¹About this text and its author see Athol L. MURRAY, Sinclair's Practicks, p. 90-104 in: HARDING, A. (ed.), Law-making and law-makers in British history, 1980; SMITH, David B., The dean of Restalrig's book, in: Journal of the Law Society of Scotland (1994) 409-410.

This is but a provisional test-version of Sinclair's text. It should thus not be expected to be free from errors! A definite edition of the text is forthcoming, to be published by Dr. Athol L. Murray, under the aegis of the Stair Society.

The original manuscript of this text is lost. All extant manuscripts of it are late copies, written by persons who did not understand the text sufficiently and who often misinterpreted the (obviously many) Latin and Scots abbreviations in the text. In particular, they often converted abbreviations of old Scots words into modern English: thus "haiff" wrongly became "have", "nocht" became "not", "mycht" became "might", "samyn" became "same", and so on. Punctuation was inconsistent and garbled. It appears furthermore that interlinear and marginal corrections were drawn to wrong places in the text. The same happened to headings of chapters. The original had obviously shown them in the margins. All this makes it difficult to recover the points of law which Sinclair intended to make.

The present text is primarily based on a transcription by Dr Athol L. Murray (Edinburgh) from the manuscript at Edinburgh University Library, Laing MS. III 488a. Dr Murray envisages a philologically and historically satisfactory edition of the text. He has thus started collating other manuscripts and bringing dates and names in the text in line with corresponding archival material.

More years may pass before the definite edition of Sinclair's Practicks will be published. Lawyers in Scotland and abroad, however, need access to this important text. This is why the undersigned (being for the time a member of Aberdeen's Law Faculty) undertook to rework Dr. Murray's transcription into a readable provisional text for the mean time. Although details of its wording, here and there, are still open for discussion, all its points of law now make sense and appear to be reliable. Punctuation (which also makes use of round brackets) was revised, additional words were supplied <in pointed brackets>, and sources from "Ius Commune" (Roman and canon law) were identified. In order to test retrieval techniques, the thus adapted text was then provisionally connected to the internet for a test run - under the address www.uni-leipzig.de/~jurarom/scotland.

For the convenience of readers, the undersigned has interspersed Sinclair's text with eighty-seven overlapping practicks from another contemporary collection, also transcribed by Dr. Murray. This collection (anonymous) is preserved as an appendix to Sinclair's text in the above-mentioned manuscript Laing MS. III 488a. It is also contained, with less mistakes, in the manuscript Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, Advocates Library 24.4.11, and perhaps as well in manuscript 23.3.6. As Dr. Murray had numbered Sinclair's Practicks from 1 to 509, he thus continued numbering the anonymous collection from 510 to 596. The practicks in the additional collection are copied in reverse order, however: Number 596 is thus the oldest in date, and 510 is the youngest.

All extant copies of Sinclair's text disrupt the chronological order of reported cases in many instances, and they also differ in their selection of cases. This makes one think that the original text (and probably the rough notes which preceded it) may have been written on unbound quires, or even on loose single sheets which could easily get out of order.

In Sinclair's time, the year date switched on March 25, and not on the first day of January². Sinclair's year dates in the first three months of each year are thus misleading: namely his 1541 must be read as 1542, and so on.

²See practick nr. 484.

The undersigned has added <in pointed brackets> dates for practicks without date or with incomplete date. In the first fifty practicks, datations were supplied by Dr. Athol Murray from his research in archival materials. For the remainder, datations were guessed on the basis of dated practicks which precede or follow.

Sinclair's text is similar in character to respective contemporary counterparts in continental Europe. It shows the Court of Session as a fully-fledged Ius-Commune-Court. Texts from Corpus Iuris Canonici and Corpus Iuris Civilis were applied as if they had been legislated for Scotland, and the respective medieval standard commentaries were read along with them.

In particular, the collector quotes the Corpus Iuris Canonici (Decretum Gratiani, X, 6., Clem.) and canonist writings by Abbas (Bernardus de Montemirato), Benedictus Capra de Benedictis, Bernardus Parmensis, Cardinalis (Gencelinus de Cassanhis), Dominicus <de Sancto Geminiano?>, Felinus Sandeus, Franciscus Zabarella, Innocentius IV papa (= Sinibaldus Fliscus), Iohannes Andreae, Iohannes ab Imola, Iohannes Monachus, Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis), Petrus ab Ancharano.

The collector also quotes - to a lesser extent - the Corpus Iuris Civilis (D., C., Nov., Inst., Libri Feudorum) and civilian writings by Accursius, Alexander Tartagnus, Angelus de Gambilionibus, Baldus de Ubaldis, Bartolus de Saxoferrato, Dinus de Mugello, Jason de Mayno, Paulus de Castro, Philippus Decius, Ulricus Zasius.

Two 14th century law reports are quoted: from the papal Rota Romana (collected by Guilielmus Horborch) and from the Capella Tolosana (court of the archbishop of Toulouse), collected by Johannes Corserius.

Furthermore, the collector quotes the Speculum iudiciale by Guilielmus Durantis, the Practica by Iohannes Petrus de Ferrariis and the Commentary to the customs of Burgundy by Bartholomaeus Chassanaeus ... - and of course the Scottish treatise "Regiam maiestatem", although not frequently.

Aberdeen and Leipzig, springtime 1996 Gero R Dolezalek

³It is obvious that this heading is not authentic. The text is from John Sinclair - and not from Henry Sinclair, at times dean of Glasgow, his older brother. John Sinclair, not Henry, was admitted to the College of Justice on the said date. Henry Sinclair was admitted earlier.

<27 apr. 1540?> Ane instrument publicque prowin be tua of the witnessis insert thairin makis fayth, suppois xx utheris als inwrettin and instrumentis say aganis it⁴. De qua re vide Panor. et alios in cap. Cum Joannes, Extra, de fide instru.⁵. Sed de practica est regni Scotie quod predicitur.

⁴Similar problem in nrs. 66 and 174.

⁵Commentaries by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) and other authors, on X 2.22.10 [to the point].

<1540? [cf. Balfour 383 c.8, 27 April 1540] > Ane instrument publict may nocht be improwin bot by witnessis inwrittin in it, and nocht be utheris nocht contenit thairin, of the practik of Scotland.

<27 apr. 1540 [cf. Balfour 373 c. 6] > Aganis witnessis anis admittit and sworne in presens of partie or absence contumaciter, na exceptionis ar admittit. De quo ius commune, vide Panor. in cap. 2^o de testi.⁶. Et quidem si pars iustam absentie causam habuit in termino ad audiendum testes recipi, jurari et admitti assignato, maior pars dominorum in causa Lyndsay rei et <Fentoun> actoris 27 aprilis anno 1540 tenebant practicam precedentem. Sed causa dubii huius tunc indecisa remansit.

⁶Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.20.2 [to the point].

<1540?> The lordis of thair office usis to reexamining witnessis, thay nocht being than new sworne.

<1540? [cf. CS 6/12 fol. 131; cf. Balfour 324 c.26, 27 April 1540 = Alexander Auchinlek (to the hands of Thomas Erskine of Brechin, the King's secretary) v. Dame Marion Hume] >: The lordis in civill actionis gevis day reo to call his warrand, and aganis him contumaciter absente decernis him to warrand reum de titulo quem pretendit ab illo, and sua proceidis nevirtheles contra reum.

<3 apr. 1540> < [cf. CS 6/12 fol. 144, 4 May 1540; cf. Balfour 452 c.29, 27 April 1540 = Helen Rutherford v. William Jackson] >: Landis being comprysit be ony man ar be act of parliament <1469 c. 12> redemeabill allanerlie within sevin yeiris thairefter, and the principall sowme, officiaris fie and expensis of passing the infeftment being payit or consignit realie. In falt or absence of pairtie that sould resave the samyn, the lordis delyveris letters to charge the pairtie to delyver all evidentis thairof to the man quhometo the landis first pertenit, to ourgif and renunce the samyn or to compeir ane certane day to alledge ane caus quhy etc. Suppois in redeaming of landis be reversioun the lordis usis that the partie be first callit to heir and sie the landis laufullie redemit, or than charge the pairtie to the samyn, as wes practicat the 3 of Apryll anno 1540, Marioribankis procurator rei et magister David Ireland actoris.

<1540?> Ane man may persew his summondis or libell for quhat part alanerlie he plesis, and haiff the laiff of it for that tyme pro deleto.

<19 apr. 1540 [cf. Balfour 165 c.15, 29 April 1540] > Ane man superiour to certane landis lyand out of thame at his laufull aige in defraude of thame that haldis of him, or refusand to enter tham, he beand enterit himself, tynnis for his lyfetyme the superioritie thairof, for the quhilk tyme the saidis landis sal be the tennentis and thair airis haldin of the king. Et nota quod nevertheles the said superiour levand may sell the said superioritie tint for his lyfetyme fra him and his airis, as counsallit the lordis of Counsall the xix day of Apryll in alienatione maid be ane Lyndsay to our soverane lordis comptrollar, David Wod. <Marginal note in NLS Advocates Library 24.1.11 refers to 1474 c. 13.>

<1540?> The lordis of Counsall admittis interrogatouris of witnessis.

<1540?> Ane mareit woman may nocht stand in judgement active nor passive sine marito⁷, nec disponere de bonis immobilibus sine marito.

⁷Scots law contrasts with Ius Commune in this point.

<CONTINUED> Sed bene de eis locandis vel vendendis disponit vir etiam sine eius consensu. Contra autem viri contractum non auditur mulier eo vivente, sed mortuo sic, ad retractandum venditionem et alium quemcunque contractum sine suo consensu per eum factam, quia potestas, quam in bonis omnibus uxoris habet vir, est legittima tractatio dum vivit. Bona vero mulieris mobilia irrevocabiliter alienat vir, iuxta consuetudinem regni Scotiae. Notatur a <... quod> mulier coram dominis Consilii non admittitur in testem - quod causa est de iure, ut notat Decius in l. Femine, ff. de regulis juris⁸.

⁸Philippus Decius, Commentary on D. 50.17.2 [to the point].

<13 maii 1540 [cf. CS 6/12 fol. 174v, 13 May 1540; cf. Balfour 171 c.7, 12 May 1540] > Feodum amittitur et forisfitur si non impleatur id propter quod datum fuit, ut habetur libro secundo Feodorum, titulo 24 "<res> que fuit", Jas. 55., <§> "Sed non est"⁹. Sic decreverunt domini Consilii, 13 Maii anno 1540 apud Edinburgh, in causa supremi domini nostri regis Jacobi quinti contra Thomam Wardropare et N. Vardropar et quendam Crychtoune <of Innerty> propter¹⁰ terras de Kinclevin, ut latius in libris Consilii licet videre, becaus the few wes gevin for policie and planting of treis and vod and thai had distroyit the vod of these landis.

⁹Libri Feudorum 2.24.6 (title "Quae fuit prima causa beneficii amittendi") [to the point]; perhaps with commentary by Jason de Mayno, at column 55 in the edition which the collector happened to use.

¹⁰MS: penes.

<13 maii 1540 [CS 6/12 fol. 179v; cf. Balfour 423 c.19, 27 April 1540] > Brevia sunt generalia quandoque, sed tunc clameum dicitur esse speciale. Et tunc sufficit quod inquisitores seu assessores serviant petentem affirmative de iis de quibus sufficienter fuit probatum eis predecessorem eius, cuius heredem se clamat petens, vestitum et sasetum ut de feodo, ad pacem domini regis, discessisse ultimo. Nec est necesse quod negative responderent petenti de eis de quibus serviri debere se idonee non probavit petens. Ita judicaverunt domini Consilii die ac anno quibus supra, in causa domini <Thomas Duddington> de <Southous> conquerentis de certis assessoribus burgi Edinburgensis propter¹¹ clameum suum de certis annuis redditibus infra burgum predictum, per ipsum clamatis hereditarie.

¹¹MS: penes.

<Maii 1540? [cf. CS 6/12 fol. 181, 12 May 1540, James Foulis of Colinton v. tenants formerly of John Broun; cf. also fol. 160v = Balfour 562 c.6, 31 May 1540] >: Confiscati locationi non tenetur fiscus stare, nec causam a fisco habens. Practicatum fuit in causa magistri Jacobi Fowles contra quosdam inquilinos Joannis N. ob heresim confiscati. Causa vero agitata fuit coram dominis Consilii apud Edinburgh circa finem Maii 1540. Et idem de iure communi, ut per Jason in l. Divortio, ff., § Ut verum¹².

¹²Commentary by Iason de Mayno on D. ... (Quotation garbled. D. 24.3.25.4 "si vir" comes close and covers the point of law).

<2 junii 1540 [cf. CS 6/12 fol. 190, 2 June 1540, Persons on inquest for division of lands v. Margaret Haliburton and George Keir, her spouse, for his interest; Balfour 440 c.94] >: Breve divisionis terrarum cum pertinentiis non admittat de consuetudine regni Scotiae clameum specificum, prout breve de hereditate. Et sub generali clausula "cum pertinentiis" continentur domus et edificia, muires, mosses, woddis, medowis, milnis, que omnia dividenda sunt, licet in brevi divisionis specificata non sunt. Practicatum 2^o Junii anno 1540 apud Edinburgh, in causa magistri Georgii Kar et sue sponse, unius trium heredum de Dirltoun, petentis divisionem terrarum de Bowtoun, that obtenit the kingis letters to charge sub pena rebellionis the assyse to delyver affirmative or negative upone the clame in all poyntis. And the assys callit agane the letters to be suspendit becaus thai had answerit to the breif fullelie, and thay allegit the non-divisioun of the pertinentis foirsaidis nawayis specifeit in the retour. The lordis of the Counsall decernit the saidis charge and letters justlie gevin and that the assys had nocht answerit the breif in all poyntis be reasone foirsaid.

<1 junii 1540 [cf. CS 6/12 fol. 188, 1 June 1540, Ewan Alenson (Cameron of Locheil) v. John Maclean of Coll, and Andrew Blakstok as a sheriff in that part] >: Titius contumax a vicecomite condempnatus fuit quod violenter et iniuste occupaverat terras de A hereditarie spectantes Caio. Literis levatis pro reductione curialis decreti vicecomitis, coram dominis Consilii libellatur quod non iniuste occupaverat dictas terras, quia hereditariam sasinam, statum et possessionem earundem tempore allegate iniuste occupationis habebat. Et produxit instrumentum desuper publicum quod coram vicecomite non erat ostensum, contra quod multa ex parte altera allegabantur, et sasina hereditaria antiquior. Decretum tamen fuit in causa cuiusdam N. Alesone prope Innerness commorantis per dominos Consilii, apud Edinburgh 1^o junii anno 1540, Andrea Blakstok procuratore <alterius partis, et non> ipsius Alesone, et vicecomite qui decretum etiam illud tulerat <.?.>, dictum decretum ex causa predicta retractandum fore, prout realiter dicti domini retractaverunt illud, attenta etiam reali possessione et occupatione alterius partis. Dixerunt enim dictum Alisone opportere reducere cartam et sasinam illam, et interea eandem esse iustum titulum alteri parti¹³. Nota etiam quod si coram vicecomite obiectio fuisset contra titulum rei, si illum produxisset, vicecomes cognoscere de vigore tituli non potuisset. Is enim secundum consuetudinem Scotie de possessione tantum cognoscit. Et ad dominos Consilii pertinet cognitio dominii et proprietatis.

¹³In this regard the Court's practice differed from Roman law which allowed to argue nullity of any document under the aspect that it was "grossly" defective. Canon law and territorial law in all Ius-Commune-countries emended Roman law in this regard - yet they differed in the extent to wich they emended the Roman law.

<1540?> Bona condemnati de crimine ad ultimum supplicium statim sunt confiscata, et ilico lata sententia condemnatus ea perdit, et civitatem et libertatem, licet adhuc interfectus non sit.

<22 nov. 1540? [cf. CS 16/14 fol. 6v, 22 November 1540, John Meldrum (alias Marchmount Herald) v. George Meldrum of Fyvie and Patrick Meldrum; cf. also fol. 11v = Balfour 460 c.21, 23 November 1540] >: Titius assedavit terras A.B.C. non suas. In quarum possessione pro terminis ad huc cursuris existentem Caium, ut moris est in regno Scotiae, ad removendum inde verus dominus earundem premonuit et eiecit. Queritur Caius se spoliatum ab eo possessione sua, et restitutionem petit. Excipit dominus de legitima et iuridica eiectione. Replicavit Caius quod titulum ab eo non pretendit et quod in possessione erat cum titulo, pro terminis cursuris, et ab eo eiectus. Dubitatur an esset admittenda exceptio domini. Et responsum fuit per dominos Consilii, die 22 (vel eocirca) novembris anno 1540, exceptionem domini non esse relevantem, ex eo quod <Caius> actor erat in possessione cum titulo, scilicet assedationis pro terminis cursuris, et sic inclusus intra terminos. Et dominus sic condemnatus fuit de spolio. Actor erat in causa Merchmount Herauld.

<1540? [cf. CS 6/13 fol. 214v, 29 November 1540, Laird Alexander Forrester of Costorphine v. David Forrester of Gordon; cf. also CS 6/14 fol. 45 and 112v and CDS 6/14 f.; Balfour 345 c.13] >: Ane peremptour exceptioun being be ane interlocutour of the lordis repellit, that pairtie than may propone at anis all his peremptouris and is nocht admittit eftirvardis to ma¹⁴. And ilk man <sould> haiff redy in writt all his exceptionis quhen he cumis to the bar, or than propone thame verbo, for it is ordanit be the lordis in causa domini de Corstorphine contra Forstar, 29 die novembris anno 1540, that na dilatouris be gevin ad dandum exceptiones in scriptis, etiam si partes vel earundem procuratores vellent et consentirent, quamvis ante de eorum consensu hoc fieret.

¹⁴Because they must be raised before the "litis contestatio".

<29 nov. 1540> Ane officiar be the kingis letters hes apprisit to me certane geir of Androis¹⁵. Titius persewis me for spuilyie of that geir, allegeand that it wes in his possessioun as his propir guidis, quhair it wes tane away. I exceptit that I did na spuilyie nor wrang becaus that gair wes laufulie apprysit to me, than haldin and repute Androis and in his possessioun de practica, becaus fayth is gevin to the officiar et presumptio est pro eo. Exceptio admittitur probationi, albeit it be direct contrair to the summondis quoad possessionem, et de consuetudine non admittunt domini Consilii ad probandum directe contra summonitionem actoris¹⁶. Sic fuit in causa cuiusdam Crawfurd rei practicatum, die 29 Novembris 1540.

¹⁵Abstract of a case, with fictitious persons, similar to the case Weddirburne v. Hay: see nrs. 373-375, 406-407a.

¹⁶Because normally, if a pursuer's account of facts is directly denied, the pursuer must prove what he alleges. It is thus not the task of the defender to prove that the pursuer's allegations are not true.

<Nov. 1540 [cf. CS 6/14 fol. 4, 20 November 1540, Katherine Lindsay v. John White and others] >: Appellatio a sententia seu precepto super propria confessione alicuius lata¹⁷, vel a literis excommunicationis desuper secutis, sub quibus quis 40 dies tacuit, non impedit literas regias desuper fulminari ad apprysandum eius bona iuxta actum parliamenti desuper confectum. Et idem dic de herede et executore illius, licet alias tales litere regie non dantur contra appellantes ab aliis sententiis, et date revocantur. Dic summarie coram dominis, quod quis legitime stat sub appellatione sua per instrumentum appellationis infra debitum tempus, viz. 10 dierum interiectum, intimationem et apostolorum debitam petitionem continens. De executione fuit practicatum in mense novembris anno 1540.

¹⁷Similar problem in nr. 437.

<Nov. 1540 [cf. CS 6/12 fol. 153, November 1540, James Garioch of Kinstary ?] >: In causa quorundam pauperum Breichnensis diocesis, Willielmo Wichtman procuratore appelative, nota quod ostensaque dominis <Consilii> iudicis absolutione, apud quem sententia excommunicationis super acto etiam confessato lata erat, <domini> executionem literarum suarum suspendunt durante absolutione. Practicatum hoc fuit mense quo <supra> in causa Jacobi Garthaucht de Kinflanis appellati ad Sanctandream a commissario Brichinensi, magistro Georgio Strang pro eo procuratore.

¹⁸"Cursing" = excommunication, fulminated by a competent church superior.

<21 jan. 1541 [cf. CS 6/14 fol. 92, 21 January 1541, King v. Lord Lyle; cf. Balfour 419 c. 5] >: Ane retour of the lord Lylis wes reducit totaliter at the kingis instance, the 21 day of Januar 1540 <= 1541> apud Edinburgh, becaus reus schew nocht instrumentum sasine predecessoris sui de annuali redditu 5 mercarum contenit in his retour, albeit of money uthir landis contenit thairin he schew seasing of his father. And that wes almoist be all the lordis allegit the practique, albeit decreitis may be of the practique reducit pro parte and stand in reliquo.

<21 jan. 1541> Ane retour seillit with the inqueistis seillis or with the maist or famusest pairt thairof, albeit it be nocht found in chancellarie nor subscryvit with the clerkis hand thairof, hes faith and is authentik, maxime quhen the buik of respondie and rolles concordis with it. Practicatum fuit die mensis, anno, et causa predictis domini Lylis.

<18 jan. 1541 [cf. CS 6/14 fol. 94, 18 January 1541; cf. Balfour 365 c.17, 21 January 1541] Hew Lord Somerville v. Margaret Lundie, relict, and James Hoppringle, son and executor of David Hoppringle of Smalham, etc.>: Transactioun and compositioun de practica may nocht be prewit bot be writ. Payment, exoneratioun, quytclame and discharge etiam per testes¹⁹. 18 Januarii (aut eocirca), anno et loco quibus supra, in causa spolii domini Somerwell, Marioribankis eius procurator, Rig procurator actoris.

¹⁹Similar problem in practicks nr. 194, 289 and 425.

<26 jan. 1541 [cf. CS 6/14 fol. 103v and 109, 26 January 1541] > Quhen tua pairteis upone divers ordinar letters gettis the kingis letters and pley cum, quhilkis of the kingis letters sould the tennentis obey? The lordis suspendis simpliciter baith the letters becaus of the contrair ordinar letters. Practicatum fuit in causa magistri Joannis Campbell electi quondam Insularum contra Lawson archidiaconum earundem, 26 Januarii anno et loco ut predicitur.

In causa abbatis Cambuskennethe contra Fostar²⁰, 4 marcii anno 1540 < [= 1541; cf. Balfour 460 c.22] > apud Edinburgh, decreverunt domini Consilii existentem in possessione Fostar certarum terrarum acrarum dicti monasterii per multos annos ex tollerantia abbatis non posse decerni violentem nec iniustum possessorem, nec cogendum desistere a possessione inclusum intra terminos, nisi legitime premonitus et eiectus fuerit. Quod tunc non fecerat abbas.

²⁰Parallel problem in case nr. 370.

27. Questio²¹

<20 Feb. 1541?> Titius assedavit Caio certas terras in quinquennium. Primo anno appellabatur Caius per Sempronium et quidem iuridice eiectus <est> terris. Postea easdem conducit Caius a Sempronio. Queritur an fructus totius quinquenni debeat Caius a Titio obtinere ratione sui interesse, ex illo quod non varantizavit illi suam assedationem, attento quod nihilominus reconduxit easdem terras pro tanto tempore idem Caius et easdem gavisus est. Ut predicitur decisum fuit.

²¹Abstract of some case, probably the one quoted in nr. 508 as of 20 February 1540 = 1541.

<10 feb. 1541 [cf. CS 6/14 fol. 122, 3 February 1541; Balfour 323 c.21, 11 February 1541] > Varrantus non potest de practica vocari, nec ad hoc datur dilatio, nisi petatur in principio cause aut saltem antequam peremptoria aliqua proponatur²². Et sic, cum executio petitur sententie, ad hoc nemo admittitur. Practicatum fuit apud Edinburgh 10 februarii anno 1540 <= 1541>, in causa cuiusdam Hird contra magistrum Willielmum Arthour civem Sanctandrie.

²²Thus before the "litis contestatio" which follows thereafter (X 2.5.3; 6. 2.3.1-2) - because the person asked to warrant shall be given a fair chance to influence the outcome of the litigation.

<10 feb. 1541 [cf. CS 6/14 fol. 118, 28 January 1541; Balfour 415 c.25] > Contra executionem decreti arbitralis, dummodo latum sit intra terminum compromissi, nulla exceptio admittitur, nec iniustitie nec nullitatis, sed de eis oportet agere iure actionis ad retractandum decretum²³. Practicatum mense, anno, loco quibus supra, in causa Hammyltoun contra Hammyltoun fratrem.

²³Grounded on principle stated in nr. 16.

Eodem die <10 feb. 1541 [cf. Balfour 358 c.39, 11 February 1541] >: Practicatum fuit contra magistrum Hugonem Rig, procuratorem cuiusdam de spolio, quod electa una via probandi resilire de illa ad aliam non licet, viz. qui cepit probare per testes postea penitere non potuit et referre iuramentum parti <adversae>²⁴, nec contra. Et proposita una peremptoria, succumbens in ea <in probatione²⁵>, aliam proponere non admittitur (invita parte altera²⁶), etiam si pro aliis protestatus fuerat, etiam si de novo alia ad notitiam devenerint²⁷. Practicatum contra Irland procuratorem Spens, 5 februarii anno quo supra.

²⁴D. 12.2.

²⁵This restricted meaning of the rule results from nr. 18.

²⁶Nr. 18 says at the end that the law had been toughened: even if the other party conceded it, no more "exceptiones peremptoriae" could be admitted after "litis contestatio".

²⁷This, however, could justify a plea of reduction against the final judgment.

<CONTINUED> Sic in eadem causa practicatum fuit quod, falsitatis exceptione obiecta contra instrumentum²⁸, in ea deficiens solutionem allegare non admittitur²⁹.

²⁸MS: instantiam

²⁹Because "litis contestatio" was effected when the Court admitted the first-raised exception to proof. See nrs. 115 (note), and 149 (note).

<CONTINUED> Item contra eundem Irland tunc interlocutum est quod clientulus eius post iuramentum delatum parti alteri³⁰, etiam antequam iuravit vel deposuit, penitere non posset et ad alias redire probationes.

³⁰"Iusiurandum litis decisorium": X 2.24.36; D. 12.2.

<6 feb. 1541 [cf. CS 6/14 fol. 134, 3 February 1540, David Lundy v. Provost and canons of St. Salvator's, at St. Andrews] > Victus victori damnatur in expensis, licet iustam causam habuerit litigandi³¹. Et quando plures simul sunt, in expensis condamnantur quilibet pro rata pro parte sua. Practicatum 6 Februarii apud Edinburgh in causa Lundie et doctorum collegii Sanctiandreae contra Rig, procuratorem unius reorum, ad salvandum clientem suum ab expensis premissa allegantem.

³¹Although almost all Ius-Commune-countries have in the mean time adopted this principle, it contrasts with the old leading doctrine of Ius Commune (as applied in nr. 289): namely C. 7.51.3 and C. 10.69.1 were interpreted to allow the court to give judgment with partial costs or even without costs in cases where the losing party had had good reasons to litigate - and this is still the position in modern South African law, for instance.

<5 feb. 1541 [cf. CS 6/14 fol. 135v] > Domini Consilii ex causa coram eis probata non dant inhibitionem inferioribus iudicibus procedendi vel continuandi curias, sed semper rescribunt quod iudex admittat iustas partium defensiones³². Practicatum fuit 5 februarii anno quo supra, in causa deservitionis brevium cuiusdam Gray contra uxorem domini de <Duncrub> et ipsum pro suo interesse, revocato mandato dominorum precedente die cuidam clavigero dato, ad instantiam dicti domini per nuntium se excusante ratione egritudinis, quatenus curiam vicecomes continuare in alium diem vellet.

³²Practice also stated in nr. 170. Mentioned in nr. 106.

Quarto Marcii anno 1540 <= 1541 [cf. CS 6/15 fol. 11v] > apud Edinburgh: In causa cuiusdam Kennedy presbiteri, regis donatarii, ad instantiam utriusque intentata propter³³non-introitum certarum terrarum, vocatis generaliter omnibus interesse habentibus pro interesse, admissus erat dominus de <Bargany> et assignatus terminus magistro Henrico Lawder procuratori regis et presbiteri ad probandum. In quo termino nullam probationem nec diligentiam fecerat. Et protestatus est dictus dominus quod cederet pro termino actoribus. Ideo decretum fuit quod stante exceptione litis pendentie dictus dominus non tenebatur respondere nove summonitioni super terrarum earundem non-introitu, specialiter ad instantiam regis et dicti donatarii contra eum intentate.

³³MS: penes.

Quinto marcii anno 1540 <= 1541 [cf. CS 6/15 fol. 12; also CS 6/14 fol. 202, 25 February 1541] >: Domini retractaverunt rollamentum curie vicecomitis de Couper latum contra quendam Heriott presbiterum, ideo quia deputatus vicecomitis repulit exceptionem dicti Heriott qui declinando iudicem dicebat se clericum, et ideo non esse cogendum coram ipso iudice seculari³⁴, quam exceptionem offerebatur Heriott se incontinenti probaturum legitime.

³⁴See note to nr. 351 about "privilegium fori".

Et ibidem <5 mar. 1541> practicatum fuit quod, si iudex repellit exceptionem legitimam quam pars obtulit se sufficienter probaturam, retractantur processus ducti de hoc, licet coram dominis veritas exceptionis non probetur. Sed si in secunda instantia allegetur nova exceptio, illa est probanda.

Octavo die mensis marcii anno 1540 <= 1541 [cf. CS 6/15 fol. 35, also 6/14 fol. 2, 27, 56, 105; Balfour 231 c.31, 15 March 1541; Balfour 233 c.40 and 236 c.5, both 8 March 1541] >: In causa Jonete Scot contra quendam Blair, decretum fuit per dominos Consilii quod ipsa, licet per brevia erat deservita heres cuiusdam Willielmi (ut arbitror) Scot, tamen "hereditaria" bona clamare non potuit, quia non erat deservita heres illi de ullis terris aut de rebus immobilibus. Et quod generalis deservitio proderit ei, quia illius virtute potest agere ex reversionibus, obligationibus et contractibus prefato Willielmo et heredibus suis factis. Et idem dic de barone et burgense, ut quod heredes eorum oportet esse deservitos ad certa bona immobilia prius quam habeant "hereditaria" bona, vulgariter "airschip guidis". Et de herede sacerdotis cuiusdam Sancte Johnestoun antea istud erat practicatum. Et hoc casu executores cum omnibus bonis immobilibus intromittunt.

Octavo die mensis marcii anno 1540 <= 1541 [cf. CS 6/15 fol. 20v, 7 March 1541; Balfour 143 c.3] >: In causa cuisdam economi de Driburgh contra quendam Home pensionarium de Dryburcht, decretum fuit ipsum pensionarium debere relevare abbatem et conventum de taxta dicto monasterio imposita pro sustentatione Collegii Iustitiae pro rata quantitatis pensionis sue, et bene, ut Chassaneus super consuetudine Burgundiae, titulo "de droicts et appertenances a gens maries", in verbo "supportive"<?>, lemate "des thinges"?>³⁵.

³⁵Bartholomaeus Chassanaeus, Commentarius in consuetudinem Burgundiae (printed many times from 1517 onward), rubrica 4, paragraph 9 "Mulier quae est particeps"(?), lemma "de tous debtes"(?) = p. 647 in the edition Francofurti 1590 = p. 794 in the edition Genevae 1616. The wording of this partly garbled quotation has been taken from Edinburgh, UL, Laing MS. III 429, and its end words from Edinburgh, NLS, Advocates 24.1.11. The principal manuscript (= Edinburgh, UL, Laing MS. III 488a) is more garbled. It lacks the word "Chassaneus" and it has in its place the word "Thesaurus". The latter word clearly refers to Antoninus Thesaurus, editor of a widely known collection of decisions of the Senate of Piemont, printed many times from 1590 onward. Thesaurus reported, under the number 164, a decision from 1582 which covers the topic perfectly and contains useful references (fol. 139v in the edition Augustae Taurinorum 1590). I have no doubt that this decision was meant. Yet the quotation proves that the manuscript Laing MS. III 488a cannot have been written before 1590.

Eodem die <8 mar. 1541>: In causa Andreae Murray de Blakbarony decretum fuit quod non erat satis quod subtenentes et inhabitatores terre premonerentur et eiicerentur, sed quod necesse erat principalem tenentem premoneri. Et eum interea etiam post terminos assedationis sue elapsos iuste possidere et non cogendum solvere nisi solitum summe male, quia videtur dominus tacite relocasse tenenti pro anno proximo post suam assedationem, patiendo eum remanere in possessione³⁶, et ideo tenentem non posse dici violentem possessorem.

³⁶D. 19.2.14, also D. 19.2.13.11. Similar problem in nrs. 370 and 525.

In mense februarii circa finem vel in principio marcii anno quo supra <1541>: Magister Thomas Weymes, magister hospitii regis, pro suo interesse comparuit propter retractationem rollamenti curie cuiusdam vicecomitis. Actione intentata ad instantiam regis et partis, productae per magistrum Thomam Weymes litere regie fuerunt, renunciantes iure liti et causae <per> quantum regem concernebat. Dicebat procurator ille quod ad instantiam regis et partis coniunctim erat libellata summonitio, ideo procedi non posse. Tamen interlocutum fuit per dominos Consilii contrarium, eo quod separatum erat interesse regis a iure partis in hoc casu. Et quod antea occurrebat casus ubi ad instantiam plurium intentata actio erat et ius unius non erat separabile a iure alterius, ideo ante decretum fuisse quod uno renunciante procedi non poterit. Et sic hec exceptio per priorem non erat admissa.

Secundo die marcii anno eodem <1541>: In causa domini de Summerwell contra certos liberetenentes de Libertoun, dixerunt pene omnes domini Consilii, quia dominus Jacobus Hammyltoun forisfactus tenebat de domino Somerwell qui tenebat baroniam de Libertoun de rege, quod tenentes de dicto Jacobo et eius vassali et eorum vassali perdebant sua feuda et regalia ratione forisfacturae Jacobi prefati de practica regni, licet forte jus commune esset contra³⁷. Et hec practica incepit noviter tantum in causa domini de Crawfurde et nunquam in altera. Sed ipse rex hoc casu, quia non potest tenere de quocumque, ideo debet presentare tenentem dicto domino de Somerwell superiori dicti Jacobi immediato. Quia consuetudo erat quod tenentes de forisfacto non ammitterent omnia feuda sua sed componerent cum rege vel donatario regis. Ideo domini modificaverunt quod quilibet tenens de dicto Jacobo, pro parte sue compositionis dicti domini Somerwell, qui forisfacturam Jacobi de dicta baronia emerat a rege, solvenda, solveret thre yeiris maill of the landis that thai haid of schir James. Et sic quod investirentur de novo per dictum dominum Somerwell.

³⁷Libri Feudorum 2.31 et 2.24.11: in certain types of cases the sub-vassals' rights are forfeited along with the vassal's rights, in other types of cases they are not.

In <die...> januarii anno quo supra <1541>: In causa domini Glengarno <= Glencairn> contra Kilbirnie, decretum quod ipse Glengarno, donatarius regis in et ad escheitis assedationis novemdecem annorum ecclesie de Kilbirnie ipsi reo facto cum omnibus fructibus et emolumentis eiusdem, non poterat fructus ecclesie petere a quibusdam assignatis ipsius rei, factis pro octo annis, quorum tres elapsi erant antequam crimen falsi reus commisisset, licet dictorum annorum fructus debebant venire ad utilitatem ipsius rei, viz. disponi pro redemptione terrarum ipsius alienatarum sub reversione, prout inter ipsum et assignatum ipsius erat conventum per scripturam contractus. Ideo, quia locatio illa pro dictis octo annis respectu Kilbirnie erat extincta et transfusa in assignatos, et pretextu illius assedationis Kilbirnie petere nil poterat, sed contra assignatos habet actionem ex contractu assignationis. Nemo tamen negabat dominorum regi pertinere fructus dicte assignationis, et quod assignati debebant persolvere regi quod debebant persolvere ipsi confiscato, vel ad utilitatem illius disponere. Et convictus de falso perdit omnia sua mobilia, in quibus computantur assedationes et debita et lie steilbo de consuetudine regni.

<1541?> Carta dicens "salvo servitio et iure nostro" intelligitur fructificata actour the waird. Dicens vero "salvis nobis nostris iuribus debitis et consuetis" intelligitur waird and releif.

Decimo quinto marcii anno 1540 <= 1541>: In causa domini de Somerwell interlocuti fuerunt domini Consilii quod existentes de balliatu dicti domini Somerwell pro eo testes esse poterunt, qua de causa altera pars eos repellendos fore allegabat.

Eodem die <15 mar. 1541>: In causa Lumisdaill contra comitem Rothes, <domini> absolverunt Rothes a literis ad instantiam Lumisdaill levatis prout erat libellatum. Alienationem, ob quam terrarum, quarum varrantizationem petebat actor, recognitio facta fuerat, factam fuisse per predecessorem ipsius rei, et licet procurator rei hoc non opposuerit.

<CONTINUED> Tamen domini qui repererunt errorem huius libelli, absolverunt ut supra. Nec solent causam exprimere in eiusmodi absolutione, et bene, ut Pan. in cap. Examinata, extra de judi.³⁸.

³⁸Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.1.15 [to the point].

<15 mar. 1541?> Varrantum vocandi nemo ius habet, quando solus agit. Et ideo quia tunc <non> vocaverit, post sententiam potest vocari. In causa Lumisdaill de Rothes dicto die in hoc concordabant domini Consilii. Sed quando agit rex et donatarius eius, vel quando quivis rege inferior agit, reus debet varrantum vocare ante litem contestatam. Et datur ei adhuc terminus, postea non. Et si condemnatur reus, varranto debite non vocato, postea agere contra varrantum non potest, nec regressum contra eum habere. Illum omnino perdidit. In hoc eodem die concordabant domini, Wod procurator.

Decimonono Marcii <1541>: In causa Willelmi Rolland, decreverunt domini Consilii libellum magistri Jacobi Menzeis, cessionarii Gilberti patris sui in et ad quasdam mercantias et res seculares, propositum coram commissario Aberdonensi, esse prophanum, et ideo dictum commissarium requirendum esse ad desistendum ab ulteriori processu super eodem libello. Et in decernendo libellum prophanum non citatur pars libellans, de practica.

Eodem die <19 mar. 1541>: Advocarunt domini Consilii causam cuiusdam domine, tertie terrarum sui quondam mariti, propter tertiam partem arborum et silve cedue, per cognitionem commissam vicecomiti ad ipsos propter rei novitatem(?).

Die mensis eiusdem <19 mar. 1541>: In causa domini Cambo cognomine Myrtone contra Forbes de Raires, decreverunt domini Consilii exceptionem litispendentiae ad 18 annos pendentis propter³⁹ redemptionem terrarum de <... ...> non obstare dicto Myrtoune petenti easdem terras declarari legitime redemptas virtute nove numerationis summe in reversione contente per illum Myrtoun facte de novo.

³⁹MS: penes.

Eodem die <19 mar. 1541>: In causa cuiusdam mulieris executricis decreverunt domini absolutionem generalem (officialis Glasguensis a censuris et penis excommunicationis, aggravationis et reaggravationis - contra eandem latis et factis ad instantiam creditoris testatoris defuncti - usque ad finem computi ipsius executricis) cessare debere, et non valere contra ipsam non apparentem: quia regie litere appreciationis (debite execute contra eandem ad instantiam cuiusdam creditoris ipsius testatoris) super excommunicationem specialem (contra illam in illius instantiam executam) debeant suum effectum habere. Et exequendas esse. Quia de practica ipsi generalem absolutionem non admittunt contra specialem excommunicationem.

53. Fundans se super scriptum, illud ante omnia producere debet⁴⁰

<19 mar. 1541?> In causa Malkenniktoun actoris contra Malkei interloquendo decretum fuit quod fundans se super infeodamento, debet, antequam reus respondere cogatur, producere cartam et sasinam et sic vereficare et fundare intentionem suam. Alias absolvendus est reus.

⁴⁰Doctrine based on C. 2.1.5-6 et 8, also stated in nrs. 106, 172, 365, 388-389.

<CONTINUED> In eadem causa decretum fuit interloquendo quod materia semel disputata (et maxime interloquutione lata) actor non potest reo invito recedere ab actione nec conmutare⁴¹ actionem⁴².

⁴¹MS: contumare

⁴²Doctrine based on commentaries to C. 2.1.3.

<CONTINUED> In eadem causa definitive decretum fuit quod falsa narratio non vitiat infeofamentum. Nam petebant infeodamentum rei reduci, quia carta eius cantabat quod ipse et uxor eius erant, ante recognitionem latam contra dominum de Hereis, dominum superiorem infeodamenti, in coniuncta infeodatione terrarum de quarum infeodamenti retractatione agebatur. Actor vero allegabat per subreptionem infeodamentum esse obtentum, quia non eius erat narratio, ut supra dicatur, vera, quia uxor nunquam fuit in coniuncta infeodatione illarum terrarum. Nec poterat rea pars hoc probare. Tamen domini absolutoriam dederunt⁴³, anno quo supra, mense et die <19 mar. 1540>.

⁴³Because here the argument about nullity of "gratia subreptitia" (= obtained by tacit misrepresentation of facts, see C. 1.19.8 "vera", C. 1.22.2-5, C. 1.23.7 pr "si preces veritate nituntur", adopted in canon law for instance in X 2.30.5 and 6. 2.3.1 in fine) was out of place as the misrepresented facts were not relevant for the enfeoffment. Side remark: Ius Commune's doctrine was slightly changed in Scotland, anyway. According to Ius Commune a "gratia subreptitia" (or even worse: "obreptitia" = obtained by explicit lies) was automatically void, and this point could be raised any time. According to the Court of Session, in contrast, a document based on "gratia subreptitia" was valid until it had been voided by the special procedure of "reduction" - see notes to nr. 16 and 56.

Secundo aprilis anno eodem <1541 - the word "eodem" is an obvious scribal error> : In causa regis contra Lundie, decretum fuit that the kingis chartour, na seasing being schawin thairupone, makis fayth aganes the king that the landis contenit thairin pertenit heretablie to the said laird quhometo that chartour wes maid, and thairfoir that the landis mycht nocht be decernit in non-entres sent the dait of the chartour, albeit the kingis advocat callit for ane hundereth and fyfetie yeiris non-entres. And sua it wes that the <kingis> advocatis allegeance (viz. that the chartour of annexatioun tuik na effect becaus thairupone thair followit na seasing and sua mycht nocht saif the haill non-entres) mycht nocht haiff place nor he mycht nocht per viam exceptionis oppone the nulletie of it⁴⁴, bot that he behowit per viam actionis for reductioun thairof impugne the samyn.

⁴⁴Similar problem in nrs. 82 and 312, see note there; and see note at nr. 16 for the underlying general rule. Exceptions to this rule for documented declarations of a party which were extorted (nr. 399) and for documented acts of local judges who had disobeyed an explicit order given by the Court of Session (nr. 430).

Eodem die <2 april 1541>: In causa domini Ogilvie, interlocuti sunt domini that thai sould proceid in causa contra Gray quendam, propter⁴⁵ retractationem decreti comprisationis terrarum dicti domini Ogilvy, nochtwithstanding ane privat letter of discharge of all proceding in that caus, impetrat be schir Johnne Campbell, pretendand entres in that caus, to quhome heretablie pertenit ane pairt of the apprysit landis, becaus of the generall act of parliament⁴⁶ sayand that na judge delay proces and justice, albeit sic letters of delay or dischargeing of letters and proceding be privatlie impetrat be ony persone at the kingis grace⁴⁷. And als letters ar understand to be privatlie gevin that ar simpliciter under the kingis hand writ or signet.

⁴⁵MS: penes.

⁴⁶Statute ...

⁴⁷Confer C. 1.19.2 et 4.

Vigesimo die mensis aprilis <1541>: In causa etc. contra comitem de Eglintoun, decretum fuit quod ane man mycht be compellit be wertew of ane instrument, obligatioun or be ane contract to gif to ane uther ane sufficient reversioun for redeming of landis, albeit ane reversioun mycht nocht be prowin bot be ane sufficient letter of reversioun seillit and subscryvit at the leist with the gevearis hand writ or with ane pen led be ane notar publict, and nocht be ane privat instrument contenand and berand the reversioun or tenour thairof into it⁴⁸as it is contenit in ane new act of parliament⁴⁹.

⁴⁸Authentica "Si quis in aliquo" post C. 2.1.7, ex Nov. 119 c. 3.

⁴⁹Statute ...

Vigesimoseptimo maii anno 1541: Decreverunt domini quod dominus de Balcleuch non poterat summonitionem suam contra vicecomitem (ut recordor) Twedall <= Peebles>, intentatam per ipsum executorio nomine quondam avi aut patris sui, prosequi, executorii datione per ipsum impetrata post datam summonitionem, eo quod tempore citationis ius sibi non competebat super quod intentionem suam fundabat. Et sic superveniente iure pendente judicio non poterat se juvare, quia oportuit eum de novo libellare.

Eodem die <27 maii 1541>: In causa domini de Maxwell contra dominum de Sancquhair, decreverunt domini quod libello semell dato actori ad probandum ulterius non admittitur reus ad proponendas peremptorias⁵⁰. Et sic repulsus fuit magister Hugo Rig (procurator Sancquhair rei) in causa aut propositione peremptorie, quia petitio actoris erat probationi ipsius admissa.

⁵⁰Because exeptiones peremptoriae must be raised before the "litis contestatio".

Tertio die mensis eiusdem <3 maii 1541>: In causa quorundam tenentium conquerentium quod duplici districtione <gravati essent> per dominos Consilii, <a> magistro Jacobo McGill, alterius dominorum procuratori, allegata fuit renunciatio literarum, citatione producta. Et petiit terminum ad hoc probandum, Marioribankis contradicente: non dandum terminum, atque quod cum facto parato venire debuerat. Interlocuti sunt domini Consilii terminum dandum, prestito tamen malitie iuramento⁵¹ in propositione exceptionis per allegantem.

⁵¹The "iuramentum calumniae" as in X 2.7; 6. 2.4; C. 2.58. For late admission of exceptions see X 2.25.4.

Eodem die <3 maii 1541>: In causa Jacobi, ut recordor, Lawsoun de Hwmbie contra dominum Joannem Grimlaw vicarium de etc., dictus Jacobus Lawsone, firmarius dicte vicarie, petiit literas regias super ordinariis literis fulminatis ad instantiam dicti vicarii retractari, quia inordinate date erant: Primo quia execute erant litere predicte in specie contra dictum Jacobum, cum tamen litere ordinarie execute essent tantum in genere, et hoc sub forma monitionis tantum; secundo quia dictus Jacobus a dictis ordinariis literis monitorialibus infra decem dies a tempore notitiae appellavit ad papam⁵², prout appellatio producta coram dominis docebat. Et appellatione pendente nil oportere renovari <vi> literarum regiarum, quia tunc sequeretur maximum inconveniens quod canonice institutus in beneficio ecclesiastico per talem appellationem cuiusdam tertii a primaria potestate beneficii sui <deprivaretur> per multos annos quos solet appellatio emoliri et evolvere.

⁵²MS: "ad antichristum vel papam" - this is certainly a post-reformation addition!

<CONTINUED> Sed suspenderunt domini literarum executionem prima de causa, et non obstante quod libellus dicti Jacobi non petebat nec concludebat executionem expresse debere cessare, quod etiam procurator dicti vicarii (magister Thomas Marioribankis) allegabat. Nam in tali casu dixerunt domini hoc ex practica fieri debere, ne quis inordinate ponatur ad cornum regis. Dicte tamen litere regis bene date, ut pote conformes ordinariis invente fuerant.

The 25 day of the said moneth <maii 1541>: The lordis decernit the bischope of Murray and convent thairof to varrand thair predicessouris contract maid to the lard of Duffus titulo oneroso, quia de iure successores tenentur observare contractum suorum predicessorum⁵³.

⁵³Rule also stated in nr. 98.

The said day <25 maii 1541>: The lordis decernit in ane caus of Mr Johne Hepburnis, that his partie adversare, nocht withstanding cursing schawin upone him, may persew the retreiting of the kingis letters obtenit be the said Mr Johne aganis him, becaus he wes in this caus bot ane necessarius actor, viz. agebat tantum ad defensionem suam⁵⁴a cornu regis. Et dictum fuit hanc esse practicam dominorum.

⁵⁴Canon law: X 2.25.5 et 15, X 5.39.40. Confirmed in nr. 495, contrasting decision in nr. 379.

The said day <25 maii 1541> the lordis decernit that be witnes contenit in ane instrument, thair mycht be thingis by the instrument in the contract prowin⁵⁵.

⁵⁵Similar legal problem in nr. 1 and nr. 174.

The xiii day of julii <1541> in the caus of Johnne lord Hay of Yesteir, it wes decretit that ane confessioun of partie maid in the criminall court, takand him to the compositour for all the cryme impute to him, prowes nocht in causa civili the wrang nor the proffeitis of the allegit spuilye or ony uther cryme, quhen the partie in the said criminall actioun protestis the same. And sua becaus the yeiris of the allegit oppressioun and proffeitis confessit in the actis of adiornall be his pairtie adversare wes nocht utherwyis prowin befoir the schiref, the saidis lordis reducit ane rolment of court gevin for the said lord Hay, and wes then said, haid nocht bene the said protestatioun, the said act contenand in speciall the profeitis of the yeiris had bene iust probatioun.

The said 15 day of the said moneth <jul. 1541>: In the vicar of Dowes caus, it wes decretit that kynsmen and servandis of his firmoraris, quha wes repellit fra witnessing becaus he mycht tyn and win in the mater, albeit the actioun wes nocht intendit in his name, mycht be witnessis in the said wicaris caus.

Eiusdem mensis <jul. 1541>: In causa domini de Borthuik actoris, interlocuti sunt domini that the owirlord may etiam per donatarium persew the proffeitis and deweteis of landis being in his handis be non-entres. Or ane decrete of non-entres be gevin, albeit ony landis be apprysit for the byrun maillis, necessar it is that thai be decernit be decrete of the lordis in non-entres, and the lordis thocht that the donatouris of non-entres mycht warne and remove the possessouris of the landis alsweill as the principall laird and superiour of the landis: idem in wairdis terrarum.

Decimo octavo mensis eiusdem <jul. 1541>: In causa domini de Colluithy actoris censuerunt omnes domini that the unioun and annexatioun of the landis Rudie and Lauswaird <(=Ridi?, Laigwairdst?)> to the baronie of etc. wes cassit and dissolvit, becaus the samyn wes decernit in non-entres at the kingis instance aganis the laird of Baluerie, quha grantit that he had na seasing of the landis of Rudie foirsaid, and sua the samyn apprysit to the king and disponit agane heretablie to ane Henry Ramsay. And also that the kingis confirmatioun followand upone ane alienatioun of all principall landis with annexis, viz. Rudie, all remanit with the said unioun, that ane generall sesing of the principall baronie cum annexis mycht be extendit to the saidis landis of Rudie and sua thai wer decernit of non-entres.

Decimonono die mensis eiusdem <jul. 1541>: In causa of doubill poinding, ane of the poindaris callit Margaret Dunbar, the lordis ordanit the tenentis to answer of the maillis to the said Dunbar, becaus scho wes in possessioun cum titulo, nocht withstanding hir titill fell under the kingis generall revocatioun and the adversar had ane gift of the king eftir his revocatioun maid in France and new infeftment of the landis, and that hir auld titill behowit be decernit be decrete of the lordis revokit be the kingis revocatioun generall, or scho mycht be put fra hir possessioun.

Vigesimo die mensis predicti <jul. 1541>: Hoppringill of Torsones be summondis askit Ker of Sesfurdis infeftmentis of the landis of Buirhous be reducit and retreatit, becaus he wes befoir the said Keris infeftment heretablie infeft of the said land be the king and nocht ordourlie put thairfra. It wes decernit that albeit the said Hoppringillis infeftment wes maid in the kingis les aige and at the kingis hand revokit, as the actis of parliament buir all alienatiounis of his heretage maid in his les aige, that the said land, quilk become in his handis be foirfaltour of the lord Boid, wes nocht heretage to his grace and sua come nocht under revocatioun, and that revocatio regis etiam in parliamento, bot gif it be of annexit landis alienatioun, depryves nocht ane man of his possessioun and titill, nisi sequita postea speciali declaratoria sententia iudiciali et superlata. And thairfoir the Hoppringillis infeftment heretabill standand, the king mycht nocht infeft the said Ker. And the saidis Keris infeftment wes reducit, albeit his predicessouris and he be vertew thairof had bene mair nor 60 yeiris in possessioun thairof. And it wes understand to the saidis lordis that the said Hoppringillis seasing come bot laitlie in his handis.

<20 jul. 1541?> Tertius comparens pro suo interesse non admittitur post conclusionem factam inter partes principales. Practicatum fuit 18 die, anno quo supra, in causa domini de Colluithy contra dominum de Balverie, non-introitus terrarum de Rudie <et> terrarum aliarum certarum de Balverie, post conclusionem de causa inter partes prefatas.

Decimooctavo julii <1541>: In causa domini de Cambo contra dominum de Rires, decretum fuit that ane instrument contenand ane reversione of certane landis annaleit to the said Rires predicessouris mair nor 60 yeiris syne wes sufficient aneuch. Et quod non improbantur veteres chartae predecessorum domini de Rires, <quae> pro dicto instrumento magnam faciebant presumptionem, albeit that the new act of parliament beris that na reversioun is awaill bot that is subscrivit with the hand of him that gave the samyn and also seillit be him. And sua the lordis decernit the landis of Faws (as I remember), be vertew thairof and premonitioun and consignatioun of the sowme contenit thairin eftir the terme of chartour(?) thairof(?) lauchfullie redemit.

<Before Easter of 1541?> In ane caus of the kingis aganis the laird of Luss, ane retour wes reducit becaus the inqueist servit him or ellis sum of his predicessouris of the landis of Luss as propertie, nocht makand mentioun "with tenent and tenendreis", albeit the landis of Gleid wes than in tenandrie of Luss and sua aucht nocht to be the lairdis propertie. And this wes done befoir Pasche of thairby anno 1541, and siclyk practik aganis Mr Henry Spittillis wyff land of befoir, and that at the instance of ane maister Francis Bothuellis sone. <Continued in nr. 88.>

The tuentienyne day of julii anno 1541: Or the laird of Lussis landis of Glen Eduard Stewart falconar gat ane gift of non-entres and raisit ane summondis thairupone aganis the said laird, at the quhilk tyme the retour foirsaid and seasing wes standand thairupone unreducit, quhilk wald haif stoppit the decrete of non-entres. And sua the caus sleipit quhill the said retour and all that followit thairupone wes reducit. And sua the seasine, albeit in speciall of it in the reductioun of the retour wes na mentioun. And eftir the retour wes reducit cum omnibus inde secutis, actor prosecutus est suam actionem be vertew of the samyn summondis. To quhome it wes obiectit that he mycht nocht, becaus tempore libelli et actionis intentate the non-entres clamit be him wes nocht of strenth, viz. sasina non tunc reducta quando actionem intentavit. Interlocuti sunt domini that he mycht persew the samyn summondis, allegatione premissa non obstante, becaus ius libellantis fuerat in veritate tempore libelli oblati, licet tunc erat pretensa sasina quoad tempus, et donec illa reduceretur possit secludere libellantem ab obtinendo non-introitu libellato. Et ius sic superveniens post libellum et actionem intentatam hic habet causam et dependentiam preteritam et ideo prodest actori: Bart. et Bal. in l. Si rem, ut ff. de pig. acti.⁵⁶.

Secus autem si ius libellatum post executionem libelli et non antequam quidem comperissent, utpote Titius agit tanquam executor Julii, deinde fit executor: Certe de practica upone this libell he may nocht follow furth the caus, as wes decernit be the lordis in ane caus of the laird of Balcleucis aganis the schireff of Tevidaill.

⁵⁶Bartolus de Saxoferrato and Baldus de Ubaldis in their respective commentaries upon D. 13.7.29 [to the point].

Item the said <29> day of julii <1541>: In the said Eduard Stewartis caus, the lordis decretit that the said Eduardis gift of non-entres, albeit be vertew thairof he had nocht gottin possesionem, sould be preferrit to the said laird of Lussis gift of the samyn non-entres, revocand all uther giftis of the said non-entres of the saidis landis of Glen gevin of befoir to ony uther personis, becaus the king mycht nocht revoik his said first gift sine caus, als the samyn <second> gift wes obtenit efter the summondis wes rasit upone the first gift.

The xxix day of julii foirsaid <1541>: Quidam Valterus Young, actione spolii intentata contra dominum de Cesfurde et alios quosdam nominatos, tamen non probabat spolium nisi contra duos. Isti duo fuerunt condempnati in the haill spuilyie, viz. ilk ane of the tua sould pay the half of it.

Idem eodem die <29 jul. 1541> practicatum fuit in causa cuiusdam Alesone contra captanum de Dumbartane et alios certos spoliatores nominatim expressos et eventos, qua causa contra omnes intentata probavit tantum spolium contra unum, qui solus in solidum fuit condemnatus. Quhene the actioun is intentit contra plures, condemnantur singuli pro rata, non in solidum. Ab initio omnes tenentur in solidum. <In contrast to first part of this practick!>

The xxiiii of julii <1541>: In causa satisfactionis perite per A.B. of slauchter, maid be the maist parte of the kin and freindis of the deid to be sufficient, albeit it wes maid be certane of his four branches, as Mr Thomas Mariorbankis procuratour for the slane allegit it aucht to be. And als thair wes divers utheris neir freindis of the deid that haid nocht consentit thairto, als the practik is: quha callis first for the assyfment of ony slane man, he is preferrit in the getting of it to utheris neirar to the died cummand eftir. And that for his diligence and thair negligance in persewing the deidis slauchter.

<1541?> Practica regni Scotiae howbeit that na man may sit upone bloud, bot gif he be at the leist barone. And sua ane fewar infeft in bluduettis, being alanerlie ane frie tenent of ane baronie ather spirituall or temporall, may nocht sit upone bloude bot may call the samyn befoir his superiour temporall or baillie of the regalitie, and he hald of the kirk and get his tenent convict thairin, he to haiff the proffeit of the bloude.

<1541?> Ane lard or lord may be his awin officiaris creat in court poind his tenent for the deweteis of his landis and byrunnis being liquidat. Utherwyis he may call his tenentis befoir his awin baillie and caus thair liquidat the samyn and get his tenent convict thairin.

The said day <24 jul. 1541>: In causa Jacobi Lychtoune contra magistrum Joannem Grahame decreverunt domini that the said Mr Johne mycht nocht save him frome violent possessioun of the kirkland of A.B. (quhairfra to remove he wes laufulie warnit to remove and outlaid be the bischope' of Sanctandrois' precept at ane laufull terme) be vertew of ane pretendit assedatioun maid to him thair be the said lord archibischope quhen divers yeiris wer nocht yit outrun, for vereficatioun of the quhilk titill the said Mr Johne gat maister Johne Lauder (keipar of the said lordis rentall and register of all thingis) compellit to produce befoir the lordis the register buik. And becaus that the said buik buir that the said assedatioun wes cancellat be command of the said lord, and that verefeit be the said Mr Johne Lauder, and als becaus that the contract and assedatioun buir that it wes maid be the said bischope "with consent of the chaptour", quhilk consent wes nevir gevin thairto and sua the assedatioun in that part wes nocht perfyte and compleit, thairfoir, albeit the said Mr Johne allegit that titill to cullour his possessioun and to keip him fra violence(?) and allegit that be that titill he suld nocht be put fra his possessioun quhill that titill wer reducit and declarit null in the selff⁵⁷, nevirtheles the lordis decernit him violent possessor, nochtwithstanding that titill, becaus he could nocht schaw that <it wes> compleitit and perfytit, viz. that the convent had consentit thairto as the samyn buir in the selff, sua that he mycht pretend na rycht thairto quhill the assedatioun had bene perfytlie endit and completit in all poyntis. And had he had for him only titill apperand iust, albeit the samyn had bene null in the selff or reduceabill for causs, he had bene saifit frome violence.

⁵⁷Argument derived from rule in nr. 16 - as in nrs. 56 and 312 (see notes there).

The 5 day of december anno quo supra <1541>: The lordis decernit the tenentis of the landis etc to obey to ane woman callit AB and nocht to the lord Somerwell, nochtwithstanding that the said voman had thai landis of ane Carmychaell, quha held the samyn of the erle of Anguis, and the said voman recoverit thame agane, payand hir parte of the compositioun to Carmichaell new infeft of the king eftir the said erles foirfaltour. And eftir the said N. Carmichaellis infeftment wes reducit, becaus it wes maid in the kingis minoritie and less aige, with all that followit thairupone, and new infeftment thaireftir gevin agane to the said N. Carmichaell sone and air to the foirsaid Carmichaell, be the king, and thaireftir be his deceis the land come in the kingis handis be reasone of waird, quhilk wes disponit be his graice to Sympanage and be him to the said woman, quha be vertew thairof wes in continuall possessioun theirof unto the said day of pley. And the said N. Carmichaell had sauld the saidis landis to the lord Somerwell and he wes heretablie infeft thairin, and sua allegit the said vomanis titill to be reducit be reductioun of hir superiouris infeftment maid in the kingis less aige. Nocht the less the lordis ordanit the tenentis to obey to hir becaus scho wes in possessioun with ane titill as said is and aucht to be laufulie callit or scho wer put thairfra. <Parallel case: nr. 97.>

Nono die mensis eiusdem <dec. 1541>: In causa reductionis infeodamenti cuiusdam juvenis contra eum mota, decreverunt domini quod non tenebatur respondere in illa causa de reductione sui infeodamenti, ex eo quod erat super recto, iure et proprietate terrarum suarum et erat ipse reus minor annis, qui nisi in certis casibus in "Regia Maiestate" expressis respondere non tenetur: "Ut dubitis Paternis de nova dissasina" etc, ut in rubrica Mace. 139⁵⁸.

⁵⁸Regiam maiestatem ...

Eodem die <9 dec. 1541>: James Sinclair obtenit ane decrete arbitrall saying in the selff that the Gullane burne sould rin throucht his landis of Stewinsone, and that the remanent of all watteris, being in the tyme of the decrete and that sould happine to be or cum thairin eftirwarde, sall stand upone the prioris and conventis landis of Haldingtone, lyand contigue to the said James landis of Stewinsone, callit the Querrellpittis. The said priores allegit that scho had fullfillit the said decrete for hir part, and sua that the letters purchest be the said James upone hir and the Convent for nonfulfilling of the samyn sould be simpliciter suspendit, and that scho sent the decrete did na thing to caus the vattir rin upone his landis, and that scho wes nocht oblist be decreit to caus the watter stand uppone hir landis, as the said James allegit. The lordis decernit the letters purchest be James ordourlie procedit and that the priores had nocht fulfillit her parte of the decreit, becaus scho grantit the wattir ran upone his landis instantlie sen the decrete arbitrall that stud nocht. And the lordis fand that scho suld gar the wattir stand upoun hir landis, becaus uthirwyis the decrete had bene frustra et inutile: l. Quoties, ff. de rebus dubiis⁵⁹.

⁵⁹D. 34.4.12(13) [to the point].

The tent day of the said moneth <dec. 1541>: In ane caus of Archibald Hoggis messenger, the lordis decernit the said Archibald sould haiff ane new terme to produce certene witnessis, for summoning of the quhilkis he had ellis gottin letters and nocht summonit parte of thame, and schawis na diligence in the caus. And the lordis fand it wes thair practik.

87. Off assignais usand privilege of tabill be ressone of thair selff⁶⁰

The said day <10 dec. 1541>: David Denningstoun aganis the Balquhannane, the lordis decernit that the said David, servand to my lord secretar, mycht nocht use privilege of the tabill of the lordis of Counsall and thair servandis in calling of thair summondis, becaus the actioun wes nocht his awin bot ane coft caus pertening to him as cessionar and assignay to ane uthir and wes nocht his the summondis wes cast in. Facit cap. Ex parte, extra de iudiciis⁶¹. And in the said caus the lordis decernit that the partie conventa et rea that comperit nocht in primo termino summonitionum and sua thair wes ane uthir terme set to the uthir partie to preve nunc, that in secundo termino <possit> comparere et opponere etiam declinatorias et compositiones quascunque, contra id quod vetatur patere, et omnino in cap. Preterea, Extra de delation.⁶².

⁶⁰Parallel problem in case nr. 242.

⁶¹Garbled. There is neither a chapter "Ex parte" in the title X 2.1 "de iudiciis", nor in any title of similar wording. For the point of law 6. 5.(13).7 and 74 could be quoted. Furthermore the gloss there lists many parallel texts.

⁶²X 2.8.2 [to the point].

Decimonono die mensis eiusdem <dec. 1541>: In causa reductionis returnationis cuiusdam intentata ad instantiam regis, ex eo quod retornati inquisitores A de terris B non expresso "cum tenentibus et tenandriis", cum tamen aliqua pars terrarum earum esset tenandria. Et ad hoc probandum advocatus regis produxit returnationem cuiusdam C in quo continebatur quod dictus C tenebat illas terras de D predecessore ipsius rei, de cuius returni reductione simpliciter agebatur. Decretum fuit per dominos Consilii quod that retour, quhilk wes eldare nor that retour, of reductioun of the quhilk wes the questioun, provit sufficientlie the halding of the landis as the advocate allegit that thai wer tenandrie, and sua the assys had erret ignorantlie and thairfoir the haill retour wes reducit. And than the lordis said that the retour sould ay preiff all thingis contenit in it ay and quhill it wes reducit, albeit the retour provis nocht the thingis contenit in it quando agitur de jure super ea reducendo per viam actionis. <= Continuation from nr. 75.>

Eodem die <19 dec. 1541>: In causa cuiusdam Jacobus Hering contra Dowhill, the lordis decernit the laird of Dowhillis infeftment of the landis of A, maid to him be the B, to be reducit in the haill or at the leist to the sowme of sex hundereth merkis aucht of befoir thairynto the said James Hering of Glasgw⁶³. Fand that inhibitioun maid <be> oppin proclamatioun as is use, that na man sould by ony landis fra the said B in defraud of the said James his creditour, previt sufficientlie of the practik of the realme of Scotland.

⁶³Actio Pauliana, D. 42.8, C. 7.75.

<19 dec. 1541 - jan. 1542?> The tenentis that deforcis the lordis officiaris forfaltis his takis and tynis all his moveabill guidis that ar within his iurisdictioun. And this pane pertenis to sic tenentis and fewaris bayth of spirituall and temporall lordis.

Generalis absolutio a quibuscunque censuris incursis ad instantiam quorumcunque, nullius nomine expresso, ad effectum prosequendum valet.

Eo tempore <1541-1542>: It was fund be the lordis that quhen any tennent deforces the officer of his maister or overlord, giff he hes any takes, he tynes the samyn and thai forfalt, and also tynes all his moveabill guidis that ar within the jurisdictione of his maister quhais officer he hes deforcit. And this paine appertenis to the frie tennentis baith of spirituall and temporall landis.

Eodem die <19 dec. 1541>: In causa cuiusdam pauperis contra abbatem de Kilvynning petentis ab eo certas evidentias tanquam heres cuiusdam A, decretum est eum non esse audiendum in causa, ex eo quod non erat deservitus heres illius nec docebat de hoc legitime, cum tamen actio eius ex hoc penderet. Nec ratione poterat pendere ullum interesse, de quo ante omnia debet constare.

Eodem die <19 dec. 1541>: In causa spolii contra dominum de Kilvynning et certos alios Hammyltonis, eius servos et amicos, intentata per quendam pauperem, censuerunt domini spolium elidi (et eius actionem), ex eo quod rei probaverunt (excipiendo peremptorie) quod actor (de spoliatione conquerens) erat legitime premonitus ad removendum se et sua de possessione super qua querebatur. Et inde postea debite foras eiectus est, et inde remotus per officiarium domini terre et per eundem ipse reus in possessionem deductus. Et ideo vim nullam factam, juris consuetudinarii solempnitate observata in hoc casu⁶⁴.

⁶⁴Parallel problem in nr. 372.

Vigesimoquarto die mensis eiusdem <dec. 1541>: In causa domini Somerwell actoris, quidam pauper cognomine Thomesone docuit per instrumentum publicum quod dominus ille recusavit dare illi copiam literarum contra ipsum per eundem dominum levatarum, per quas citari fecit pauperum ad diem, ut asserebat, jam longe preteritum. Domini admiserunt protestationi dicti Thomesone ut non tenetur respondere, nisi receptis prius suis expensis et ipse de novo citato, licet copiam citationis non ostenderit quam habere non poterat.

Eodem die <24 dec. 1541>: In causa tenentium de N conquerentium de districtione duorum pretensorum dominorum, decretum fuit quod tenentes responderent mulieri sasite de terris illis nomine vitalis reditus, nonobstante quod vir docuit de sententia definitiva devortii inter eos lata, expresse ferente in se quod rescinderetur quicquid alter alteri dotis aut donationis propter nuptias <causa> dedisset, et quod ipse erat hereditarie sasitus in terris illis. Et hoc ideo quia dotem nondum restituerat mulieri, nec etiam poterat de iure eiicere propria sua authoritate mulierem de possessione, nec sententiam devortii per se ipsum executioni demandare.

Decimooctavo die novembris anno quo supra <1541>: In causa spolii intentata contra dominum de Lasterik per Valterum Ogilvy de Drumligens, loquuti sunt domini quod ipse actor Valterus de proprietate suarum terrarum (de quarum spoliatione hic agebat) non tenebatur docere de illa, ex eo quod spoliatus non tenetur de titulo sue possessionis docere, quamvis de titulo mentionem facit in libello⁶⁵. Bot incace he vald conclud et restitutiones et possessiones terrarum tamquam hereditarie sibi pertinentium, tunc eum dicebant oportere eum summarie docere de sua proprietate et titulo, licet tunc plenaria proprietatis cognitio non haberet locum. De hoc vide ut in novis decisionibus, quarta⁶⁶, si spoliatus docere debeat de titulo possessionis sue, et an plene.

⁶⁵See quotations for nr. 53. Parallel problem in nrs. 106 and 124 and others.

⁶⁶Decisiones Rotae Romanae novae, collected by Guilielmus Horborch (1378-1381), nr. 4 = de restitutione spoliatorum 1 [to the point].

Primo decembris anno quo supra <1541>: In causa domini de Ogilvy contra quendam mulierem, domini reduxerunt decretum ipsorum dominorum Consilii Supremi domini nostri regis, ex eo quod dictum decretum latum erat contra dominum predictum in causa spoliationis intentata contra ipsum per dictam mulierem virtute acti adiornalis cuiusdam, et in libello super quo decretum latum erat, dicta actrix possessionem non libellavit, cum tamen de iure et practica regni de spoliatione agens necessario debet et possessionem et violentam eiectionem libellare et probare. Et altero eorum non libellato dicebant libellum ineptum esse, et ideo sententiam inde secutam ipso iure nullam et ideo retractandam, non obstante quod dicta exceptio videbatur dilatoria, et non erat in prima instantia opposita, et videretur in <secunda> instantia non admittenda; ac etiam non obstante quod in prima instantia reus opposuerat exceptionem peremptoriam et in eius probatione defecit et materia plene disputata tunc fuerat condemnatus. Dicebant domini quod de ineptitudine libelli potest opponi in quacunque parte litis et etiam post sententiam latam. Quod de iure verum est⁶⁷. Et sit notum de practica quod in secunda instantia non-allegata allegabo et non-producta producam, albeit the saidis defenssis competebant mihi in prima instantia.

⁶⁷See quotations for nr. 125.

Decimonono mensis predicti <dec. 1541>: In causa of doubill poinding, the lordis decernit the tenentis plenyeand thairof to ansuer and obey of the maillis and deweteis of the landis to ane woman quha wes infeft heretablie thairin, nochtwithstanding that be reasone of schir James Hammyltones foirfaltour (as I remember), all the landis become the kingis and he had gevin ane new infeftment thairof to ane man, and the woman to be keipit in hir possessioun quhill scho wes ordourlie callit and put thairfra. And that in this cace thai mycht nocht disput of thir titillis and ground rycht and als that ane tenent and friehalder of ane man foirfaltit mycht nocht be put out of his <possessioun> bot ordourlie callit be proces of law be the kingis grace nor na uthir his donatour. <Parallel case nr. 83.>

And the samyn wes laitlie practizat aganis the lord Somerwellis <in> causa simili.

The 18 of the said moneth of thairby <dec. 1541>: In ane caus movit betuix the lord bischope of Abirdene and the executouris of umquhile Gawin bischope of that ilk, the lordis decretit that of the practik of Scotland all prelattis of the realme may set fyve yeiris takis and that thair successouris sould and aucht to keip the samyn⁶⁸, and sua that the said William bischope aucht to keip the said fyve yeiris takis set to certane tenentis be the said umquhile bischope Gawin and nocht to clame the deweteis and gressomes thairfoir.

⁶⁸Rule also stated in nr. 64.

The 20 day of the said monetht <dec. 1541>: In the caus betuix the maister of Haillis lord of Bowtoun and the laird of Stenepethe, the lordis decretit that, becaus the said lard wes be the space of xx yeiris of thairby in possessioun peciablie of certane landis as his propirtie of his said lairdschip and heretablie infeft thairin, quhilkis the maister clamet to apertene to him heretablie and schew thairof ane instrument of seasing and thairthrow allegit that the said laird be the said space had wranguslie uptakin the maillis, firmes, proffeitis and deweteis thairof and askit him to be decernit be the lordis decrete to refound the samyn agane to him, the lordis decretit the said laird to haiff done na wrang in the premissis for the termes foirsaid, and als becaus the said maister wes nevir in reall possessioun bot of the said seasing and that the samyn wes privatlie gevin, that the said maister mycht nocht put thairthrow the said laird fra his possessione thairof nor recover the proffeitis thairof fra him, his heretabill infeftment and seasing thairof standing with continuall, reall and actuall possessione.

The xxi day of januar anno foirsaid <1542>: Ane callit Thomesoun movit ane actioun of spoilyie aganes ane James Ker as the cace followis: The said Thomesoun wes subtenent to ane uthir man, tenent to the quenis grace, quha is with God, of certane of his landis for the space of fyve yeiris, quhilkis ran furth at Witsounday in anno 1540. The said quene causit laufullie warne the said tenent to remove, ly furth and denud hir ground of him and his geir and enter the said James, hir new tenent and takisman thairto, quhilk James had of hir thre or four yeiris tak to rin eftir the eschew of hir foirsaidis uthiris tenentis takis. Nochttheles hir said first tenent and the said Thomesoun, subtenent to him, withheld the reall possessione of the said steading continuallie fra the said Witsounday. And the said James at the nixt terme theireftir payit his males and deweteis as takisman to the said quenis factouris and thaireftir poindit the said Thomesoun, occupyar of the said steding, for the males thairof as he allegit auchtin to him as takisman foirsaid. Quhairfoir the said Thomesone callit the said James for spuilye of the saidis guidis poyndit and takin fra him. And the said James exceptit and allegit that he had done na wrong nor spuilye, becaus the said principall tenent wes laufullie warnit, furthlaid and removit at the foirsaid terme and he than enterit be the quenis precept and, as he allegit, in reall possessione be paying of the males as said is. And producit his letter of tak, precept and acquittance thairof. It wes replyit to that be the said Thomesoun that the foirsaid allegance mycht nocht save him frome spuilye. The lordis decretit the said James to haiff committit spuilyie into this cace and decernit him to restoir the said Thomesones gudis agane, becaus the said James takisman had na powar to poynd and als mycht nocht at his awin hand poynd the said Thomesone nor put him furth of his steading via facti, the said Thomesone remaning continuallie in possessioune eftir the said feist of Witsounday, and thairfoir mycht nocht be denude of his possessione per viam facti bot aucht and sould haiff bene callit for violent occupatioun. And als ane takisman hes na powar to poynd nor to mak warning for removing of tenentis, and that to be understand gif the tak contenis nocht "with powar to output and input" etc.

The 23 of the moneth foirsaid <jan. 1542>: The lordis of Counsall decernit in ane caus of spoilyie movit be ane A. Somerwell, paroche clerk of the kirk of N, <aganes ane> and his sone callit (ut recordor) Hammyltone, that the said sone aucht to ansuer in capite spolii, nochtwithstanding that tempore spolii his procuratour maister Thomas Marioribankis allegit that he wes bot 6 yeir auld and sua could nocht peccare nec vim committere nor yit be oblist ex delicto tanto defectu intellectus in causa illa. Quhilkis allegeance the lordis thocht ressonabill in causa criminali sed non in civili causa, ne "cum aliena jactura locupletetur" et iniuste alienam rem detineat⁶⁹.

⁶⁹Canon law doctrine of "restitutio", based on the biblical command "Thou shalt not steal" = Exodus 20.15, Leviticus 19,11, Deuteronomium 5,17. Words quoted from 6. 5.(13) de regulis iuris 48, based on D. 12.6.14 = D. 50.17.206.

23 januar 1541 <= 1542> : Thair was ane Somervaill that persewit ane Hamiltone and his sone for spoliatione of certane guidis and geir. It was answerit be the sone that he aucht nocht to be decernit to haiff committit spuilye, becaus at that tyme he was bot vi. yeires of age et sic in infantili aetate and could nocht in that age committere spolium or obligari ex delicto. The lordis repellit the alledgance and fand that, albeit in criminall causses ane infant or ane of his yeires mycht nocht be convict, yit in civill causses and sua as concerning the spoliatione of geir he mycht, cum nemo cum alterius jactura debet locupletari⁷⁰, ne ipse quidem minor aut puer infantilis aut quivis alius⁷¹.

⁷⁰See notes to nrs. 101 and 407.

⁷¹The collector has thus grasped that "spuilzie", the unlawful interference with another's possession, has two consequences: On one hand there ensues criminal prosecution, applicable against persons who wilfully broke the king's peace. This will of course not apply against a child. On the other hand there also ensues a civil claim for restitution of possession. The civil claim lies against any unlawful taker of possession, regardless of whether there lies a moral reproach. Restitution may thus also be sought against someone who merely erred and thought the object in question was his own. This argument is also valid when restitution is sought from a child.

<23 jan. 1542> Kirkmen callit for warrandice aucht to answer befoir the temporall judge, as wes decernit be the lordis the xxiii day of the foirsaid moneth.

The xxv day or thairby <jan. 1542>: In Johne Finlasones caus aganes maister Ker, the lordis fand that be practik and consuetude thai mycht help and supple the irrelevancie of ane parteis exceptioun nocht consavit dewlie, and sua thay did in the said Keris exceptioun proponit aganis violence intentit aganes him be the said Johne Findlasone. And sua usis the lordis to helpe and supple the falt, negligence and ignorance of the procuratouris.

The quhilk day <25 jan. 1542>: In causa cuiusdam patris contra Sempill, the lordis fand that ane man furth of the realme aucht to be summond upone iiixx dayis at the first terme and thaireftir in all uther termes his procuratour or him selff upone xv dayis or fewar be oppin proclamatioun quhair he duellis.

The thrid day of februar anno eodem <1542>. In the actioun of non-entres mowit be schir N. chaiplane aganes ane N McCultoun and the laird of Bargane for his entres to seclud the non-entres and the said chaiplanes gift thairof obtenit fra the kingis grace, the lordis fand be interlocutour the said lardis exceptioun that the said preist had raisit ane privie seill upone the signatour thairof grantit to him be the king sen the deceis of N, quhais name wes left furth, and the said preist in the privie seill specifeit ane man and usit the said gift in iudgement. And thaireftir upone the samyn signatour the samyn preist raisit ane uthir gift with ane uthir manis name and sen that manis deceis askit the non-entres, quhilk he mycht nocht do, becaus the signatour grantit him bot the non-entres sen ane manis deceis and sua he mycht nocht pas to ane uthir. And thairfoir be vertew of that signatour his secound gift mycht nocht be to him of availl. The lordis be interlocutour fand the exceptioun relevant.

<CONTINUED> The said day <3 feb. 1542> in the said caus, the lordis be interlocutour decernit that ane pairtie fundand his exceptioun upone evidentis or writtis aucht nocht to schaw statim the said writ for the fundatioun of the uthir pairteis reply, albeit actor (fundans se sic), antequam reus libello respondeat debeat perhibere reo eiusmodi scripta⁷². And the lordis usis in causa exceptionis to reserve the parteis defensis contra producendas huiusmodi evidentias et scripturas. Vide Rotam in novis, decisio 34⁷³ et evidentia(?) extra(?)⁷⁴ hoc probat.

⁷²Doctrine based on C. 2.1.5-6 et 8, also stated in nrs. 53 and 124 and others.

⁷³Decisiones Rotae Romanae novae, collected by Guilielmus Horborch, 1376-1381, nr. 34 = De probationibus 2 [to the point].

⁷⁴See quotations to nr. 53.

<CONTINUED> The said day <3 feb. 1542> in the said McCulteis caus, the lordis be interlocutour decernit intimatioun of cessionar and assignay maid to the dettour be the principall creditour sufficient to seclud the creditour fra actioun aganis the dettour, albeit the cessionar and assignay had nocht intimat the samyn to the dettour, nor contestet the caus aganis him, nor gottin payment - iuxta l. 3, C. de novationibus et delegationibus⁷⁵.

⁷⁵C. 8.41.3 pr. [to the point].

The first of Februar or thairby anno eodem <1542>: In causa Georgii Home contra quendam Leirthmonth civem de Perth, propter⁷⁶ improbationem et falsationem assedationis cuiusdam factam dicto Leirmonth, quod asserebatur <per> dictum Georgium, the lordis decernit the said George nocht to be admittit to impreiff the assedatioun, becaus it wes understand to thame be the said George hand writ grantit to him in thair presens that the said assedatioun wes subscryvit be the said George hand, ut clare ex comparatione literarum constabat, and als the said subscriptioun of the assedatioun wes be sentence of ane judge of Striviling recognoscet, apprevit and fand the said George hand writ, as the sentence producit befoir the lordis schew. And attour the said George wald haiff imprevit the said assedatioun be tua uthir servandis of his awin being than actuallie in his service, and sua his caus wes suspectit nocht guid and the uthir pairtie absolvit.

⁷⁶MS: penes.

The aucht day of Februar foirsaid <1542>: In ane caus movit upone the pane of ten lib. statute be act of parliament aganis thame that skaythleslie sclanderis ony man, the lordis be interlocutour decernit that the pane thairof mycht be askit be ane simple bill, the pairteis being in Edinburgh, and nedit nocht to cum in be ony summondis, nather peremptour nor yit be ordour of tabill.

The foirsaid day <8 feb. 1542>: The lordis decretit that the laird of Cragy desyrit the letters raisit upone him be the laird of Kilfawnis, for non-fulfilling of ane contract betuix thame, sould ceis aganis him now and be simpliciter suspendit for certane iust causis allegit and verefeit befoir the lordis, mycht cum in be ane simple bill and nedit nocht ane summondis.

The iiii day of Februar foirsaid <1542>: The lordis decretit that in ane caus of the lord Lyndsay is tuiching the reductioun of ane decrete of the lordis, passing ane officiaris kenning of ane air to his terce of certane landis, that the said caus mycht nocht cum in the privalege of the kingis privalege and aucht nocht to byd dyet of partie, becaus it wes intentit at the kingis instance and pairteis aganes the officiar for wilfull errour in the executioun of his office and sua redoundis to the kingis proffeit, and the caus of the reductioun of the decrete concerning the partie wes fundit upone errour of the officiar.

The sevint day of februar instante <1542>: In the caus of ane pure man of Paislay tuiching the reductioun of ane rolment of court gevin aganis him for the pairt of Eduard Stewart, the said pure man libellit summondis of error aganis the assys and summond the said pairtie for his entres to heir the said rolment reducit, becaus the assys and inqueist as he allegit erret wilfully decernand him to haiff na rycht to his tak of certane landis of Paslay and the said Edward to haif rycht becaus he schew assedatioun thairof. And the pure man schew na thing bot allegit and referrit thairin to the assys. The lordis assignit ane day to the pure man to prove his allegeance de novo, albeit as the rolment buir he allegit the samyn in prima instantia et non probavit, ideo tunc condemnatus fuit.

The ix of februar <1542>: In the caus of spuilye of certane merchandis aganis the bailleis and eldermen of Vigtoun, the lordis decretit that of thair practik ane exceptioun, article or reply or quhatsumevir uthir answer or defensis direct contrair to the summondis or exceptioun of the uthir pairtie sould nocht be admittit to preve⁷⁷, and sua thay repellit Mr. Thomas Marioribankis reply maid to Mr Hew Riggis exceptioun aganis the said spuilyie.

⁷⁷This means: not admitted to be proved by the defendant - because in such cases the burden of proof lies on the pursuer, of course. The pursuer (and not the defendant) must be admitted to prove that his account of the facts of the case is correct. Parallel problem in nr. 19.

The said day <9 feb. 1542>: In William Rutherfurdis caus aganes the erle of Bothuile tuiching the reductioun of the erlis infeftment of certane husband landis of Langnewtoun, the lordis decernit that the said Williame mycht habere pro deleto thir wordis of the summondis "the saxt day of Februar", quhilk wes the dait of the chartour quhilk he askit to be producit be the said erle for reductioun thairof, quia non erat de substantia libelli, et litis contestatio wes nocht yit maid⁷⁸.

⁷⁸Based on commentaries to C. 2.1.3.

<CONTINUED> Quhilk <litis contestatio> usis nocht to be maid of the lordis practik. Nochttheles in place of it in thair practik thair succeidis the proponing of ane peremptour exceptioun, gif it be anis put to preif, or how sone that ewer the mater beis put to probatioun⁷⁹.

In the samyn caus thair wes divers exceptiounis dilatouris (be ressone of the kingis respect grantit to the said erle beand out of Scotland) proponit and disputatit be the pairteis and thair procuratouris at the bar, and interlocutouris gevin thairupone be the lordis. Nochttheles thai be interlocutour decernit that the said Thomas mycht mend his summondis and haiff pro deleto the saidis wordis, and that quia de iure ante litem contestatam actor potest emendare⁸⁰ libellum, et de practica Scotiae similiter habere pro deleto aliquid quod de substantia libelli non sit, ut in casu presenti. Thay decernit that it is nocht necessar to libell the dait of ane uthir manis chartour quhilk ane man callis to produce⁸¹.

⁷⁹This text is more explicit than the other ones on the topic. According to the Ius Commune, "litis contestatio" is not effected by mere demand in court and reply, not even if "exceptiones peremptoriae" have been raised - but only after the Court has reacted to such demand and reply (X 2.5.1): for instance by admitting the "libellus" or an "exceptio peremptoria" to proof. This is further qualified in nr. 149: The effect of "litis contestatio", namely barring of any further exceptiones, only ensues after the taking of evidence has actually started (first witnesses heard, etc.). "Litis contestatio" does not follow from mere "exceptiones dilatoriae" and their proof (see this nr. and nr. 124).

⁸⁰Word from C. 2.1.3.

⁸¹Corresponds to doctrines for "actio ad exhibendum", D. 10.4; C. 3.42.

<CONTINUED> And albeit Mr Hew Rig, procuratour to the said erle, proponit per viam exceptionis aganis the said William Rutherfurdis summondis that he sould be assoilyeit thairfra, becaus that the chartour that he had of the samyn landis wes of ane uthir dyet, nor wes expremit into the said William summondis, and this exceptioun supercedit to the morne thaireftir, nochttheles the lordis fand be interlocutour that yit the said William mycht mend his summondis in that pairt habendo pro deleto, becaus that exceptioun wes bot dilatoria. Sua videbatur causa adhuc esse iusta ante litis contestationem, ut patet.

ata<CONTINUED> Als in the said caus, the lordis decernit the said William' summondis irrelevantlie consavit and kest thame ratione generalitatis, becaus he boundit nocht nor specifeit cleirlie the fyfetene husband landis contenit in his summondis.

<CONTINUED> Als in the said caus the lordis decernit proces to the said William aganes the said erle (absent furtht of the realme), nochtwithstanding his respect (and lordis decrete interponit thairupone and letters past thairupone, and the said decrete nocht being reducit): becaus the king under his letters of his seill chargit the lordis to proceid nochtwithstanding the respect (quhilk thai delyverit), <becaus it> sould nocht haiff proces in the caus intentit aganes the said erle at the obtening of the samyn and befoir his departing furth of Scotland.

The aucht of februar <1542>: The lordis, in the laird of Cragyhallis caus aganes the laird of Glenbarwie, in the caus of non-entres to preif certane landis in non-entres, the kingis advocat producit the copie of ane instrument of coniunctfie of the landis and tua decretis that the woman coniunctfear had obtenit langsyne aganis uthir persones for wranguis occupatioun of thai landis. The copie of the instrument wes registrat in the buikis of Counsall and extract thairof be the register clerk, and als ane uthir copie thairof under tua notaris subscriptiounis. And attour the advocat foirsaid allegit that the laird foirsaid had substractit the said instrument originall in defraud of the persewar. And offerit him to preve the samyn be witnessis, alleging this wayis the said tenendrie to be sufficientlie provin. The said lairdis procuratour, Mr Hew Rig, exceptit the copeis foirsaid nocht to be authentik, becaus thai wer maid and transumit the pairteis haifand intres thairto nocht callit as the law requyris⁸². And als exceptit that seasing and mater of heretage aucht to be provin bot be wretingis authentik and nocht be witnessis. Nochttheles the lordis, haifand consideratioun to the foirsaidis wretingis and uther gret presumptiounis for the pairt of the said laird of Cragyhall, and als becaus that ubi de iure scriptura requiritur, ut in casu nostro, secundum practicam regni Scotie, si scriptura interempta et perdita sit⁸³ vel per adversarium substracta, ad hoc probandum per testes de iure quivis debet admitti: per <Pan.?> et alios in cap. Cum olim, extra de privile.⁸⁴ et scribentes in l. Testium, C. de testibus⁸⁵. And als becaus the said laird offerit to preve that the said woman as coniunctfear during hir lyfetyme joysit and brukit the samyn landis, and wes ane great takin that the instrument wes trew. And becaus of the law ex presumptionibus thairfoir thai admittit to the said advocatis to preif be witnessis as accordis of the law that the said instrument originall wes ane publict and authentik instrument, non vitiatum, rasum nec suspectum, and that it wes substractit be the said laird of Glenbarwie.

⁸²Commentaries on Authentica "Si quis in aliquo documento", post C. 2.1.7, ex Nov. 119.3.

⁸³Commentaries on C. 2.1.1 "id ex causa".

⁸⁴Commentaries by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) and other authors, on X 5.33.12 [to the point].

⁸⁵Legal authors on C. 4.20.18.1 [to the point].

The tent of februar <1542>: In the caus of Mr Andro Blakstok, assignay to ane Amwllikyn, aganes certane persones convict of spoliatioun fra him of certane guidis, as the act of adiornall proportit, the lordis be interlocutour decernit that the men persewit mycht use all thair defensis aganis the violent and wranguis taking of the saidis guidis, nochtwithstanding that thai tuik thame to thair compositioun in curia justiciaria and sua grantit the cryme. And that becaus thai schew authentik instrument of protestatioun for all thair defensis in that mater in civili judicio and sua mycht now allege ony iust caus of the awaytaking of the saidis guidis. And attour the saidis lordis decernit that, nochtwithstanding the said protestatioun, that thair confessioun of the guidis in speciall in the said act of adiornall aucht and sould of the practik mak full probatioun aganes thame upone the quantitie confessit, and that the uthir pairtie aucht nocht preve the quantitie uthirwyis.

14 februar 1541 <= 1542> : A persewit B. for the spoliatione of certane guidis, confessit be him to haiff bein tane away, in ane act of adjornall quhairintill he put him to his compositione. B. alledgit that at that tyme he protestit for his civil defenses quhilk he mycht us befoir the judge competent for the alledgit wrangous away-taking of the samen. And he was reddy to propone thame, and desyrit to be hard to that effect. To this was answerit that forsamekill as into the said act he had confessit the spoliatione of certane guidis in speciall, sic as ane hors and ane meir, he could us no defences aganes thame, nor yit was A. oblesit to prove the away-taking of the hors and meires, nor the quantitie of thame, in respect of his confessione of thame in speciall. The quhilk last alledgance the lordis fand relevant.

The xi day of the samyn moneth <feb. 1542>: The lordis decernit that ane procuratorie to resigne landis may be maid under forme of instrument, nochtwithstanding that reversionis and chartouris aucht to be maid under the annaliaris seill and hand writ and his seill, as the act of parliament beris, or be ane notar quhen he can nocht wreit. This wes decernit in ane Jonet Scottis caus contra Mr Robert Blair.

The said day <11 feb. 1542>: In ane caus of N Somerwell aganis Hammyltone anent the spuilyeing of him of the fruttis of his paroche clerkschip of etc, the actouris witnessis, for preving of the spuilye producit, previt him spuilyeit tua yeiris or mair befoir the tyme of the spuilye quhilk tyme wes libellit, and sua previt nocht libellatum tempus spolii. Nochttheles the lordis decretit sentence condampnatour contra reos for the yeiris libellit. And thair ressone wes, becaus of thair practik spoliatus semell recensetur et semper spoliatus, donec spoliatus sit semell restitutus.

And in the samyn caus the lordis decretit that titulus obtentus a domino (vel habente authoritatem disponendi de rebus) per spoliatorem post spolium semell commissum may nocht save spoliatorem a spolio fra the dait of his titill in posterum, becaus oportebat spoliatum semell restitui, antequam ipse spoliator possit iuste quavis ratione possidere rem spoliatam⁸⁶. And sua wes ane practik befoir, in causa cuiusdam contra dominum de Crawfurd that spuilyeit certane peittis fra certane puir men and pat thame violentlie furth of thair possessioun of ane moss and fewall casting thairin, and thairof obtenit ane infeftment fra the king. Bot the titill savit him nocht fra spuilye. And wes condamnit to restoir actores to thair possessione foirsaid. Alsua the said Hammyltone wes condemnit in spuilye and to restoir to the said Somerwell the fructis of the clerkschip.

⁸⁶See note for nr. 125.

<13 feb. 1542> Thair was ane A.B. that persewit C.D. for the spoliatione of him of certane fruites and dewties, the quhilk he was in possessione of the tyme of the alledgit spuilyie. It was answerit be C.D.: he aucht nocht to be decernit to haiff committit any spuilyie, becaus he had obtenit the richt of the saidis fruites and dewties, and now the richt of thame appertenit to him only. And at the tym of the alledgit spoliatione the persewar had na richt to the same. To this was answerit that the supervenient richt could nocht tak away the spuilyie, quia "spoliatus ante omnia semell venit restituendus"⁸⁷. And quhair it was alledgit that the persewar had na richt uit, nevertheles he aucht nocht to be put fra his possessione bot authore pretore. The quhilk last alledgance the lordis fand relevant. And that the supervenient richt saiffit nocht fra the spuilyie.

⁸⁷Decretum Gratiani, Causa 3, quaestio 3, c. 1-2.

The said day <11 feb. 1542>: In the caus of spuilyie intentit be certane pure tenentis of N aganes the provest and communitie of Selkirk (as I remember), tuiching certane peittis and fewall casting, the said tenentis procuratour (James McGill) faillit in the libelling of his summondis, and in the conclusione thairof askit the tenentis to be decernit to restoir the saidis peittis, quhair he sould haiff sayet and askit the persones libellit to be decernit etc. And for his falt of the summondis Mr Andro Blakstok (procuratour for the uthir pairtie) askit absolvitour sentence fra the summondis, causante illa ineptitudine.

