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 >> Colonel Abercromby v Leslie. [1753] 1 Elchies 275 (16 February 1753) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1753/Elchies010275-056.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.
Colonel Abercromby
v.
Leslie
1753 ,Feb. 16, 21 .
Case No.No. 56.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
This was a complaint for admitting Mr Leslie on the roll who was infeft in property in lands valued L.302, and in a superiority of lands belonging to Mr Garden of Troup, upon an adjudication against the family of Buchan as old as 1686, and which lands had been valued jointly with the lands of Troup held of the Crown, and the valuation divided by four Commissioners of Supply at Troup's house, who gave an order on the clerk to divide them so in the Cess books: So two objections were made, first that he had no right to the superiority by the old deserted adjudication which was preserved. But this we unanimously repelled, in respect of the answer that he was infeft and in possession by Troup his vassal, who was infeft on a charter from him, and that the complainer or freeholders had no title to object to his adjudication. Objection second, That four Commissioners privately had no power to divide joint valuations, which by the acts of Convention 1667 and 1678, and act of Parliament 1690, and subsequent acts, could only be done by a general meeting of the Commissioners, either appointed by a preceding meeting, or called by their Convener. Answered, The division was fairly and equally made on a proof taken of the rent of both lands, and the justness of it would appear on comparing it with former valuations of both lands; and the acts did not require a general meeting to divide valuations that had formerly been made jointly. Replied, If four Commissioners had not power, the Court or the freeholders could not enquire into the equality or justice of it; and on the other hand, if the law had given them power, the freeholders could not have altered their act; and that by all the Cess acts the powers therein committed cannot be executed by any without a general meeting, except allenarly the question touching quartering, for which three is a quorum. The Court pretty unanimously sustained this objection, renit. tantum Dun.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
