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 £5, 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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Lord Keith v Nathaniel Keith. [1621] Mor 15963 (11 July 1621)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1621/Mor3615963-013.html Cite as:
[1621] Mor 15963
In a thirlage of invecta et illata the grain in-brought ought not to pay multure unless there grainded, although it should thole fire and water.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of multures the Lords found, that the farm should not pay multure unless it be ground, and found that they could not grind it at another mill.
Item, They found that invecta et illata comes not under thirlage, except also it were grinded with prohibition.
Kerse MS. p. 94.*** Durie reports this case:
In an action pursued by Nathaniel Keith, against the tenants of Peterhead and others, for abstracting of multures, founded upon a tack of the thirle-multures set to him by the Earl of Marishal, heritor of the lands and mill, bearing no exception or limitation expressed in the said tack, which is set, of all the thirle multures of that mill, and lands therein contained; the Lords found, that the farm of all corns paid to the lord and master of that ground, which is thirled and astricted to the mill, ought to be free of multure-paying, notwithstanding of the foresaid thirlage of the whole corns growing upon the said lands, except that the foresaid farm be ground at other mills in the country by the tenant, but either being delivered really by the tenant to the master, or to any other to whom the heritor or master sells the same, or being sold to the tenant himself, and again sold and disponed by the tenant to any other person whatsoever in the country, albeit it be not really delivered to the master, but that it be bought by the tenant, as said is. The Lords found the farm not subject in payment of multure, but only in this case, viz. if the same be ground by the tenant at any other mill than the mill to which the corn of that ground was astricted; for the Lords found, that the corns so ground shall pay multure to the tacksman, and no otherwise, which multure should not be paid as out of outlandish corn in that case, but of the quantity conform to the astriction. In this same process also, at the same time, the Lords found, that invecta et illata(which was comprehended under the same thirlage) should not pay multure, albeit they tholed fire and water, except the corns inbrought were also ground there; likeas the Lords found, that the inbrought corns, so many thereof as were so ground, ought to pay multure, as astricted to the said mill, and no more than any other corns inbrought thereto.
Act. Hope and Mouat.Alt. Nicolson and Oliphant.Clerk, Gibson.
Durie, p. 1.