The said McGill ansuerit that he wald haiff thai wordis the saidis pro deleto and sua his summondis wes yit out of perfyt sentence and the conclusione thairof desyrand thame or ony ane of thame to be decernit to haiff done wrang. And said that the relatum illud thairin referrit sufficientlie personas libellatas. The lordis fand be interlocutour that the said Mr James McGill mycht do the samyn et in hoc corrigere libellum suum, habendo illa verba pro deleto, becaus of the practik and law usque ad litis contestationem libellus possit emendari modo predicto⁸⁸, and als li<ti>s <contestatio> coram dominis Consilii per propositionem dilatoriam et interlocutorias desuper latas non inducitur, sed tunc cum conventum est ad probationis terminum statutum ad probandum⁸⁹, quhilk wes nocht done in this caus. And als in this caus the lordis mendit the said libell and schew the samyn to the said Mr James McGill, and that eftir that the said Mr Andro had proponit exceptionem hanc inepti libelli and askit thairfoir absolutoriam for his client.

⁸⁸Commentaries to C. 2.1.3.

⁸⁹Rule in nr. 149. See also nr. 115 (note).

The xiii of the said monetht <feb. 1542>: In causa of the men of Selkirk aganes certane tenentis of Kelso, anent the allegit spuilyeing of the men foirsaid of Selkirk of thair possessione of certane landis quhilkis thai clamit to pertene to the burcht of Selkirk in propirtie and communitie in possessione past memorie of man unto the tyme of the spuilye libellit. Than Mr Thomas Marioribankis, procuratour for the abbot and convent of Kelso, desyrit to be admittit for thair enteres, allegeand thai landis, of possessioun of the quhilk the questioun wes, to pertene to the said abbay of Kelso. And desyrit ane copy of the summondis and ane day to ansuer thairto, becaus thai wer nocht summond. The lordis decernit the said procuratour nocht to haiff the samyn, nor to be admittit now ratione interesse to dispute upone the propirtie of the saidis landis for stopping of the caus of spuilyie. And albeit de iure tertius pro suo interesse posset de dominio suo agere ad impediendum spoliatum restitui ad suam possessionem (nam regula iuris quod "ante omnia spoliatus est restituendus"⁹⁰ non obstat tercio comparenti pro suo interesse), nochttheles de practica dominorum Consilii obstat exceptio huius regule non solum spoliatori sed cuicunque etiam alteri pro suo interesse comparenti.

⁹⁰Decr. Grat. C. 3 q.1 c. 3-4; X 2.13; 6. 2.5.

<CONTINUED> And als the said Mr Thomas exceptit that the saidis tenentis of Kelso did na wrang in eiectioun of the uthir pairtie in thair allegit possessioun foirsaid, becaus the said abote and convent and thair predicessouris and thair servandis and tenentis in thair name past memorie of man wes in possessioun of the samyn landis as thair propirtie and patrimonie of thair abbay and sua did na wrang, seing thai bot keipit and defendit thair awin possessioun. The lordis decernit this exceptioun nocht to be admittit, becaus it is direct contrair to the uthir pairteis summondis, and sua repellit the samyn exceptioun⁹¹.

⁹¹See note for nr. 19 and 113.

13 februarii 1541 <= 1542> : The inhabitantis and communitie of Selkirk intendit actione of spuilyie aganes certane tennentis of the abbot of Kelso for the spoliatione of thame of thair possessione and debarring thame from using of certane landis, belonging to thame as commontie and propertie of the quhilk thai had bein in possessione, of past memorie of man. Compeirit the abbot of Kelso for his entres and desyrit to be admittit for his entres, alledging the landis to appertein to him as ane pairt of his patrimonie. It was answerit that in this caicie he aucht nocht to be admittit, for heir the questione was of spuilyie, et quod "spoliatus ante omnia venit restituendus"⁹². To this was answerit that the toun of Selkirk acclamed this possessione as of the landis quhilk appertenit to thaim in propertie and communitie, and sa the questione was nocht onlie for the wrang and spoliatione that was committit, bot also upone the propertie of the ground, quhilk the abbot wald prove to appertein to him. The lordis wald nocht admitt the abbot to be hard for his entres to stop the actione of spuilyie⁹³, quia interest rei publicae jure ne crimina maneant impunita, aut saltem ne quis violenter de sua re ejiceatur.

⁹²Decretum Gratiani, Causa 3, quaestio 3, c. 1-2.

⁹³Because the "iudicium possessorium" must strictly be separated from the "iudicium petitorium". See X 2.10.

<CONTINUED> Als in the foirsaid caus the lordis decernit that kynnismen to the provest and bailleis of Selkirk and uthir induellaris of the toun, quhilkis provest and bailleis and communitie wes actouris principallis in the caus, mycht nocht be witnessis to the said provest, bailleis and communitie. And in the said caus dubitatum fuit gif the burcht nixt adiacent to the said burcht and pasturit oftymes thair guidis and cattell upon the said communitie mycht be witness to the said provest and communitie. And it than apperit to the lordis that thai wer suspect ratione affectionis ad communitatem and becaus thai gat in pasturing foirsaid proffeit of the said communitie. And als it wes allegit be ane of the said lordis that for the samyn caus witnessis wes repellit of befoir in ane siclyk caus of the communitie of Ranfrow and Rugling, in qua causa erat quidam pauper N. Bot this day in causa communitatis de Selkirk hoc non fuit decisum.

And in the samyn caus the lordis admittit the inhabitantes of the toun to be witnesses.

128. Quod confessio in causa criminali be act of adiornall protestando pro defensionibus super contentis in acto illo confessato convincitur in causa criminali⁹⁴.

The xiii day of the moneth foirsaid <feb. 1542>: In the vicare of Kingorne caus aganes the laird of Siefeild, the lordis fand be interlocutour that the act of adiornall, quhair the laird foirsaid tuk him to his componitour for all crymes, the quhilk laird than protestit for all his defenssis, as ane instrument producit befoir the lordis schew, and albeit the said laird wes indytit for violent occupatioun of the said vicaris gleib and haldin waist of the uther pairtie be the space of sex yeiris, the said act of adiornall sufficient to preve the deid and quantetie and sua admittit the said vicare to preiff the said violence and waist halding be the said space.

⁹⁴Nrs. 128-130 refer to the same case as nr. 279. Practick nr. 150 refers to the same case in a later stage.

4 februarii 1541 <= 1542> : The vicar of Kingorne persewit the laird of Seyfeild for the violent occupatioune of ane pairt of ane gleib pertening to him, halding it wast for the space of vi. yeires. And foundit his lybell upone the said lairdis confessione in ane act of adjornall, <in> quhilk he tuik him to the compositioune of the samyn and all uther crymes that he had committit. It was answerit be the laird that he tuik him to compositioune with protestatione that he mycht us his defences quhen any actione was civilie intendit aganes him. And now he offerit him to prove that the vicar during all the tyme occupeit the gleb himselff, and tennendis and servandis in his name. The lordis repellit the summondis, nochtwithstanding of his protestatione.

<CONTINUED> And vald nocht admit the said laird to prove that be the said <time> the said vicar be him selff and his tenentis in his name occupyit all the said gleibe, becaus that exceptione wes direct contrair to the summondis of the uthir pairtie and swa de practica aucht nocht to be admittit⁹⁵.

⁹⁵See footnotes for nr. 19 and 113.

<CONTINUED> And in the said caus be interlocutour the lordis decernit that the act of adiornall etc., berand that dictus dominus libellatus accepit se ad compositionem suam pro vasta detentione unius partis glebe antedicte et violenta occupatione alterius partis, suld be interpreit that appellatione "partis" veniat et intelligatur dimedia pars, and that tam de iure scripto quam respectu dictionis "alterius" posite in dicto articulo, quhilk word inferris and is relative of twa alanerlie, secundum communem usum loquendi.

And also in the samyn caus, as quhair the vicar persewit for the halding waist of ane pairt of the gleb, the lordis fand it mycht be interpreit the ane halff et dimedia pars, juxta communem usum loquendi.

The xxv of the said moneth <feb. 1542>: In the actione of spuilye movit at the instance of ane Gelis Tod contra quendam (ut opinor) Crawfurd, per Irland procuratorem rei, exceptum fuit that eftir the allegit spuilye committit it wes transactit, componit and aggreit betuix the saidis pairteis, and the said Gelis had renuncit and ourgevin to him (that wes reus in the caus) hir said maling and all hir rycht and kyndnes thairof. And for verefeing thairof the said Mr David Irland producit ane writ contenand the samyn and als witnessis contenit thairin, to preve the samyn. In the contrair it wes allegit be Mr Thomas McCalyeane and Mr Andro Blakstok (procuratouris for the uther pairtie), that the writ previt nocht becaus it wes bot privat, and that the said exceptioun suld be provin be authentik writ. And als thai allegit that the witnessis suld nocht be reasavit in this caus ubi requirebatur de practica probatio per scripturam, et eo maxime becaus the said witnessis wes of grei desendand of kin in consanguinitie and affinitie to the man that producit thame, and rekynnit the degreis, and thairfoir aucht nocht to be admittit. Nochttheles the lordis resavit thame. And becaus the writ apperit to be veray auld and the caus wes of xxi yeiris, and als the witnessis wes veray honest and unsuspect men and previt cleirlie the writ and the contentis of it, the lordis gave ane sentence absolvitour reo ex verisimilibus coniecturis, albeit de rigore aliter fuisset judicandum.

The xvi day of the said moneth <feb. 1542>: The lordis, in ane caus of ane Patrik Dicsoun in Hardrip aganis schir Thomas Ratho notar publict and Johne Dicsoun for his entres, the lordis repellit certane witnessis producit be the said Patrik ratione consanguinitatis in gradu prohibito inter Patricium et ipsos testes, licet testes ipsi attinerent alteri parti in gradu eodem propinquo. And that becaus that be(?) thair practik the theorik of the legistes and canonistes "par affectionis causa tollit suspitionem"⁹⁶ hes no place.

And als in the said caus the lordis admittit the Patrik foirsaid to prove ane instrument quhilk he desyrit the notar to give him, quhilk the notar refusit to do becaus he allegit that his prothogoll buik wes burnt in his chalmer in Kelso quhen Kelso was first burnt, and that he could nocht remember perfytlie quhat the instrument contenit. Thairfoir the lordis admittit to the said Patrik the witnessis of the burning of the said prothogoll and the witnessis of the instrument and that it wes haill and nocht vitiat be thame that had red it, and schew the samyn, to that effect that the notar mycht be compellit to gif furtht ane new publict instrument.

⁹⁶Brocardicum, based e.g. on doctrines on C. 3.1.16; similarly on X 2.28.41 and X 2.20.24.

<7 feb. 1542?> The lordis admittit to Patrik Dicksone of A. to prowe casu amissionis tenorem instrumenti per testes qui sciverunt et legerunt instrumentum. The caus <was> that the said <Patrik> summondit the notar in quhais prothogall the instrument was insert and he answerit that the said prothogall was brunt at the burning of Kelso.

The xvii day of the said moneth <feb. 1542>: In the erle of Bothuile caus aganes Archibald Betone for redemptione of certane landis of his, comprysit to

mquhile James, last bischope of Sanctandrois, the lordis fand be interlocutour that maister Hew Rig, procuratour for the said lord, mycht haiff thir wordis "the fyve merkis et" pro deleto, eftir that the said Archibaldis procuratouris had desyrit absolvitour becaus that the saidis summondis bure "fyve merk landis of" etc. and revera thair wes aucht merkis and s. worth of thai landis comprysit, and allegit that he mycht nocht redeme the apprysit landis bot altogedder. And sua, the saidis wordis being deletit, the summondis importit the haill landis. And sua the lordis admittit the said erles procuratour to haiff pro deleto the samyn wordis⁹⁷.

⁹⁷Commentaries on C. 2.1.3 "emendare".

7 februarii 1541 <= 1542> : The earle Bothwell intendit actione aganes David Beatoun for the redemptione of certane landis, quhilkis war comprysit be J.B. archbischop of St. Androis. Efter the reiding of the summondis and answeres maid thairto that the said David aucht to be assolyeit fra the summondis, the persewer answerit that he wald hald certane wordis of the summondis pro deleto. It was answerit be the uther pairtie (in respect thair was answer maid to the summondis), he mycht nocht do the same. <To> which was ansuerit that, albeit thair was ansuer maid thairto, lis non fuit contestata, nec libellus fuit acceptatus. And unto that tyme he mycht non solum demere de libello, sed etiam renunciare liti et causae or pas fra the instance as he pleisit best, argumento l. Thesaurus, ff. ad l. Juliam de adulte.⁹⁸. The lordis fand be interloquitour that in respect the lybell was nocht acceptit as yit, quod potuit actor habere pro deleto vel demere de libello prout ei placuerit.

⁹⁸Misquoted, or garbled by wrong copying. Perhaps messed up with a standard reference book, namely with the collection of decisions of the Senate of Piemont, edited by Antonius Tessaurus? See case note nr. 39 above.

The xxiii day of the said moneth <feb. 1542>: In ane caus of doubill poinding movit be ane pure man callit Fyne aganes N Leirmonth and uther men, the lordis decernit the said complenar to haif na actione aganis the saidis pairteis for double poinding, becaus the said Leirmonth allegit and schew his heretabill infeftment of the landis possessit be the said Fyne, and offerit him to preve his possessione be vertew thairof and uptaking be him of the males and dueteis thairof be certane yeiris last bypast. Quhilk allegeance the said Fyne could nocht deny. And sua the said Leirmonth allegit that he had guid rycht to poind etc., he beand in possessione cum titulo. And als the uther pairtie schew ane rolment of court, quhair he had obtenit ane sentence of violent occupatione of the saidis landis aganes the said Fyne be the space of ane yeir or thairby befoir the allegit dowbill poinding. And thairfoir the said uther pairtie, quhome for the said rolment wes gevin, mycht poind the said Fyne. And in respect of the said rolment: that the said Fyne mycht nocht complene that the pairtie poindit him wranguslie.

<CONTINUED> And nochttheless becaus the said sentence and rolment wes gevin <contra Leirmonth tantum>, the said Leirmonth being summonit thairto, the lordis decernit that it could nocht preiudge him <= Fyne> in his rycht, and <in particular nocht> sua that be vertew thairof he mycht be put fra his possessioun. And thairfoir, the premisses considerit, the lordis decretit actorem non posse conqueri of doubill poinding.

The said day <23 feb. 1542>: In ane caus of assythment movit be N McCarthnay, burges of Edinburgh, aganes N, for the slauchter of his brother, the lordis be interlocutour decernit that in casu tali non erat necesse libellare annum neque mensem homicidii facti.

<CONTINUED> And attour decretit that becaus the assythment for slauchter pertenis to the kyn and freindis of the deid, and the said persewar libellit v^cmerkis for assythment to him and intentit nocht the actioun at the instance of the kyn and frendis, nor yit schew quhair he had requyrit thame to concur with him heirin, the lordis decretit that he his allane had na actioun to persew the samyn. And sua the summondis wes castin, nochtwithstanding that Mr Thomas Marioribankis procurator actoris offerit cautioun that the kyn and freindis suld hald ratum quhatevir wes now judgit, and als wes content nocht to tak ane penney quhill he gave to the pairtie ane letter of slaynis for all the kyn and freindis, and als allegit that in hoc casu melior debet esse conditio prius agentis - quhilk allegeance the lordis repellit.

<7 feb. 1542?> Thair was ane McCartney that persewit for the sythment of ane slachter of his brother. It was objectit aganes the summondis that he had na actione to persew this allone, becaus the actione appertenit to the kin and freindis and he allone could nocht be esteimed the haill kin and freindis, except he wald haiff schawin thair concurrence with him. He answerit and offered cautione de rato that the haill kin and freindis sould hald the thing done be him firme and stabill, and unto the tyme he obtenit the letter of slaynes fra the haill kin and freindis, he sould ressave na assythment, and he being narrest off blood and brother sould be first hard. The lordis wald nocht give him actione upone his letter, becaus he schew na power of the rest of the kin and freindis.

The xxii of the said moneth <feb. 1542>: The lordis decernit that error nominis proprii (ubi de persona constabat) non nocet in acto adiornali. The persewar wes my lord Hay contra William Amulgat etc., and the act of adiournall in the begynning bure "Willielmus Amulgat indictatus" etc., et postea it bure "quicquid Joannes", albeit it suld haiff said "quicquid Willelmus". And this exceptione being proponit be Mr Hew Rig, the lordis ordanit him to ansuer nochtwithstanding.

The xxvii day of the foirsaid moneth <feb. 1542>: In ane caus of recent spuilye movit be Mr. Hew Rig, procuratour for N, aganes N comperand be Mr Thomas Weymes, the lordis decretit that summondis of recent spuilye mycht be callit upone xv dayis, albeit that the said Mr Thomas allegit that his client suld haiff bene summonit upone xxi dayis as use is in uthir summondis, and his client in this caus wes bot summond upone xviii dayis.

The said day <27 feb. 1542> : In ane caus of N aganis the laird of Collarny, baillie to the abote of Lundoris, the lordis be interlocutour decretit that poinding of guidis beand upone ane uthir mannis ground mycht be provit be witnessis, and that it wes necessar to schaw the lordis or lairdis precept. And quhen gudis wes in ony cornes and medowes, that I or my officiaris aucht nocht to tarie upone ane wretin precept.

⁹⁹Probably same case as in nr. 193.

Ultimo februarii 1541 <= 1542> : Into the caus betuix the laird of Collerny, bailyie to the abbot of Lindores, and A.B., it was fund be the lordis that ane persone may poynd uther manes guidis cumand in his ground without ane precept or wreit, and that the samyn mycht be provin be witness and nocht be wreit.

Item the last day of the said moneth <28 feb. 1542> in ane caus of escheat movit be Hew Ormestoun, donatar to the kingis grace to the escheat, aganis the provest of Edinburgh, the lordis be interlocutour decernit that the said caus mycht cum in be ane bill and sould nocht byd ane precept summondis upone xxi dayis as Mr. Hew Rig, procuratour for the said provest allegit. Nochttheless the lordis ordanit xv dayis to the said provest thairto.

The samyn day <28 feb. 1542>: In the laird of Cragyhallis caus aganes the laird of Glenberwie, it wes found be the lordis that of the practik to preve ane exceptioun or reply the pairtie aucht nocht to haiff bot ane terme. And gif thair wer any witnessis than summond and nocht comperit, that the pairtie suld haiff letters to summond thame upone grittar panes, bot the pairtie aucht nocht to haiff uthir witnessis than thai that wes first summond. Et idem dicendum in probanda replica, duplica, triplica, quadruplica etc.

The last day of Februar <1542>: In the caus of ane pure man callit Reid aganes the abote and convent of Mewrus⁹⁹, the said aboite and convent wer warnit be decrete of the lordis of Counsall to restoir the said Reid and his moder to thair maling, out of the quhilk the said abote had put thame, or ellis to ane als gud maling alsweill lyand and of als great availl for 5 yeiris. The abote allegit that he mycht nocht get thame thair awin maling, becaus he had set it langsyne to utheris, and als that he culd nocht get him ane uther in Mewrus, for that place wes promitit with his bischoprik, and als the convent wald nocht consent that he set ony landis of the place fra thyne furtht, and sua that it wes nocht in his powar to fulfill in terminis the lordis decrete, and thairfoir offerit to the pure man all his intres that he mycht liquid and prove. The lordis decretit that becaus the said abote wes oblist in this cace ex sententia judiciali and als wes ane potent and mychtie lord and mycht by in sum pairte ane steding sic as the lordis decrete buir, and attour it wer to the pure man inpossibill or at the leist veray difficill to liquidat his intres,

<CONTINUED> and als that be sik obligatione of intres the executiones of the decretis mycht be oftymes eftirvard delayit and frustrat, quhilk suld nocht be, and that of the law obligatus ad factum ex sententia iudicis vel aliter, si factum facile prestari possit, non liberatur prestando interesse, thairfoir the saidis lordis decretit: the said abote aucht nocht to be hard in this caus offerand intres of pairtie, bot aucht to fulfill the said decrete specifeit. <Thus: the Court decreed specific performance!>

Ultimo februarii 1541 <= 1542> : The abbot and convent of Melros was decernit be the lordis and thair decreit to restoir ane puir man, callit Rid, to his meling, furth of the quhilk thai had ejectit him, or to ane meling as guid, as weill lying and as weill haldin, to haiff the samyn in tak and assedatione for the space of v yeires. It wes alledgit be the abbot that it was nocht possibill to him to get the man his stading againe, becaus it was set unto ane uther, nor yit could he get any uther meling, becaus he and the convent was inhibit to do the same, bot yet for the obedience of the decreit he wald be content to pay the interesse, to be modificat be the lordis. Et ubi quis ad factum tenetur, prestando interesse liberatur, argumento legis ultime, ff. cum quis in judicium¹⁰⁰. To this was answerit quod hoc fuit factum ex sententia judicis prestandum: quod specifice debet prestari. And the abbot being sua potent ane prelat, it was nocht veresimile bot he mycht fulfill the same. The lordis wald nocht heir him mak any liquidatione of interesse, be ressone of the decreit that buir specifice to restoir the puir man to his meling or to ane uther als guid. And sua repellit the abbottes alledgance.

¹⁰⁰Misquoted, or garbled by wrong copying.

The first of Merch, the yeir foirsaid <1542>: In ane caus of the lord Oliphantis aganes the laird of Inneis, the lordis decretit that in the said lordis summondis makand mentioun of the said lordis intres for reductioun of ane decrete gevin aganes the airis of Barridell, in the begynning of the saidis summondis befoir thir wordis of the samyn "Our will is and we charge N laird of Inneis at the instance of the said lord Oliphant to compeir" etc., the said lordis intres wes sufficientlie libellit, albeit that Mr Henry Lawder, advocat for the said laird Inneis allegit in the contrair that the said lordis intres aucht to haiff bene libellit eftir the foirsaid wordis, the quhilk he allegit wes in the begynning of the said lordis summondis, and the said lordis prefatioun wes nocht ane pairt of the libell, nor yit of the maior, minor nor conclusioun of the samyn, bot ane simpill narrative quhairupone na sentence may follow. Nochttheless the lordis fand be interlocutour that it wes na pairt of his libell and that all his summondis behovit to be tane togeader. And als ane thrid persone appelland for his entres fra the sentences gevin betuix uther persones aucht to be admittit, schawand his entres. And attour the lordis fand that summondis befoir <thame> requyris nocht necessarlie all the thre pairtis be ordour, bot that of the practik the conclusioun mycht be put in the begynning of the summondis. And sua the lordis decernit the said Mr Henry to answer farder in the said caus. And attour in the said caus the said laird askit the decrete foirsaid to be reducit becaus of ane secound gift of the mariage of the laird of Duffus airis, be vertew of the quhilk possessioun first followit ane the said gift wes maid to the saidis airis, or thai wer requyrit to marie be vertew thairof, and thairfoir the said lord askit the said decrete gevin be vertew of the said first gift to be reducit. The said laird Inneis schew the assignatioun of the said first gift maid to his father (ut recordor) titulo oneroso, and becaus the questioun now wes upone the strenth and effect of the said first gift he desyrit ane day to call his warrand.

<CONTINUED> In the contrair allegit Mr Robert Cawrocht, procuratour for the said laird, that he aucht to haiff na warrand, becaus that in the gevin of the said first decrete the said laird omittit the persute of his warrand, ane terme being assignit unto him thairto, and attour in this cace agebatur de retractione decreti et non de viribus prime donationis maritagii predicti, et quod heredes comitis de Erroll, a quo predecessor dicti domini de Inneis habuit assignationem predictam, non tenebantur varantizare dicto domino de Inneis istud decretum de cuius retractione agebatur. Et quod ex causis predictis non erat danda dilatio predicta domino de Inneis. Nochttheless, becaus the said reasone of the summondis wes foundit super invaliditate et annullatione prime donationis, et ad faciendum effectum omnem eius cessare, ideo the lordis assignit to the said laird of Inneis ane day to call his varrand.

The 2 day of the moneth foirsaid <mar. 1542>: Violat Gowrlay¹⁰¹ be reasone of coniunctfie clamit and intentit hir actioun aganes Mr Johne Spens for the wrangus occupatioun of certane landis. The said Mr Johne allegit he did na wrang, becaus he had the waird thairof be assignatioun of the samyn maid to him be Mr Alexander, chantour of Murray, donatour thairof to the king. The uthir pairtie replyit that the landis wes gevin to hir guidman and his airis frelie, but waird, and quhen the samyn happynnit, the vardature suld haiff bot xl s, and thairfoir he be reasone of the waird aucht nocht to haiff ony mair to schaw quhair the landis wes sa gevin be the king as said is. It wes duplyit that scho wes nather the man principall nor yit air to him and thairfoir that the kingis privilege culd nocht help hir. Scho treplyit that scho wes in the airis place be ressone of hir coniunctfie and that thairfoir the privilege gevin to the air sould be extendit to hir. And thairfoir the lordis decernit that the wardatare sould haiff actioun alanerlie to xl s. conforme to the said womanis guidmannis infeftment.

