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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Sir James Cockburn of that Ilk v His Feuars of Dunse. [1684] 3 Brn 524 (5 December 1684)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1684/Brn030524-0795.html

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1684] 3 Brn 524      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL
Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
Date: 5 December 1684

Sir James Cockburn of that Ilk
v.
His Feuars of Dunse


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Sir James Cockburn of that Ilk, against his Feuars of Dunse, for relieving him of a proportional part of the new cess and taxation imposed by the last Parliament 1681.—By the last clause of the 3d Act thereof, feuars, vassals, tenants, and cottars, are bound to reimburse their superiors and masters, of the quotas therein mentioned.

But the Lords found Sir James could not exact from his feuars and tenants, though never so many, above the half of his own stent; else, in some places, a man might get more than his own part of the cess came to.

The interlocutor was:—The Lords found Sir James, by that Act, could not burden his vassals or tenants with more than the one half of the cess he pays for his own lands: and found, as to such feuars as were inrolled in the valuation-rolls by themselves, that they could relieve him of no part of the taxation, because they paid for their own lands; but, as to such as were not valued, who held some heritage of him in feu, and laboured other men's lands as tenants, that they should pay what the said act imposes on tenants, viz. £4 Scots; and, if they had 110 labouring, then £6 Scots; but if they had only a house, and had no trade at all, then that these should be reputed and cessed as cottars.

Vol. I. Page 318.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1684/Brn030524-0795.html