is but a Reduction for not Production The said Point being of great Concernment and the Debate being upon a Bill and the Process not produced that it might appear whether it was intented within the 40 years or not it was not decided D. 197. Cranston contra Brown 21. Novemb. 1674. A Testator having left by Testament a Sum of Money due upon an Heretable Surety and having named his Sister as Executor and universal Legator she was pursued for payment of the said Legacy at the least that being likeways Heir she should denude her self of the Right of the said Sum. It was Alledged for her That the Subject being Heretable the Defunct could not bequeath the same in Testament It was Replyed That when res aliena is left in Legacy the Executor in Law tenetur luere and ought to redeem the same or pay the value and multo magis in this case the Testator having in effect left res sua though upon the matter res aliena as to the power of disposing of the same on Death-bed or by Testament And therefore the Executrix if she be Heir as she is in this Case ought to give the same and if she were not Heir ought to redeem the same as said is The Lords upon the debate amongst themselves considered that in Law legatum rei alienae is effectual if the Testator sciebat rem alienam whereas si nesciebat it is to be persumed he would not have left that which was not his own and tho the Testator upon mistake was ignorant that it was res aliena yet if the Legator was of so near Relation that it was probable he should have left the legacie at least the value if he had knowen it was res aliena the Legacy was effectual And that in the case in question the Legator was the Defuncts Nevoy by his Brother and the Sum that was left was his own tho Heretable as said is and the Testator either knew that he could not dispose of the same being Heretable and was presumed and obliged to know the Law and if he was ignorant in point of Law ignorantia Juris nocet and therefore the Lords inclined to sustain the Legacy But one of their Number having desired that the Decision might be delayed while the next day that he might have his thoughts upon the Case the same was delayed Strathurd Reporter Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 198. Pilton contra the Creditors of the Lord Sinclair 30. November 1674. THE deceast Lord Sinclair having maryed his Daughter with John Sinclair younger of Hermiston did dispone to him his Estate with the Burden of his own proper Debts mentioned in the Right and took a Bond for an Annuity of 8000 merks first in the name of John Watt and thereafter the said Bond being given back he did take another Bond for the said Annuity during his Lifetime in the Name of George Cockburn of Pilton Whereupon the said George did diligence by Comprysing and otherways against the said John Sinclair of Herdmanston and did also take the said John Sinclair's Liferent Escheat And upon the Grounds foresaid and a Suspension of double Poinding against him diverse Creditors of the Lord Sinclair did question Pilton's Interest upon the foresaid Bond as being fraudulent and a contrivance to frustrate Creditors and to secure so considerable an Interest for the use of the Debitor contrare to the Act of Parliament 1621. The Lords notwithstanding preferred the said George Cockburn as having Right to the Duties of Herdmanston's Estate by vertue of the said Gift of Escheat reserving to the Creditors their Declarator of Trust or Reduction upon the said Act of Parliament And accordingly the whole Estate of Herdmanston being set in Tack thereafter the Tack-duty is payable to Pilton and the other Creditors in order conform to the said Decreet The Tacks-men being charged at the instance of Pilton Did Suspend upon double poinding pretending they were troubled by other Creditors of the Lord Sinclair And the said Creditors compearing did alledge that they ought to be preferred to Pilton in respect his interest ab initio by the said Bond for the Annuity foresaid of 8000 Merks was a fraudulent contrivance in prejudice of the Lord Sinclair's Creditors that the foresaid Annuity might be secured to him in the Person of Pilton his Friend and Relation and thereupon might live plentifully his Creditors being defrauded and suffering in the mean time And that the Gift of Escheat of Herdmanstons's Liferent being granted intuitu and upon account of the said interest laborat eodem vitio and was in effect to the behoof of the Lord Sinclair It was Answered for Pilton That tho the said Bond was granted to him without an Onerous Cause yet intuitu of the same and thinking that he was thereby secured he had bona fide alimented my Lord Sinclair and had payed to himself and had engaged to others for him to pay diverse Sums of Money before any interruption made by the Creditors So that before any Diligence done by them his Right became Onerous and the Gift of Escheat of Herdmanston's Estate was taken by him to secure himself as to his relief And that the King and Exchequer did and might give the said Gift to him upon the consideration foresaid and thereupon in the former Decreet of multiple poinding he was preferred to all other Creditors And that his Majesty had also gifted the Liferent Escheat of the said Lord Sinclair to Mr. George Gibson upon a Back-bond that thereby he and the other Creditors thereinmentioned being satisfied the superplus and benefite of the said Escheat should be applyed for the Aliment of the said Lord Sinclair And therefore tho Pilton should not have Right as he had to the said Tack-duty the foresaid Annuity and Gift of Escheat of Herdmanston's Liferent would accrue to Mr. George Gibson Donator to the uses foresaid and fall under his Gift It was Answered for the Creditors That they were content the Lords should modify an Aliment for the Lord Sinclair And that Pilton's interest should be sustained effeirand thereto the Superplus being applyed as it ought to be for their satisfaction The Lords for the most part enclined to Find that George Cockburn's Right to the said Annuity was Onerous In sua far as he could instruct that he had payed to or for the use of my Lord Sinclair any Sums of Money before the Creditors Diligence Yet some were of the opinion That the Laird of Hermanston having Married my Lord Sinclair's Daughter and having given the said Bond for the Annuity dureing my Lord Sinclair's Lifetime was a down-right contrivance contrare to the Act of Parliament 1621. to the end that the Right to the said Annuity which if it had been taken in the person of my Lord Sinclair himself would have been lyable to his Creditors might be so conveyed in the person of another that it should not be lyable to the said Lord Sinclair's Debts and being ab initio fraudulent it
Provision as charged to Enter Heir respective It was alledeged for the Heir of the first marriage that he offered to renunce And for the Heir of Provision that the Heir of Line ought to be first discussed by adjudication and condescended upon movable Heirship which might be adjudged It was Answered for the Heir of Line that his Father having provided him had taken from him a Renunciation of all that could belong to him as Heir So that he could have no Right to the movable Heirship which in respect of his Renunciation would be considered as other movables and fall under Executrie It was Replyed for the Heir of provision that by the Renunciation the Heir of Line had renunced his kindness to the effect his Father might have power to dispose of the Heirship but his Father not having disposed thereof the Right returned to the Heir of Line again the Renounciation being in favours of him and his Heirs as in Renounciations of that nature as to Lands if the Father does not dispose of the same they will notwithstanding belong to the Heir Some of the Lords thought there should be a difference betwixt Lands and Movable Heirship In respect the Right of Lands whereof the Father died infeft cannot be Setled in the person of any other but the Heir who therefore ought to have Right notwithstanding of the Renunciation But the Movables which should fall under Heirship by the Renunciation of the Heir cease to be Heirship and may be confirmed as other Movables Others Thought that the Effect of such Renunciations should be the same as to Movables and Lands the Fathers intention being one and the same for both and therefore as the Right in the construction of the Law returneth to the Heir of the Father who doth not otherwise dispose of his Lands there is the same reason as to movable Heirships And as to the pretence foresaid it is of no weight seing if it were the Intention of the Father that by such Renunciations the Son should be denuded without Return though the Father should not dispose of his Lands the Son may be pursued and forced to denude himself that his Renunciation may be effectual in favours of the nearest of Kin. The Lords before answer ordained the Renunciation to be produced that they might consider the Tenor of it D. 108. Tacksmen of the Custumes contra Greenhead Eod. die THe Custums of the Borders being set in Subtack to Greenhead and others by the Tacksmen of the haill custumes of the Kingdom Greenhead is pursued as representing his Father one of the Subtacksmen for the dutie the year 1650. It was alledged That the Subtack was altogether unprofitable upon the occasion of the English Invasion so that Beasts and other Goods were not imported nor Exported that year as they had been in use formerly It was Answered that albeit in praediis Rusticis in case of Sterilitie Vastation and such other Calamities that cannot be avoided There may be abatement craved Remissio Canonis yet in this case the Subject being conductio rei periculosae Jactus Retis the Subtacksmen ought to have no abatement and are in the same case as Tacksmen of Salmond fishing who will be lyable for the duty albeit no profit arise to them The Lords Found That Subtacksmen should have abatement But the Question being most Quatenus and concerning the proportion because though the Subtacksmen had undoubtedly loss yet it was not Total there being some Commerce betwixt the Kingdoms for that year some Moneths It was Found in end upon hearing of Parties that the half of the Dutie should be abated Actores Lockhart Cuninghame Alteri Sinclair Mr Thomas Hay Clerk The Law is very clear ff Locati and the Doctors upon that Title not only in praediis but in conductione vectigalium and the like in case of an insuperable Calamity remittitur Canon merces but they are not so clear as to the Quatenus and proportion of the abatement when the detriment is not Total But it is just the abatement should be proportionable to the loss And accordingly The Lords decided D. 109. Justice Clerk contra Lambertoun 23. Nov. 1667. IN the case the Justice Clerk contra Lambertoun the probation anent the value and worth of the Woods pertaining to the Justice Clerk and cutt and intrometted with by Lambertoun being advised It was considered and represented by some of the Lords that had been Commissionated to examine the Witnesses adduced by both parties being allowed to have a joynt probation that the probation was dubious the Witnesses for the Pursuer declaring too highly and the Witnesses for the Defender too low as appeared And that the Subject of the Question not being de re which is the proper Object of Sense but de rei valore qui cadit sub Judicium Intellectum The Testimonies of the Witnesses are not de rei veritate but de credulitate opinione and therefore are not numeranda sed ponderanda according to the circumstances both of their oun quality and the quality of the Declaration whether they have declared verisimilia and whether animose and such like and whether they have given a probable reason of their knowledge That in this case the Witnesses that have deponed most to the advantage of the Pursuer are his own Tennants and one of them a Smith his Officer that they give the reason of their Knowledge that they dwelt in the bounds which is not sufficient unless they had been periti and Conversant about the matter of Woods and the Buying and the Selling and the valuing of the same That some Witnesses for the Defender had given their Judgment upon oath as strongly and pregnantly as they though they be not so many So that the probation at best is but dubious and in dubiis minimum sequendum at the least the Lords have a latitude to found their Judgment upon the Testimonies of both cum temperamento and without adhering percisely to either The Lords Found nevertheless by plurality That they should have respect to what had been proven by the most part And accordingly Decerned D. 110. Rankin contra Skelmorlie and Dunlop eod die IN a double poinding at the instance of the Lord Melvil there being a Competition betwixt two Creditors of Antonia Broun Daughter and Heir to Sir John Broun The Lords preferred Skelmorly the first Arrester Though Rankin had obtained a Decreet to make forthcoming and had compleated his Diligence and alledged that an Arrestment is but an inchoate Diligence and doth not hinder any other Creditor to compleat and do more exact diligence by poinding or by a Decreet to make forthcoming which in Debts and in nominibus are equivalent The reason of the Decision was that Skelmorly had not only Arrested but had intented a pursuite before the Lords to make forthcoming before Rankin But Processes before the Lords being more tedious and the Pursuer not Master of Calling Rankin had taken advantage by obtaining a Decreet