¹⁰¹Later stage of this case in nr. 335. Violat Gourley also named in nr. 199.

Eodem die et anno <28 feb. 1542>: Thair was ane Violat Gourley that persewit Mr Johne Spens for the violent occupatione of certane landis, alledging the samyn to appertein to hir in conjunctfie. He answered that he had committit na violence, becaus that thair was ane Mr Alexander Lyoun quha had obtenit the gift of the ward of the saidis landis, and he being maid assigney to the said gift, be vertew of the samyn occupiet the saidis. To this was answerit be the woman that lang tyme of befoir the landis war disponit to the husband and to the aires maill and femell with this provisione that, giff it hapnit the said landis fall in ward, the king sould haiff na mair for the samyn bot cl s., the quhilk soume scho had reallie and with effect offerit, lyikas scho was presentlie reddy to pay the same. To this was answerit that the dispositione (quhilk was maid to hir husband and his aires) could nocht be extendit to hir, nor was nocht maid to any conjunctfear. The lordis pronuncit in respect of the said dispositione: thair could be na mair socht be the wardatar bot that (the soume of cl s.), and that the womanes conjunctfie could nocht cum under the ward.

The 3 day of March the yeir foirsaid <1542>: The lordis decernit in ane caus of the gift of bastardie grantit be the king to the erle of Erroll of the escheit of ane N that the said gift culd nocht extend bot to the pairte of the moveabill geir that aucht to pertene to the man and he had nocht bene bastard, and thairfoir decernit his vyfe, Male Stewart, to haiff the half of the gudis, becaus the man deit without barnes and thairfoir of the practik the ane half of the geir aucht to pertene to hir, and sua the king could get na mair bot the tane half that concernit the man.

Eodem die et anno <28 feb. 1542>: The earle Arroll persewit as donatour to the king of the gift of bastardrie <of> ane N. for all the moveabill guidis that appertenit to him, becaus that N.¹⁰² decessit bastard, hawing na laufull successione gottin of his body. Compeirit the wyff (the relict of the said N.) and alledgit the ane halff of the guidis to appertein to hir becaus of the practick and consuetud of the countrie that, quhair thair is na bairnes betuix the husband and the wyff, the ane half of the guidis pertenis to hir. The quhilk the lordis fand relevant and ordanit the king and his donatour to haiff bot the on halff.

¹⁰²MS: C.

The said day <3 mar. 1542>: In ane caus of assythment be Andro Lowreisoun of that ilk movit aganes William King of Burke and certane Lesleis in the Northland, the lordis be interlocutour decernit that Mr Johne Spittell (procuratour for the said William) aucht to be hard to propone ony dilatouris exceptionis, albeit the said Mr Johne desyrit to propone his peremptouris, becaus his client comperit nevir yit in the caus, bot in it wes ay procedit in penam contumacis. The lordis decernit that, becaus in this caus thair wes ellis witnessis producit pro prima dilatione (albeit in absence of pairtie) and this wes the secound terme and productioun of witnessis, thairfoir the uthir pairtie aucht nocht to be hard to propone ony exceptioun (etiam non peremptoriam), quando aliquid productum est iam in primo termino ad probandum, sive sit instrumentum sive testes - albeit that, si esset secundus vel tertius terminus ad probandum et esset semper processum in contumaciam alterius partis et si nihil esset productum, semper audienda est pars altera iam comparens <et> admittenda ad proponendum non tantum dilatorias sed etiam peremptorias exceptiones. And thairfoir the said Mr Johne wes nocht admitttit in this cace to propone peremptorias, becaus that thair wes ellis in it producit witnessis pro prima dilatione. The caus of this decisioun wes, quia si reus in primo termino fuisset presens et peremptorias non propossuisset, iam in dicto termino non audiretur eis uti volens¹⁰³. Ergo nec iam hoc licet contumaci, cum non debeat contumax melioris esse conditionis quam non-contumax.

¹⁰³Because "litis contestatio" had yet been effected. See nrs. 115 (note) and 124.

2 martii 1541 <= 1542> : Into ane actione persewit be Andro Lauresoun of that ilk aganes ane William King of Bortrie and certane Leslies, anent the assythment of ane slachter, it was proceidit aganes King tanquam contumacem. Ad secundum productionis testium terminum comperit Mr Johne Spittil procuratour for him and desyrit to be admittit to propone his defenses declaratouris and peremptouris, and offerit him ad purgandum contumaciam. The lordis wald nocht heir him to propone any defence, in respect of the termes assignit and production of witnesses.

150. Off executeris of letters nocht to be witnessis¹⁰⁴

The said day <3 mar. 1542>: In ane caus of the vicare of Kingorne aganis the laird of Siefeild, the lordis decernit that the man quha executit the vicaris summondis upone the said laird wes suspect to be witnes for the vicar aganis him, and sua repellit the said witness for that man that wes executour officiar in that pairt and nocht creat the kingis officiar. And sua, becaus it nocht beand his office, he schew him selff partiall.

¹⁰⁴Same case in nrs. 128-130, 279 - in earlier stage of procedure.

The iiii day of marche anno 1541 <= 1542> in the caus of the abote of Glenlus aganes N Vas, the lordis decernit that the said N Vas had provin sufficientlie his exceptioun, viz. that his wyffis father and predicessouris, the maling upone quhilk the debait ves movit now, the said N Vas previt as is foirsaid that thai had in assedatioun of the said abote and his predicessouris of the foirsaid maling past the memorie of man, becaus the said Was schew ane rentall and assedatioun thairof in the said abbotis rentall buik for the space of fyve yeiris immediatlie <eftir> Maii (ut arbitror) anno 1535, and attour schew and previt be witnessis that his said fader and his predicessouris bruikit xxx yeiris and mair. And sen the witnessis could remember the said maling of the said place of Glenlus payit to the abbotis thairof thair deweteis and males, albeit the said witnessis culd nocht verefie that thai had thai landis in assedatioun of the said abbotis, and the said Vass allegit the assedatioun thairof past memorie of man and schew na assedatioun bot of the fyve yeiris foirsaidis, and sua na assedatioun quhilk may be provin be witnessis, na writ thairupone beand schawin.

The 7 day of the said moneth <mar. 1542>: In ane caus of the lady Fascherlies, Elizabeth Mertene, aganes the laird of Blenarme, the lordis decretit that the schiref depute of Berwik, quha gave ane rolment of court for the said laird aganes the said lady, did wrang, in sa far as thai wer bot schireffis deputtis for that ane cuntrie alanerlie. And thairfoir, as the said ladyes procuratouris desyrit, the saidis judges vald nocht schaw thair powar nor yit quhair thai and the memberis of that court wes sworne, quhilk at the desyre of the pairtie thai aucht to haiff schawin, becaus thai nor thair memberis wer nocht knawin generall nor ordinar officiaris of the said schirefdome, bot alanerlie constitut for that court, and thairfoir did wrang to the said lady and procedit inordourlie. And becaus the assys fand the said laird in laufull possessioun clamit of the said mailling, albeit in veratie the ladyes procuratour allegit that the caus ellis wes endit be decrete of the lordis of Counsall and that he wes decernit to haiff spuilyeit hir of hir possessione of the samyn maling and scho decernit to be restorit agane to hir possessioun, and sua the said decrete standing the schireff aucht nocht to haiff procedit in that court. And becaus the assys fand the said laird to be in laufull possessioun thairof, albeit the decreit wes red and schawin in judgement, the lordis decretit for the said caus the rolment to be reducit.

<CONTINUED> And als condamnit the assys in wilfull error, howbeit it wes nocht provin befoir the lordis that the assys hard the decrete red in judgement, nor yit that it wes schawin to him. Than nochtheles the lordis decretit for the maist pairt that the assys could nocht pretend ignorance of the thingis that wes done judicialie.

The said day <7 mar. 1542>: In the said lairdis caus aganes the said Elizabeth Mertene, the lordis reducit ane decrete of the lordis gevin xxii yeiris syne or thairby for the said Elizabeth, tuicheing the said maling and allegit spoliatioun of the said lady thairof maid be the said laird, becaus the said decrete bure nocht that the said lady at the tyme that scho allegit hir spoliatioun wes in possessioun thairof, and als the said decrete wes gevin na possessioun being libellit be the said lady as scho suld haiff done.

<CONTINUED> And sua the saidis lordis reducit the said decrete in sa far as it ordanit the said lady to be restorit to hir possessioun agane and to the Martimes maill of the said maling, and decernit that decrete to stand in all uther pointis of it, quhilk wer divers and sindrie, tuicheing the restoring of certane geir to hir spuilyeit fra hir be the laird of Blenerne etc., albeit of the practik ane usis to be reducit in toto, licet erratum sit tantummodo in uno capite separato ab aliis et penitus diverso.

The aucht day of the said moneth <mar. 1542>: In ane caus of Mr Johne Spens aganis the laird of Pitoladdo, the lairdis procuratour, Mr Thomas Marioribankis, allegit that the said Mr Johne had na actioun to call for the reductioun of the decrete arbitrall gevin betuix thame be the archedene of Breichen and certane his colligis, becaus the said Mr Johne had tane restorance of certane geir fra the said laird be vertew of the said decrete. And thairfoir he obeyit and approvit it and sua mycht nocht now cum in the contrair of it, nor yit allege it null, nor ask it to be annullit nor reducit, quia "quod semell quis approbat, amplius reprobare non potest"¹⁰⁵. And the lordis decretit the exceptioun relevant and admittit the samyn to the said Mr Thomas prufe.

¹⁰⁵6. 5.(13) de regulis iuris 21.

The said day <8 mar. 1542>: In ane Johne Pettones caus aganes Marioun Ogilvy, the lordis be interlocutour decretit that in causa redemptionis terrarum non datur dies ad vocandum varrantum. And sua albeit the said Marioun had coft the tenement of landis, for the redemptioun of the quhilk the said Pattone callit hir, fra ane uther persone for greatter sommes than the said Pattones predicessouris had wedset it, nochttheles the lordis decernit hir to haiff na terme to call hir warrand, quhilk Mr Thomas Marioribankis hir procuratour desyrit.

The ix day of the said <moneth mar. 1542>: In the caus of Johne Halyburtone aganes Helene Rutherfurde, the lordis be interlocutour decretit that exceptio quod "spoliatus ante omnia est restituendus"¹⁰⁶, proponit be Mr Hew Rig, procuratour to the said Helene, allegeand that the said Helene had nocht gottin yit restitutioun of the spuilye committit aganes hir be the said Johnes father, as the decrete of the lordis <decernit>, for reductioun of the quhilk the said Johne of new intentit actioun befoir thame, thairfoir that unto tyme that scho wes plene restituta quoad omnia contenta in dicto decreto, that the said Johne sould nocht be admittit nor hard ad agendum contra eandem Helenam super reductionem eiusdem decreti. The lordis repellit the said exceptioun and decernit quod agenti ad retractationem <et> reductionem decreti lati super spolio non obstat exceptio quod "spoliatus ante omnia venit restituendus"¹⁰⁷, ex eo quod regula hec habet locum cum agitur super proprietate eiusdem rei vel super alia re, agendo principaliter, et non cum per viam appellationis venit spoliator condemnatus ad retractandam sententiam super spoliatione contra eum latam. Quo casu non dicitur proprie actor, sed potius defensor. Et quod de iure (ut habetur in cap. 1^o de seq. poss. et fructuum in Cle.¹⁰⁸, notatur et per Pan. in cap. Cum ad sedem, nu. 3^o, extra de restitutione spoli.¹⁰⁹ et scribentes in l. 1^a, C. si de mo. pos.¹¹⁰ ) licet appellare a sententia lata in casu spolii, licet per appellationem istam restitutio possessionis non impediatur, ut viz. casus in dicta l. 1^a111. Et quod hoc casu liceat appellare, vide Rotam in novis, decis. 417¹¹². De practica autem regni Scotie loco appellationis succedit ius seu actio retractandi sasinam latam. Et ideo decreverunt domini quod dictus Mr Hugo Rig exceptione non obstante responderet summonitioni et libello ipsius Joannis, quia hoc casu potius reus et defensor quam actor et petitor principalis.

¹⁰⁶See notes to nr. 125.

¹⁰⁷See notes to nr. 125.

¹⁰⁸Clem. 2.6.1.

¹⁰⁹Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.13.15, marginal number 3 in the edition which the collector happened to use.

¹¹⁰Legal authors on C. 7.69.1 [to the point].

¹¹¹C. 7.69.1.

¹¹²Decisiones Rotae Romanae novae, collected by Guillielmus Horborch, 1376-1381, nr. 417 = De causa possessionis et proprietatis 10 [to the point].

9 martii 1541 <= 1542> : Thair was ane Johne Haliburtone that persewit Helein Rutherfuird for the reductione of ane decreit of spuilyie, the quhilk the said Helene had obtenit aganes him. Scho answerit that he aucht nocht to be hard to persew for reductione off hir decreit quhill scho war first restorit to the guidis spoilyeit and tane way fra hir, quia "spoliatus ante omnia venit restituendus". To this was ansewrit that the theorick of the law aucht nocht to haiff place in this cauce quando agitur per viam reductionis aut appellationis, sed quando directe agitur super proprietate. Et regula illa multas exceptiones petit. De qua vide Johannem de Ferrariis in forma libelli <de> perturbata possessione¹¹⁴. The lordis repellit the alledgance and ordanit the defendar to answer to the summondis, nochtwithstanding of the same.

¹¹³Decretum Gratiani, Causa 3, quaestio 3, c. 1-2.

¹¹⁴Iohannes Petrus de Ferrariis, Practica libellorum Papiensis.

<CONTINUED> Concordabant omnes domini quod ista appellatio seu actio reductionis et eius intentatio et pendentia non deberet impedire executionem decreti ipsius Elene, ad cuius refassionem et retractationem agebatur, ut notatur in dicta l. 1¹¹⁵ et per Pan. in dicto cap. Cum ad se.¹¹⁶, die dato actori ad probandum in presentia rei.

¹¹⁵C. 7.69.1.

¹¹⁶Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.13.15 - see above.

The xi day of the said moneth <mar. 1542>: In Johne Merschellis caus aganes the abote and convent of Pasla and thair baillie and the assys that past upone ane cognitioun betuix the said Johne and Edward Stewarte, the lordis be interlocutour decernit that, becaus the said persone comperit be Mr Thomas Marioribankis thair procuratour in the first terme of the summondis and ane terme wes assignit to the said Johne to preve the secound ressone of his summondis, theirfoir the said Edwarde mycht nocht be hard now to propone ony peremptour exceptioun, sic as he allegit that the said Johne had dischargit him all his rycht, his intres and clame and kyndness to the maling of Rathbuikis upone the quhilk the pley wes betuix thame.

The said day <11 mar. 1542>: In the caus of ane pure man, tenent of Towquhy, aganis the laird of Balquhannane for spuilyeing of him, the lordis decernit to the said laird ane day to call the varrand of the said spuilye, viz. the laird of Towcht, allegit assignay to all his tenentis to the said spuilye committit aganes thame be the said laird of Balquhannane. And the lordis allegit that the samyn wes practicat of befoir, et ubi - ut mihi videbatur: non bene, becaus "wrang hes na varrand"¹¹⁷.

¹¹⁷Maxim also quoted in nrs. 167, 337, 583.

The said day <11 mar. 1542>: In schir Johne Campbell of Lundie caus of spuilye aganes the lord Home, the lordis decernit the said schir Johnnis libell inept in the spuilye allegit of certane cornes, becaus he libellit nocht his possessioun of the samyn at the tyme libellit. In the begynning of his libell he libellit him spuilyeit be the said lord of the guidis underwritin than being in his possessioun as his awin propir guidis, viz. certane oxin, as the libell proportit.

<CONTINUED> And the said libell wes decernit irrelevant for that parte and nocht for the uthir, becaus it wes diversum caput, et diversa ut ex libello apparebat spoliatio, non facta tempore eodem. Quae prior spoliatio esset bona.

The xiii of the said moneth <mar. 1542>: In Jonet Scottis caus aganis Mr Robert Blair, to impreve ane instrument of resignatioun of tua chalder wictuall, haldin be Robert Downe of the laird of Tullybaredyn, allegit maid be Robert Downis procuratour in the saidis lairdis handis as superiour thairof, maid as wes allegit be the said Mr Robert be vertew of tua procuratories of the said Robert Downes, ane in parchment and ane uthir in paper, the said Jonet producit the said laird of Tullibaredyn to preve the resignatioun maid bot be vertew of the paper procuratorie, and sua that the instrument of resignatioun wes fals becaus the samyn maid be vertew of thame bayth.

14. martii 1541 <= 1542> : Thair was one Johne Scott that persewit ane instrument to be improvit, usit be ane Mr Robert Blair. Quhilk was ane instrument of resignatione of certane landis in the handis of the laird of Tillebard, superiour of the same. Thair was bot tua witnesses insert in the instrument. Off the quhilkis ane deponit <aganes it>, and the uther baid at the instrument. The lordis decernit the said instrument improvin, becaus of the practik and law ad substantiam instrumenti publici requiruntur ad minus duo testes, ut notat Johannes de Ferrariis in forma libelli appositi contra instrumenta, in versiculo "Dignoscitur" in margine¹¹⁸et Felinus capitulo Cum Johanne Herimita, extra de fide instrumentorum¹¹⁹.

¹¹⁸Iohannes Petrus de Ferrariis, Practica libellorum Papiensis.

¹¹⁹Commentary by Felinus Sandeus to X 2.22.10 [to the point].

<CONTINUED> The lordis decernit the said laird nocht to be admittit witnes in this caus, becaus the instrument being imprevit he vald get profeit for the said annuelrent of tua chalder wictuall, quhilk vald be in non-entres in his handis as superiour thairof, and als becaus he wes testis instrumentarius contentus in dicto instrumento resignationis.

The said day <13 mar. 1542>: In Johne Gemilles caus of spuilyie of his aganes James Lowsoun of Humbie, the lordis decretit the said James ane day to call his varrand (ut recordor) Mr George N as factour to Mr Robert Vachope of the said vicarage, than perteining to the said Mr Robert and now to the said schir Johne be resignatioun in Rome in favouris of him be the said Mr Robert, becaus the said James wes in possessioun of the saidis teindscheves be vertew of tak maid to him be the said Mr George as factour foirsaid, and thairof wes yit certane yeiris to rin.

<CONTINUED> And the said Mr George oblist him to varrand the said teindscheves to the said James for the yeiris contenit in his letter and thairfoir gawe him agane to call his said varrand, albeit Mr Andro Blakstok, procuratour for the said schir Johne, allegit that "wrang had na warrand"¹²⁰ and thairfoir na day suld be gevin to the said James to the effect foirsaid. Nochttheles the lordis decretit as said is. And that of the practik howivir ane man is in possessioun cum titulo for termes to ryn, and ane uthir call him for wrang in occupying that geir or land, reus debet habere diem ad vocandum varrantum suum, for yit it is nocht kennit wrang nor spuilye and the man that I allege my warrand may haiff guid defenssis unknawin to me.

¹²⁰Maxim as in nr. 161.

13 martii 1541 <= 1542> : Thair was one schir Johne Greinlay that persewit James Lausone off Humbie for the spoliatione of certane teind schawis. The said James desyrit ane day to call his varrand and producit ane tak, set to him be ane Mr Robert Vachop. And alledgit him to be in possessione be vertew of the said tak for termes to rune. It was answerit that he aucht to haiff na day to call his warrand, becaus "wrang aucht to haiff no varrand"¹²¹. The lordis nevertheles in respect of the tak and possessione assignit him ane day.

¹²¹Maxim also quoted in nrs. 161, 167, 337.

letters of cognitioun nocht beand reducit.

The 13 day of the said moneth <mar. 1542>: In the caus of the laird of Kilbirny aganes Robert Cunynghame of Robertland and his spous (the relict of Johne Calhoun, laird of Luss), the lordis decretit the rolment of court gevin aganes the said laird Kilbirny, bering that the said lady Luss aucht to haiff ane terce of the landis annaleit to the said laird Kilbirny be the said laird Luss, becaus the sowme of threttene hundereth merkis (in securitie of the quhilkis the said land wes annaleit and sauld puirlie and simplie) wes payit compleitlie to the said laird, and thairfoir decernand the said laird to desist and ceis fra the thrid thairof to be brukit be the said ladie as hir terce, to be reducit, becaus this caus (for the quhilk the said rolment wes gevin) wes inept in the selff and nocht inferrand nor concludand necessare that the said ladie aucht to haiff ane terce,

<CONTINUED> and attour becaus the said ladeis husband diet bot superiour of the landis, and nocht saisit thairin as of the fie and in fie heretablie thairof than as wes the said laird Kilbirny. And of the practik of Scotland na voman aucht to haiff terce bot of the landis that hir husband dies last westet and saisit of.

<9 mar. 1542> The laird of Glenberwy persewit for reductione of ane rolment of court quhairinto thai had servit the lady Luss (spous to the laird of Robertland) to ane terce of certane landis, the quhilk the laird of Luss (hir husband) had annaliet to the laird of Glenbervie upone the reversioun of xiii^cmerkis. The ressone of the summondis was that the said lady aucht nocht to haiff bein decernit to haiff had any terce, becaus hir husband died nocht last vest and seasit thairintill ut de feodo, becaus he had bot onlie the superiority of the samyn and had seasit in ane uther man in fie of the landis. And of the practik of Scotland na lady aucht to haiff any terce bot of that quhilk hir husband died last wast and seasit ut de feodo. The lordis fand the said alledgance relevant and sua reducit the said rolment of court.

<CONTINUED> And sua the said rolment wes reducit, nochtwithstanding that it wes gevin conforme to the letters of cognitioun direct to the schireff. And Mr. Hew <Rig>, procuratour for the said laird of Robertland, allegit, theis letters standand unreducit, that the rolm<ent> past conforme thairto could nocht be reducit. Quhilk allegeance the lordis repellit becaus in prima instantia he mycht haiff had this defenss and the schireff could nocht haiff justlie repellit it, becaus of the claus that in all cognitionis is now, that the judge, to quhome the cognitioun is directit, admit to bayth the pairteis thair iust and lawfull defenssis

<CONTINUED> and that in this secound instance this defence mycht be proponit, per regulam generalem quod "in secunda instantia non-allegata allegabo, non-producta producam"¹²².

¹²²Self-evident doctrine.

The said day <13 mar. 1542>: In the caus of spuilye intentit be the dene of Dunbaris brother for certane his teindis aganes Mr Alexander Ogilvy and certane uthir tenentis, the said denes brother as fermorar to him foundit him upone ane assedatione maid to him be the said dene, quhilk the uthir pairteis procuratour James McGill askit to sie or he answerit forther in the caus. And incace the samyn wer nocht verefeit instantlie, he protestit for ane absolvitur. The lordis decernit that the uthir pairteis witnessis mycht nocht be ressavit ante ostensionem tituli actoris¹²³and gif ane day to him to produce his titill, becaus he allegit it wes in the commissaris handis of Abirdene and mycht nocht get it, and thairfoir askit letters of the lordis to requyre the said commissar to delyver the samyn to him.

¹²³See quotations for nr. 53. Additional problem: Proof of legitimate quasi-"possession" of a right to collect teindschevis (= "decimae") can rarely be brought without showing the title on which this quasi-possession is grounded: 6. 2.5.2.

The said day <13 mar. 1542>: In ane caus movit be Alexander Ogilvy aganes certane tenentis for spoliatioun of him of thair thirll multure, the libell wes cast in becaus the said Mr Alexander libellit nocht the titill quhairby he clamit the samyn multuris to pertene to him. And ex sola consuetudine utendi ad molendinum alicuius dominus illius molendini non potest pretendere jus in multuris. Nec cogi possunt venire soliti ad veniendum inposterum, quia ex actu mere voluntario etiam per centum annos non inducitur consuetudo, nec alteri ius acquiritur, and sua iura hec incorporalia et servitutes non possunt sine titulo possideri.

Eodem die et anno <9 mar. 1542>: Thair was ane Alexander Ogilvie that persewit certane tenentis for the spoliatione of certane thirle multouris. It was alledgit aganes the lybell that the samyn was nocht relevant, becaus he lybellit na tytill quhairby he acclamed the saidis multures to appertein to him, quia ex sola consuetudine veniendi ad molendimum alicuius, dominus molendini ex hoc non potest pretendere jus ut cogi potest aliquos in posterum venire ad suum molendinum. Quia ex actu mere voluntario etiam per spatium centum annorum non inducitur jus aut consuetudo. And sua the lordis concludit (according to the meaning off the law) quod sine titulo hec iura incorporalia et servitutes non possunt prescribi.

174. Off impreving of ane instrument, uno testium necessariorum expresse contradicente instrumento¹²⁴

The said day <13 mar. 1542>: In Janet Scottis caus aganes Mr Robert Blair, the instrument producit be Mr Robert Blair, berand that the resignatioun of tua chalder wictuall, allegit pertening to him in heretage and that pertenit to umquhile Robert Downe, wes maid in the laird of Tullibarnes handis superiour thairof be vertew of 2 procuratories of the said Robert Downes, in paper the ane and the uthir in parchment sub forma instrumenti publici, wes decernit be the lordis improvin sufficientlie, becaus thair wes bot tua witnessis thairin insert. Ane of thame deponit that the said resignatioun wes maid be the procuratorie in paper and that he saw the samyn and that thair wes na uther procuratorie in parchement than schawin, and sa he wes direct contrair to the instrument. The uther witnes conforme, except he said thair wes na procuratorie in parchement than schawin (as he rememberit). And becaus ad substantiam instrumenti publici requiruntur ad minus duo testes cum notario, et sic, uno eorum contradicente instrumento directe, remanebat instrumentum sine solemnitate illa testium substantiali, et quod eius quod referebat instrumentum non remanebat iusta probatio, ideo non valet instrumentum, ut notat Felinus in cap. Cum Joannes, nu. 5^o, extra de fide instrumentorum¹²⁵, et idem ibi Pan. 14¹²⁶.

¹²⁴Parallel problem in nr. 66.

¹²⁵Commentary by Felinus Sandeus on X 2.22.10, marginal number 5 in the edition which the collector happened to use.

¹²⁶Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.22.10, marginal number 14 in the edition used by the collector.

<CONTINUED> And sua onus probandi affirmativam de practica semper incumbit reo, ubi actor libellat negative.

The 15 day of the said moneth <mar. 1542>: Elene Douglas, relict of Bartilme Levingstone, askit the schiref N. to enter hir to hir terce of certane landis of the barony of Levingstoun, to the terce of the quhilk haill baronie be deceis of hir said husband scho wes servit be the brevis of the kingis chapell and kennet thairto be the schiref that for the tyme wes upone xxi yeirs syn, albeit scho as yit wes nocht enterit thairto, becaus thair wes ane lady of the great terce ay levand quhill Yuill lastwas, quhilk tyme be vertew of the said great terce scho bruikit thei landis that this Elene desyrit to be enterit to. This land wes haldin of schir James Hammyltoun. And be his foirfaltour the kingis advocat allegit all to haif cumit in the kingis handis. The lordis decernit that the said Elene aucht to be interit to hir terce foirsaid, and that the samyn could nocht be foirfalt in this caus, becaus it fell lang befoir the superiouris foirsaid foirfaltour, albeit be ressone the lady of the great terce the said Elene had nevir bene yit enterit realie in possessioun thairof.

18 martii 1541 <= 1542> : Helene Douglas, the relict of umquhill Barthilmo Levinstoun, desyrit the schireff of A. to enter hir to hir terce of the barronie of B., becaus efter the deceis of hir husband scho was servit thairto be brewis of the kingis chappell and thairefter enterit to thame be the schireff principall of the scyre. Comperit the kingis advocate for his entres and alledgit scho aucht nocht to be servit nor answerit in ony terce of the landis acclaimed, becaus thair was ane lady of gryt terce on lyff quhilk secludit hir fra the entrie to hir terce. And since the deceis of the said lady the saidis landis is fallin in the kingis handis be ressone of the foirfaltour of schir James Hamiltoun, of quhom the landis war haldin. To this was answerit that, albeit scho was nocht entreit during the tyme of the gryt tearcar, yit befoir the forfaltour scho being servit to hir terce the samyn thairefter could nocht cum under foirfaltour. The quhilk alledgance the lordis fand relevant and admittit the same.

The 17 day of the said moneth <mar. 1542>: In ane caus of vilfull error intentit at the kingis instance aganes certane persones that wes upone the inqueist of apprysing of certane landis of N. Inglis' allegit haldin of the erle Bothuile, the lordis decernit that the instrument of that N Inglis' seasing, gevin be vertew of the said erlis precept insert thairin, schawin to the appryssaris, provit nocht the haldin, becaus it wes bot ane simple narratioun of the allegit superiour, quhilk inter alios mycht nocht mak fayth to his awin utilitie. And thairfoir that halding of landis behovit to be provin be chartour and seasing, or ellis be ane retour.

17. martii 1541 <= 1542> : Thair was ane caus of wilfull errour persewit at the kingis instance aganes certane persones that was upone ane inqueist to haiff comprysit certane landis of ane Inglis, the quhilkis landis war haldin of the earle of Bothvell. The ressone of the summondis war that the assys hat committit wilfull errour in nocht-comprysing of the landis, becaus thair was ane instrument of seasing producit befoir thame with the tenour of the erle Bothvellis precept insert thairin to verefie the halding of the landis, quhilk was nocht sufficient to prove the halding of the landis aganes utheris nor the earle Bothvellis selff. For halding of landis cannocht be provin bot <be> the chartour and retour. The quhilk the lordis admittit and fand relevant.

The samyn day <17 mar. 1542>: In ane vommanis caus callit (ut recordor) Agnes Lyndsay and hir husband for his intres aganes Jonet Auchinlek, the lordis decernit the said Jonet Auchinlekis seasing and infeftment of the landis of N to be reducit, becaus hir infeftment of seasing buir that seasing wes gevin to hir as assignay to umquhile N. Lyndsay, and scho culd nocht schew to the lordis ony assignatioun, and the ovirlordis simple narratioun culd nocht verefie the samyn in preiudice of ane thrid persone.

<CONTINUED> And in the samyn caus the lordis decernit that the said Agnes' serving as air to umquhile Andro hir brother previt him deid, albeit Mr George Strange, procuratour for the said Jonet Auchinlek, allegit that he was levand and sua ane levand man culd nocht haiff ane air. And that becaus sic serving proceidis cum cause cognitione and makis fayth thairfoir ay quhill it be reducit.

The said day <17 mar. 1542>: In the caus of Jonet Blak aganes Andro Hammylton upone ane reductioun of ane decrete arbitrall gevin for him aganes the said Jonet, the lordis decernit the said decrete to be reducit, becaus the said decrete buir that it wes provin befoir the arbitraris that scho renuncit and dischargit him of ane contract maid betuix thame anent the lauboraris of the said Jonettis maling to hir be the said Andro for hir lyfetyme, becaus the said Andro schew nocht how the samyn wes provin to thame. And the lordis decernit that sententia arbitratorum non probat, nisi ex actis constet. Et idem dicebant domini de decreto vicecomitum.

<CONTINUED> And albeit ex actis constaret quod probatum fuit per testes, that scho dischargit the said Andro of the same, the lordis fand that probatioun wes nocht relevant, and it aucht to be by writ and nocht be witnessis, of the practik,

<CONTINUED> and attour reducit the said decrete, becaus it wes nocht conforme to the compromit, and that the arbitraris had condamnit the said Jonet to haiff done wrang to ane uthir persone nocht in the compromit.

The xviii day of the said moneth <mar. 1542>: In ane caus of spuilye intentit aganes Bannatyne be M, the lordis decernit the spuilye sufficientlie provin per actorem, albeit he had bot ane witnes that previt possessionem eius et spoliationem contra eum factam and uther tua witnessis that provit his possessioun of the geir that he allegit spuilyeit fra him, and the spuilye thairof fra him thai provit nocht in specie, bot thai said that thai hard reum confitentem in presentia ipsius actoris that he had the geir and guidis that the uthir man allegit spuilyeit fra him. And sua ex probatione unius testis de facto ipso et aliis duorum testium depositionibus de confessione rei, coniungendo eas, simul dicebant domini Consilii spolium esse probatum satis ad deferendum quantitatem iuramento spoliati. Nihilominus non videtur confessione rei, quod habeat res petitas, probata per duos testes, quovis modo probare quod reus spoliavit actorem eisdem rebus. Et sic non videbatur spoliatio esse probata. Quia non sequitur: reus est confessus se habere res illas, ergo spoliavit actorem illis. Sed domini habuerunt in hac causa, ut solent plurimum, quedam nova motiva.

Et licet hoc fuerit in hoc casu practicatum per dominos Consilii, tamen contrarium per omnes pene dominos vocatum fuit sex mensibus ante (aut eocirca) in causa cuiusdam vidue, (ut opinor) dicte Jonet Bell, contra dominum de Lochquhynvay. Nam iste excepit de solutione centum librarum ab ipso petitarum. Et solutionem quinquaginta mercarum probavit per acquittance scriptam manu (ut recordor) Joannis Maine, cuius scriptura fuit approbata a parte altera, et sic fecit fidem, licet esset privata scriptura cuiusdam. Ad solutionem vero aliarum 50 lib. probandam produxit testes, quorum tres aut quatuor tantum deposuerunt de confessione creditoris de solutione integra <centum librarum> earundem, et unus alius de reali numeratione ultimarum 50 lib. facto marito dicte vidue, cum in summa antedicta dominus antedictus tenebatur. Et quia solutionem realem et actualem non probaverunt testes, sed confessionem creditoris de solutione recepta per se a dicto domino in eiusdem domini presentia, et ipse dominus de solutionis confessione non excepit, domini omnes, uno excepto, decreverunt dictum dominum defecisse in probatione exceptionis antedicte et decreverunt eum solvere dicte Jo<net> Belli ulterius. Vide de hoc in cap. Quum mo., X de confessionibus¹²⁸. Et sic nota variabilem practicam in hoc casu.

¹²⁷Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 3.27.3 [to the point].

¹²⁸X 2.18.1 [to the point].

The said day <18 mar. 1542>: In causa spolii movit be Mr Andro Blakstok and ane uthir his collegis cessionaris and assignais to ane man callit N Amulget aganes ane man callit Wilsone upone ane act of adiornall, into the quhilk ipse reus conventus tuk him to his compositour for certane oxin violentlie tane be him fra the said N Amulget, the lordis, becaus the said Wilsone schew be ane instrument quhair he had protestit in the justiceair court for his laufull defensis befoir the civill juge, admittit to his preiff that he causit laufullie apprys to him thre of the ky that he tuik for to his compositour in the iusticeair. And sua causante protestatione admittitur in causa civili quis contra confessionem suam in causa criminali factam, etiam ad purgandum se de crimine, albeit he tuik him thairfoir to his componitur and sua crimen confessum videtur. Et ad hoc movebantur domini Consilii quia confessio hec fit metu mortis, et ideo non debet preiudicare nisi quis in ea perseveraverit. <Continued in nr. 195.>

The samyn day <18 mar. 1542>: In ane caus of the laird of Petslego and James Gordoun, the lordis decretit that ane commissioun to Johne Pardowan and James Johnistone maseris to pas to the ground quhair the cornes grew, upone spuilyie of the quhilk the said laird of Petslego intentit actioun of spuilye contra dictum Jacobum, and ordanit the saidis maseris schireffis in that part to tak cognitioun upone the ground of the said pairteis possessionis, and, as thai fand, to retour agane to the lordis. The saidis schireffis upone the ground summond and chusit ane inqueist and referrit the mater to the saidis inquisitouris and assys and, becaus thai past away the first day nocht having delyverit, chargit thame agane to compeir on the said ground and to delyver, as use is, affirmative or negative. And becaus thai could nocht thane agre amangis thair selffis, the said schireffis in that part with thair clerk examinat the said assys and inqueist ilk ane of thame separatlie and insertit thair depositiones ad longum in thair proces and sua retourit the samyn to the lordis. The saidis lordis, findand that the schireffis had led thair proces inordinatlie and had nocht tane and endit thair cognitioun ut moris est, ordanit letters to be direct of new to charge the assys to compeir in the tolbuyth of Edinburgh, and thair the saidis schireffis to incluse thame thairin and hald thaim inclusit ay and quhill thai delyver affirmative or negative upone the mater referrit be the saidis schireffis to thair knawlege.

<CONTINUED> And the 24 day of May <1542> the saidis James Johnestoun and Johne Pardovan retourit the samyn mater agane to the lordis and maid na delyverance of thair court thairupone, bot onlie insertit in thair proces the depositiones of witnes examinat in this caus, and returnit to the lordis but ony delyverance maid be thame schireffis in that part. And the lordis resavit this proces and decernit conforme to the witness, albeit this last proces of the schireffis foirsaidis contenit the samyn inordinance and falt of the uther proces quhilk thairfoir the said 18 day of Merch wes retourit.

<18-24 mar. 1542> The laird of Pitsligo persewit ane James Gordone, be way of commissione direct to Johne Pardowane and James Johnesone (tua ordinar messeres befoir the lordis) as schireffis in that part, to tak cognitione of certane debeatabill landis betuix the saidis pairties upone the ground of the same. The judges past to the ground and thair causit ane inquest to be chosin and refferit the mater to the sensment of the inquisitouris. The inquisitouris could nocht agrie amanges thame selffis, bot depairtit without any delyverance affirmative or negative. Thairfoir the judges and thai mett upone <the> ground agane. And thai as off befoir disagriet amang thameselffis. The judges did examinat every one of thame and wreit thair depositiones ad longum and patt the samyn in proces be thair clerk and retouris the samyn to the lordis of sessione and thoucht thai had done thair dewtie and satisfiet thair commissione direct unto thame. The lordis pronuncit be interloquitour that the saidis judges and maissares had nocht done thair dewtie nor satisfiet thair commissione direct unto thame. Thairfoir ordanit letters to be direct, to charge the said inquest and the persones that was upone the same, to compeir in the tolbuith of Edinburgh, the saidis judges and schireffis to hald thame thairin inclosit quhill thai deponit ather affirmative or negative. For quhen any mater is referrit to ane inquest, they behuiffit of necessit to delyver and depone agane ather affirmative or negative.

The xxiii of the said moneth <mar. 1542>: Katharine N and William Lyndsay hir spous pro suo interesse callit Alexander Chene, William and James Chenes to heir thair infeftment of seasing of ane tenement within Edinburgh, maid to thame pro indiviso be resignatioun of ane James Young notar publict in ane of the bailleis handis of Edinburgh, to be reducit for certane caussis, as the summondis contenit. The saidis barnes procuratour Mr James McGill exceptit that tua of thame wes infra minorem aetatem and sua de iure regni non tenebantur placitare super hereditate. And becaus the thre wes in the said tenement pro indiviso, na proces suld nor mycht be laid aganes thame. Quhilk allegeance the lordis be interlocutour fand relevant, and thairfoir decernit to preve minorem aetatem.

<CONTINUED> And thair is actio de nova dissasina, upone the quhilk minor tenetur placitare, as Mr Hew Rig allegit, for nova dissasina clare patet in "Regia majestate", ubi tractatur de casibus in quibus minor placitare tenetur¹²⁹.

¹²⁹"Regiam maiestatem" ...

The said day <23 mar. 1542>: In Johne Halieburtonis caus aganes Helene Rutherfurd for reductioun of ane decrete of spuilyie obtenit be hir aganes the said Johnes father (ut recordor), becaus the tyme of the allegit spuilyie et continuo multis annis ante ipse reus wes in possessioun of the saidis landis that scho allegit hir spuilyeit of, as ane part and pertinent of his mailling of Murehous (ut recordor), and that at the tyme of the allegit spuilyie scho put hir pleuch thairin, he being than in possessioun, and how sone he gat wit thairof, he come and pat hir furtht agane incontinent, and sua did na vrang thairin, for he defendit bot his awin possessioun, quhilk wes laufull to him. And thairfoir in his summondis of reductioun of the said decrete of spuilyie gevin contra predicessorem indefensum et non comparantem, he askit to be reducit. The lordis decernit the said exceptioun relevant, becaus this is the secound instance, in qua non-allegata allegare, non-producta producere licebit, and als becaus this samyn ressone vald haiff bene admittit in prima instantia and stoppit the said decrete gevin, and sua aucht to be reducit.

The 23 mensis eiusdem <mar. 1542>: In causa domini de Petslego contra quendam N etc., the said Petslego summondis wes cassing, becaus thair wes libellit thairin xxiii yeiris, and the libell mycht nocht stand bot for sevin yeiris. And sua Mr Thomas Marioribankis, procuratour to the said laird, ante litem contestatam said he vald hald pro deleto of thai yeiris xvi, sua that his libell suld beir bot sevin yeiris. And Mr David Irland procuratour ex adverso allegit that, as the libell wes written, he culd nocht hald pro deleto as said is, bot behovit to writ new and eik to his libell "sevin yeiris" and put away thai wordis "xxiii yeiris", and that of the practik he mycht nocht eik to his libell nor change ane word thairof. And thairfoir allegit that the libell wes nocht relevant. The lordis decernit that, as Mr David allegit. And thairfoir, the summondis beand irrelevant, assoilyeit as wes libellit.

The said day <23 mar. 1542>: In Mr George Hayis of N. caus aganes certane tenentis of the regalitie of D., <the said tenentis> allegit, the decrete of the baillerie of that regalitie aganes thame gevin for the said Mr George wes gevin uniustlie and for ane unsufficient caus, as be inspectioun of the samyn cleirlie wes understand be the lordis of Counsall. Viz. the said Mr George desyrit thame to be compellit to cum to his myln and <pay> thair multuris to him allegit, <and> the samyn thirlit to his myln, becaus the tymes bygane past memour of man thai war wont to cum to his myln and pay thair multuris thair. And becaus the said Mr George previt his said allegeance, the saidis bailleis of that regalitie condamnit and decernit be thair decrete the saidis tenentis to pass to the said myln and pay thair multuris thair, for the caus foirsaid, and summondis to summond the tenentis to heir letters in the four formes gevin conforme to the said rolment. And for the tenentis pairt it wes allegit that the lordis aucht nocht to gif the saidis letters, becaus the caus of the decrete foirsaid wes nocht sufficient to haiff decernit thame to haif past to the said Mr George myln. And sua the said decrete wes evidentlie ewill and wranguslie gevin, as of the samyn mycht be cleirlie understand as said is, and thairfoir aucht nocht to haif executioun. Nochttheless the lordis, understandand the tenentis allegeances iust and relevant and that thai war wranguslie condamnit and the caus of the decrete wes <nocht> relevant,

<CONTINUED> nochttheless thai decernit the letters conforme to the said rolment aganes the saidis tenentis, becaus de practica regni quhatsumevir judge sentence, how wrang, uniust or ewill it evir be in the selff, it aucht to be put to executioun ay and quhill the samyn be reducit agane¹³⁰.

¹³⁰As stated in nr. 16.

<24 mar. 1542> John Millar¹³¹, servant to the erle of Rothes, wes windand his bollis of schilling upoun the cunningarhill of Lundoris within the boundis of the said abay. And becaus it wes upone the said abayis ground, the abbote and the laird of Cullarnie, his baillie, his officiar with thair complicis come, tuik and poindit his sekis and windowing claithis and turnit out of the sekis, and kest of the saidis claithis the said Johnes schilling doun upone the hill, sua that the said schilling wes fylit and spilt. The said Johne Millar callit the said laird Cullarnie and his officiar, callit (ut recordor) N Wantoun, for the wrangus, violent and maisterfull(?) spoliatioun fra him of the foirsaid geir. The lordis decernit the said laird and his officiaris to haif done wrang in the awaytaking and withhalding fra the said Johne Millare of his hors, seckis and windowing claithis. And forsamekill as the said laird allegit that he had realie restorit agane to the said Johne the samyn als guid as thay war the tyme thai wer takin fra him and that he refusit to tak thame agane and left thame in his presens at his hous, the lordis fand that the said Johne wes nocht oblist to tak agane the said hors and guidis agane, quhilk wes bot ane pairt of the guidis that wes tane fra him, for he wantit yit his schilling, and als fand that the instrument culd nocht preve the valour of the guidis and the hors, quia notarius non potest testificare nisi de eis quae percepit sensu corporis, the quhilk instrument publict thai producit berand quhair ane monk offerit agane realie to the said Johne the foirsaid hors and geir als guid as thai wer the tyme thai war tane fra him, quhilk instrument culd nocht preve the valour of the guidis bot as is aboue wretin. Et valor rei judicio intellectus percipitur et non sensu exteriori. And sua that be the instrument it wes nocht previn the guidis ressavit sa guid as thai wer the tyme thai wer tane be titill of poinding, absolvit the saidis persones fra spuilyie thairof and condamnit thame in wrang, and als condamnit thame in the wrangus casting doun of the said schilling among the said. And becaus thai tuik it nocht away with thame, the lordis absolvit thame fra the allegit spuilyie(?) of the said schilling, albeit ane gret pairt of the lordis thocht it spuilyie, becaus the said schilling beand upone the winding claithis and in the seckis in the said Johnes possessioun, the saidis persones intromettit with the samyn and kest the samyn doun out of the saidis seckis and claithis amangis the sand, and sua pat the said Johne fra his possessioun becaus he culd nocht get it up clene agane and sic as it wes befoir, becaus it wes spilt and mixt with sand, and thairthrow the said Johne wes put fra his possessioun and spuilyeit thairof. Siclyk Titius come to me in the mercat and careit daun upone the hie foulgait ane laid of meill aut of my sek, or dang out ane heid out of my punscheoune of wyne and lat it all out, the samyn Titius videtur spoliare me mea possessione dictarum rerum, for he violentlie intromettit thairwith and pat me fra possessioun thairof and I recoverit nevir my possessioun agane, nor mycht gait the samyn agane. Et sic videor spoliatus esse mea possessione earundem rerum. Et ibidem de iure vide etc. Nochttheless pro maiore parte concludebant quod prius est: that it wes wrang and na spuilyie. Sententiatum fuit per dominos Consilii anno 1541 mense Martis die 24.

¹³¹Probably same case as in nr. 140.

24 martii 1541 <= 1542> : Thair was one Johne Miller, servand to the earle of Rothes, that persewit the abbot of Lindores, his bailyie, the laird of Collerny, and his officer and thair complices for the wrangous spoliatione fra him of certane horses and seckes and certane bollis of schilling, the quhilk he was windnand upone the cunningar hill of Lindores, castin done and tenned furth of his saidis seckes be the abbot among the sand and dirt and sua maid unproffitabill the said schilling.

To this was answerit that he could nocht alledge any spolyie to be committit, becaus the samyn was done upone the abbots ground, he did laufullie stope him be his bailyie and officiar et sic authore pretore hoc fecit. And as to the away-taking of the horses, he instantlie restorit thame agane als guid as thai war quhan thai war tane away.

To this was answerit that the restitution of the horses was nocht sufficient without he had restorit all that was spilt and spolyeit, schilling and all.

To this was answerit that he could nocht alledge spoliatione of the schilling becaus it was nocht tane away nor spolyeit, quia "spolium" sive "spoliatio" est rei proprie mobilis ablatio.

To this was answerit that spuilyie is committit nocht onlie in away-taking, bot quhen any persone is spulyeit of his possessione violentlie. Et est vis sive violentia non solum ablativa, sed etiam inquietiva: de quo vide Johannem de Ferrariis in forma libelli in causa possessionis¹³², et vide titulos ff. et C. uti possidetis, et ibidem doctores¹³³. For in sa far as I newer gat <quiet> possessione of the thing quhilk is once tane fra me, I am spuilyeit of my possessione. Et sic respectu possessionis sublatae committitur spolium, licet res non auferatur. The lordis (being dewydit amang thameselffis) concludit that thair was na spuilyie committit, becaus the schilling was nocht away - bot decernit wrong to haiff bein done.

