judges and that it was most consonant to the Law of Nations and it was impossible without the same to know what Ships did truly belong to Allies and that in the Spanish Treaty with the King that priviledge was specially indulged to the Flandrians not to be quarrelled upon the account of Hollanders because of the Identity of their Language which would have been unnecessar if by the Law of Nations all might have so done The Lords Repelled the Reason of the Reduction and found that ground of the Adjudication that the Ship was Sailed with a great part of the Company being Hollanders Relevant alone and that the same was sufficiently proven by the Testimony of the Steirsman and another Witness of the Company and therefore Assoilzied from the Reduction The Minister of Elgin contra his Parochioners Eodem die THE Minister of Elgin pursues his Parochioners for the Viccarage of some Yeards in Elgin which belonged of old to the Canons of the Cathedral Kirk of Elgin and were by them Feued to the Defenders who alleadged Absolvitor because the Yeards being a part of the Canons Portions and in effect their Gleibs had in no time past ever payed Viccarage which is consuetudinar and local both as to the payment and the kinds for in some places Teind Lint and Hens are payed and in others not but the ordinar Viccarage being Stirks Wool Milk and Lamb there is none of these to be had in these Yeards It was answered that no Prescription could take away Teinds upon the forbearance of demanding it by Beneficed Persons who are but Administrators and cannot Delapidat otherwise all Benefices might be destroyed 2ly Lands that have been always Ploughed and so payed Parsonage and becoming Grass are lyable to Viccarage albeit it cannot be proven that ever they payed any before The Lords found the Defense Relevant unless the Pursuer could prove that Viccarage has been payed out of these
wayes secure contra acquirenda unless the Assignation or Disposition had been equivalent to the Debt and satisfied it The Defender answered that that which was here Acquired was only a Fee for Service which is Alimentar and the Fee will not be due unless the Defender Serve in suitable condition effeirand to his place and therefore it cannot be made forth coming to any other use The Lords found that a Fee in so far as was necessar for the Servants Aliment conform to his condition of Service could not be reached by his Creditors to whom he had made cessionem bonorum except as to the superplus more then what was necessar and they found no superplus in this case Captain Allan contra Parkman Eodem die CAptain Allan having taken Bartholomew Parkman and obtained him to be declared Prize Parkman raises Reduction and for fortification of the Admirals Decreet of Adjudication these Grounds were alleadged First That by the Testimonies of the Steirsman and Company it was proven that three of the Company were the Kings Enemies and so conform to the Kings Declaration of War Ordaining all Ships to be seazed wherein there were any number of men belonging to the Kings Enemies this Ship was Prize as was lately found in the case of the Ship called The Castle of Riga And albeit by a former Interloquitor the Lords had not found three men to be a number sufficient for Confiscation Yet it was not then considered that the whole Company consisted but of eight so that near the third of the Sailers were the Kings Enemies and one of them the Steirsman which is a considerable proportion 2dly This Ship though pretended to belong to the Swedes yet she had served the Kings Enemies the Danes and Hollanders two years and by the Swedish Treaty it is provided quod naves nullo modo accommodentur utriusque foederati inimicis 3dly It is also proven that this Ship carried Counterband-goods viz. Tar which was not the product of Sweden but carried from Denmark to Holland and that she was taken in her return having in a loadning of Salt from France so that albeit the Ship had been empty she might have been taken Prize in that same Voyage in which she did partake with the Kings Enemies or being taken in the same Voyage in which she had carried bona hostium And lastly it was also instructed that the Cargo with which she was taken was the product of the Counterband-goods and so in the same case as if the Counterband-goods had been actually in her the product being surrogatum quod sapit naturam surrogati It was answered for Parkman to the first Ground that he opponed the Lords Interlocutor finding three Sailers no sufficient