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 >> Inglis v Laird Balfour. [1668] 2 Brn 142 (25 June 1668) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1668/Brn020142-0372.html Cite as: [1668] 2 Brn 142 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1668] 2 Brn 142
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JAMES DALRYMPLE OF STAIR.
Date: Inglis
v.
Laird Balfour
25 June 1668 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There being an unprinted Act of Parliament, for uplifting the tax and loan of the shire of Fife, for relief of some noblemen engaged for the shire, in anno 1661;—the council did thereafter give commission to certain persons in the shire to convene the persons resting, and accordingly cited the Laird of Balfour; and he not compearing, ordered quartering against him. He suspends, on this reason, That this being a private and particular Act of Parliament, to which he was not called, is salvo jure, and could not burden his lands of Creik, because he is singular successor therein to the Laird of Creik. It was answered,
That there is no exception of singular successors in the Act of Parliament; so that this Act, being a reviving of the old rescinded Act, pro tanto, it must be in the same case as taxation and maintenance, which is ever accounted debitum fundi. It was answered, That these burdens, imposed by the rescinded Parliaments, are not in the same case with other public burdens, especially where it is but a particular Act, relating to particular persons and shires, without citation of them; for, if they had known of this Act, they would have petitioned the Parliament that singular successors might have been excepted, as they were in other Acts of this nature. The Lords suspended the decreet, and found, That, as they were singular successors, they were not liable. Vol. I, Page 544.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
