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 >> Earl of Errol v Ludquhairn. [1597] Mor 13983 (00 February 1597) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1597/Mor3213983-066.html Cite as: [1597] Mor 13983 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1597] Mor 13983
Subject_1 REPARATION.
Subject_2 SECT. XI. Whether one is liable for the malversation of those under his authority? - Complaint raised in name of another without his authority.
Earl of Errol
v.
Ludquhairn
1597 .February .
Case No.No 66.
Contravention sustained against a father, who had found caution in lawburrows upon a fact committed by his son unforisfamiliate, and received into his father's house after the fact.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Earl of Errol pursued the Laird of Ludquhairn for contravention of an act of law-borrows, because the said Laird's son invaded and pursued Alexander Cheyne, servitor to the said Earl, for his slaughter, with a drawn sword, the said Nathaniel being unforisfamiliated, and received by his father after the deed done. It was alleged, That no contravention could be obtained against the said Laird, because the said Nathaniel being charged by himself, had found caution. It was answered, That the Laird had found caution for himself, his bairns, and all whom he might have, which behoved to comprehend the said Nathaniel his son. The Lords found, That the pursuer might pursue Ludquhairn and his cautioner and that the action was competent against the said Nathaniel and his particular cautioners. 2do, It was alleged, that Nathaniel was forisfamiliated, because his father had given him heritable infeftment of certain lands, and that they offered him to prove, that he was household feed servant to the Laird of——. It was repelled, as contrary to the summons, because that he was in household with his father unforisfamiliated.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting