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 >>
Leith of Freefield v His Majesty's Advocate. [1756] Mor 4769 (28 July 1756)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1756/Mor1104769-076.html Cite as:
[1756] Mor 4769
A loyal person, from whom a rebel carried away goods during the rebellion, found to have no claim for the value of these goods out of the rebel's effects belonging to the Crown.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
During the late rebellion, John Gordon of Glenbucket, accompanied by other rebels, invaded the house of the pursuer, a loyal person, and plundered it, carrying away with him goods and effects to the value of L. 180. This happened posterior to the 24th June 1745.
After the attainder of Glenbucket, the pursuer entered his claim in terms of the vesting act; and pleaded, That, had there been no forfeiture, his claim would have been unquestionably good against Glenbucket and his heirs; and therefore, as that act anxiously provides for the relief of all the lawful creditors of the forfeiting person, the pursuer's claim ought to be sustained.
Objected for the Crown; That, in order to prevent fraudulent claims, and cut off debts that might be contracted for the very purpose of supporting the rebellion, or saving the estates of rebels, the act aforesaid vests in his Majesty all the rights and estates of forfeiting persons from and after the 24th June 1745, allowing all their just and lawful debts, contracted by bonds and other securities therein enumerated, previous to that date. From hence it is evident, that no debt, however just, contracted after that time by the rebel, and by consequence no deed, however available to create a debt, can be sustained to affect the estate vested in the Crown.
‘The Lords dismissed the claim.’
Act. Garden.Alt. Advocatus et Solicitor.Clerk, ——.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 237. Fac. Col. No 211. p. 308.
