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 >> The Laird of Cunninghame-head v The Earl of Lowdon. [1678] 2 Brn 233 (16 November 1678) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1678/Brn020233-0502.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JAMES DALRYMPLE OF STAIR.
Date: The Laird of Cunninghame-head
v.
The Earl of Lowdon
16 November 1678 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Cunninghame-head,—having had a joint right to the estate of Lowdon, by the first apprising thereof, at the instance of Mr Livingstoun, which is now expired, —did obtain decreet, against the tenants, for his share of every tenant's duty, effeiring to his share of the principal sum in Livingstoun's apprising. There is a bill of suspension of the decreet given in; and the cause ordained to be discussed upon the bill.
It was alleged for the tenants, That they were or might be distressed by several rights preferable to Mr Livingstoun's; which were now produced.
It was answered, That this decreet proceeded upon suspension of multiple-poinding, whereupon the parties now competing were cited, and did not appear; and, therefore, they cannot now be heard in the second instance, in respect of the Act of Parliament anent doublepoinding.
It was replied, That that Act was only for actions of doublepoinding; but not for suspensions, which must be instantly verified: and, therefore, though the parties omit to produce, they cannot be excluded to produce again in a second doublepoinding, either by way of action or suspension.
The Lords found, That the Act anent doublepoinding did not extend to suspensions of doublepoindings; and, therefore, allowed those who were cited in the first suspension of doublepoinding, and produced not, to produce now in the second suspension, and to compete therein.
Vol. II, Page 646.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
