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 >>
Crier of Bararge v L. Closeburn. [1637] Mor 15042 (20 January 1637)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1637/Mor3415042-050.html Cite as:
[1637] Mor 15042
Subject_1 SUPERIOR AND VASSAL. Subject_2 SECT. XI.
Composition due by Singular Successors.
Crier of Bararge v. L Closeburn.
Date: 20 January 1637 Case No. No. 50.
Whether superiors have the same claim of a year's rent from adjudgers, as they had from comprisers?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Grier of Bararge having charged the Laird of Closeburn to receive him in the lands of ———, upon a sentence of adjudication against his debtor, viz. the charger's own brother, who held the said lands of Closeburn, as his superior; and the superior suspending, that he ought to have a year's duty, as in comprisings; the Lords found the letters orderly proceeded, without respect to this reason; for they found that the act of Parliament, which was a warrant to the superior to take a year's duty from the compriser, before he could be compelled to enter him, could not be extended to adjudication, in respect of the act of Parliament, which is the ground of adjudication, and which is subjoined to the act anent comprisings immediately, done both in one Parliament 1621, bears no such warrant, and the Lords could not enlarge the act without a warrant, albeit they found there was a like reason of equity for the adjudication as for comprisings, and that the superior was alike prejudged in the one as in the other, by the change of his vassal against his will, which the superior alleged that by no law or reason he ought to do against his own will, without satisfaction therefore; which the Lords could not regard, for the reason foresaid, viz. that there was no act to warrant the same.