said Dumbar and his Relict for security of a small Debt due to the said Laurie 3. That John Wauchop did give to Dumbar for a Translation from Laurie only 300 Merks and did promise in case he should recover the said Debt to pay 200 Merks more of which 100 Merks was to be payed to the said Laurie And it cannot be thought that Dumbar would have given away so considerable a Sum the Bond and Annualrent of the said Sum extending to 100 lib. sterl for 300 Merks presently and 200 Merks upon the condition foresaid 4. It appeared by the Bond and Assignation that they were writen with one Hand and the Witnesses Subscriptions appeared to be all writen with one Hand 5. The Writer and Witnesses are obscure Persons and not known and the designation of them is so general that they could not be well found being designed Writers and Indwellers in Edinburgh and no otherwayes 6. It appeared by comparing other Papers writen by Dumbar both as to the Character and the Spelling that the said Papers being writen by Dumbar are the same Write that the Bond and Assignation is of 7. It appeared by some Papers subscribed by Davidson produced by Wauchop to astruct and approve that his Subscription to the said Papers is not like that of the Bond. Diverse Papers were produced being alledged to be Forged by Dumbar being Bonds granted by persons who were Dead and whereof the Writer and Witness were likewayes Dead which did labour of the same Grounds of Suspition and falsehood And albeit they were not declared to be false yet being questioned and a warrand being given by the Lords to apprehend Dumbar he had escaped and was Fugitive And the said Dumbar is lookt upon and is pessimae famae as a Falsary and a Forger The Lords were evil satisfied That their Macer should have taken a Right to and used such a Write But as yet have not Censured him In praesentia D. 386. Paterson contra MckenÈie 22. Novem. 1676. THE Defender in the Improbation of an Assignation transferred in in his favours being urged to abide by the same and having offered to abide by the same as given to him for an Onerous Cause and as true for any thing he knew It was Answered That Certification ought to be granted unless the Defender would abide by the same positively as a true Deed Seing otherwayes false Writes might be conveyed through many Hands and the using of the same might escape impune notwithstanding of the Act of Parliament against the users of false Writes if they should be allowed to qualify their abideing by the same in manner foresaid which is contrar to the very Notion of abiding by which imports a positive asserting the truth of the same Upon which Debate the Lords Considered the great inconvenients on either hand if a Right may be taken to false Writes and used impune whereas before any person take Right to the same they ought to inform themselves concerning the same and the Condition and Quality of their Cedents And on the other part if commerce should be obstructed so far as a Right should not be taken without hazard to Papers having no intrinsick nullity or defect that of falsehood being altogether extrinsick and which cannot be known The Lords in respect the Cedent who had made the Translation of the Write quarrelled was Living Ordained him to abide by the same simply And suffered the person who has now Right thereto to abide at the same with the foresaid quality But reserved to themselves at the advising of the Cause to consider what the said qualification may import in behalf of the User Actor MckenÈie and others alteri Falconer Haystoun Clerk In praesentia D. 387. Weir contra E. Bramford 24. November 1676. HIS Majesty and the Parliament having rescinded the Forefaulture of the late Earl of Bramford who had been Forefaulted the time of the Troubles for his Loyalty did so qualify the Act of Rescission and Restitution that albeit he had Daughters who by the Law would have been Heirs of Line yet the Estate was settled by the Parliament upon his Grand-child Son to the Lord Forrester who had Marryed one of the Daughters Mr. William Weir having Right by Assignation to a Debt of 5000 Merks due by the Earl of Bramford to Patrick Ker one of the Grand-children of the said Earl and a Decreet being obtained for the said Debt against Edward Ruthven the Lord Forresters Son as having succeeded in the said Estate and being bonorum possessor and having Right as said is to said Estate ought to be Lyable passive to the Burden The Lords by the said Decreet Declared that the Estate should be Lyable and thereupon Adjudication having followed against the said Edward of a part of the Estate and Infeftment upon the same the said Edward did intent Reduction of the said Adjudication upon that Reason That the said Decreet against Edward Ruthven whereupon it proceeded was Extracted wrongously and not conform to the Minuts and Interloquitor which were in these Terms that the Estate should be Lyable to the Debt but not that the said Edward should be decerned to pay as the Decreet bears And that there could be no Adjudication against the said Edward who was not Heir to the said Earl but there ought to have been a Decreet and Adjudication against his Heirs of Line being charged to enter Heir Upon Debate among the Lords some were of the Opinion and did Represent that there could be no Adjudication against the Heirs of Line nor Decereet Cognitionis causa seing they could not be charged to enter Heir in special to that Estate which by the Act of Parliament did not belong to them but was settled upon the said Edward as said is And that the said Decreet against Edward was Disconform to the Lords Interloquitor Seing it was not intended by the said Decreet that the said Edward or any other Estate of his should be Lyable to the said Debt It being expresly declared in the said Decreet that he should be free of personal Execution And the said Decreet was but in effect a Decreet Cognitionis causa And therefore behooved to bear the Decerniture foresaid that he should be decerned to make payment which was only dicis causa to the effect Execution might follow by Adjudication And by the Summonds whereupon the Decreet proceeded it was only craved that the Estate should be affected And by the Adjudication Bramfords Estate was only affected and the Adjudger was content to declare that he should affect no other Estate Yet some of the Lords were of the Opinion That the Decreet not being in these Terms that the Lords decerned Cognitionis causa to the effect Execution might follow against Bramfords Estate It was in Arbitrio Judicis to sustain the Decreet to be a Ground of Adjudication or not And that Mr. William Weir having been accessory to the Appeals at the instance of Callender from the Lords of Session deserved no favour
or where the Heir to the Disponer had Right himself the time of the disposition Quaeritur quo casu Jus Superveniens accrescit And if it should be understood of the Right only of moveables and such things as may be transmitted without infeftment And not of Lands and others which cannot habili modo be conveyed much less accresce without Infeftment Justice-General IF the Justice-General may be Judge to Ryots or any Crime or Delict whereof the pain is not defined by Law but left arbitrary K. Nearest of Kin. THE Interest of the nearest of Kin is that they may be confirmed Executors and if they die before confirmation they do not transmitt and yet if the Testament be confirmed by any person nascitur actio against the executor who is Lyable to the nearest of kin which they transmitt There being three persons who are nearest of kin to a Defunct and the edict is moved and served at the instance of the Procurator-fiscal and two confirmed only whether will the third have action against the other two as nearest of kin for a part Ratio Dubitandi That these who are executors of Law cannot have Right de facto unless they confirm that being modus adeundi in mobilibus and the nearest of kin by the act of Parliament has only an action in the case where he cannot adire there being executors nominate and confirmed who have Right to the office and a third part so that the nearest of kin may pursue for the rest When the nearest of kin have action against the Executor Nominate if some of them decease before confirmation whether will they transmitt the forsaid action Ratio Dubitandi it is not Officium but Jus legitimum which may be transmitted as the relicts part and bairns part without respect to the confirmation and on the other part it may seem that seing they did not intent action before their decease they do not transmitt and in such cases the intenting of action is instar aditionis and there is no representation in moveables There being two Daughters of which one being Married by her Contract of Marriage accepts her Tocher in satisfaction of what she could Pretend to by the decease of her Father and Mother Quaeritur the Father having survived the Mother whether will the other Sister have entirely her Mothers part as nearest of kin to her Ratio Dubitandi The other had renounced And on the other part the Mothers part did entirely belong to her self and to her nearest of kin and the said sister that renounced is alse near to her Mother as the other Vide Renunciation Litera R. KING IF the King take burden in a Discharge granted by a Minor that he shall ratify at perfect age Quaeritur whether the Kings successors will be lyable representing their predecessors Ratio dubitandi The King succeeds not as Heir but Jure Coronae as in the case of single incorporations V G Bishops who are said to be successors and are not Lyable to the debts of their predecessors or in the case of feuda ex pacto providentia Cogitandum Earl of Tweeddale and Duke and Dutchess of Monmouth If the King be in the case of other Minors So that a revocation is not sufficient unless a reduction be intented Debito tempore intra quadriennium utile King and Prince IF the King and Prince be to be considered as incorporate so that these who succeed are in the case of successors of Church-men and do not succeed by Inheritance but by succession L. Laudimium LAudimium debetur Usufructuario non Proprietario Thes Besoldi verbo Handlohm P. 359. versus finem Licet Dominus directus post alienationem ab Emphyteuto factam novum possessorem investiat nulla facta mentione Laudimij aut ab eo censum recipiat tamen suo juri non censetur renunciare sed Laudimij integram exactionem habet nisi expresse donaverit Ibid. p. 360. sect 2. Laudimium nondum exactum connumeratur inter fructus pendentes si Emphyteusis pertinet ad parochum illud non exactum ad haeredes haud transmittitur sed cedit ei qui in beneficio succedit ibidem Lawburrows for Burghs IF a Burgh be Lyable to find Lawburrows for their Burgesses The Lord Thesaurer-Deput In Lecto IF in Lecto a Person having children may marrie their Mother in order to their Legitimation in prejudice of his Heirs If after a criminal and capital sentence a person condemned be in Legitima potestate Seing he cannot be said to be in Lecto and the Sentence doth not affect immobilia If a man on death-bed be accessory to Treason whether will his Estate forefault in prejudice of his Heir It seemeth that though in Lecto Lands cannot be sold or annailÈied any way in prejudice of the Heir that being only the case of the old Law of deeds in Lecto Yet consequentially a man on death-bed may do many deeds in prejudice of the Heir and a Traitor on death-bed may be taken out and punished If a Band being heretable may be made moveable of purpose in Lecto Executors of Colonell Mathison George Hadden If an infeftment be given of Lands holden Ward upon the resignation of the Father in Lecto and a reversion apart to the Father to redeem upon a Rose-noble Quaeritur if the Ward and Marriage be cut off Answer if the Lands hold of a Subject Sibi imputet that he did not enquire and know the condition of the Disponer But if they hold of the King there may be some question Seing the Kings Grants may be questioned upon Obreption or Subreption and the negligence of his Officers should not prejudge him and it appears the course forsaid was taken of purpose to defraud the King of his casualities being in spe proxima and the disponer having Provided for himself that he should be master of his Estate by the Reversion forsaid It is thought there is a Decision in the said case in favours of the King which should be tryed A person on death-bed having made a Disposition in favours of a Creditor but to the Prejudice of his other Creditors The Defuncts whole estate being disponed in favours of the Creditor forsaid Quaeritur If the Defunct could on death-bed prejudge his other creditors and preferr one to all his other Creditors Seeing persons being on death-bed are not in Liege Ponstie as to any deeds But the making of Testaments and not as to deeds inter vivos and if the Defunct in his Testament had made such a Conveyance in favours of a Creditor it could not have been sustained and any deed done on death-bed is upon the matter but a Legacy or codicill and a dying person should not be allowed to do any fraudulent deed and it is a fraud where there are many creditors to give one the whole estate and a person in Lecto cannot Prejudge his Heir and a fortiori ought not to prejudge his creditors who would be preferable to Heirs and as in the
