Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	write_n	write_v	young_a	12	3	5.7849	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61249	The institutions of the law of Scotland deduced from its originals, and collated vvith the civil, canon, and feudal- lavvs, and vvith the customs of neighbouring nations ... / by Sir James Dalrymple of Stair ...	Stair, James Dalrymple, Viscount of, 1619-1695.	1681 (1681)	Wing S5177; ESTC R42227	746,825	722

that no hurt followed and that he was willing to make it up February 14. 1665. Town of Edinburgh contra Sir William Thomson But an Office of a Sheriff Clerk was not found extinct by his being at the Horn for a Debt or being sometimes out of the Countrey having power of Deputation February 6. 1666. Arch-Bishop of Glasgow contra Commissar Clerk of Dumsreis The Office of a Commissar doth also import as a necessary condition that the Commissar be qualified to discharge the Office in his own person though he have Deputs seing he must answer for and over-rule his Deputs February 14. 1666. Arch. Bishop of Glasgow contra Commissar of Glasgow Where it was also found that by the Commissars instructions they must reside in the place of the Commissariot under the pain of Deprivation notwithstanding the common Custome in the contrary which only excuseth from bygone Faults 45. Trust is also amongst Mandats or Commissions though it may be referred to Depositation seing the Right is in custody of the person intrusted Mandatars in the Law could not obliege the Mandator or directly acquire to him but they could only obliege themselves and acquire to themselves and thereafter transmit to the Mandators and that because in most Contracts thereby the person Contracter behoved immediatly to Act and no person interposed which our Customes regardeth not and therefore Mandatars may act in their own names In which case the Right whether real or personal standeth in their person as he who by Commission acquireth Lands or Goods in his own name the real Right thereof is in his Person and there lies an Obligation upon him if he was Commissionat to transmit them to his Constituent but he may also Acquire Transact or Contract in name of the Constituent In which case the real Rights stands immediatly in the Person of the Mandator and the Obligation constitutes him Creditor and there is no Obligation betwixt the Mandatar and the third Party Nor is the Mandatar oblieged to instruct that he had Commission but that is upon his hazard who acted with him unless the contrary be proven by his Oath or Write and therefore a Servant though by a Ticket he acknowledged he had taken off such Furniture for his Masters use was not found oblieged to pay or to instruct his Warrand especially after his Masters death but the Warrand was presumed as known to the Merchand November 17. 1665. Howison contra Cockburn Trust in the Right of Lands Sums or Goods to the behove of another doth frequently occur and because Fraud is ordinarly in it it is not only probable by Write or Oath of the Trustié but Witnesses are examined ex officio to find out the Truth February 22. 1665. Viscount of Kingstoun conira Collonel Fullertoun February 6. 1669. Rule contra Rule February 24. 1669. Earl of Annandale contra Young June 19. 1669. Scot contra Langtoun And Trust was found probable by presumptions only January 12. 1666. Executors of William Stevinson contra James Crawford January 22. 1673. Janet Watson contra Mr. 〈◊〉 Bruce But it was not found proven by a Declaration upon Death-bed in prejudice of the Heir November 26. 1674. William 〈◊〉 contra Stirling of Airdoch But a person intrusted in a Disposition of Lands having componed for the Intrusters Debts was found to have no Interest to burden the Intruster with more then what he truely payed out November 15. 1667. James Maxwel contra Adam Maxwel Neither was a person intrusted for payment of the Intrusters Creditors found to have power to prefer them to the more timeous Diligence of others by Inhibition or Apprizing though only done against the Intruster July 24. 1669. Crawford contra Anderson And a person receiving Money to buy Goods for another but having bought and received them in his own name without mention of the Truster the property thereof was found to be in the person intrusted and his Creditors Arresting were preferred January 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contra Robertson and Fleming Yet Trust in Sums or Personal Rights after the death of the Person intrusted was found not necessary to be Confirmed as in bonis 〈◊〉 of the Intrusted Person but that the Trust might be proven against the Debitor and the nearest of Kin of the Person Intrusted June 9. 1669. William Streit contra Home of Bruntfield But Trust in an Infeftment of Annualrent found not to make the Person Intrusted lyable for omission but only for Intromission December 18. 1666. Charles Cass contra Mr. John Wat. The like in an Assignation in Trust which was not found to infer an obliegment to do Diligence if the Assignay was not required either to do diligence or denude But he having transferred without Warrand was found lyable for the sum albeit he offered to procure a Reposition July 18. 