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 >>
Scot of Thirlestoun v The Laird Drumlanrig. [1670] Mor 15043 (15 June 1670)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1670/Mor3415043-052.html Cite as:
[1670] Mor 15043
Subject_1 SUPERIOR AND VASSAL. Subject_2 SECT. XI.
Composition due by Singular Successors.
Scot of Thirlestoun v. The Laird Drumlanrig
Date: 15 June 1670 Case No. No. 52.
The act 1669 allowing superiors an year's rent for receiving; adjudgers, which they had before for receiving apprisers, found to have no retrospect.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Scot of Thirleston having adjudged certain lands, charges Drumlanrig, superior, to receive him, who suspends, and alleges he ought to have a year's rent, conform, to the late act of Parliament 1669. It was answered, that this and all other acts have effect ad futura; but not only this adjudication was led before the act, but Drumlanrig was charged before the act, and having no just reason to disobey the. charge when he was charged, he cannot claim the benefit of a subsequent law. It was answered, The tenor of the act was declaratory, and bore a general clause, that adjudications should be in all things as apprisings.
The Lords found, that seeing the act did not expressly relate to by-gones, it could not extend to any adjudication, whereupon a charge was given before the act.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 409. Stair, v. 1. p. 680.*** Gosford reports this case:
The Lord Drumlanrig being charged to enter Thirlstoun, his vassal, to the lands of Brakenside, which he had adjudged from the apparent heir of his vassal, did suspend upon this reason, That he behoved to have a year's rent before he should subscribe the charter, conform to the late act of Parliament anent adjudications. It was answered, That the adjudication was led, and the superior charged before the late act of Parliament, which did only respect futura sed non præterita. To this it was replied, That the act of Parliament, as it was conceived, was declaratoria juris, bearing in the narrative, That there was par ratio that the superior should have a year's rent from adjudger's as well as comprisers.
The Lords, notwithstanding, did find the letters orderly proceeded, seeing the statutory part of the act did bear only that adjudgers should be in all things in a like condition with apprisers, which did import that it should only take place ad futura.