Bond granted by the said Bryaend to Thomas Iack And having charged thereupon The Suspender offered to improve the Bond and urged the charger to bide by the same which he was content to doe in these terms Viz. That he did abide by the said Bond as truely assigned and delivered to him by the cedent And that the cedent would compear and abide by the same as a true Bond. The Suspender answered that the cedent was lapsus and had come out of Prison upon a Bonorum and therefore he ought to find Caution to compear all the dyets of the Process The Lords found that the cedent should abide by the said Bond with certification that if he should not appear when the Lords should think fit for clearing the question anent the falsehood of the Bond by his oath or Examination the Bond should be declared to be void and to make no faith both as to cedent and assigney D. 12. Falconer contra E. of Kinghorn 4. January 1666. THe Laird of Drum as Principal and the Earl of Kinghorn and others as Cautioners being Debitors to Robert Falconar by a Bond granted in anno 1640 And the said Robert having pursued this Earle of Kinghorn as representing his Father upon the said Bond It was alledged the Bond was null as to the Earl of Kinghorn in respect there was no witness designed to his subscription And it being Replyed that two of the name of Lyon were subscribing witnesses and tho they were neither designed witness to Kinghorn his subscription but subscribed witness indefinite and albeit they were not otherwise designed as they ought to be conform to the Act of Parliament by their Dwelling or otherwise yet they were truely witnesses and the pursuer may and doth now design them and this Defender had no prejudice one of the witnesses being yet on life So that if he thought fit to improve the means and direct manner of Improbation was yet competent The Lords allowed the Pursuer to design which they would not have done if both the witnesses had been deceased D. 13. Lady Bute contra Sheriff of Bute 5. January 1666. THe Lady Bute Dam Grissel Campbel being Contracted and Proclaimed with Mr. James Grahame in the interim before her Marriage was induced and as she pretended forced to grant a Disposition and Discharge of a part of her Joynture in favours of her Son the Sherrif of Bute he having after the first Proclamation of their Bannes stopped any further proceding until he extorted the said deeds The Lords in a Reduction of the saids deeds at the instance of the Lady and her Husband found that post Sponsalia and Banna she was not sui juris and could doe no deed in prejudice either of her Husband or her self without his consent And that she was in the same condition as if she were Marryed And therefore the Lords found the reasons relevant for reduceing the saids Rights both as to her Husband and her self It was alledged that the Husband had consented in so far as after the saids deeds were done he knew the same and yet proceeded to Marry The Lords repelled the Alledgance D. 14. Oliphant contra Drummond 6. January 1666. IN a special Declarator at the instance of Sir James Drummond of Machany having Right by Assignation to the Escheat of the Lord Rollo and his Brother Sir John Rollo of Bannockburn from Walter Stuart Donatar to the same Sir Laurence Oliphant and Gavin Drummond Who were also Donators to the Escheat and liferent of the said Rebells and had recovered a general Declarator and had intented a special having compeared and desireing preference alledging that the pursuers gift was null and simulate in respect by the Act of Parliament 1592. cap. 149. Praesumptio juris de jure is introduced And it is statute that it shall be a relevant exception against any pretending Title by Assignation or Gift of Escheat of the Rebel to alledge that the Rebel his Wife and Bairns remained in possession and it was subsumed that the Pursuer and his Cedent had suffered the Rebel to continue in possession since the date of the Gift in Anno 1658. The Lords found that the Rebels having been in possession a considerable time by the space of five years or thereabout the Gift by the Act of Parliament is presumed to be simulate 2. That though the Donatar Walter Stuart was a Creditor it doth not alter the case Seing he might be and Law presumeth he was satisfied and Gifts being ordinarly affected with Back-bonds it was his fault that he was not satisfied And that he should not by his negligence and collusion prejudge other Creditors who would have Right after he had been satisfied 3. That the Pursuer having assigned his Right the assigney is in no better case utitur jure Authoris 4. That the reply that the Lands were comprysed is not relevant unless it were alledged that the Pursuer or his Cedent had done diligence to attain possession but was excluded by the compryser Jo. Hay Clerk D. 15. Brown contra Veatch and Scot. 9. January 1666. IN the case Broun contra Veatch and Scot It was found after contentious debate in Praesentia At the Barr and betwixt the Lords That an Infeftment of Warrandice base to be holden of the granter should be preferable to a publick Infeftment of property granted thereafter holden of the Superior and cled wih possession diverse years And that the possession of the Principal Lands should be interpreted the possession of the Warrandice Lands Some of the Lords were of another Iudgment upon these grounds 1. By the Act of Parliament Ja. 5. par 7. cap 150. Entituled provision and pains of them committand fraud in alienation and otherwise a publick Infeftment is preferable to a base not cled with possession though anterior And both the verba and Ratio Legis do militate in favours of the Heretor by a publick Infeftment The intention and end of the Law being to obviat fraud and prejudice by latent Infeftments And it being all one as to the interest and prejudice of the party who acquireth Lands whether the privat and latent Infeftment be a Right of property or Warrandice Seing an Infeftment of Warrandice when the principal Lands are evicted becometh an Infeftment of Property 2. The Act of Parliament foresaid of K. Ja. 5th is not taken away by the Act of Parliament K. James 6. Par. 17. anent Registration of Seasins in respect an Infeftment of property being base though Registrate and Anterior will be null in prejudice of a party who has acquired a Right by a posterior publick Infeftment And both the saids Acts of Parliament being remedia quae tendunt ad eundem finem though the hazard be not so great as to the prejudice by latent and private Infeftments since the Act of Parliament anent Registration of Seasins The said Act of Parliament 1617. doth not derogate to the Act of Parliament K. Ja. 5. 3. As to
that pretence That the possession of the principal Lands is the possession of the Warrandice fictione Juris It was Answered That there is no such fictio warranted by any Law and so it is Fictio but not Juris 2do It is a Fictio contra Jus cui Jus resistit in respect the Heretor by the publick Infeftment of property being in possession no other person can be said to be in possession seing there cannot be two Domini in solidum nor two Possessores by distinct Rights having no subordination or dependance one upon another as Liferenter and Fiar Superior and Vassal Master and Tennent or such like 4. It is clear that the possession of the principal Lands cannot be thought the possession of the Warrandice Seing if after Fourty Years the principal Lands should be evicted and a pursuit for Warrandice and recourse should be in ented upon the Right of Warrandice though Prescription cannot be obtruded yet if there be any defect in the Infeftment of Warrandice as v. g. The Disposition is subscribed by one Notar or such like The same may be alledged Whereas if that Infeftment were cled with Fourty Years Possession the Right would be prescribed and could not be questioned upon any Ground whatsoever but Falsehood In this Process It was Questioned whether the Heretor who had the publick Infeftment having been in Possession above Seven Years should have the benefite of a possessory Judgement until a Declarator and a Decreet in petitorio Some of the Lords thought that in the case of Warrandice the Heretor should not have the benefite of a Possessory Judgement against the Pursuer upon an Infeftment of Warrandice quia non valebat agere But the question was not decided D. 16. Cranston contra Wilkison 14 July 1666. BEtwixt Cranston and Wilkison It was Found Newbyth Reporter That a Person being conveened as representing his Father who was alledged to be vitious Intrometter to the Pursuers Debitor the Title being passive and penal could not be a Ground of Action against the Defender to make him Lyable to the whole Debt But only in so far as should be proven the Defunct did Intromet and was Locupletior quia actio poenalis non transit inhaeredem And the Defunct if he had been pursued in his own Life might have purged the said Title D. 17. Burnet contra Johnston 17. July 1666. JOhnston of Frosterhil having Disponed his Lands with absolute Warrandice in favours of Gordon of Birsemoir Reserving his own and his Wifes Liferent and thereafter having Disponed the same Lands in favours of Mr. William Johnston who did obtain the first Infeftment And being charged at the instance of Alexander Burnet having Rght by Assignation to the Disposition in favours of Birsemoir The Letters were found orderly proceeded notwithstanding the Suspender alledged the Charger had no interest dureing the Suspenders Life Seing he never did nor could possess by reason of the Reservation foresaid And the Lords found a difference when Warrandice is craved upon a deed of the Party obliged and upon any other ground And that as to his deed he may be charged to purge it without necessity to alledge a Distress D. 18. Wedderburn contra Scrimzeour 18. July 1666. A Father having left a Legacy thinking his Wife was with Child in these terms That if his Wife should have a Male Child the Legatar should have the Sum of 4000 Merks And that if she should have a Daughter the Legatar should have the Sum of 5000 Merks The Lords Found That though she had no Child the Legacy should be effectual ex praesumpta voluntate Testatoris seing it cannot be thought but that he rather intended a Legacy for him if he had no Child Than in the case she should bring forth a Child Et in conditionibus primum locum obtinet voluntas Defuncti eaque regit conditiones L. 19. ff de conditionibus Newbyth Reporter D. 19. Steill contra Hay Eeod die A Tennent being Ejected Ejection was sustained at the Masters instance though the Tennent did not concur But it was not sustained quoad omnes effectus viz. As to violent profits Juramentum in litem but only that the Master should be in the same condition he was before the Ejection and should have the same manner of possession as if the Land were not void and to uplift the duties and to put in and remove Tennents And for the Bygone ordinary Duties in the same Process it was Found that the pursuer though he was not Infeft but only Appearand Heir to the Pursuer who was Infeft might pursue the said Action to recover his Possession having been in possession before D. 20. Hedderwick contra Wauch Eod. die THE Commissioners for the Borders upon the Verdict of the Inquest that the Pannel was guilty of Receipt of Theft having ordained the Pannel to pay 100 lib. Sterl within a short time and if he should faill to be sent to Barbadoes and loss his Escheat The Lords Found That by that Verdict there did arise to his Majesty the Casuality of his Escheat Whereof there being Jus quaesitum The King and his Donator could not be prejudged by a Doom which is contrary to Law And that in such cases of Capital Crimes the Law having determined the pain and especially the loss of the Escheat no Judge even the Justice General could moderate or lessen the samen D. 21. Bisset contra Broun 19 July 1666. IT was Found nemine contradicente That a Stranger residing in Holland animo morandi or elsewhere Though by the Law of the place his nearest of Kin without confirmation has Right to all Goods or Debts belonging to him Yet if the Debt or Goods be due by Scots-men or be in Scotland they cannot pursue for the same unless the Right thereof be setled upon them according to the Law of Scotland by confirmation if they be Moveables Or by a Service if they be Heretable Hay Clerk D. 22. Thomson contra McKitrick Eod. die FOund that a Comprysing may be deduced upon an Heretable Bond whereupon Infeftment had followed the same being payable without requisition albeit a Charge of Horning do not preceed seing there may be poinding upon such a Bond And there is Eadem Ratio as to Comprysings and the Denounciation is a sufficient Intimation that the Compryser intendeth to have his Money Hay Clerk In the same Cause The Lords having sustained a Seasin of burgage Lands whereto the Sheriff-clerk was Notar there being no Town Clerk for the time by reason in the time of the English Usurpation The Magistrates and Clerk refused the Tender The Lords Found That the said Seasin being within Burgh though not under the hand of the Clerk was not null upon that Ground that it was not Registrate Because though the reason of the Act of Parliament for Registration of Seasins and the exception of Seasins within Burgh be that Seasins within Burgh are in use to be Registrate by the Clerks in the Towns Books
Disposition upon the Certification seing the Write was produced and not suspected nor questioned to be false and the Defender did excuse and purge her negligence as said is and the Disposition being in her favours who was sub potestate Mariti and should be defended by him having her self in Law neither velle nor nolle his negligence should not undo her And therefore the Lords having considered also the Difficulties in the Debate upon the Reason they reduced the Disposition in manner aftermentioned by reserving to the Defender to pursue for the said pretended Debts and declared that if she recovered Decreet the Pursuer always being called that there be no collusion the Defender shall come in pari passu with the Pursuer and that the Disposition shall stand to that effect only Both the Parties acquiesced to the Decision D. 81. Cheap contra Philp. eod die MR. Cheap pursued a Reduction of a Disposition made by _____ Philp in favours of Mr. John Philp upon these Reasons That it was subscribed by two Notars and their Subscriptions did not bear de Mandato and because one of the Notars was known to be of so great Age that he had not been for a long time employed as a Notar and that he had only subscribed his Name The rest of the Solemn Words used by Notars when they subscribe in subsidium being writen by the other Notar Therefore another Notar had been also used besides the two Notars And that no respect ought to be given to his Subscription by reason it was ex Intervallo and not uno contextu 2. That the Disposition was in lecto The Lords When the case was reported debated upon the first Reason and in special upon these Points 1. Whether in Subscriptions in subsidium by Notars it be essential it should be exprest That they subscribed ex mandato and if that solemnity may be supplied by offering to prove that the Notars were Rogati It was urged that Minuts and Abbreviations of Seasins might be extended and transumed though none of the ordinary Solemnities be exprest and therefore such Defects and Omissions may be supplyed It was Answered That in Abbreviations Omnia praesumuntur solenniter acta But when an Instrument is compleat or any other Write if it want the Ordinary Solemnities they cannot be supplyed solennitas non praesumitur And being only probable by the Write it self it cannot be made up by Witnesses 2. It was debated Whether a Father or Grand-father could be Notar in a Write or Right in favors of the Son or Grand-child The Lords did demurr upon these Points and thought fit that before Answer as to these the Reason founded on Lecto should be discussed D. 82. Watt