number for Confiscation And in the case of The Castle of Riga the major part at least the half were the Kings Enemies To the second Ground it was answered that the Kings Allies making use of their Ships for Fraught was no way a lending of them to the Kings Enemies and as for the remnant Goods by the Kings Declaration of War there is only given Warrand to sease Ships having in them Counterband-goods or Enemies Goods and the Swedish â—rety bears expresly si deprehenduntur so that this Ship having in her when she was taken no Counterband nor Enemies Goods is free It was answered that the Kings Declaration although it mention some cases of Seasure is not full or exclusive but the Law of Nations must take place or the Custom of Scotland in cases not exprest in the Kings Declaration And as for the Swedish Treaty it cannot be pleaded unless Parkman had a Pass from Sweden in all points conform to the Treaty but their Passes were in several things disconform as being granted when the Ship was in Holland and sent over Land And as for the Custom of Scotland to take Ships in the return of that Voyage in which they carried Counterband or prohibited Goods it appeareth by the Captains Commission and former Commissions in Anno 1628. and by a Decreet declaring a Prize wherein the same ground was Libelled that she was taken in the return of that same Voyage in which she had carried Counterband And the Lords having Written to my Lord Secretary his Letter in return bears That the Lords should decide according to the Law of Scotland It was answered for the Stranger that the particular Custom of Scotland can be no Rule for the Swedes but only the Law and Custom of Nations â— and that England nor no other Nation hath that Custom to make Seasure but in delicto otherwise all Trade and Commerce would be destroyed unless Seasure were only upon what were visibly Aboard and not upon the pretence of what had been Aboard and albeit a Delinquence once committed by partaking with the Kings Enemies might endure for a longer time Yet the Custom of Nations for the utility of Trade hath Abridged it to actual Seasure in delicto and accordingly Judge Ienkins Judge of the Admirality in England hath Attested that during this War after search of the Records and Conference with other Judges he knows not of any Prize declared but when the Counterband goods or Enemies Goods were taken actually in them And for the Decreet alleadged on albeit that Ground be in the Libel yet other Grounds are also therein and there is no Debate as to that particular Point neither doth the Probation mentioned in the Decreet clear that that Point was proven And as to the Tenor of the Commissions albeit they might excuse the Captain from Fine or Damnages yet Strangers did not nor were not obliged to know the same but the Law and Custom of Nations and the Kings publick Declaration of the War and their Treaties The Lords having considered the Debate and that the several Points were of Importance and Preparatives they resolved to take the Grounds joyntly and so found the Ship Prize as having so considerable a proportion of her Company the Kings Enemies Some also were of the opinion that she having been taken in the return was sufficient especially not having a sufficient Swedish Passâ— but the plurality waâ—ed these Points whether the returns of Enemies Goods or Counterband or whether the Product or not Product thereof were sufficient Grounds of Seasure seing it did not so appear by the Custom of Nations or the Kings Declaration of War but by the former Debate it appeared that she had Aboard when taken a small parcel of Tar. Mr. David Falconer contra Sir Iames Keith Iuly 14. 1668. MR. David Falconer gave in a Complaint against Sir Iames Keith of Caddam that he being in the exercise of his Office informing the President to stop a Bill of Suspension given in by Sir Iames Keith Sir Iames did revile and threaten him calling him a Liar and a Knave and saying if he found him in another place he would make him repent what he said The Lords having received Witnesses in their own presence and finding it proven sent Sir James
