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 Urquhart v William Dick, The Earl of Caithness, &c. [1629] 1 Brn 292 (9 July 1629) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1629/Brn010292-0753.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR GEORGE AUCHINLECK OF BALMANNO.
Date: David Urquhart
v.
William Dick, The Earl of Caithness, &c
9 July 1629 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Gawin Dumbar has a pension, granted him by the Earl of Caithness, of forty bolls of bear, for the space of 19 years, requiring the first term's payment in anno 1610; and, for sure payment thereof, is assigned to be paid by the tenants of certain lands in Caithness. He obtained decreet and letters, conform to his pension, and apprehends possession, by uptaking of the same from the tenants by the space of five or six years. William Dick, and some other merchants in Edinburgh, comprise the said lands from the Earl, and intromit with the haill duties by the space of ten years. The pensioner makes David Urquhart assignee to the pension. He pursues the tenants, the Earl of Caithness and William Dick and his colleagues, for the pension. William Dick alleges, They cannot be convened as intromitters with the rents of the lands libelled; because their intromission was by virtue of their public infeftment, proceeding upon a comprising, whereof they have been in possession by the space of 12 years; and this pension being given but by a laic person, cannot be esteemed a real right, as pensions given by a kirkman. The Lords found the exception relevant.
Page 165.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting