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 >> Presbytery of Strathbogie v Sir William Forbes. [1776] Mor 9972 (2 August 1776) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1776/Mor2409972-042.html Cite as: [1776] Mor 9972 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1776] Mor 9972
Subject_1 PATRONAGE.
Subject_2 SECT. III. Jus Devolutum.
Date: Presbytery of Strathbogie
v.
Sir William Forbes
2 August 1776
Case No.No 42.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Sir William Forbes of Craigievar being abroad while the church of Grange, of which he was patron, became vacant, his mother Lady Forbes, factrix and commissioner for her son, in virtue of a commission empowering her “to pursue and defend all actions, civil or criminal, whenever he or his estate might be concerned, till he should attain the age of 21,” granted a presentation before the expiry of the six months, but after the period of her son's majority; though, as being abroad, he had never recalled his commission, and she had continued to exercise every act of administration relative to his affairs. The Lady, however, to obviate any objection to her title, procured from her son abroad a ratification of all she had done, and particularly of the grant of the patronage; but this did not arrive till after the expiry of the six months; and the presbytery, in the mean time, had declared the jus devolutum, rejected the presentation, and given another in favour of a person of their own chusing. In a declarator brought by the presbytery for supporting their presentation, it was urged for the patron, that the jus devolutum cannot fall but through the patron's neglect to exercise his right during the legal term; but here there had been no neglect on his part; for his mother, whose administration, even if questionable, he had ratified, had within the legal term exercised his right. The Lords repelled the defences, and decerned in the declarator.See Appendix.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting