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 >> Margaret Balcanquell v Craig. [1668] 1 Brn 573 (22 July 1668) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1668/Brn010573-1455.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR PETER WEDDERBURN, LORD GOSFORD.
Date: Margaret Balcanquell
v.
Craig
22 July 1668 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Margaret Balcanquell and her son being debtors to Hugh Craig, by two several bonds; and having granted a new bond of corroboration for the principal and annualrents, making up, in the whole, 700 merks; for farther security, did grant a tack of two merchant-booths, for payment of £100 yearly of tack-duty; which was to be retained in satisfaction of the bond pro tanto. This tack was craved to be declared null, upon the late Act of Parliament anent Debtor and Creditor; because the maills and duties of the said two booths were worth yearly £ 160; and the granters of the tack were obliged to free the tacksmen of all cess and public burdens whatsoever; so that he was yearly to have £60 more than the annualrent of his money. The question being, If a tack of this nature did fall within the Act of Parliament,—there being only mention made of wadsets, and a general clause subjoined of all such bargains and rights: The Lords were loath to decide the tack null upon the Act of Parliament; because it would thereby have made the bond usurary, and the whole sum, and the tacksman's
escheat to fall; and therefore recommended to the parties to agree: but inclined to find that the tack did fall within the Act of Parliament. Page 15.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
