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 >> James Cunningham v The Bakers of the Canongate. [1694] 4 Brn 175 (26 June 1694) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1694/Brn040175-0397.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Date: James Cunningham
v.
The Bakers of the Canongate
26 June 1694 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The reason of advocation was, That it was a competition of heritable rights, and so not competent before any inferior judge. Answered,—1mo. That it was below 200 merks; and so, by the Act of Parliament, belonged to the inferior courts. 2do. They had compeared and proponed peremptory defences, without declining the judge; et primus actus judicii est judicis approbatorius.
Replied to thejirst,—Though the yearly duty acclaimed was within the Act of Parliament 1672, being but £5 Scots; yet, being sought for forty years bygone, the whole exceeded it.—But, in such cases, quot articuli tot libelli. And, to the second,—The compearance was officious, by a procurator without a mandate.
But the Lords found he was producing their writs, which imported his being employed; therefore, they repelled the reasons of advocation, and remitted the cause.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting