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 >>
Adamson v Tenants of Strathlaw. [1628] Mor 2233 (19 March 1628)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1628/Mor0602233-106.html Cite as:
[1628] Mor 2233
No process was found against any tenants for abstracted multures, where their master the heritor was not summoned; although it was alleged that they were in continual use of bringing their corns to the pursuer's mill, as thirled thereto, and paying the accustomed dues of thirlage, past memory of man.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
An instrument of sasine, being only the assertion of a notar, is not sufficient to verify a thirlage; nor will it furnish a man interest to pursue for abstracted multures, except the charter containing thirlage be produced, which will be sustained to be proven in process.
March 20. ——No process against the tenant for abstracting the multures, if the master, who is heritor, be not summoned; albeit it be alleged, that they were in continual use of bringing their corns to the pursuer's mill, as thirled thereto, and of paying the accustomed dues of thirlage past the memory of man. March 22.——In the same action, alleged by the defender for the knaveship, &c. because these particulars are only due to the miller and servants for attendance, and not to the master, and therefore could not be craved unless their corns had been ground. Replied, That ought to be repelled, in respect of the infeftment bearing him to be infeft in the multures, with the sequels; in fortification whereof he offers to prove continual possession of the same. The allegeance was repelled in respect of the reply.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 141. Kerse, MS. fol. 95.*** Spottiswood has copied the above almost verbatim, thus:
An infeftment of sasine (being only the assertion of a notar,) is not sufficient to verify a thirlage; nor will it furnish a man interest to pursue for abstracted multures, unless the charter containing the thirlage be produced, which will be sustained to be proven cum processu.
No process against any tenants for abstracted multures, if their master who is heritor, be not summoned; though it be alleged that they were in continual use of bringing their corns to the pursuer's mill, as thirled thereto, and of paying the accustomed dues in thirlage past memory of man.
In the same action, alleged by the defenders, that the summons was not relevant for the knaveship, bannock, gowpen, &c. because these particulars are only due to the miller and his servants for their attendances, and not to the master, and therefore could not be craved, unless their corns had been grinded there. Replied, That ought to be repelled, in respect of his infeftment bearing him to be infeft in the multures with the sequels, in fortification whereof he offers to prove continual possession of the same. The allegeance was repelled in respect of the reply.