was found sufficient by turning off the Parties Cattel without necessity to alleadge an instrument of Interruption or keeping them off for a long time together November 14. 1662. Nicolson contra Laird of Balbirnie Interruption of a possessory judgement hinders the beginning of a new possessory judgement by seven years Possession after interruption until prescription Iuly 22. 1664. Montgomery contra Hume The like of Decennalis Triâ—nnalis Possession Iune 28. 1666. Laird of Phillorth contra Lord Frazer Interruption by a Summonds of Reduction and Citation thereupon was Sustained albeit the Reasons of Reduction were not filled up within the 40. years seing the Reduction was upon Minority and Lesion which was insinuate by the interest libelled ab initio viz. That the Pursuer as Heir to his Sister had good Interest to reduce all deeds done to her enorm lesion Iuly 14. 1669. Earl of Marischal contra Leith of Whiteâ—augh Interruption was Sustained by a Citation only at the Mercat Cross proceeding upon a Warrâ—nd to cite at the Mercat Cross quia non fuit â—utus accessus which was neither true not instructed but pasâ— by Bill of course amongst the common Bills and the Executions did not bear a Copy leâ—t at the Cross the Pursuer adding that to the Execution Iuly 6. 1671. Mcbrae contra Lord Mâ—dâ—nald Interruption was Sustained by a second Summonds though the first Summonds should be found nulâ— and though the Citation was only a day before the fourty years compleat Ibidem INTIMATION of a Right of Reversion was found not necessary where he that had the Right was Infeâ—t therein albeit he used no Diligence and which preferred him to a posterior Assigney although Redeeming first and possessing November 1â— 1664. Guthriâ— contra Laird of Sornbeg INTROMISSION being by many persons promiscuous was found not to oblige them in solidum but equally prorata unless a greater part were proven against them thogh the Intromission was vitious and had been a Spuilzie but not pursued within three years Ianuary 17â— 1667. Captain Strachan contra Morison Intromission being proven by clear and pregnant Testimonies of Witnesses though not in Litisconâ—estaâ—ion but to remain in 〈◊〉 no contrary probation was admitted even ex officio to prove that others did Intromet although Tacks and Wodsets granted to them were produced and the Possession and Intromission conform was offered to be proven and though the Intromission was more then 40. years since in respect the alleadgeance was founded super jure terâ—ij the Alleadger shewing no Right to the Wodsets or how the same were satisfied and the intromission being proven by removing the common Author and entering to the Natural Possession by 〈◊〉 Ianuary â—â— 1671. Kello contra Kinâ—â—â— â—VS MARITI was found to carry the Right of a sum assigned to a Wife while she was cled with â— Husband without necessity to instruct that it was also intimate before his death Ianuary 20. 1663. Scot contra Dickson Ius mariti was found not to carry the Right to a Provision granted by the Father to the Daughter bearing and Annualrent though but five per câ—nt the Term of payment of the Annualrent being past before the Marriage Iune 28. 1665. 〈◊〉 contra Edgar Ius mariti being Renunced was found not to take away the Husbands power of ordering his Family and disposing of duties appointed by the Wife of her former Ioynture for the use of their Families joyntly which was not found to give the Wife a distinct â—â—â—are of it or a power to mannage it but to enjoy her share under the Husbands mannadgement February 1667. Ratho and Coâ—â—ngâ—oun contra Tennents of Inâ—ertile and Lady Câ—llingtoun Ius mariti was found to be a Legal Assignation and being compleat with the Marriage a voluntar Right by the Wife of the same daâ—e with a Tack relating to the Agreement of Marriage granted by the Wife to her second Sonâ— leaving nothing to her Husband was found excluded thereby as not being intimate before the Marriage and being fraudulent in the Wife and null even against her Son though not partaker of the fraud not being an Acquirer for an onerous Cause in so far as might prejudge the Husband December 18. 1667. Auchinâ—eck contra Williamson and Gillespie IVS SVPERVENIENS c. was eâ—tended to any Right real accrescing to the Hereâ—or by one who had Right from the Vsurpers though that Right be fallen seing it was consequent on the true Hereâ—ors Right as obtaining Improbation of other Rights Iuly 13. 1664. Earl of Lawderdaâ—â— contra Wolmet Ius supervenâ—ens authori accrescit successori was found not to hold where there does not appear a full equivalent Cause onerous of the Successors Right or absolute Warrandice here the first Right was Reduced and the new Right but personal to the Mails and Duties till such a sum were satisfied Iuly 19. 