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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Goldie v The Town of Dumfries. [1680] 3 Brn 379 (3 December 1680)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1680/Brn030379-0516.html
Cite as: [1680] 3 Brn 379

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1680] 3 Brn 379      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL
Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.

Goldie
v.
The Town of Dumfries

Date: 3 December 1680

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

The Lords having advised this case, they found it sufficiently proven that the citizens contained in the Act of Exchequer had given bond for the taxation 1633, and had paid it; and so it was not discharged by the Act of Grace in March 1674, but that it fell within the exception of that Act. And the Town urging presumptions that it was paid, the engagers being magistrates, who would not fail to obtain payment, and being in an Act before answer, the Lords allowed the Town to adduce what documents they could, to astruct the same was paid, being in re lam anliqua, and so presumed to be paid. And, as to the interruptions of the forty years' prescription, they found a caption without an execution was not a sufficient interruption, unless the letters of horning and execution and denunciation whereupon the caption proceeded were also produced, or extracted from the register of hornings; though a caption presupposes a charge of horning to have preceded.

Then alleged,—the summons being in 1675, the term's taxation in 1636 was within the forty years. Then minority of some was offered to be proven; but it must be the minority of the executors, to whom this sum would have fallen, and not of the heir, to whom it did not belong. That the king's taxation falls not under prescription, or that the years of the surcease of justice in 1659, &c. should be deduced, I think would be repelled.

Vol. I. Page 120.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1680/Brn030379-0516.html