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 >> Sir J. Gordon v Sir J. Gordon, &c. [1751] 1 Elchies 272 (12 February 1751)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1751/Elchies010272-053.html
Cite as: [1751] 1 Elchies 272

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


[1751] 1 Elchies 272      

Subject_1 MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.

Sir J Gordon
v.
Sir J Gordon, &c.

1751, Feb. 12.
Case No. No. 53.

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

This was a complaint against the freeholders for refusing to admit Sir John Gordon of Invergordon on the roll of freeholders, where one of the objections was alleged errors in the Commissioners of Supply in dividing the valuation of his lands from that of the Earl of Sutherland; and here we were forced to determine the question that we so carefully avoided on the 8th in Sutherland of Swinzie's case, supra, viz. the objection to our jurisdiction or powers of revising or altering the proceedings and sentences of the Commissioners of Supply; and it carried to repel the objection, me tantum renit.—but the President, who was of the same opinion with me could not vote, having declined himself,—and Justice-Clerk was of opinion of the interlocutor but did not vote because he did not hear the debate. Pro were Minto, Drummore, Haining, Strichen, Shewalton,—but Murkle was non liquet, and I hardly knew Dun's opinion, who was in the chair. He seemed for sustaining the declinature, but thought if any man was prejudged by an unequal valuation, he might be redressed by a proper process. The complainer's procurator Mr Craigie admitted, that if a division was made without any proof, that it would be a null decreet, and we had power to find so,—to which I could not agree.

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/1751/Elchies010272-053.html