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 >> Anthony Hague of Bimerside v Moscrop and Rutherford. [1671] 2 Brn 151 (30 November 1671) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1671/Brn020151-0383.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JAMES DALRYMPLE OF STAIR.
Date: Anthony Hague of Bimerside
v.
Moscrop and Rutherford
30 November 1671 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Anthony Hague, as having a gift of all goods and gear belonging to umquhile Mr William Hague, his goodsire, pursues his debtors for payment: who alleged No process; because the sums in question are heritable; and the pursuer's gift can only extend to moveables, proceeding upon Mr William's being called before the justice in anno 1633, for some scandalous speeches against the
king, and not compearing, was declared fugitive, and denounced; which could only extend to his escheat: as was found in the case of William Yeoman and Mr Patrick Oliphant, that Mr James Oliphant being cited before the justices for killing his mother, which is treason, as being murder under the greatest trust; and being declared fugitive, and denounced; yet a gift of his escheat and forefaulture was found only to extend, to his moveables: and the certification in criminal letters, even for treason, is only, in case of not-compearance, the moveables shall be escheat but nothing can infer the effects of forefaulture but the doom of forefaulture. It was answered, That, in the case alleged, it was only for petty treason by statute, but this was contumacy in a citation for lese-majesty. The Lords found the defence relevant, and that the gift could only extend to moveables. Vol. II, Page 15.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