1664. Dowglas and Longformacus her Spouse contra Laird of Wedderburn Ius superveniens authori accrescens successori was found to make a giâ—t of Ward to the behove of the Superiour accresce to the Vassal to whom he was bound in absolute Warrandice they paying a part of the expence February 15. 1665. Boyd of Pinkill contra Tennents of Carsâ—leuâ—â— Ius superveniens authori accrescens successori was found to have thir effects that a Tack for a small duty granted for sums of Money with absolute warrandice was not prejudged because the â—etter was not then Infeft nor excluded by a posterior Heretable Disposition of the Lands albeit the Authors supervenient Right was procured by the Acquirer of the said Disposition who infeft his author and himself both of the same date and who alleadged that his Authors Right being procured by him could not accresce to the Tackâ—â—man in his prejudice Iune 21. 1671. Neiâ—son contra Menzeis of Enoch IVS TERTII was found to exclude an exception upon on Assignation intimate to the Debitor and a Decreet thereon seing there was no payment but granâ—ing Suspension without Caution or Consignation that the parties might dispute their Rights Iune 16. 1665. Bruce contra Earl of Morâ—oun â—us tertii was found not to hinder an Appryzer to quarrel another Appryzers Right as wanting an Assignation to the debt on which the Appryzing proceeded albeit he had no Right from that Cedent nor any other interest but to exclude the Appryzing as informal albeit that Cedents Heir had renued the Assignation and deâ—lared that there was a prior Assignation by his Father and that his Right was in Trust Iuly 22. 1668. Iohnstoun of Sheeâ—s contra Arnold THE KINGS PALACE of Hâ—ly-rude-house was found to be exâ—mpted from the Regality of Brughtoun and in the Royalty and Citations against Parties residing there at the Cross of Edinburgh were Sustained Ianuary 11. 1662. Lady Carnagie contra Lord Cranburn KNOWLEDGE though private hinders bonae fidei possessor lucrari fructus November 20. 166â— Children of Wolmet contra Lady Wolmet and Dankeith her Husband LAW of Scotland only Regulates Succession of Scotsmen
as to their Lands and Goods in Scotland though they reside and 〈◊〉 abroad and no nuncupative Testament there can exclude the nearest of kin hâ—re Ianuary 19. 1665. Schaw contra 〈◊〉 The Law of England was found to reach the manner of probation of a Bond made there by an English-man to a Scots-man residing 〈◊〉 after the stâ—le of England and that payment to the Cedent was probable by the Cedents Oath and payment also probable by Witnesses Iune 28. 1666. Momâ—rlane contra Lord Melvil Yet a Bond by a Scots-man to an English-man in England after the stile of Scotland Registrable there was found Regulate by the Law of Scotland and noâ— taken away by Witnesses Ibidem A LEGACY of an Heretable Right was found null though in leâ—ge poâ—stie February 21. 1663. Wardlaw contra Frazer of Kilmundie A Legacy leâ—t of 600. merkâ— and in part thereof the Executors ordained to Discharge or give Back-bond of 200. merks due to the Testaâ—rix which Bond was found to belong â—o the Husband jure mariti and that being Moveable the Wife had but her half of it yet the Lords found that the Executors ought to make it upâ— to the Legataâ— as lâ—gâ—tum rei aliena scienter legatâ— for that being a palpable principle in Law they could not excuse the Wifes ignorance therein Iune 16 1664. Murray contra Executors of Rutherfoord A Legacy being special was found not to be abated proportionally with ordinary Legacies in case they exceed the Deeds part Iuly 21. 1665. Sprâ—â—l contra Murray A Legacy of a Bond in special was sustained though the Executor had an Assignation thereto from the Defunct seing the same Legacy might be made up of the 〈◊〉 Gear as being lâ—gatum rei alienâ— seing it was presumed that the Defunct remembred his own Assignation Iune 24 1664. Falâ—â—nâ—r contra Mcdâ—wgal LICENCE to pursue was sâ—stained without Confirmation though granted after the principal Testament was Confirmed being to a Creditor Iune â—0 1665. Stevinson contra Crawfoord Licence to pursue was sustained after Confirmation of the principal Testament and before Confirmation of Datives ad ommissa February 21. 166â— Scot of Clâ—rkingtoâ—n contra Lady Clâ—rkingtoun AFTER LIâ—ISCONTESTATION Alleadgeances instantly verified are receivable Iune 24. 1663. Bruce contrâ— Laird of Strâ—â—chan Litiscontâ—â—â—ation being made before the Commissars at a parties instance as Factor it was found relevant against that party pursuing as Executor Creditor being instantly verified February 10. 