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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Andrew Tennent in Handaxwood v Murray. [1738] 2 Elchies 127 (24 November 1738) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1738/Elchies020127-001.html Cite as: [1738] 2 Elchies 127 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1738] 2 Elchies 127
Subject_1 COMMONTY.
Date: Andrew Tennent in Handaxwood
v.
Murray
24 November 1738
Case No.No. 1.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
By contract betwixt four heritors concerning a commonty in 1663, they divided a part of it, and agreed that the rest of it should remain commonty, each party to hold their proportional number and quantity of grazing soums thereupon yearly as follows, viz. 24 soums to Muirhouse dykes, 20 to a second, 20 to a third, and 24 to the fourth. The heritor of one of these parts pursued a division of the remaining common. The first question was, if it was competent after the contract. 2dly, If it was competent, what was the rule of the division? The rule in the act 1695, or the proportion of soums in the contract. The Lord Ordinary found the process of division competent, but that the rule of division was in proportion to the number of soums that each party had right to in the common, by the contract 1663; and the Lords twice adhered without answers, though some differed. (See Dict. No. 4. p. 2466.)
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
