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 >>
Mr John Innes v John Dow. [1672] Mor 1820 (6 December 1672)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1672/Mor0501820-011.html Cite as:
[1672] Mor 1820
Lords, and Bailies of regality, having right to the escheat of transgressors, without being accountable to the King, may brevi manu intromit with the escheat goods without a declarator.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
John Dow having obtained a decreet of spuilzie against Mr John Innes in absence, Mr John pursues reduction on this reason, that the decreet was in absence upon a false or clandestine citation; and if he had compeared, he would have alleged, and now alleges, that the goods were lawfully poinded upon a decreet of the regality of Spynie; whereby John Dow being accused of theft, was declared fugitive, and his goods ordained to be intromitted with, as belonging to the Lord or Bailie of the regality. It was answered, That the said decreet could be no warrant for a summary intromission; for, when a party is declared fugitive before the Justices, there cannot be a summary intromission, neither doth the party's escheat fall till he be denounced, and a declarator of escheat be pursued thereupon, which ought to have been done in this case. It was replied, That the Lords and Bailies of regalities having right to the escheats of transgressors for their own behoof, without being countable to the King; their constant custom is, where a thief is declared fugitive, to intromit with his goods, as was done in this case.
The Lords found the reason relevant, and reduced the decreet.