contra Halyburton eod die JAmes Halyburton being infeft upon a Comprysing in some Acres in Dirleton did grant a Disposition of the same to Adam Watt whereby he was obliged to infeft him by two Infeftments whereupon the said Adam Watt his Son having Right by Assignation from his Father pursued William Halyburton as Heir to the Disponer for implement and obtaining himself infeft and thereafter to infeft the Pursuer It was Answered That the Disposition was in the hands of Adam Watt by the space of twenty years and that he had made no use thereof and that the Defenders Father had done all that he could for denuding himself of the said Right the said Disposition bearing a procuratory of Resignation and that the Lands holding Ward if the Defender should enter his Ward and Marriage would fall so that unless the Pursuer would warrand him as to that hazard he cannot be obliged to infeft himself The Lords decerned reserving Action to the Defender for Damnage and Interest as accords D. 83. Key contra Fleming 15. June 1667. GEorge Fleming having an Infeftment of Annualrent out of the Lands of Cambo and thereafter having comprysed for his Principal Sum It was Found in a double Poinding and Competition betwixt the said George and Gilbert Key another Creditor of Cambo that the said Gilbert should be preferred in respect of the said Gilbert his Infeftment in an Annualrent That Decreet being suspended Fleming craved to be preferred in respect his Right of Annualrent was before Key 's Right It was Answered That this Infeftment was extinct and taken away by the Comprysing and that he could not now have recourse to it after a Decreet of Preference in foro contradictorio It was Replyed That Decreets of double poinding preclude as to bygones but as to the future all are qualified for any thing that was then seen The Lords were clear that notwithstanding of the Comprysing he might have recourse to his former Right But the great Question was Whether Decreets of Poinding the Ground against a Party compearing did include him so that he could not be heard against Competent and Omitted which the Lords did not decide but recommended to the Reporter to settle the Parties Gibson Clerk D. 84. Home contra the Countess of Murray 18. June 1667. JAmes Home of Beaprie having Assigned to the Countess of Murray the Gift of Escheat of Sir John Kininmouth and certain Debts due by the said Sir John The Lady by her Bond granted that she had got the said Right and obliged her self either to make payment to the said James of the foresaid Sums or to Repone him to his own place The Lady being pursued upon the said Bond alledged that it was null being granted by her during her Marriage without her Husbands consent It was Answered that the desire of the Summonds was alternative either to pay or Repone the Pursuer Et deceptis non decipientibus succuritur The Lords having debated amongst themselves upon the reason of the Law annulling Deeds stante Matrimonio done by Wives and some argued that Women Married are not in the condition of Pupils who have not judicium nor Minors who have not Judicium firmum and that they are Lyable Ex delicto vel quasi and ex dolo The Lords before Answer to the Debate whether her Assertion in the Bond viz. That she had received the Writs mentioned in the same should be Obligatory at least so far as to Repone the Pursuer They Ordained her to be Examined anent the cause of granting the Bond. Gibson Clerk D. 85. Johnstoun contra Cuninghame 19. June 1667. A Bond being granted to a Husband and his Wife and the Heirs of the Marriage which failÈiening their Heirs was Found to pertain to the Husband after the Death of the Wife in solidum And that these words their Heirs ought to be understood Civiliter of the Heirs of the Husband as being persona dignior D. 86. Watson of Dunnykier contra his Vassals 21. June 1667 THE said Watson having Feued certain Crofts with a servitude in his Muir of Path-head to Winn Divots and Clay for Building and Repairing the Houses Built and to be Built by the Vassals pursued Declarator that it should be lawful to him to improve the Muir
Alexander Binnie and to do no deed in prejudice of his Succession She did thereafter Marry and Dispone to her Husband the said Tenements In a pursuit at the instance of her Brother against her and her Husband for his Interest upon the said Bond and for implement thereof The Lords Found that she with consent of her Husband ought to Resign Some of the Lords thought that the import of such obligments is only that the Granter should not alter such TailÈies in favours of other Heirs And that they are not restrained to sell or Dispone for onerous Causes if they should have occasion otherwise they should cease to be Fiars The very Essence of Fee and Propertie consisting in a liberty to Dispone It may be questioned how far the Husband may be lyable to his Wifes obligments before the Marriage For there being a Communion betwixt them only as to mobilia it may appear that he should only be lyable to Movable and Personal Debts Seing penes quem Emolumentum penes eundem Onus but this point was not Debated D. 137. Straquhan contra Morison Eod. die A pursuit for SpuilÈie being restricted to wrongous Intromission It was Alledged that the Defenders are only lyable for their intromission respective in so far as it should be proven that each of them had intromitted at least pro virili and conjunctly It was Replyed that the Defenders being conveened Ex delicto they are lyable in solidum as Correi being all accessorie to the wrong And the pursuit as it is Restricted is not for Intromission simply but wrongous Intromission And though the Pursuer by restricting the Pursuit as said is has precluded himself as to violent profits and juramentum in litem and other consequences of spuilÈie he has not prejudged himself as to that benefit that all who are accessory to the wrong should be lyable in solidum which the Law has introduced upon just ground seing it is impossible in such cases where diverse Persons do intromett to distinguish and prove their intromissions The Lords Found the Defenders lyable Conjunctly Wedderburn Sinclair Straquhan Alteri Lockhart Thoirs D. 138. Pollock contra Pollock Eod. die THe Lords having considered the Renunciation mentioned above 20 of Novem. 1667 Found that it being in favours of the second Marriage and in Effect an Assignation could not accresce to the Granter D. 139. Birnie contra _____ Eod. die MR Andrew Birnie having granted a Bond blank in the Creditors name to his Good-brother Short the Creditors name being thereafter filled up Mr Andrew Birnie suspended upon double poynding against him and another Creditor of Shorts who had thereafter arrested The Lords preferred the Person whose name was filled up In respect he had shown Mr. Andrew the Bond before the arrestment and desired him to satisfie the same though he had not made intimation by way of Instrument This Decision seemeth to justle with that of the 9. November 1665. Jamison contra Tealzifer D. 140. _____ and the Laird of Innes her Husband _____ contra _____ 21. Jan. 1668 THE Laird of Rosyth having provided his Daughter of the first Marriage with the Laird of Innes to 10000. Pounds at her age of Twentie years and there being no obligement for Annualrent The Lords in a Process at her instance for her aliment modified 600. Merks yearly Some were of opinion that the said sum being payable at the foresaid Term the Annualrent of the same should not have been modified for the time thereafter and that she should be in no worse case than if it had been payed D. 141. Shaw contra _____ Eod. die THE Lords Found That a Wife being provided in Lecto by her Husband her provision should be restricted and Sustained as to a Terce she being no otherwise provided before D. 142. Home contra Tailzifer Eod. die AN Exception of Improbation being proponed against a Writ and thereafter Tailzifer of Harycleugh being desired to abide at it he declared that he had gotten it as a true Evident and condescended upon the way he had gotten it and it being alledged that he ought to be positive Whether he would abide at it or not The Lords declared That after probation they would consider how far his using and abiding at the said Write should import against him and if he be in bona fide to use the same D. 143. Dowglas contra Lady Wamphray 22. Janu. 1668. THE Lady Wamphray being provided in an Annualrent out of Lands without respect to a Sors or Stock and being infeft It was Found that she ought to be lyable to Taxations and publick burdens being onera patrimonialia though the said Annualrent was payable to her alswel infeft as not infeft D. 144. Justice contra Stirling 23. Janu. 1668. IN the Case Justice and his Tutors contra Stirling and Cockburne her Husband a Bond being granted to a Husband and his Wife the longest liver and the Heirs betwixt them which FailÈieng to the Heirs of the longest liver And the wife having survived there being only one Child of the Marriage The Lords Found that the Fee of the said Bond belonged to the Husband as dignior persona And that the Child had Right thereto as Heir to him and that the Heirs of the Wife could have no Right after the Childs decease as Heirs of provision to the Child And that the Wife had not the Right of Fee which she pretended to be in suspence until it should be determined by the death of either who should be the last liver D. 145. The Town of Glasglow contra _____ Eod. die THE Town of Glasgow having a Right from the Bishop to the parsonage Teynds pursued a SpuilÈie It was Alledged for some of the Defenders that they possessed by Subtacks from Blantyre Tacksman It was Answered that Certification was granted against the principal Tack and that the Subtacks were void in consequence It was Replyed that the Defenders were not called to the Improbation and that they being in possession the Collusion or negligence of their Author cannot prejudge them The Lords upon a debate amongst themselves Thought that Sub-vassalls being in possession ought to be called in an Improbation against the Vassal their Author because they could not be miskenned being Heretable possessors But as to the Tennants bruiking Lands by tacks or Heretors bruiking by Subtacks their own Teynds They thought that it could not so well be known that they had Right and so were not parties necessary to be called And therefore before Answer they ordained to condescend upon the manner and quality of their possession and whether it was such as the Bishop could not but know Sinclair Lockhart alter Cuninghame D. 146. Simpson contra Adamson 24. January 1668. UPon Report it was Debated among the Lords whether a Decreet of poinding the Ground should interrupt prescription of an Annualrent right being only against the Tennants the Heretor not called Some were of the opinion that the Decreet being null nullum sortitur
effectum Others thought that Prescriptions being odious talis qualis and any Act of Interruption was sufficient And as Prescription may be interrupted by any Deed of Molestation of Tennants being a natural Interruption so it may be interrupted civilly by a pursuit against the Tennents The Lords did not decide the Question but thought fit to advise further D. 147. Town of Dundee contra E. of Finlater eod die THE Town of Dundee being pursued in subsidium for payment of a Debt due by a Rebel whom they had suffered to escape out of Prison after Decreet satisfied the Creditor and took Assignation to the Debt and Bond whereupon they pursued the Earl of Finlater one of the Cautioners It was Alledged That the Town ex delicto had come in the place of the principal Debitor and payment made by them did liberate the Cautioners as if payment had been made by the Principal It was Replyed That the Town was only Lyable to the Creditor who might pass from his Decreet against the Town and as he might have Assigned the Debt to any other person The Town as quilibet might have a Right from him The Lords Found That the Town is not in the case of Cautioners or Expromissores ex pacto but of Correi being lyable in Law ex delicto for and in place of the Principal Vide 9. July 1667. D. 148. _____ contra _____ 25. January 1668. THE Lords upon debate amongst themselves in the case concerning Viccarage Thought that Yards for which Viccarage was in use to be payed being turned into Infield Land and Laboured The Vicar has no Right to the Teinds of Corns growing thereupon but the same belongs to the Parson But they did not decide this point being only debated incidenter D. 149. Keith contra Grahame eod die IN the case of Keith of Craigie contra Grahame of Creichie The Lords upon probation in mutual Declarators anent a Moss Found That the Barony of Craigie having pertained to Straiton of Lauristoun and thereafter a part of the same being Disponed to Keith and his predecessors and another part to the Authors and Predecessors of Grahame of Creichie extending the saids Two Parts to the whole Barony That both the saids Parties had Interest and Right to the Moss in Question as to Community and Pasture and casting Peats and Turff But as to the property of the Moss they Thought that it should belong to that parcel which was last disponed by the Common Author seing he disponed the other part only cum moris maresus in the Tenendas and Executive Clause no mention of the Moss being in the dispositive part So that the property of the Moss remained with himself annexed to the other parcel D. 150. Lady Traquair contra E. of Winton 1 Feb. 1668. THE Earl of Winton having Right by Assignation to a Bond granted by the Lord Sempil did grant a Translation in favours of the Lady Traquair and the Lady Jean another of his Daughters bearing warrandice from his own Deed and thereafter uplifted the Debt The said Ladies pursued the Earl of Winton as representing his Grandfather for payment of the Sum because the Earl his Grandfather had uplifted it The Defender alledged that the Translation being a Donation of the Fathers in favours of his Children whereof he was Master was revocable and that he had revocked the same in so far as he had uplifted the said Sum It was Answered That the said Translation was out of his hands having delivered the same to the Pursuers Mother for their use and