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 >> The Trades of the Canongate v The Heritors of Broughton, &c. [1694] 4 Brn 146 (8 February 1694)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1694/Brn040146-0331.html

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


[1694] 4 Brn 146      

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

The Trades of the Canongate
v.
The Heritors of Broughton, &c

Date: 8 February 1694

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

The Trades of the Canongate, against the Heritors of Broughton and the other Trades dwelling in that regality. There were mutual declarators: one of privileges, the other of immunity and exemption from acknowledging the deacons of the Canongate. The Lords declared the trades' privileges as to all living within the burgh of the Canongate, or any artificers importing or selling their goods in that place; but would not extend it to the discontiguous parts of the regality, or the grounds of their feuars and vassals, as if they could employ no tradesmen save those licensed by the deacons of the Canongate: for they thought that was only craved to be a colour for exacting money from them, though the design of incorporations was good, viz. that tradesmen should be answerable for the sufficiency of their work, and that they do not extortion the lieges by exorbitant prices: and found the Act of Parliament 1540, anent conduction of craftsmen, related chiefly to wrights and masons. Some urged that there might be a conjunct probation allowed, to prove custom or possession; but the Lords thought, if there had been any such use, it was not to be encouraged; and to make an act before answer would keep them still in animosity, and put them to great charges.

Vol. I. Page 604.

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/1694/Brn040146-0331.html