BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> David Balfour v The Commendator of Cambuskenneth. [1590] 1 Brn 125 (00 January 1590) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1590/Brn010125-0253.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION reported by SIR ROBERT SPOTISWOODE OF PENTLAND.
Subject_2 Such of the following Decision as are of a Date prior to about the year 1620, must have been taken by Spotiswoode from some of the more early Reporters. The Cases which immediately follow have no Date affixed to them by Spotiswoode.
David Balfour
v.
The Commendator of Cambuskenneth
1590 .Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
David Balfour pursued the Commendator of Cambuskenneth for spoliation of a bonnet-case, wherein there was contained an obligation made to him by the commendator, for setting to him a nineteen years' tack of the teinds of the kirk of Tullibody, &c. The spuilyie being proven, the quantity thereof was referred to the pursuer's oath; which being taken, and decreet given thereto, the commendator pursued him to hear and see the said decreet declared null, in respect that it was ultra libellata, because David had given his oath otherwise than was expressed in his summons; for, in the libel, he made mention of an obligation made for setting of a tack to David Balfour, elder, his heirs and assignees, with this limitation,—when the commendator had power to set tacks of the lands; and in his disposition he declared the tack should be set to David Balfour, elder, and to David Balfour, younger, his heirs or assignees, without the foresaid limitation, et sic ultra libellata. Answered, That the decreet ought to be taken away via ordinaria by reduction, and not by way of nullity. The Lords found that the declaration could not debord from the libel; and, in so far as it was otherwise, found the decreet null in that part, but not in totum.
Page 89.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting