You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
French of Frenchland v The Earl of Annandale and Sir Charles Maitland of Pitrichy. [1694] 4 Brn 213 (14 November 1694)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1694/Brn040213-0484.html
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
French of Frenchland v. The Earl of Annandale and Sir Charles Maitland of Pitrichy
Date: 14 November 1694
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
November 14.—Phesdo reported the bill of suspension given in by French of Frenchland against the Earl of Annandale, and Sir Charles Maitland of Pitrichy, as assignee, by the minister of Moffat, to the vicarage-teinds thereof. The reasons were, 1mo. That the advocates, who took a day for producing them to depone, had no warrant, and were not employed, but appeared officiously.
This the Lords repelled, else it would oast all the decreets in foro.
2do. That the term was circumduced against them, under trust, when my Lord's chamberlain and doers bade them stay at home, for they should be in no hazard. Though my Lord answered, they had no commission from him, of giving any such assurance; yet the Lords thought, there was much to be indulged to the rusticity of tenants.
3tio. The quantities and prices whereon they were holden as confessed, were most exorbitant.
The Lords judged it reasonable to repone them; such duties being oft libelled at random, far above the true values; unless my Lord would consent to discuss the reasons summarily on the bill. But, in either case, modified 100 merks of expenses, to be paid the charger ere they were reponed.
Vol. I. Page 642.
November 20.—In the cause between the Earl of Annandale and French of Frenchland, mentioned 14th current, the Lords finding that the suspender took advantage of his succeeding by a singular title, to shun the payment of those years his father possessed; therefore, to bring him to reason, they refused to loose the decreet against him, but referred it to the reporter to settle the parties, so as he might restrict to the true quantities and price of the vicarage, and not as they were exorbitantly libelled at large.
This was to cure one piece of strict law with another as rigorous, and to draw him to reason only.