that he was obliged to warrand the same The Lords thought that the Translation being in the Lady Winton's hands being in Law Eadem persona with the Earl it was equivalent as if it had been in his own hands and that he might destroy or revock the same But the Parties being of quality and of near Relation they did not decide this case but recommended to some of their number to endeavour an accommodation D. 151. _____ contra Scot and Muirhead her Husband eod die MR. Hary Scot's Daughter and her Husband Mr. John Muirhead for his Interest being pursued as representing the said Mr. Hary for a Debt due by him The pursuer insisted on the Title of behaving as Heir by Intromission with his Moveable Heirship It was Alledged That he could not have an Heirship being neither Prelate Baron nor Burgess It was Answered That he had acquired the Land condescended upon to himself in Liferent and to his Daughter in Fee which was equivalent as if she had succeeded to him in the said Lands The Lords Assoilied from that Title In respect he had no Right in his Person in which she could have succeeded Some were of the opinion That if the Right had born the ordinary Clauses and a Power to dispone and Wadset notwitstanding the Fee in the person of the Daughter that in Law he ought to be considered and looked upon as a Baron being in effect and upon the matter a Fiar Hay Clerk D. 152. Paplay contra The Magistrates of Edinburgh eod die JOhn Paplay pursued The Magistrates of Edinburgh for payment of a Sum of Money Because his Debitor Hendry Henderson had escaped out of their prison It was Alledged After six years silence such a pursuit could not be sustained against the Town and that these who were Magistrates for the time ought to be pursued and discussed in the first place The Lords sustained the Process and Found that the Incorporation being persona quae non moritur The present Magistrates may be pursued for payment of the Debt out of the Patrimony of the Town without citeing these Magistrates for the time when the Debitor escaped Reserving Action against the Delinquent who suffered the Rebel to escape D. 153. Parkman contra Allan 4. Feb. 1668. THE Lords Found that in the case mentioned 15. January 1668. until the Ship should return to Sweden it should be esteemed a Voyage quoad the Effect and point in question D. 154. Ker contra Ker. 5. February 1668. RObert Ker of Graden having Infeft his second Son Robert Ker in an Annualrent out of his Lands of Graden and others upon a Contract betwixt them whereby Graden for the Sum of 6000 Merks addebted by him to his Son viz. 3000 Merks of borrowed Money and 3000 Merks for his Portion accumulatory and extending together as said is was obliged to Infeft the said Robert in 360 Merks as the Annualrent of the said Sum of 6000 Merks beginning the first Terms payment of the half of the said Annualrent being for borrowed Money at the first Term after the Contract And of the other half being for his Patrimony after his Fathers decease The said Robert the Son pursued a poinding of the Ground for bygones and in Time coming the Terms of payment being past Henry Ker the Pursuers Eldest Brother compeared and alledged his Ground could not be poinded and that he was Infeft therein by a publick Infeftment at least that his
Infeftment was publick by possession and that the Pursuers Infeftment is base It was Replyed 1. That the said Hary his Infeftment of the Lands was posterior to the Pursuers Infeftment and granted not only by a Father to a Son a conjunct person who by the foresaid Right praecepit haereditatem and though he cannot be pursued upon the passive Title of Titulus Lucrativus dureing his Fathers Lifetime yet his Mouth is stoped so that he cannot question any Deed of his Father preceeding his Right and that he is in the same case as if his Infeftment had been given with the burden of prior Rights It was further urged by the Pursuer That the Defender condescending upon his Entry and Initium possessionis he offered to prove that his Right was cled with possession before that time It was Duplyed That his Infeftment could not be cled with possession but as to the Annualrent of the 3000 Merks of borrowed Money so that it is base as to the other 3000 Merks of his portion It was Triplyed that the Infeftment was of an entire Annualrent of 360 Merks as appears by the Contract and Seasin And that the Right being of an Annualrent though payment of the half of the same be Suspended the Right being a joint and indivisible Right could not be ex parte private and ex parte publick The Lords Found That the Infeftment of Annualrent if it should be proven to be cloathed with possession as to the half is publick in solidum and admitted the Reply of possession But as to the second Reply viz. That the Defender was haeres per praeceptionem and could not question any prior Right granted by his Father The Lords Found it of difficulty and consequence and reserved the Debate and Decision until the end of the Process Hamilton Clerk Mr. Thomas Lermont alter Sinclair D. 155. Mr. George Johnston contra Sir Charles Erskine February 6. 1668. THE Lands of Knockhil being a part of the Lands of Hodam did belong to Richard Irvine and were comprysed from Robert Irvin Great Grand-child to the said Richard as charged to enter Heir to the said Richard at the instance of Mr. John Alexander Minister at Hodam But no Infeftment nor Diligence against the Superior having followed upon the said Comprysing dureing the said Robert his Life The Lord Lyon Sir Charles Erskine comprysed from Mr. James Alexander Son to the said Mr. John the Right of his Comprysing and obtained Infeftment upon the said Comprysing in August 1666. The said Robert's Two Sisters and his Sisters Children obtained themselves Infeft as Heirs to the said Richard their Grandsire and Fore-grandsire in June 1666. And upon a Right from them and their Resignation Mr. John Johnston being Infeft in October 1666. pursued for Maills and Dueties The Lord Lyon compeared and alledged that he and the Tennents ought to be AssoilÈied in this possessory Judgement Because he and his Authors had been in possession by vertue of the Comprysing at the instance of Mr. John Alexander by the space of seven years whereupon Infeftment has followed It was Answered That the Alledgance is not Relevant unless he had said that he was in possession seven years by vertue of a real Right which cannot be said the Infeftment being late and of the date foresaid It was further Alledged by the Lord Lyon that he ought to be preferred because he was Infeft upon the said Comprysing at Mr. John Alexander's instance against the said Robert as charged to enter Heir to the said Richard and his Infeftment was anterior to the said Mr. George's Infeftment upon the Resignation foresaid of the said Robert's Sister and Nephews retoured and Infeft as Heirs to the said Richard It was Replyed That no Infeftment or Diligence having followed upon the said Comprysing against Robert in his Lifetime his Sisters and Nephews might have served themselves Heirs to the said Richard who was last Infeft and de facto was Infeft as Heir to the said Richard before any Infeftment upon Alexander's Comprysing so that his Authors Infeftment being prior to the Lord Lyon's Infeftment the Pursuer ought to be preferred and as Robert if he had been served special Heir to his Grandsire if he had not been infeft the next Heir might have been Infeft as Heir to Richard and an Infeftment upon a Right from them would have been preferable to a Comprysing against Robert so in this case Mr. George ought to be preferred the special charge against Robert being only equivalent to a special Service and no Infeftment having followed in the person of the said Robert or the Compryser It was Duplyed That by the Act of Parliament Ja. 5. Ch. 106. Par. 7. It is declared that Execution against the Appearand Heir being charged to enter Heir should be equivalent as if he were entered which is the Certification in the special Charge and upon a Comprysing if Robert had been Infeft Infeftment being taken quocunque tempore even after his decease before any other person had been Infeft upon a Comprysing or Right from a next Heir The Comprysing against Robert would have been preferable The Lords Found That the benefite of a possessory Judgement is only competent by vertue of a real Right and that a Compryser cannot claim the same without an Infeftment or Charge against the Superior and repelled the first Alledgance The Lords Found The second Alledgance Relevant and preferred the Comprysing in respect of the Infeftment thereupon before the Infeftment upon the Right from the Heirs of the said Richard D. 156. Halyburtoun contra Scott 17. Decemb. 1671 A Provision granted by a Father to a Daughter for love and favour being quarrelled by a Creditor upon the Act of Parliament 1621. It was Answered that the Father the time of the granting of the said Right had an opulent Estate beside out of which the Creditor might have been satisfied and the Lords before Answer having ordained that a tryal should be taken of the Defuncts Estate and Witnesses being adduced to that purpose It was Found that the Defence was not proven It appears that the Defence was not relevant and that a Creditor is not holden to Debate whether his Debitor had a competent Estate to satisfie his Debt aliunde and that Debitors can grant noe Right without an onerous cause until the Debt be satisfied Haystoun Clerk D. 157. Paton contra Stirling of Ardoch 20. Dec. 1671. SIR Henrie Stirling of Ardoch did grant a Back-bond in savours of _____ Paton his Sisters Son whereby he obliged himself that being satisfied of the Debts due to him he should denude himself of the Right of the Lands of Panholls which pertained to the said Patons Father Whereupon a pursuite being intented against Ardoch's Sone as Heir and Executor to his Father It was Alledged that the Bond was granted in Lecto and could not prejudge the Heir and that he had a Reduction depending upon that reason And as Executor he could not be lyable the Bond being anent
for the Lady Lockhart and Lermonth D. 162. Lord Hattoun contra Paterson 22. Feb. 1672. THE Lords of Exchequer having given the Escheat of the Laird of Craigie Carnagie to Andrew Paterson and the Gift being assigned to the Laird of Aytoun by the said Andrew a decreet was thereupon obtained against the Representatives of the Earl of Dundie for his intromission with the Goods belonging to the Rebel whereupon Adjudication or Comprysing followed of the said Earls Estate in Argyle which was Disponed by the said Laird of Aytoun to the Earl of Argyle Thereafter my Lord Hattoun Thesaurer-depute having gotten a second Gift pursued the the said Andrew Paterson before the Exchequer upon that ground That by Acts of Exchequer it was ordained that no Gifts of Escheat should pass without Back-bonds and the Clerks are Discharged to give out the same otherwayes and nevertheless viis modis the said Andrew had surreptitiously gotten out the said Gift and ought to give a Bond that being satisfied of what he can pretend to be due to him by the Rebel and of the Expences in passing the Gift he should denude himself in favours of the second Donator And that it should be declared that the said Gift should be affected with the said Bond as if it had been given ab initio And accordingly the Exchequer did decern and declared Whereupon the Thesaurer deput pursued a Reduction of the said Apprysing against Aytoun and the Earl of Argyl upon that reason viz. That the said Gift which is the ground thereof is restricted and qualified and that the said Andrew Paterson is fully satisfied of what is due to him It was Alledged for the Defenders that the Gift was pure and simple without any Back-bond and therefor the Assigney finding it was such and there being no Back-bond upon record was in bona fide to take a Right to the same And the said Decreet of Exchequer being supervenient and res inter alios acta could not be obtruded against a singular Successor but the Pursuer may have action against the Cedent The Lords Repelled the Alledgnce and Found that the Decreet and Back-bond do qualifie the Gift both as to the Donator and to his Assigney The said Decision appears very hard upon the grounds abovementioned and because Back-bonds are only personal obligements upon the Granters and do not qualifie Rights being extra Corpus Juris And his Majestie in granting Gifts of Escheat single or Liferent is in no other case than other Superiors as Lords of Regality having Right to single Escheats whose Gifts cannot be qualified in prejudice of a singular Successor but by provisions contained in the Body of the Right and the import of Back-bonds is only that the Granters being satisfied should be comptable for the superplus but there is not thereby any tye upon them not to dispose upon the same being comptable for the pryce or value of that which they dispone Colingtoun Reporter Having heard the cause at the side Barr. D. 163. Blair contra Blair 23. Feb. 1672. WItnesses being examined before Answer ex Officio It was desired that seing ex facto oritur Jus and the Lords being unclear to decide in Jure before the point of fact were cleared by probation and the point of Law and ground of their Decision is to arise out of the probation and therefore they may see and debate upon the same which was refused seing publicatio Testimoniorum by our Law is allowed in no case but in Improbations ex quaestione falsi MckenÈie alteri Lockhart c. D. 164. Neilson contra Elizabeth Arthur Eod. die ELizabeth Arthur being charged upon a Bond granted by her self suspended upon that reason that she was cled with a Husband the time of the granting thereof It was Answered she had a peculium and Estate setled upon her by her Father in these Terms that her Husband should have no interest therein but that it should be manadged by advice of the Freinds named by him for the behoofe of her and her Children And that the Sum charged for was borrowed and employed for her use The Lords Found the Letters orderly proceeded D. 165. Lady Lugton contra Hepburn and Creichton 13. June 1672. A Decreet being recovered before the Commissars of Edinburgh at the instance of the Lady Lugtoun against her