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 >> George Lawson v John Johnston and Andrew Dick. [1628] 1 Brn 160 (6 December 1628)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1628/Brn010160-0363.html

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


[1628] 1 Brn 160      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION reported by SIR ROBERT SPOTISWOODE OF PENTLAND.
Subject_2 Such of the following Decision as are of a Date prior to about the year 1620, must have been taken by Spotiswoode from some of the more early Reporters. The Cases which immediately follow have no Date affixed to them by Spotiswoode.

George Lawson
v.
John Johnston and Andrew Dick

Date: 6 December 1628

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

Mr George Lawson, donator to the escheat and liferent of the Laird of Boghall, having obtained a general declarator thereof, intented a special declarator against John Johnston and Andrew Dick, for payment of 600 merks of steelbow goods, addebted by them to the rebel, by a tack set to them by him, 1626. Alleged, That the steelbow goods could not be craved as fallen under escheat, because they were not payable to the rebel the time of his decease, neither could be craved before the expiring of the tack, whereof there were divers years to run: for the donator could be in no better case than the rebel himself, or his heir or executor. Answered, He sought only his right to be declared, but was content to supersede the execution during the tack. Duplied, Albeit he would supersede the payment, yet he can have no decreet against the tenants till the term of payment, because it was alike as in an action to make arrested goods forthcoming. The Lords repelled the allegeance in respect of the reply. Further Alleged, The steelbow goods could not be craved as escheatable, because they are a part of the tack-duty, payable the last year of the tack, before the removing, as the tack bore; and so should appertain to them that had right to the tack-duty, after Boghall's decease, and not to the rebel nor the donator. The Lords repelled this allegeance likewise.

Page 150.

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/1628/Brn010160-0363.html