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 >> Sir Hugh Campbell of Calder v The Creditors of Hay of Park. [1708] 4 Brn 702 (28 February 1708) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1708/Brn040702-0197.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Subject_2 I sat in the Outer-House this week.
Date: Sir Hugh Campbell of Calder
v.
The Creditors of Hay of Park
28 February 1708 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Sir Hugh Campbell of Calder being creditor to Hay of Park, and having had considerable intromissions with his estate, and being convened, for count and reckoning, by Jerviswood, Kemnay, Whitsled, and the other creditors: and the Lords having refused to allow him the expenses of his infeftment of relief, as no real burden on the lands, and found him liable to count for the rental, though he pretended the other creditors had a promiscuous intromission, &c.: and having this day refused his reclaiming bill, Sir David Forbes having offered a protest for remeid of law in Sir Hugh's name,—the Lords asked him if he had a special mandate for that effect; and he replying that he was his ordinary advocate, and had letters from him in general, authorising him to manage his law affairs, as if he were present, but no special warrant to appeal:—the Lords rejected his protestation, and likewise gave him a reprimand, and called in the Dean of Faculty and Advocates, and advised them to be more cautious and wary in time coming.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting