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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
James Gordon of Badenscoth v General James Abercrombie of Glassoch, and Others. [1773] Mor 8870 (10 March 1773)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1773/mor218870-252.html
Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION VI.
Summary Complaint to the Court of Session.
Subject_3 SECT. III.
Of Objections not stated, or Evidence not produced to the Freeholders.
James Gordon of Badenscoth v. General James Abercrombie of Glassoch, and Others
Date: 10 March 1773 Case No. No 252.
Where the judgment of court of freeholders refusing a claim enrolment, on titles that were laid before them, and objected to, is brought under review of this Court; and an additional objection to the title is newly made here, it is competent to receive evidence, in order to remove that objection.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
At Michaelmas 1772, Mr Gordon having claimed to be enrolled as a free-holder in the county of Banff; diverse objections were made to his title, and the majority of the meeting rejected his claim.
Mr Gordon having presented a complaint against this refusal, in the answers whereto, besides recapitulating the former objections, an additional one to his title was mentioned; he insisted, That, as this objection had not been stated in the meeting of freeholders, he was entitled to produce new evidence in support of his claim, which he offered to do.
To this the respondents objected, on the incompetency of admitting new evidence in the review-court, to overturn the judgment of the original one; referring to the argument maintained by them in the case of Gordon of Whitley, No 260. p. 8876.
“The Lords repelled the objections made to the complainer's titles; but, before answer to the objections made in the answers, that the Castletown of Blairfindie, and Easter Blairfindie, are separate tenements, allowed the complainer to prove, that the lands of Easter Blairfindie are the same with the lands called the Castletown of Blairfindie.” And, upon advising the proof adduced, the Court found this point proved; and, on the whole, found, that the freeholders did wrong in refusing to enroll the complainer; and, therefore, granted warrant to add his name to the roll.
Act. Sol. General, Cosmo Gordon.Alt. Elphinstone, J. Boswell.Clerk, Pringle.
Fac. Col. No 67. p. 165.