Grandchild _____ Hepburne Daughter to the deceast Laird of Aderstoun Modifying 400. Merks Yearly for Aliment of the said _____ Hepburne by the space of 13. Years since her Birth The Lords in a Reduction and Suspension of the said Decreet modified the Sum thereincontained being 3500 Merks to the Tenth part of the Sum of 30000 Merks which was mentioned in the said Decreet and considered by the Commissars as the Estate belonging to the said Hepburne So that in respect and upon supposition of the same they modified the said Aliment And by reason the said Estate was intricate and litigious and possibly could not be recovered The Lords ordained the Pursuer to Assign the Tenth part of the said Estate not exceeding 3000 Merks which was done upon that consideration that the Aliment was modified in respect of the said interest And if ex eventu it should be Found that it could not be recovered and that she had no Estate it were unjust that she should be Lyable personally her Grand-mother being obliged at least presumed to entertain her ex pietate materna if she had no Estate of her own Monro Clerk D. 166. Grott contra Sutherland 14. June 1672. TWo Owners of a Ship being obliged by a Contract to Transport Goods to a certain part The Lords sustained Action against one of them in solidum for implement of the Obligements in the Contract being facti which is indivisible and they being socii exercitores so that the Fraught might have been payed to one of them and eadem ratione any one of them is Lyable and may be pursued in solidum Gibson Clerk D. 167. _____ contra _____ eod die THE Lords Found That a Declarator of Right which ought to be upon 21 Dayes being priviledged by a Bill which is periculo petentis should not be sustained being execute upon a shorter time And Ordained that the Writers to the Signet should nor insert in Bills and Summonds a priviledge dispenceing with the Law and the solennes induciae thereby introduced in favours of Defenders under the paine of 100 Merks for the first fault and deprivation for the second except in cases which by the Law are priviledged and named The President Advocate and others of their number to meet and consider what these should be D. 168. Henderson contra Henderson 20. June 1672. A Bond being produced to satisfy the production in an Improbation The Lords without further probation did Improve and Decern quoad the Defender in respect he refused to abide by the Truth of the same Gibson Clerk D. 169. Gray of Haystoun contra Forbes and Lindsay eod die WIlliam Gray of Haystoun having granted
Bond to Lindsay and the said Lindsay having Assigned the same to his Daughter The said William Gray Suspended upon a double poinding against the said Assigney and a Creditor who had arrested It was Alledged for the Creditor that the Assignation was made by a Father to a Daughter to defraud Creditors It was Answered That the Father by Contract of Marriage was obliged in case there should be no Heirs Male betwixt him and the Assigneys Mother to pay to the Heir or Bairn Female at her age of 14. years 4000. Merks and until then to entertain her And that the Assigney being the sole Bairn of the Marriage her Father had given the Assignation foresaid for implement of the said obligement The Lords hav ng considered that the provision by the Contract of Marriage in favours of the Daughters is only in case there should be no Heirs Male of the Marriage and that the Father should have other Heirs Male of his Body so that the Daughter should not succeed to the Estate and that both the Father and Mother are yet living and of that age that it was not to be expected that the Father would have other Heirs Male of his Body by an other Marriage and his Daughter was his Appearand Heir whatsomever Therefore they Found that the case of the provision in favours of the Heirs Female did not exist and preferred the Creditor Lock-heart and Bannerman for Lindsay Bernie c. for Forbes Gibson Cl. D. 170. Fergusson contra _____ 21. June 1672. THE Lords Found That a Partie being within the Countrie the time of the citation upon the first Summonds and some time thereafter and goeing out of the Countrie before the second Summonds could not be cited at the Pear and Shoar of Leith upon the second Summonds without a warrand in the said Summonds to that effect D. 171. The Laird of Hermiestoun contra Cockburn Eod. die THE Lords Found That in the case and in all time coming where Witnesses are adduced before Answer they will only allow one Term so that upon any Diligence they will admit no Witnesses but those who are cited by the first Diligence Mr. Thomas Hay Clerk D. 172. Ramsay contra Carstairs eod die A Father in his Contract of Marriage being obliged to provide the Heir Female of the Marriage and to pay to her 20000 lib. at her age of 15 years and until then to entertain her there being only one Child and Daughter of the Marriage she and her Husband pursued the Father and his Curators he being furious to pay the said Sum. It was Answered That the said Provision being only payable to the Heir Female the Pursuer neither had nor could pursue upon that Quality and Interest dureing the Father's Life specially seing both he and his Wife the Pursuers Mother were living and of that age that they may have Heirs Male of the Marriage or other Daughters And if they should have Male Children the Case and Condition of the Provision would deficere and not exist and if they should have moe Daughters the Pursuer could not have Right to the whole Sum acclaimed It was Replyed That the Father was in effect civiliter mortuus and the Pursuers would find Caution to refound in either of the said Cases The Lords Found the Defence relevant and that such Provisions being settled upon Heirs Female by reason and in case of exclusion of the Heirs Female of the Marriage when Lands are entailed to Heirs Male and there are no Heirs Male of the Marriage The Term of Payment could not be understood to be during the Marriage Strathurd Reporter Gibson Clerk D. 173. William Sandilands contra The Earle of Hadington Eod. die THomas the first Earl of Hadington having Disponed certain Lands with absolute warrandice in anno 1610 The now Earl of Hadington was pursued as representing his Great Grand-father to warrand the said Lands from Astriction to the Miln whereunto they were astricted before the Earl of Hadington Disponed the same It was Alledged That the Warrandice doth not extend to the case of Servitudes such as Common Pasturage Thirlage and such like which are not latent and may and are presumed to be known by Purchassers who ought and do ordinarly enquire and inform themselves concerning the condition and burdens of the Lands they intend to purchase specially in the case in question the multure being not exorbitant It was Replyed That in Law where praedia either rustica or urbana ut optima maxima are Disponed they are Disponed as Libera And that the Lands in question are so Disponed it is evident in respect the Warrandice is absolute and they are Disponed cum molendinis multuris It was Duplyed That the Romans were in use to Dispone either simply or cum ista adjectione praedia ut optima maxima the import whereof was servitutem non deberi But where Lands are Disponed simply it is construed and presumed in Law that they are Disponed talia and such as they are And with such accessories either as to burden or advantage as tacite veniunt albeit these be not exprest as Servitudes either Active or Passive and as to the Warrandice it is of the ordinary Stile without mention of Servitudes and it appears from the stile and conception of the ordinary clause of Warrandice and the speciality thereinmentioned viz. Wards Non-entries Inhibitions Apprysings c. That such Incumberances are only intended whereby the Right or Possession of Lands or the Mails and Duties or any part of them are evicted Whereas in the case of Astriction the Heretor doth enjoy his Lands and Duties of the same entire and seing his Corns must be grinded it is not a material prejudice that they should be grinded rather at one Miln than an other and it appears by the Disposition that it was not actum and treated that the said Lands should be Disponed ut optima maxima the Warrandice being in the ordinary terms without mention of Servitudes And the Clause cum molendinis is only in the Charter and Tenendas and is ex stilo and imports only freedom of Thirlage as to the Disponer The Lords upon the foresaid Debate And that the said Miln was a Miln of the Barony of Torphichen whereof the Lands astricted are a part and that the same were astricted before the Earl of Hadington acquired the same they Found the Defence Relevant and AssoilÈied D. 174. Creditors of Tarsappie contra Kilfanes 23. July 1673. THE Lords upon Debate among themselves were of the opinion that a confident person having got a Disposition from a Debitor may at the Debitors desire satisfy such Creditors as he thought fit there being no Diligence done by other Creditors And as the Debitor might have done so himself so the Trustee may do And that it is provided so by the Act of Parliament 1621. They Found that the Trustee if he got any Ease by composition should apply the benefite thereof for satisfaction of the other Creditors Item That
Superiority and the Libel being only founded upon the Pursuers Right as Superior the Defender was in bona fide and could not enter nor be lyable for the full avail until the Question was cleared by production of the said Assignation and therefore could not be lyable until the same was produced The Lords As to the first Reason Found That after the intention of the Declarator of Non-entry at the Instance of the Party having Right the Defenders are lyable in the full avail and that the real conclusion of poinding the Ground for the same may be sustained seing the Ground may be poinded for a Rent liquidate as it was in this Case and when Lands are not retoured the Pursuer even before Declarator may crave Right to the Rents As to the Second The Lords were all clear that the Defender was not lyable for the full avail but after production of the Title whereupon the Pursute is sustained But it being moved that the Defenders having proponed the said Alledgance before the same was repelled and decreet given out for the full avail after intention of the Cause some of the Lords were of the Opinion that there was now no Remedy Others thought That there being a clear iniquity and prejudice to the Party and the Lords being convinced of the same they ought to do justice to the party And the question being brought before them upon Suspension ex incontinenti and not ex intervallo the Sentence non transivit in rem judicatam Whereupon some heat having arisen among the Lords while some did plead the Credit of the House and the Security of the People that the Decreets of the Lords in foro should be an ultimate and unquestionable Decision and others Thought and did represent that the Honour of the House and Interest and Security of the People consists in this that Justice should be done and no evident Iniquity should be without Remedy Especially where a Decreet has not taken effect and become res judicata but is drawn in question immediatly by a Suspension The Lords did demur and decided not that Point Castlehil Reporter Gibson Clerk D. 274. Hamilton of Munkland contra _____ Maxuel eod die UPon the Report of Redford betwixt Hamilton of Munkland and _____ Maxuel The Lords Found That a Debt due by a Person who had disponed his Land upon the account that a Manse was built and that he was resting his Proportion of the Charges is not debitum Fundi Hamilton Clerk D. 275. The Colledge of Aberdeen contra the Town of Aberdeen 24. June 1675. IN the Case abovementioned of the Colledge against the Town of Aberdeen The Lords having heard again a Debate in praesentia Did adhere to what they had Found formerly and did Declare Jus eligendi of a Bibliothecare to pertain to the Colledge Vide 17. June 1675. inter eosdem D. 276. Earl of Lauderdale contra Lady and Lord Yester 25. June 1675. THE Duke of Lauderdale having settled upon the Lady Yester his Daughter his Estate and thereafter by Contract of Marriage betwixt the said Lady and my Lord Yester containing a Procuratory of Resignation whereupon Infeftment followed the said Estate is disponed and resigned by her with consent of her Father and him for his Interest in favours of the said Lady and the Heirs of her Body of that Marriage and these failÈiening of any other Marriage With Provisions contained in the said Procuratory And in special that the said Lands should be redeemable by the Earl upon a Rose-noble and that upon an Order used the said Right in Favors of the Lady and her foresaids should be void and two other Provisions in Case of Redemption viz. 1mo That in Case the Duke of Lauderdale should think fit to redeem that the Duke and his Heirs should be lyable and obliged to pay likeas they bind themselves by the said Provision to pay to the Lady and her foresaids besides the Tocher 7000. lib. sterl at the first Term after the Dukes decease And 2do That whereas by the said Contract the Lady if the Estate had not been redeemed was obliged to pay all her Fathers Debts and Legacies she should be free of the same in case of Redemption Which Provisions are contained in the Infeftments The Duke having used an Order and having intented thereupon a Declarator of Redemption concluding that the Lands should be declared lawfully redeemed and that his Daughter should be decerned to denude her self and to grant a Procuratory for Resigning since she was infeft by publick Infeftment It was Alledged That as to that Conclusion that she should renounce there was no Warrand for the same seing there was not a Reversion in these Terms that she should grant the Lands orderly redeemed and renounce in which Terms Reversions which are pacta de retrovendendo are ordinarly conceived but that the Reversion whereupon the Order is used is only a Provision contained in the said Contract of the Tenor foresaid with a resolutive clause in case of Redemption which imports no Obligement upon the Lady nor pactum de retrovendendo but only Jus Retractus and a Faculty and Power to the Father to Redeem and in case of Redemption the expiring and Nullity of the Right 2. It was Alledged That tho the Lady were to Renounce her Renounciation ought to be qualified and burdened with the provisions contained in her Right and in special with the foresaid provision as to the secureing to her 7000. lib. Sterl and the other Provision foresaid for securing her relief of the Debts It was Replyed That as to the said first Alledgance that inest in all Contracts bearing Reversions whether in the formal Terms of a Reversion or Provisions upon the matter importing a Reversion and ex stylo all Decreets of Redemption do contain the said Decerniture to Renounce And the Duke being denuded in favours of his Daughter by publick Infeftment the habilis modus to return again to his Right upon Redemption is upon the Resignation As to the 2d It was Answered That the said Provisions are not in the Reversion and amount only to a personal obligement upon the Duke and his Heirs but not to be a real burden and incumberance upon the Right As to Debts It was Answered That there needs no other security for the Lady her relief of the same seing she was to be lyable thereto in contemplation of the Right if it should stand effectual in her Person And it s provided in case of Redemption she should be free thereof It was Duplyed as to the said provisions That the same being in the body of the Procuratory and Infeftment are real and they are insert unico contextu with the provision that the Lands shall be redeemable and doe qualifie the same And that notwithstanding that it be provided That in case of Redemption she should not be lyable to the Debts yet she may be in hazard to be overtaken as Successor Titulo Lucrativo In respect by the said Right it
