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 Orkney v Vinfra. [1606] Mor 16481 (21 February 1606) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1606/Mor3716481-004.html Cite as: [1606] Mor 16481 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1606] Mor 16481
Subject_1 VIS ET METUS.
Date: Earl of Orkney
v.
Vinfra
21 February 1606
Case No.No. 4.
The exception of metus sustained, arising from boisterous words only, used by a person of superior power.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Earl of Orkney charged Andrew Vinfra to pay to him 2000 merks. He suspended that the contract was null, because it was extorted by fear and dead-dome; because the Earl having caused send this Vinfra to him to his castle in Zetland, presented to him this contract subscribed by the Earl, and commanded him to subscribe it, which the said Andrew Vinfra refused, wherewith the said Earl was so offended, that with terrible countenance and words, and laying his hand upon his whinger, he threatened with execrable oaths to bereave this Vinfra of his life, and stick him presently through the head with his whinger, if he subscribed not, and so for just fear he being compelled to subscribe it, the same was null. It was excepted by the Earl against the reason, that the same was not relevant to stay the execution of his decreet; which the Lords repelled, because it was only a decreet of registration of the contract by compearance of a procurator. Next he alleged, That the same could not come in the way of exception, especially because there was no fact nor deed libelled, but only boisterous words which could not be thought just fear, chiefly seeing he offered him to prove, that the said Andrew Vinfra, by his missive letter, had offered to contract upon these conditions before the date thereof. The Lords found the exception of fear very relevant, and sufficiently qualified; but in respect of the answer founded upon the missive letter, they ordained to produce the same before interlocutor.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting