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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Thomas Dundas of Quarrole, Esq; v John Kirk, Overseer of the Coal-works at Grange. [1761] Mor 2359 (22 January 1761)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1761/Mor0602359-009.html Cite as:
[1761] Mor 2359
Thomas Dundas of Quarrole, Esq; v. John Kirk, Overseer of the Coal-works at Grange
Date: 22 January 1761 Case No. No 9.
The proprietor of a coal-work, in possession of a coalier for year and day, could reclaim such coalier, and recover the penalty of the statute 1606 from any third party, to whose coal-work he had betaken himself.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr Dundas, in the beginning of 1760, brought an action against John Kirk upon the statute 1606, for the re-delivery of some coaliers, who, he alleged, had been enticed away from his Coal-works, at Quarrole, by the defender; as also, for the statutory penalty of L. 100 Scots, for having detained each of the said coaliers, after having been legally required by the pursuer to deliver them up.
James Brown, one of these coaliers, had worked in the Grange coaliery from September 1756, to October 1757; and, in November 1757, he began to work in Quarrole coal-work, belonging to Mr Dundas, and continued to work there pretty regularly till the end of March 1759, when he returned to Grange works.
Henry Love had been employed in Quarrole coaliery from August 1755 to April 1758; but from that period, till February 1759, he had not worked in Quarrole coaliery; and, before the end of the year 1759, he went to work at the Grange coaliery.
David Frew had never worked a year at Quarrole coal.
Observed from the Bench; That where the proprietor of a coal-work had been in possession of a coalier for year and day, it gave him such a right, as entitled him to reclaim the coalier from any third party, to whose work he had betaken himself
The Lords found, ‘That James Brown had been year and day in the possession of Mr Dundas, and that the defender was liable to the pursuer in the penalty of L. 100 Scots; but, in respect the pursuer had not proved that Henry Love and David Frew had been year and day in his possession, they assoilzied the defender from the process, so far as concerned them.’
Act. Garden.Alt. Lockhart.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 136. Fac. Col. No 9. p. 16.