is provided that in case of Redemption the said 7000 lib. should be given to her and her foresaids which being a provision introduced in her favours and in effect in lieu of the Estate and being so great may fix upon her a Passive Title as having gotten by her Father beside her Tocher so great a Sum which is not payable to her Husband but to her and her foresaids and therefore could not Renounce but with the burden of the said provision for her Relief The Lords Found That she ought to Renounce Reserving to her the foresaid provision as Accords Castlehill Reporter Gibson Clerk D. 277. Tutor to the Laird of Aitons Daughter eod die THE Tutor to the Daughter of the deceast Laird of Ayton having craved by a Bill that he might be warranted by an Order of the Lords to set the Pupils Lands for less Duties than were payed formerly seing the former Duty could not be gotten The Lords Tho they had granted the like desire in favours of other persons upon Bills thought upon better consideration that it was fit to refuse the said Bill seing upon such pretences Minors may be wronged by their Tutors Authority and the Lords have only a Jurisdictio contentiosa in relation to Processes or questions depending betwixt Parties but not a voluntar Jurisdiction or power in relation to Administration of private Estates And if the Tutors Deed in setting pupils Lands were warrantable the Law would secure him And therefore left him to do as he will be answerable Redford Reporter D. 278. _____ contra _____ eod die UPon a Report made to the Lords concerning a Decreet of the Commissars which was questioned upon Iniquity because it being urged that Caution should be Found in an Improbation the Commissar did not Order the Party to find Caution It was Debated amongst the Lords Whether Caution should be Found or Money should be consigned alsewell in Actions as upon Exceptions in Improbations And some were of the Opinion that Caution or Consignation should be in all questions of Improbation Whether by way of Exception or Action conform to the Act of Parliament Q. Mary 7. Parl. Cap. 62. And some of the Lords were of the Opinion that the Law being clear to that purpose Consignation should be wherever such Questions fall out either by way of Action or Exception But the contrary was asserted by others and they pretended Custom but nothing was instanced to verify the custom and tho it were it ought not to derogate to so clear a Law upon so good Grounds The Lords did not decide this point at this time D. 279. _____ contra _____ eod die UPon a Report made to the Lords concerning an Advocation upon that reason that there was a Competition in the case upon double Rights It was debated among the Lords Whether the cause being undoubtedly competent before the Inferior Judge the pretence that there was a competition of double Rights should be a Relevant Ground of Advocation And some of the Lords were of Opinion that in the general to Advocate upon that Reason it were hard seing Inferior Judges their Jurisdiction as to Causes competent before them is founded upon their Rights so that they have alse good Right to the same as to any other property And in Removings and Actions for Maills and Duties and others such real Actions when a Defence is founded upon a Right or when Parties compear for their Interest and produce Rights it may alwayes be pretended that the question is anent double Rights so that the Jurisdiction of Inferior Judges may be altogether evacuated And the Lords who have scarce time to decide Causes that are proper before them should be cumbered with Processes that may and ought to be determined by an Inferior Judge contrar to the Acts of Parliament and in special the 39 Act of Q. Mary her 6th Parl. And the 8th Act of His Majesties 1st Parl. 3. Sess Discharging the Advocation of Causes whereunto Inferior Judges are expresly appointed Judges But if it should be represented and appear that there is intricacie in such Causes wherein there may be question of double Rights the Lords in that case may Advocate But upon the pretence of double Rights as to which it may be there is no difficulty there ought to be no Advocation Yet it was urged by _____ that the Lords were in use to pass Advocations upon the reason foresaid And albeit the pretence of custome not being verified and tho verified being against Law ought not to be put in the ballance with express Laws founded upon good Reason and Common Law yet the Bill was past Redford Reporter D. 280. Gilchrist contra Murray 26. June 1675. IN a Process for payment of a Sum due by the Defender the Lybel being referred to his Oath and he having declared with a quality viz. That as he was Debitor so he had made payment partly in Money and partly in Commodities and Ware The Lords Upon Advising of the Oath Found That the same not being special as to the quality of Payment viz. How much was payed in Money and how much in Goods nor being special as to the quantity of the several Goods did not admit the same but if it were made special as to Money payed by him it would be sustained pro tanto And as to the delivery of Goods in satisfaction of the Debt It resolved in an Exception and ought to be proven Hamilton Clerk D. 281. Livingston contra Garner eod die A Bond being granted for payment of a Sum and thereupon the Granter having suspended in his own time and a Decreet of Suspension being recovered in his favours after his death his Son being of the same Name was Charged Denounced and taken with Caption for the same Debt The Lords upon a Bill Did Find That the Son ought to be free of the said Debt and in regard of the Chargers trincating and fraudful Practice they modified 40. lib. to be payed by him the one half to the Partie the other half to the Poors Box. Gibson Clerk D. 282. Langlands Supplicant eod die A Bankrupt having obtained a Bonorum by a Bill desired the Lords to dispense with his wearing the Habit in respect of an Attestation of two Persons that he had become irresponsal upon the account of Cautionrie and other Occasions mentioned therein which the Lords did Albeit some of their Number were of another Opinion and did urge that by the Act of Parliament such Persons being infamous and the Lords by an Act of Sederunt having Ordained that they should wear the Habit as is the Custom in all other Nations that they may be known to be such Persons the Lords neither could nor ought to dispence with express Laws and Statutes and that no respect ought to be had to the Attestation being emitted by privat Persons having no Authority and not cited nor sworn to that purpose and the pretence contained in the Attestation was most irrelevant Gibson Clerk D. 283. Birnie
after Circumduction of the said Terms and that such Certifications are not only the great Surety of these who obtain the same but of these who obtain Right from them conceiving themselves to be secured with such Certifications Yet the President and others of the Lords enclined to repone Alexander against the Certification the Writes being produced tho it was urged that beside the Security and Interest of People as said is it was to be considered that in this Case there were Advantages pretended to on both hands viz. by Alexander of an expired Comprysing and by the Doctor of the said Certification and that Alexander and his Authors by vertue of their Comprysing had been many years in Possession tho there was probability the Comprysing was satisfyed and it seemed to be equitable that the Doctor should have a Decreet of Removing and should give a Reversion to Alexander limited to such a time as the Lords should find just upon payment of what should be resting and unsatisfied by his and his Authors Intromission if there there were any part of the Debt yet resting But this Point was not decided the Lords having recommended to some of their Number to endeavour an Accommodation betwixt the Parties D. 340. Abercrombie contra Acheson and Livington eod die A Taverner after she had removed from her Masters Service and was Marryed was pursued to Compt and Reckon for Ale and Wine which the Pursuer offered to prove was layed in in his Cellars The Lords Found That the Pursuer ought to Lybel and prove that the Debt was yet Resting Seing it was to be presumed that Servants of that quality did Compt Weekly with their Masters and the Pursuer would not have suffered the Defender to go out from his Service before she had Compted and made payment And it appeared that there had been former Decisions to that purpose Lord Justice Clerk Reporter D. 341. Dundass contra Turnbul and other Creditors to Whitehead of Park eod die IN a Competition betwixt an Infeftment of Annualrent and a posterior Infeftment upon a Comprysing the Lords enclined to find that the Infeftment of Annualrent was made publick by a pursute of poinding the Ground before the Infeftment upon the Comprysing But some of the Lords not being clear the case was not decided Gosford Reporter D. 342. Wauch contra Jamison eod die DOctor Bonar being to go out of the Country did Dispone a Right of Lands and of an Annualrent to Mr. John Smith his near Relation upon a Backbond granted by the said Mr. John bearing that the said Right was granted partly in Trust and partly for surety to the said Mr. John for Sums due for the time to him by Bonar and of such Sums as Smith should advance to Bonar or his Creditors And that the said Right should be Redeemable by Bonar or his Sister if she should survive him by payment of the foresaid Sums Thereafter the Doctor did grant a Bond of 5000 Merks to the said Mr. John Smith bearing no Relation as to the said surety And bearing as to the conception a simple Moveable Bond to the said Mr. John his Heirs and Executors And after the said Mr. John Smiths decease there being a Competition betwixt Doctor Jamison his Heir and the Executor as to the said Sum of 5000. Merks And the question being whether it should be thought to be Heretable in respect of the said surety or Moveable In respect of the conception of the said Bond. The Lords did consider the case as of great moment as to the consequence and Interest of the People and upon debate at the Barr in praesentia and among themselves they came to these Resolutions viz. That it was consistent that a Sum should be Moveable and yet that it should be secured by an Heretable Suretie as in the case of bygone Annualrents due upon Infeftments of Annualrent and of bygone Feu-duties or Taxations the same being unquestionably Moveable ex sua natura And yet there being a real surety for the same and a real Action for poinding the Ground even competent to Executors And likewayes in the case of Wadsets loosed by Requisition and bearing a provision that notwithstanding of Requisition the real Right should stand unprejudged until payment in which case the Sum would be Movable tho still secured by Infeftment 2. That as to these qualities of Moveable or Heretable in relation to the Interest of Succession and Question betwixt Heirs and Executors the design of the Creditor animus was to be considered principally And if Debts either by the conception were Heretable ab initio or an Heretable surety taken thereafter for Moveable Debts as a Wadset or Comprysing It was to be presumed that the Creditor intended to alter the quality of the Sums and that they should belong to his Heirs but if Creditors should take an Heretable surety without any intention to alter the quality of the Debt or that the same should ly as bonum stabile and fixt the Debt continues still Moveable As v. g. If a Creditor having done exact Diligence should take a Gift of Liferent Escheat or Recognition upon a Back-bond that he should be satisfied in the first place of his Debt Or if in a Suspension a Disposition of the Debitors Estate should be consigned because he cannot find Caution Or in the case of Bonorums a Disposition of an Heretable Estate should be made in favours of his Creditors Or if a Debitor should Dispone his Estate in favours of a confident person with the burden of his Debts In these and the like Cases Because the Creditor does not intend that his Money should ly as an Heretable Debt but upon the contrary has done and is about to doe all possible Diligence for recovery of the same the Debt continues still Movable notwithstanding of the said accessory and extrinsick surety 3. Bonds being taken after a general Surety in the Terms foresaid for Debts to be advanced may be Moveable notwithstanding of such Surety if it appear that the Creditor intended it should be such As if such supervenient Bonds should be taken to Executors Excluding Heirs Especially when such general Sureties for Sums as are to be afteradvanced are not dispositive but by way of Provision containing Back-bonds and not of the Right it self viz. That the Receiver of the Right should not be lyable to denude until he get payment of the Sums that should be due to him at any time thereafter In which case it appears that he has not a positive Right and Surety for the said Sum but an Interest and exception of Retention The Lords in end In the foresaid Cause Found that the said Bond of 5000 M. In sua far as it should be made appear to be made up of the Sum mentioned in the Back-bond that was due to Smith at that time should belong to the Heir an as Heretable Sum In respect ab initio the said Surety was granted for the same But as to the residue of the
