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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> The Laird of Wauchton v The Laird of Aitkin. [1633] 1 Brn 198 (6 July 1633)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1633/Brn010198-0461.html

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1633] 1 Brn 198      

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.

The Laird of Wauchton
v.
The Laird of Aitkin

Date: 6 July 1633

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

The Laird of Wauchton having set a tack of some lands to the Laird of Aitkin, he pursued him for finding caution for payment of the tack-duty, or else to remove. The defender being absent, the question was, Whether the summons should abide continuation or not? The advocate for the pursuer maintained stiffly that it needed not be continued, seeing he proved all by production of the contract betwixt the parties; and this action was of the same nature with a removing, which abides no continuation. Yet the Lords found it behoved to be continued, conform to the universal custom kept before: For although, in effect, it be a removing in case of not finding caution, yet it were hard that it should be as much privileged as removings, before which there must be a warning upon forty days, in which space tenants may provide for themselves; where here, upon six days, they might be removed, if there were no necessity of twice citation. Besides, in declarators of irritant clauses, where all is proven instantly by production of the writs, yet there is a necessity of continuation, lest a man should be put from his right too summarily.

Page 321.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1633/Brn010198-0461.html