1672. Janet Watson contra Mr. Walter Bruce And an Assignay in Trust that the sum might be included in his Appryzing giving Back-Bond to be comptable in case of payment having disponed the Appryzing without reservation was found lyable for so much of the sum intrusted as might have been recovered January 5. 1575. Earl of Northesk contra Laird of Pitarro Trust was inferred by a Grand-Fathers delivering of a Disposition conceived in favours of his Grand-Child the Disponer at the delivery having not exprest the terms of the Trust or his design and having recalled and received back the Disposition and Disponed the half of the Lands therein to another it was thence found that the Disposition was not absolute and irrevockable but was intrusted to that third Party to be recalled if the Disponer pleased or otherways to be delivered to the Oye January 25. 1677. Janet Ker contra Niman Ker. When Trust is referred to parties Oath whether such a Right standing in their person be in Trust to the behove of another they use commonly to Depone that it is to their own behove which being found dubious and fallacious what the meaning of such words were special Interrogators are allowed to expiscat the truth And parties use to Reexamined thereupon as whether the Deponents meaning by these words that the Right was to his own behove and not to anothers was only that he gave no Promise or Back-Bond to apply the Right or Benefite thereof in whole or in part to another Or whether the true meaning of the design was that the other put him upon acquiring that Right being a Gift of Non-entry of Lands bought by that other so that the whole benefite should not be applyed to the acquirer himself for it was not presumable that he would put another upon taking Gift of Non-entry of the Lands himself had bought to be made use of to the full extent which being so acknowledged the Gift was found so far to the behove of the buyer that the seller by the warrandice should pay no more for the Non-entry then the acquirer of the Non-entry gave truly for it seing the buyer had communed with the Superior and brought the Non-entry to

is because it can hardly be determined that the Right of Property is in either the Superiour or Vassal alone so that the other should only have a servitude upon it though some have thought Superiority but a servitude the property being in the Vassal and others have thought the Fee it self to be but a servitude to wit the perpetual use and fruit yet the reconciliation and satisfaction of both hath been well found out in this distinction whereby neithers interest is called a servitude but by the resemblance of the distinction in Law betwixt jura actiones directae and these which for resemblance were reductive thereto and therefore called utiles 8. The Superiors Right is called dominium directum and the Vassals utile and without these the Right cannot consist Secondly As there must be a right in the Superiour and another in the Vassal so the Vassal in his right must necessarly hold of and acknowledge the Superious as having the direct Right in the Fee otherways the two distinct Rights without this subordination will make but two partial Allodial Rights Thirdly There is necessarly implyed in Fees some Rent or return to the Superiour for the Fee which may be either service Money or other Fungible or prayers and supplications as in Fees mortified to the Kirk or other performance or at least the Vassals fidelity to the Superiour implying not only negative that he may not wrong the Superiour but positive that he must reveal to his Superiour any design against his Life or Fame 9. Which fidelity though it be not exprest yet it is necessarly imported in all kinds of Fees and cannot be taken away by any paction to the contrary without destroying the very nature of this Right 10. To come now to the constitution of the Property of Lands in Fee and Heretage the Feudal Contract is of it self alienative as Loan Sale Exchange and the Contracts in Law ealled do ut des and do ut facias Of which two last the Feudal Contract is a kind seing thereby Land or other immoveable is given for giving or doing something therefore as in others so in it the will of the owner must constitute the Right in the Vassal and seing by the Custom of Nations some kind of Possession is necessary to constitute or transfer property the Superiours delivery of Possession to the Vassal or acknowledgement and approbation thereof in the Vassal to be holden by him in Fee were sufficient to constitute and perfect the Fee 11. And therefore in the Udal Right of Lands in Orknay and Zetland whereby without any Infeftment Investiture or other Right or Write they enjoy Lands and Hereditaments it sufficeth them to instruct by Witnesses that they have possest as being holden and repute Heretable possessors of such Lands but the Law and Custom of Scotland having as in all other places necessarly required Write not only for evidence of the Constitution of this Right but as Solemnities for the perfecting and solemnizing thereof without which it becomes not a compleat real Right of the ground except where such Writes have been destroyed or lost in times of trouble and then proving the Tenor of them must be used Or in some cases the Heretor may be cognosced by an Inquest as Heretable possessor But ordinarly Write is requisite which Writes are called an Infeftment or an Investiture 12. Infeftment or infeudatio signifieth the Right constitutive of a Fee as its Etymon indicateth So also Investiture is the same more Metaphorically as we are said to be invested or indued with any right as men are covered with a Garment or Cloak and denuded and divested thereof when it is extinct or transmitted So both Infeftment and Investiture signifie the Writes which are evidents signifying the Act constituting the Fee and these are two the Dispositive Will of the Superiour and his delivery of Possession by himself or his Procurators in his Name 13. Of a long time Infeftment hath required write as a necessar solemnity not only as a mean of probation that the Superiour did truly dispone to the vassal any immoveable in Fee and Heretage and that accordingly the vassal attained Possession Natural Civil or Symbolical for if write were adhibite only for probation other probation might also be admitted not only against the Superiour or his Heirs by their Write or Oath but even against their singular successors or other Competitors by whose oath of knowledge or write the truth of the Infeftment and of these two necessary Acts to constitute a Fee might be proven and albeit the Superiours oath would not prove against a singular successor yet his write anterior to that singular successors Right acknowledging that he had at such a time invested such a person as his vassal and entered him in possession which would prove against his Assigney yet neither of these ways would constitute a Fee and supply a written Infeftment except where the peculiar custom of Fees without write hath been immemorial and therefore sustained as sufficient And albeit it be provided by ancient Statutes that the Heretable Possessors of Lands may be cognosced by inquest yet that was only upon consideration of Calamity and War whereby Writes were destroyed and where no competition was by any pretending a written Infeftment and Possession conform But the question being only betwixt the Superiour and his Vassal who with his Predecessors had been in Immemorial possession as being holden and repute Heretable possessors by performing the deeds proper to Vassals of such Lands and so holden and repute as Heretable Possessors by the Neighbour-hood which I have not heard to take effect but as to the Kings immediat Vassals who claims property in no Lands as Supream Superiour but what is annexed to the Crown or whereof the property is acquired to the King by the Casualities of his Superiority Or by Acquisition from other Proprietars and therefore he doth never exclude the ancient Heretable Possessors though they have losed their Rights by publick calamity wherein not only Adminicles in Write but the testimonies of Witnesses above exception are received whereby if the Right be not proven to be blench or Feu by the Exchequer Rolls which bears all the Kings Property and the Reddendo's thereof or by Eque's made in Exchequer the Fee will be held Ward and according to the probation and verdict of the Inquest Charters will be granted by the King in Exchequer and there scarce can be pretendedany Fee which hath not been already established by write 14. The Write requisite to constitute a Fee must contain the present Dispositive Act of the Superiour by which he Dispons to the Vassal and his Heirs the Fee in whatsoever terms he expresseth it as if he gift grant alienat sell or dispone though the several terms exprest may import a different Title and Warrandice yea albeit no Cause or Title be exprest or implyed but only that the Superiour Dispons or though the Cause or Title insinuat be not true yet

are the real Charter yea it is not like they would reject a Bond obliedging to grant such Infeftment albeit it do not de presenti dispone as a sufficient adminicle to sustain a seasine where they had been 40 years possession although prescription was not compleated by immediat subsequent Seasines or uninterrupted possession the Party making faith that he did not keep up or conceal any other part of the Investiture which would sufficiently take off the presumption of Fraudful concealing or away-putting the immediat warrant of the Seasine which might afford defences to the other Party For even in a recent Case of the Infeftment of a Wife in Life-rent her Seasine was sustained upon Production of her Contract of Marriage albeit the Seasine proceeded upon a Bond granted for the same cause January 29. 1665. Mr. George Norvil Advocat contra Margaret Sunter where nothing was alledged of long possession See what was found November 22. 1628. Clappertoun contra Hoome Hope Seasine Murray of Philliphaugh contra Schaw Gray contra Finlayson there could be less question if the Seasine related to a precept apart and did not bear whether the precept proceeded upon a Charter Disposition Alienation or Bond for then the production of any of these would adminiculat the Seazine Seasines within Burgh for serving of Heirs by Hesp and Staple by the immemorial Custom and Priviledge of Burgh being given by the Town-Clerk do prove sufficiently both the propinquity of Blood that the same was Cognosced and Seasine given accordingly without necessity of any warrand or adminicle but in Seasines of Original Rights of conveyances to singular Successors will not be sustained by Seasines by the Town Clerk without Adminicles as to Tenements within Burghs as was found in an Infeftment from a Father to his son bearing to be upon the Fathers Resignation February 11. 