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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> James Ladly v The Commissary of Dunkell. [1634] 1 Brn 85 (22 July 1634) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1634/Brn010085-0166.html Cite as: [1634] 1 Brn 85 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1634] 1 Brn 85
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR ALEXANDER GIBSON, OF DURIE.
Date: James Ladly
v.
The Commissary of Dunkell
22 July 1634 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The commissary of Dunkell being pursued by Mr James Ladly for payment of an annual-rent of 28 bolls victual, wherein Mr Thomas Abercrombie died infeft, and that of divers years bypast; which the pursuer acclaimed as donator to the escheat of Robert Abercromby, son and executor to the said umquhile Mr Thomas, and which were intromitted with by the commissary; who alleging that he had lawfully redeemed the said annual-rent by payment of the principal sum, whereupon the annual-rent was redeemable to the daughter of the said Mr Thomas, who had right thereto by her father, and whereupon she was infeft; and the most that can be craved for bygones is only 10 per cent. of the principal sum, and not the victual annual-rent, and prices thereof acclaimed, in respect of the 134th Act of Parliament, 1592, which provides that annual-rents be redeemable after that manner, and that the party can be subject in no higher annual-rent than 10 per cent. This exception was found relevant, albeit the infeftment of the annual-rent was before the Act of Parliament: And the Lords found the defender only subject for all bygone years acclaimed, at ten for ilk hundred; and albeit the pursuer replied, that the defender might redeem by payment, and consigning of the principal sum and 10 per cent.; and that the order is sufficient, although no more were consigned; yet that will never hinder the wadsetter to pursue, by way of action, the defender, for payment of the greater quantity whereto his annual-rent extended more than his annual-rent of 10 per cent. as he now does, and has been usually done in the like cases before. This reply was repelled, and the action only sustained for 10 per cent.; but, because this was neither offered nor consigned at the time of the redemption, and that the pursuer had obtained divers decreets against the defender for these bygones, the Lords modified 300 merks of expenses, to be paid by this defender to the pursuer, by and beside the sum whereto the annual-rent, now restricted to 10 per cent., did extend to.
Hay, Clerk. Vid. 6th July 1630, Nisbet against E. Cassils.
Page 731.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