1663. Crawfoord contra Creditors of Inglis LOCVS PENITENTIAE was found to have no place in an agreement to take a lesâ— sum it being as pactâ—â— libâ—ratoriâ—m though writ was not interposed others of the parties Transactors having payed conform December 12. 1661. Hâ—pburn contra Hamiltâ—â—n of Orbiâ—â—â—um The like in restricting an annualrent to a part of the Lands â—ffected February â— 1666. 〈◊〉 contrâ— Hunter and Tennents of Cambâ— Locus 〈◊〉 was found competent to one who had bought Lands though he had written that he thought he could not be able to keep the Bargain and furnish the Money yet subâ—oyned that he would not pass from the communing and albeit he had received the Keyâ— of the House seing there was neither Minute nor other Wâ—â—t drawn up â—hâ—reupon Ianuary 28. 1663. Mâ—ntgomry of Skâ—lmorly contra Brown THE LORDS Sallatles or the Pensions of the King are not arrestable conform to a Letter of the Kings and Act of Sederunt February 8. 1662. contra Murray The Lords found themselveâ— competent to Iudge the Nullities of the Decreets of the Commission for Plantation of Kirkâ— which werâ— visible and instantly vâ—rified and needed no Reduction as that a Decrâ—et against an Heretor not called was null Ianuary 16. 1663. Earl of Roxburgh contra Kinnâ—â—r The Lords found themselves competent to Iudge upon the Iustice Generals Decreet for Assythment which hath but a civil effect for damnage December 16. 1664. Innes contra Forbâ—s of Tolqâ—â—â—nâ— The Lords gave warrant Summarly upon Supplication to take the person of a Bankrupt who was unexpectedly and fraudfully fled Novâ—mbâ—r 30. 1665. Creditors of Masson Supplicants The Lords albeit they are not Iudges in Causes Criminal yet they found themselves coâ—petent to Advocaâ—e a Criminal Cause of Theft but upon the old Act of Parliament of King Iamâ—s the second from â— Sheriff to the Iustice General February 21. 1â—66 contra Sheriâ—â— of Invâ—rnâ—ssâ— The Lords deposed a Writer to 〈◊〉 â—igneâ— for inserting an Article for possessing a party in Letters of Horning having no warrand for the said Article Ianuary â— 1669. Zeaman contra Monreiff The Lords upon a Bill for Horning upon Excommunication allowed the party Excommunicate 〈◊〉 object against the Groâ—nds of Excommunication who having founded upon an appeal to the King and Council The Lordâ— having had an account from the Council that they had Remitted that matter to the â—ishop did pass the Hoâ—â—ing Iuly 6. 1670. Archbishop and Presbytery of St. Andrâ—wâ— contra Pittillâ— LVCRATIVE SVCCESSOR was not inferred by a Disposition and Infeftment to the behove of the appearand Heâ—r but only in so far as was Lucrative 〈◊〉 valorâ—m Ianuary 14. 1662 Harper contra Hume of â—landergast Lucrative Successor was not inferred by a Disposition by an Vncle to his Nephew the Brother being alive who was not found alioqui successurus as in the case of an Oye November 22. 166â— Scâ—â— coâ—tra Bâ—ssâ—wel of Auchinleck Lucrative Successor was inferred by an Assignation of an Heretable Bond by â— Father to his eldest Son who would have succeeded him as Heir therein and that the same was not alike with Bonds of Provision wherein in Father 〈◊〉 only Deâ—itor to the Son Dâ—câ—mbâ—r â— 1665. Edgar contra Colvil Lucrative Successor was not inferred by accepting of a Tocher yet so as if the Tocher were exorbitant both Husband and Wife were found lyable to the Fathers Creditors for what was above a competent Tocher December 23. 1665. Burnet contra Lepers LIFE being presumed was taken off by the Parties being â—â— years out of the Counâ—rey and commoâ—ly â—olden an◠〈…〉 There waâ— also a Letter produced by a 〈◊〉 in the Waâ— bearing that the party was dead February 18. 1670. Lowry contra Drummond LIFERENTERS of an annuaIrent waâ— found Iyable for publick burden with the 〈◊〉 albeit the Act 164â— thereanent was Rescinded as being due in jure Iune 18. 166â— Fleming contra Gillies A Liâ—erenter being Infeft in a Liferent of Lands cum mâ—llâ—ndiniâ— was found to have right to a Miln builded thereafter upon the Land by her Husband but not to the abstracted Multures of his Lands except the Liferent Lands February 16. 1666. Lady Otter contra Laird of Otter A Liferenter being by her Contract â—nfeft in Lands obliged to be worth such a Rent besides Teinds and Feâ—-duties or at her option the heir was obliged to accept a Tack of the Lands for the like sum of free Rent by free Rent was not only understood free of Feu and Teind Duty as is exprest in