the Qualifications libelled were not relevant to import such a force and metus as could be the ground of a Reduction of the said Right ex eo capite tho they were convinced that the practice foresaid is most unwarrantable and dolosa and that thereupon the Right may be questioned as to Sir John himself but not as to a singular Successor and that there is a difference betwixt a Reduction ex capite metus which is competent against singular Successors and a Reduction ex capite doli which is not competent against a singular Successor who bona fide has acquired a Right for an Onerous Cause But diverse of the Lords were of Opinion that the Defence foresaid that there was no damnum was most relevant for these Reasons viz. All Restitutions upon what mediums soever whether metus or dolus or lubricum aetatis are against damnum and prejudice for frustra should Restitution be craved if there be no damnum 2. It is evident by diverse Laws and the Title foresaid quod metus c. That ex edicto quod metus causa c. non datur actio si nihil absit succurritur only captis laesis 3. By the Civil Law there were diverse Remedies competent to these who had been forced to do any deed viz. A Civil action ex Edicto Praetoris and a Criminal Action ex lege Julia and a Penal Remedy ex decreto Divi Marci That a Creditor by force extorting what is truely due amittit Jus Crediti And our Reductions ex capite metus are but Civil Actions as that ex Edicto And the said other Remedies being penal by the Municipal Law of the Romans cannot be introduced by the Lords of Session being Civil Judges without an Act of Parliament 4. All Restitutions should Repone both Parties in integrum and it were unjust that if it were constant and the Lords were convinced upon their own certain knowledge that there had been an antecedent Minute and that the same had been cancelled upon the granting of the said Disposition that Minto should be restored and not the said Sir John that now res non est integra seing the antecedent Minute is not Extant and tho it were Extant it would be ineffectual In respect Minto has Disponed the foresaid Lands to this Pursuer who is Infeft and having the first Infeftment would be preferable whether the Minute were Extant or not 5. As to the pretence that was so much urged that it would be of dangerous consequence that such Deeds extorted by force should be sustained upon the pretext of non damnum and that it would tend to encourage such practices the same is of no weight seing the Deed being just upon the matter may and ought to be sustained and yet the way of procureing the same may be severely punished 6. As to the difficulty of Probation there being no Adminicles in Write that there were such a Minute It is not considerable Seing multa permittuntur causative which cannot be done directly and that tho the Result of Probation by Witnesses may be the making up or taking away of Writes which cannot be done directly but by Write yet when that which is to be proven is in Fact it may be proven by Witnesses as in the same case that the Disposition in question was Extorted it may be proven by Witnesses to take away the said Disposition And if a person should be forced to grant a Disposition of Lands of 20. Chalders of Victual of Rent and in Exchange should get a Disposition at the same time of other Lands of the half value it were a good Defence and probable by Witnesses that the Pursuer did get the time of the granting the Disposition of Lands worth 20 Chalder Victual a Disposition of less value and Contingentia causae and of a Transaction and circumstances of the same ought not to be divided but may and ought to be entirely proven by Witnesses alse well for the Defender as the Pursuer Actor Lockheart and Sinclair alteri Cuningham and MckenÈie Mr. John Hay Clerk In praesentia D. 420. Commissar of St. Andrews contra Watson 11. January 1677. THE Lords sustained a pursute at the instance of the Master of the Ground against these who had bought from his Tennent his Corns and other Goods wherein the Pursuer had a Tacite Hypothâ—â—k Glendoich Reporter Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 421. Viscount of Oxenford contra Mr. John Cockburn eod die MR. John Cockburne having gone Abroad with the Viscount of Oxenford and after his Return having gotten several Bonds from the said Viscount of considerable Sums and also a Pension of 1000 Merks And having charged upon the same the Viscount Suspended upon that Reason that the said Mr. John dureing their being Abroad had received great Sums of Money remitted to him upon the Viscounts account for which he had not Compted and that after Compt and Reckoning he will be found Debitor to the Viscount in more than the Sums charged for And it being Alledged by the said Mr. John that he is only comptable for his Intromission and that his Actual Intromission ought to be Instructed by Write or by his Oath and the Declarations of Merchants and Factors Abroad cannot be Probation to bind upon him so great Intromissions The Lords considered the condition of the Viscount for the time that he could not Intromet himself and that the said Mr. John had such Influence upon him that having been his Governour at Schools and upon the desire of his Friends being put from him by an Act of Council He notwithstanding without and contrare to the Advice of his Friends carryed him Abroad and since his return had gotten from him the Bonds foresaid And therefore thought fit to try the Business to the bottom And to ordain the said Mr. John to give in his Compts of what was received and debursed when the Viscount was Abroad and the Factors and other Witnesses to be Examined concerning his Intromission and whether or not any Moneys that were remitted for the Viscounts use were received by the Viscount himself or by the said Mr. John Redford Reporter Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 422. Laird of Bavilay contra Barbara Dalmahoy eod die A Horning against a Person dwelling within the Shire of Edinburgh upon Lands Annexed to the Barony of Renfrew being denounced at Edinburgh was sustained In respect that the said Lands were Locally within the Shyre of Edinburgh And the Rebel In respect of his Residence there was Lyable to the Jurisdiction of the Sheriff and to all Burdens and had all Capacities competent to the Shire of Edinburgh Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 423. Baillie contra Somervel eod die THERE being a Provision in a Contract of Marriage in these Terms that 5000 Merks of the Tocher should return to the Father in Law in case his Daughter should decease before her Husband within the space of 6 Years after the Marriage there being no Children betwixt them then on life
and in case the Father in Law should have Heirs Male within the space of six Years after the Marriage The Lords Found The said Provision copulative and that the Tocher should not return albeit the Father in Law had Heirs Male within the foresaid time Seing the other Member of the said condition did not exist In respect albeit his Daughter deceased within the said time yet she had a Child of the Marriage that survived Gosford Reporter Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 424. Jaffray contra Laird of Wamfray 12. Jan. 1677. A Sum due be a Bond bearing an Obligement to Infeft and Requisition was Found to be Moveable after Requisition and to fall under Escheat notwithstanding the late Act of Parliament Ordaining Bonds bearing Annualrent to be Heretable but remains still Heretable quoad fiscum In respect Bonds of the nature foresaid became Moveable by Requisition even before the said Act of Parliament And the Fisk since by the foresaid Act of Parliament is not put in better case is not in worse Glendoich Reporter Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 425. Inter eosdem eod die IN the same case It was Found That an Instrument of Requisition was Null because it did not bear that the Procuratory was produced And an Instrument being produced extended under the Notars Hand and being quarrelled upon the Ground foresaid The Lords did not allow the Notar to give out an other Instrument bearing the Procuratory to be produced nor did admit probation by Witnesses that the Procuratory was produced Seing such Solemnities are not presumed and cannot be proven by Witnesses but by valide and formal Instruments And a Notar having given out an Instrument that is defective cannot thereafter give an other to supply the defect Otherways the question being betwixt the Creditors who had done lawful Diligence and a Donator it should be in the power of a Notar to prefer and gratify either party as he should be prevailed with either to give out or not to give another Instrument D. 426. Inglis contra Lawrie eod die SOme of the Lords were of the Opinion that a Husband may give validly during Marriage to his Wife a Provision or Jointure where there is no Contract of Marriage But that the Wife could not give to the Husband tho there were not a Contract of Marriage and that she might revock any such Donation which appears to be hard and unequal Actor Colt alteri Dalrymple Mr. Thomas Hay Clerk But this Point was not decided D. 427. Fordel contra Caribber 16. January 1677. IN a Reduction at the instance of the Laird of Fordel against Monteeth of Caribber of a Disposition granted by Monteeth of Randyfurd to Caribber upon that Reason That the said Disposition was not delivered but was lying by the Defunct in his Charter Chest and blank in the Name and Date and that the Defender intrometted with the same unwarrantably and filled up his Name The Lords Ordained certain Persons who were going to France to be examined before Debate reserving to themselves to consider what their Depositions should work Tho it may appear hard that a Write should be taken away by Witnesses yet the Reason being relevant and in Fact and resolving in dole and Fraud it may be proven by Witnesses Mr. John Hay Clerk D. 428. Stewart of Ardvorlich contra Riddoch eod die DAVID Riddoch by Contract of Marriage betwixt his Son Alexander and Jonet Ballentyne did dispone to the said Alexander his Estate and thereafter did dispone the same to his second Son David Riddoch for payment and with the burden of all his Debts who did thereafter dispone the same to Stewart of Ardvorlich for a just price The said Stewart of Ardvorlich pursued a Reduction of the Disposition contained in the said Alexander his Contract of Marriage upon that Reason That the said Contract of Marriage was not delivered to the said Alexander at the least there being but only one double subscribed the same was given back to David Riddoch the Father and was lying by him the time of his decease And it was evident that it was never intended that any other use should be made of the said Contract but only in order to get a Marriage to the said Alexander as being provided to the said Estate in swa far as the said Disposition in favours of the said Alexander was without the burden of the Disponers Debts which were very great and did not so much as reserve his Liferent Whereunto It was Answered That the Contract was a mutual Evident subscribed by both Parties and that Marriage had followed upon the same and therefore it could not be taken away upon the pretence of not delivery The Lords Found That tho the Contract had been beside the Father the time of his decease it was not to be considered as instrumentum penes debitorem being a mutual Evident But thereafter It was Replyed That the Pursuer offered to prove that not only the said Contract was lying by the Disponer the time of his decease but an Assignation blank of the said Contract which being in the Disponers Hands was in effect a retrocession or Discharge of the Disposition contained in the Contract Which Reply the Lords found Relevant In praesentia This Reply was Found also probable prout de jure D. 429. Cuningham contra Halyburton eod die THE Lords Found That a Tacksman of Lands within Burgh may be removed if he be behind in payment of his Duty unless he find Caution as to the future in the same manner as Tacksmen of Land in the Countrey Forret Reporter Gibson Clerk D. 430. _____ contra _____ eod die THE Lords Found That a Burgess of the Town tho he be not Incola if he trade may be stented for payment of his Majesties Taxation D. 431. Earl of Glencairn contra Brisbain eod die THE Lords Found In the Case abovementioned Glencairn contra Brisbaine That the true Value of the Lands should be proven to the effect it may be known whether the Price be adequate or not And albeit the Lands had not been laboured by Tennents being still in the Heretors hands the Value might and ought to be proven by the soweing and increase and the quantity of the Land and what Lands in that part of the like quantity and quality may be set for And it was not enough that now the Earl of Glencairn offered 2000 merks more in respect the Lands might have been improven or the said offer might be made upon Picque or Emulation Hatton Reporter Mr. Thomas Hay Clerk In this Case the Lords allowed a conjunct Probation D. 432. Caribber contra Fordel 17. January 1677. THIS Day again in the Case abovementioned Caribber contra Fordel The Lords did Find upon a Bill given in by Caribber That albeit Write cannot be taken away but by Write directly and that a Disposition could not be taken away but by a Renounciation or some other Writt where there is no question as to the Validity and Formality of the same