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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Langlands v Spence of Blair. [1670] Mor 6958 (17 June 1670)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1670/Mor1706958-024.html Cite as:
[1670] Mor 6958
It was the practice in regalities, to execute inhibitions at the head burgh of the regality, not at that of the shire.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Langlands pursues Spence of Blair for reduction of his rights of certain lands granted by Hamilton of Blair, his author, because Hamilton was inhibited at the pursuer's instance, before he granted these rights to the defender. It was alleged for the defender, absolvitor, because the inhibition was null, the question being of lands lying within the regality of Culross, and the inhibition was not executed at Culross, the head burgh of the regality, but at Perth, the head burgh of the shire; and for instructing that Culross was a regality, the Lord Colvil's infeftment was produced, which though it bear not expressly a regality, yet it bears a bailliary, with power to repledge, which imports a regality; and accordingly the bailie, and not the sheriff, makes count in Exchequer, and briefs are directed to the bailie, and there is produced an inhibition anno 1657, and another in anno 1666, executed at Culross. The pursuer answered, That Culross was never denominated, holden, or repute a regality, but a bailiary, and though the power of repledging be a special privilege of regality, yet there are many other privileges thereof, not consequent upon the repledging. 2dly, The pursuer having followed the ordinary course, used the time of his inhibition, viz. by executing at the market cross of the head burgh of the shire, he hath produced three inhibitions about that same time, executed as his is; so that what was then holden repute to be the head burgh, is sufficient for him to make his legal diligence subsist; and for the inhibition executed at Culross in anno 1657, it cannot be respected, because it is known that at that time regalities were suppressed by the English; and for the inhibition in anno 1666, it might have been done of purpose, pendente processu, and cannot regulate the custom the time of the pursuer's inhibition, which was in anno 1633.
The Lords sustained the pursuer's inhibition, and reduced, for they neither found it clear that Culross was repute a regality, nor that the custom was to execute inhibitions there at that time, but at Perth, the head burgh of the shire.