1681. Francis Irwing contra Corsan June 21. 1672. William Mitchel contra Thomas Cowie Seasines propriis manibus when either the Superior himself doth give Seasine to his Vassals Acturney or when the Superiors Baily by his Precept gives Seasine to the Vassal himself being present and accepting or when the Superior immediatly gives Seasine to the Vassal in these Cases the Nottars warrant is sufficiently instructed by the Seasine and by the Disposition Contract of Alienation or Bond Or when the Seasine is propriis manibus secundum Cartam Conficiendam if a Charter thereafter made beshown as a Seasine propriis manibus by a Father to his son reserving the Fathers Liferent was found valid against a second Wises Infeftment granted for a competent Tocher being adminiculat by a Bond granted by the Father of the same date with the Seasine obliedging him to warrant the same February 11. 1669. Buchan contra Tait yea a Seasine propriis manibus by a Superior containing Resignation accepted by the Superior and immediatly Seasine given propriis manibus was sustained without any warrant subscribed by the Superior but by the Vassals Disposition containing Procuratorie of Resignation there being no more solemn Infeftment in competition Januarie 17. 1672. John Young contra Thomson But as to Seasines propriis manibus by Husbands to their Wives in Contemplation of Marriage either before Marriage where Marriage followed or after Marriage having no adminicle but the Marriage The Lords according to the different Cases have sometimes sustained them when they were suitable to the parties and not exorbitant and where the question was only with the Husbands Heir Nov. 22. 1628. Clappertown contra Hoom. June 19. 1668. Relict of Wallace of Galrigs Contra his Heir in which case it was instructed that about that time the Wife had disponed to her Husband her Joynture by a former Marriage But such Seasines are easily improven if they be not asserted by the Witnesses insert As in the last case the Heir insisting in improbation there being four witnesses in the Seasine two of them deponed they were not witnesses thereto the third remembred not the fourth was positive for it and the Nottar offered to depone that it was true yet having no adminicle his oath was not taken and the Seasine was improven but if there had been an adminicle the Nottar and one of the Witnesses being positive the Seasine would not have been improven for where there is a warrant mediat or immediat providing a Seasine to be given Quid fieri debet facile 〈◊〉 And therefore the witnesses not remembring would hardly improve such Seasines unless their Testimony were positive giving special circumstances of their remembrance as being in such another Country or far distant place at that time if the truth of that were otherwayes astructed But the general denial to be witnesses could import no more but non memini and therefore an adminicle in write with the protocol or oath of the Nottar if he were alive and especially if possession followed for some time these would stronglier approve then the not remembrance or general denyal of the witnesses insert would improve But this dipping upon a general Question de side instrumentorum we shall say no more of it in this place nor of the Admission and Qualification of Nottars as to which Craig relates the customs of France which were not then nor have not yet been here allowed but certainly more exactness ought to be in the admission of Nottars not only as to their skill but as to their reputation of Honesty and Fidelity and the least want or weakning of these should turn them out For the Introduction of the Solemnity of the Instruments of Nottars was not only because of old few could write and the impression of Seals were easily imitat yea even such rude Subscriptions there being some in Justinian's time who could so artificially imitat anothers hand write that himself could not know it or durst swear it was not his write And therefore he introduced two remeeds that private writes should not prove by the Subscription of the party unless that there were three subscribing Witnesses knowing he Parties Contracters or that there were three Witnesses who depone anent the truth of the Deed or otherwayes that writes were made in publick by a publick person which at first was only done Judicially but thereafter Extrajudicially by a Nottar-publick but our Custom hath returned to private write and 〈◊〉 not the Instruments of Nottars but where they are adminiculat by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the case where parties cannot write and then in matters of Importance two Nottars and four Witnesses are necessary by special Statute But this is not extended to seasines but only to the subscriptions of Nottars for parties February 11. 1669. Buchan contra Tait Julie 5. 〈◊〉 Bishop of Aberdeen contra Viscount of Kenmuir Yet in some cases of small importance Instruments of Nottars are probative and in all cases where witnesses would prove it doth much fortifie the same that they were Witnesses required and Instrument of a Nottar taken thereupon For then the Instrument of the Nottar astructed by