¹³²Iohannes Petrus de Ferrariis, Practica libellorum Papiensis.

¹³³Commentaries on D. 43.17 and on C. 8.6.

The 24 day of merche <1542>: The lordis be thair decrete retractit ane rolment gevin aganes Robert Bruce in Edinburgh at the instance of the abbote of Halierudehous, fader Robert Caulcros, be the bailleis of the regalitie of Halierudehous, becaus the questioun wes upone the said abbote arreist allegit brokin be the said Robert, and quha allegit that the said arreist wes lowsit agane at the said abbotis command be his officiaris that maid the samyn, and that the keyis of the barnis, quhair the guidis and cornes <wes> arreistit, wes delyverit to him agane be the officiar, and sovirtie(?) fund be him to the said Robert and ressavit be him that the said Robert suld do quhat accordis of the law for the saidis cornes. And thairfoir that he intromettit thairwith, bruik nocht the said arreist. And offerit him to preve the samyn be sufficient witnessis. Quhilk the bailyeis wald nocht admit, allegeand the said lowsing of arreistis mycht nocht be provin bot be writ and nocht be witnessis, and sua decernit him to haiff brokin the arreist. The lordis fand and decernit that the lowsing of arreist mycht be provin be witnessis in this caus, and sua that the bailleis did wrang nocht admitting the said Robertis witnessis¹³⁴. And thairfoir the lordis retreatit and reducit the rolment of the bailleis foirsaidis. And becaus he offerit to preve the said exceptioun and wes repellit, the lordis reducit the said rolment, the said exceptioun nocht beand provin befoir the judges, becaus iudex gravavit partem in repellendo exceptionem legitimam. Vide hoc in cap. Interposita, extra de appellatione¹³⁵.

¹³⁴Similar problem in nrs. 24, 289 and 425 where this case is quoted. Same parties litigate in nr. 289

¹³⁵X 2.28.70.

<Mar. - maii 1542> The samyn tyme the lordis fand be interloquitor and reducit ane decreit gevin be the bailyie of the regalitie of Halyrudhous aganes ane Robert Bruce, becaus the bailyeis refuissit to prowe the lowsing of the arrestment be witnes; and fand that the lowsing of ane arrestment may be provin be witnesses and the officer sine scriptura.

The 16 of marche anno 1542 in the caus of Mr Andro Blakstok, assignay to N Amulgat to ane spuilyie contenit in ane act of adjornall aganes ane man callit Wilsone, the lordis be interlocutour delyverit the said Wilsones exceptioun aganes the spuilyie, allegeand that thre ky allegit spuilyeit be him contenit in the said act wes ordourlie poindit and apprysit be him for his maill of his landis occupyit be the said N in the tyme of the allegit spuilyie, to be provin be witnessis. Et quod scriptura hoc casu non fuit necessaria ad probandum premissa, quoniam de consuetudine hoc etc. intervenire raro solet. <= Continued from case nr. 184.>

26 maii 1542: Thair was one Mr Andro Blakstok quha persewit as assigney ane Wilsone for the spoliatione of certane guidis and geir, and that be vertew of the act of adjornall. The defender alledgit that he committit na spuilyie bot had laufullie poyndit and apprysit the saidis guidis as for the mailles and dewties of his landis. Quhilk exceptione being admittit, it was alledgit that the samyn aucht nocht to be provin bot be wreit. The quhilk the lordis fand relevant and ordanit the samyn to be provin be wreit, licet inter rusticos hoc rariter intervenire solet.

The thrid of Maii or thairby anno predicto <1542>: In ane caus movit be A aganes ane puir woman that wes air to certane landis of Dunbar, the <lordis reducit ane rolment, in vertew of ane> instrument of seasing of thai landis, gevin be the said A to Mr George Hay be vertew of resignatioun thairof, allegit maid in the said bailleis handis for seasing gevin thairof to the said Mr George to the utilities of the narrest freindis of the man that resignit the saidis landis, becaus <the judge had injustlie repellit the saidis A exceptioun that> the said woman culd nocht schaw quhair the said resignatioun wes maid, and be the practik the allegeance of the bailleis in his seasing geving that the samyn landis, as said is, wes resignit in his handis, preves nocht the resignatioun in preiudice of thame that clame the saidis landis now in heretage be deceis of the man quha is allegit to haiff maid the said resignatioun in maner foirsaid.

<Maii 1542> Thair was ane seasing of ane puir womanes in Dumbar persewit to be reducit, becaus the bailyie (quha gaiff the said saising) had no power. It was answerit that the instrument of seasing buir the resignatione to be maid in the bailyies handis - quhilk was sufficient. To this was answerit that, albeit this was sufficient to orive¹³⁶aganes the bailyei, yit the samyn was nocht sufficient aganes the thrid persone. Quhilk alledgance was fund relevant.

¹³⁶arrive?

The 6 of Maii the yeir foirsaid <1542>: In ane caus of spuilyie intentit be the laird of Altar aganes Johne Grand of Balladannocht, the said Johnes procurator, Mr James Macgill, exceptit that the horsis and meiris allegit spuilyeit fra the said laird be the said Johne wes realie and with effect incontinent restorit to the ground agane quhairof thai war callit be the said schir Johnes servandis to the said Johne stokfald for drawing of the said Johnes wyld horsis and meiris all pasturand and rynnand togeader, quhilk utherwyis culd nocht bene separatit and gottin be the said Johne, quha allegit the consuetude wes sua to do. And sua eftir he had restorit the said lairdis wyld horsis and meiris to the hillis quhairupoun thai ran, that the said laird intromettit thairwith thaireftir, and sua that the said laird culd haiff na actioun of spuilyie for the premissis aganes the said Johne the Grant. The said laird replyit that he callit him for the wrangus spuilyie, awaytaking and withhalding fra him of the said horsis and meiris and offerit him to preve that the said Johne yit withhaldis fra him ane pairt of the same, and sua gif ony restorance wes maid, illa restitutio fuit tantum momentanea, for incontinent he intromettit with thame agane. Quhilk he desyrit to be admittit to his preiff. The lordis be interlocutour decernit the exceptioun probationi admittenda, replica repulsa quod restitutio semel facta extingat spolium precedens.

<CONTINUED> Et pars replice, tuichand the said Johnes withhalding presentlie of ane pairt of the meiris and horsis libellit, fuit repulsa becaus it wes direct contrare to the exceptioun, and of the practik the lordis nocht admittis directe contrarios articulos, nec ad libellum nec ad exceptionem¹³⁷.

¹³⁷See note for nrs. 19 and 113.

12 maii 1542: The laird of Alter persewit the laird of Grant for the spoliatione of certane horses and meires. The said John Grant of Bannadalaoch alledgit he had committit na spoilyie because the saidis hors and meires that war alledgit to be spuilyeit, war incontinent and immediatlie restorit againe reallie and with effect callit to the ground quhairof thai war spuilyeit be the said Jones servandis. And that the said Johnes servandis tuik thaime nocht away animo spoliandi, bot called thame to his stoikfald for drawing of his staiges, becaus his meires and the said lairdis war mixt togidder. It was answerit that the alledgance aucht to be repellit in respect of the lybell quhilk buir wrangous taking away and withhalding, and sua the alledgance was contrar to the lybell, and sua¹³⁸ he micht restoir thame ones againe and thairefter intromet with the same, as he offerit him to prove. The lordis admittit the exceptione of restitutione, nochtwithstanding the lybell and reply, and fand that the immediat restitutione tuik away the spuilyie and was relevant.

¹³⁸In the sense of "gif" = for instance, he may have restored the animals once and may have taken them away a second time thereafter.

The 7 day of the said moneth <maii 1542>: In ane caus of Violat Gourlayis¹³⁹aganes maisteris James Wawane and David McEsone, executouris to Mr Alexander Lyoun, chantour of Murray, rasit letter to arreist all the said Violatis gudis moveabill ay and quhill scho fand cautioun for xv^c merkis allegit awin to thame as executouris foirsaids, quhilk sowme thai intentit to recover upoun hir, scho callit for thir letters, desirand thame to be reducit, becaus thai war wranguslie gevin upone ane fals narratioun¹⁴⁰, for scho aucht thame nothing, and als the saidis executouris had nocht movit ony play aganes hir, and thairfoir allegit that scho aucht nocht to find ony cautioun and that hir geir suld nocht be arreistit. The lordis (me excepto) decernit the letters of arreistment weill gevin quoad mobilia bona, et quod ita quotidie solet practicari, and sua that scho aucht to find souertie that the guidis suld be furthcumand for the said sowme to the executouris, that the arreistment suld stand unto cautioun be found as said is.

¹³⁹Violat Gourley also mentioned in nr. 147.

¹⁴⁰Argument of nullity of "gratia obreptitia" (= obtained by explicit lies). See the quotations noted at nr. 55.

The said day <7 maii 1542>: In the caus of ane N aganes the laird of C, the lordis be interlocutour decernit that the said N mycht nocht ask at the said laird bot the said males and deweteis that the land usit to gif, et alios fructus qui percipi potuerunt, forsamekill as in defraud of the said N his tenent he wald nocht entir to his landis haldin of the said laird, bot lay out of the same, and thairfoir wes decernit to haiff tint the superioritie of the saidis landis haldin of the foirsaid laird of Cannis, and sua aucht to refound to the said N his tenent the males and proffeitis of the landis, quhilk the said N had gottin and the said laird of Cannes his superiour thairof haid nocht <permittit him to perceive,> lying furth of his land in defraud of his tenent eftir that he was requirit be his awin tenent to entir to his superioritie of the saidis landis as use is upone xl dayis warning.

And becaus Mr Thomas Maccalyeane, procuratour for the laird of Cannes, proponit ane exceptioun peremptour aganes the said Mr Thomas Marioribankis, thair procuratour for the uther pairtie, quha allegit that he sould haiff sententiam condemnatoriam upone his summondis etiam super valorem et quantitatem fructuum libellatorum et reddituum, the lordis decretit that he behovit to preve the males and proffeitis, becaus his exceptioun peremptour proponit wes repellit et non admittitur to his preif. Quhilk and it had been, and he had faillit in the probatioun thairof, in that cace of the practik the said Mr Thomas Marioribankis pairtie had gottin sententiam pro se upone his libell etiam quantitate aliter non probata, et quod deficiens in probatione peremptorie quidem videtur per illius probationem totum libellum confessisse. Et <sic propter suam confessionem potuisset> condemnari. And sua the lordis assignit ane terme actori ad probandum quantitatem of the males and the deweteis libellit.

The 12 day of maii <1542>: The lordis decernit the commissioun obtenit to the schireff in that pairt be the laird of Elphinstoun aganes the lady Setoun, tuiching certane collis allegit spuilyeit be hir and hir servandis fra the said laird out of the landis of Elphinstoun, inordourlie and wranguslie purchessit, becaus the schireff principall, the erle of Bothuill, wes nocht callit as he sould haiff bene be act of parliament 82 in the new prentit actis of king James the fyft. And als for the said caus the said commissioun wes annullit and reducit be decrete of the lordis of our Counsall.

The number of the act of parliament is quoted wrongly: see Kenneth Reid / Reinhard Zimmermann (ed.), A history of the private law in Scotland, Oxford 2000, vol. 1, p. 70 note 369.

<CONTINUED> Nochttheles becaus the act of parliament foirsaid speikis generalie et sine ulla exceptione, thairfoir thai retreitit the said commissioun, nochtwithstanding that divers tymes of befoir sen the said act wes maid propter notorietatem suspitionis contra vicecomitem principalem soliti fuerunt domini eo non vocato concedere huiusmodi commissiones.

<CONTINUED> And als in this actioun for reduceing of this commissione the summondis wes rasit at the said erles instance, albeit the said erle to the persute thairof nevir comperit be himselff nor his procuratour. The said laird allegit the said actioun mycht nocht proceid. Nochttheless the lordis admittit the saidis deputtis in this cace, and that becaus it pertenit to thaim to defend the said erle Bolduellis jurisdictioun, and albeit that the said laird allegit that it wes nocht necessar to call the saidis schireffis principall in this cace, becaus he wes notourlie out of the realme and als he and his deputis wes notourlie of kyn within grie defendand to the said ladie Setoun, as wes cleirlie understand to the lordis quhen thai grantit the said commissioun, and that for the notoritie of the caus foirsaid.

The said day <12 maii 1542>: In ane caus of violent occupatioun be ane man N aganes ane uther man callit (ut recordor) William Bad, the said William allegit that he did na violence becaus he had v yeiris tak of the landis libellit of N, quha the tyme of the tak making wes heretabill possessour thairof, and that fra Witsounday libellit he had of the fyve yeiris tua to rin and sua iustlie occupyit the saidis landis. The uther pairtie replyit that that tak culd nocht save him fra violence, becaus the persewar lang befoir Witsounday wes heretablie infeft in thai landis and had redemit thame fra the man that set the 5 yeiris takis and that he had laufulie warnit, removit and outlaid the said Bad as use is, and sua that uther mannis tak culd nocht save him for na yeiris eftir the landis wes redemit fra him. And the lordis decernit the samyn Bad to haiff bene violent possessour of thai landis sen the said feist of Witsounday, ay nochtwithstanding his allegit tak, be ressone foirsaid and that he wes laufulie warnit and removit as said is.

The said day or thairby <12 maii 1542>: In ane caus of Johne Haliburtoun (ut recordor) contra dominam Rutherfurd propter¹⁴¹ reductionem cuiusdam decreti spoliationis, per dominos Consilii lati pro dicta domina contra eundem, the lordis admittit the abote of Mewrus' tenentes to preve the said Johnes possessioun of ane peice land, that the said ladie allegit hir spuilyeit of be him, as pairt and pertinentis of the landis of M<ewrus> pertening to the said Johne in maling haldin of the said abote and convent of Mewrus, becaus the questioun wes heir bot upone the said Johnes possessioun of the landis and nocht upone the propirtie thairof, and sua the said abote and convent culd nocht get hurt nor proffeit of this caus howevir it ga. And sua the witnessis wes admit, albeit the uthir pairteis procuratour Mr Hew Rig allegit thai suld <be> repellit, quia erant tenentes dicti abatis et agebantur super parte et pertinentia certarum terrarum ad eundem ut predicitur spectantium.

¹⁴¹MS: penes.

The 15 of maii <1542>: Ane puir woman callit M movit ane caus aganes William Lyndsay of Prestoun. Scho askit the said Williames gift of non-entres of certane landis and rudis lyand besyd the toun of Couper to be reducit, becaus the non-entres thairof wes lang of befoir disponit be the king to hir husband and scho maid assignay be him thairto, and be vertew of his assignatioun scho wes in possessioun of the saidis landis, and sua the secound gift of the non-entres thairof wes of nane awaill and aucht to be reducit. The said William Lyndsay exceptit that the manis, be quhais deceis hir husband gat the non-entres, dochter 2 yeir or thairby wes enterit be hir father to the landis. And sua the said actricis husbandis non-entres wes extinct in the selff. And that his gift wes be deceis of that manis dochter and thairfoir his gift aucht nocht to be reducit, and to preve omnino negabat. The said William producit ane decrete of the lordis of Counsall anno (ut recordor) 1535, quhairbe the non-entres of the landis wes adiungit to the king and A his donatour thairof, sen the deceis of Jonet dochter foirsaid last and immediat tenent heretabill, to the kingis grace of the samyn landis, quhilk decrete wes gevin ista actrice ad hoc vocata et presente, and sua the decrete stand. And the lordis be interlocutour decernit actionem non competere ipsi actrici ad revocandum the said William Lyndsayis gift.

<CONTINUED> And that the said decret provit sufficientlie aganes the said woman that the manis dochter foirsaid wes interit to the saidis landis, albeit thair wes na instrument of hir seasing schawin, sine quo dicebat procurator actricis non esse per decretum antedictum sufficienter probatam suam sasinam et introitum filie antedicte ad terras predictas. Et hoc ea ratione quod contra ipsam mulierem the said decrete of non-entres per decessum filie antedicte nominatim citatam latum fuit.

The 15 day of maii <1542>: The lordis per sententiam definitivam reducit the xix yeiris tak gevin to schir William Ramsay of certane landis of the priorie of Sanctandrois set be Patrik pryor thairof, becaus in it wes omittit the biging of the dykis and casting and clene haldin of the stankis of Pitlethie, quhilk thing wes put of befoir in the said Williames tak of the xix yeiris immediatlie preceding the tak that wes immediatlie reducit.

<CONTINUED> Sua the lordis decernit the rentall to be deminissit heirthrow and thairfoir the tak of nane awaill, becaus of this servitude and dewetie usit and put in uthir takis and left out of this last tak. And albeit the said schir William erat presbiter, the lordis of his proper consent ordanit him to answer befoir thame in hoc casu, quod enim de iure non licebat, cap. Si delexeret, extra. De foro competen.¹⁴².

And sua it is to be rememberit thair wes nocht interlocutour at that tyme gevin heirupone, bot, the exeptio declinatoria iudicum beand proponit be Mr James McGill (procuratour to the said William), ipse dominus Willielmus resiliit. Nec poterunt domini Consilii meminisse de practica huius casus, nec quod in simili causa clericus potest coram iudice seculari condemnari convenire, licet reductiounis of all infeftmentis and nyntene yeir takis semper tractantur coram dominis Consilii, ubi agitur contra laicos. Et credo quod, si in causa dicti domini Willielmi fuisset processum ad interlocutoriam, quod fuisset lata pro ipso, et quod coram dominis in hoc casu respondere non fuisset compulsus, ideo quia clericus erat, et actor debebat sequi forum rei¹⁴³.

Als in the said caus the lordis thocht the ressone libellit for reduceing of that tak, becaus it wes set within the half iust awaill of the landis and teindis contentit thairin, nocht relevant¹⁴⁴.

And in lentrone last was the lordis iugit the samyn lyk caus of reductioun of xix yeiris tak, maid be Mr Robert Erskin (provest of the Quenis College prope Edinburgh) to the laird of Balcleuche, of the teindis of the kirk pertening to the said provestrie, for reductioun of the quhilkis schir George Clapperstoun (provest of the said college) callit the said laird befoir the lordis of Counsall. Et sic lex secunda Cod. de rescindenda venditione¹⁴⁵ hic <non> habet locum de practica Scotie - licet de iure (ut ibi scribitur <per commentatores>) <haberet locum etiam> in locationibus.

In this caus actores erant commendatarius prioratus Sanctiandree filius regis, administrator et conventus eiusdem, contra dictum dominum Willielmum reum.

And als in the samyn caus the lordis ordanit the said persewaris to preve to refound agane pro rata temporis et residuo novemdecim annorum nondum decurso to the said William the intres silver and gressome gevin be him to the said Patrick <and> convent, quha conforme to thair letter of tak grantis thame to haiff resavit the samyn ad summam viginti mercarum in utilitatem ecclesie conversam. And that albeit successor ecclesie non cogitur ex contractu predecessoris, nisi quatenus vertatur in utilitatem ecclesie, ut in cap. 1^o de solu.¹⁴⁶, Quod, de fideius.¹⁴⁷. Alias de pignore¹⁴⁸. Domini Consilii versionem hanc de practica Scotie fieri <censebant> ex confessione huiusmodi prioris et conventus virtute assedationis facte dicto domino Willielmo. Et insuper dicebant domini Consilii quod, nisi restituta dicta pecunia, non debebat contractus rescindi. Et ideo sententiatum fuit contractum cassandum fore, actoribus tamen restituentibus primo dicto Willielmo grissumam pro rata temporis sequentis de dicto novemdecem annorum, ut dicitur in actione "quod metus causa": petentem contractum per metum initum rescindi debere et efferi item quod gratia illius contractus accepit¹⁴⁹, ff. quod metus causa¹⁵⁰. <Continued in nr. 213/569 + 243.>

¹⁴²X 2.2.12 makes this point; starts "Si diligenti", however.

¹⁴³X 2.2.8, C. 3.13.2.

¹⁴⁴Against X 1.41.1. The legal rules about Laesio enormis are thus not extended to rentals! Yet by customary law of Scotland a different rule applies: namely church institutions (and similarly the King, cf. nr. 236) get restitutio in integrum if their caretakers set a tak for a rental lower than the previous rental. This may be seen in the light of ius commune's doctrine which likens churches to minors: namely minors and thus also churches obtain restitutio in integrum when their caretakers have made a bad deal.

¹⁴⁵C. 4.44.2 [to the point].

¹⁴⁶X 3.23.1 [to the point].

¹⁴⁷X 3.22.4 [to the point].

¹⁴⁸This remark is correct: see X 3.21.3.

¹⁴⁹This doctrine is based on C. 2.19.4 "reddito a vobis pretio" - in contrast to C. 2.19.11 "et nihilominus etiam pecunia retineatur".

¹⁵⁰D. 4.2.

The said day <15 maii 1542>: In causa exceptionis domini de Pitbladdo contra Mr Johne Spens de Condei(?), the lordis gave interlocutour that the lord Lyndsay may be witnes for the said laird, nochtwithstanding that he wes presentlie the said lordis man and servand, quia jus non prohibet dominum testificari pro suo servo, licet e contrario iure hoc vetetur, and als nochtwithstanding that the said Mr Johne exceptit that the said lord wes lang of befoir the intenting of the caus under summondis at his instance for the spuilyie of the samyn geir that he wes instantlie playand aganes the said <laird> of Pitbladdo and sua wes suspectus testis quia videbatur ex depositione sua reportari comodum, quia restitutione bonorum allegata <per> dictum dominum de Pitbladdo probata dictus dominus de Lyndsay fieret immunis ab actione spolii pro eisdem rebus per dictum magistrum Joannem contra ipsum intentata ut predicitur. Hoc ideo quia summonitionis levatio super crimine contra aliquem non probat eum culpabilem participem ullius criminis.

The 16 day of maii <1542>: In the caus of non-entres of certane landis of Braidwod movit be Johne Dowy, donatour to the kingis grace to the samyn, and the kingis advocattis instance, aganes the laird of Glenberwy, the lordis repellit a testificando in illa causa the witnes that wes in grie desendand of consanguinitie to the laird of Craighall, albeit the summondis wes nocht intentit at his instance, becaus he wes haill solistar, persewar and mantenar of the caus and insistit thairin upone his awin expensis, as wes notourlie knawin to the lordis. And sua gaif thair interlocutour.

The 17 of maii <1542>: In the caus of the commandatour and administratour and convent of the priori of Sanctandrois, the lordis, albeit the libell wes generall and sua that it culd nocht be kend quhairin the place wes hurt or the rentall diminissit, becaus it wes nocht libellit quhair the castin of the stankis and uphald of the dykis of Pitlethy, usit to be put in the fermoraris takkis and now left out of the said schir William Ramsayis takis of xix yeiris, wes of awaill, and sua the libell wes generall in that pairt, nochtheless the lordis be the said schir Williames confessioun (maid in judgement of the awaill yeirlie of the premisses) understud the place in sa far as it hurt the rentall and diminissit <it>, as the saidis deweteis war yeirlie worth. <The lordis> decernit the tak for the samyn caus to be reducit. Et hoc ideo quia, licet super libello generali sententia fieri non possit, quia de iure generalis libellus procedit, si <a> parte altera opponatur, l. final., C. de annal. except.¹⁵¹. Satis est generaliter declarari in processu, ut scribitur ibi. Ideo in causa presenti domini Consilii sententiaverunt, generalitate illa non obstante, ex eo quod per processum dicti domini Willelmi in processu <generalitas illa> facta fuit clarior. <= continued from nr. 210.>

¹⁵¹C. 7.40.3 [to the point].

<20 mar. 1542> The pryor of Sanctandros and his administratour persewit the laird of Colluthie to heir and sie ane tak reducit, set to him of certane landis and teindis of the said pryorie. The tak being reducit for the diminishing of the rentall, the said laird (callit Schir William Ramsay) alledgit he aucht to haiff the silver and gressum agane, quhilk was gevin for the said tak and concevit in the same, quhairof the pryour and the chaptour grantit thame weill contentit and satisfiet and had convertit the samyn in utilitatem ecclesiae. And unto that tyme the sentence of reductione aucht to stand. It was answerit that for the gressum he had intromettit certane yeiris with the landis and teindis. The lordis fand be interloquitor that the gressoume aucht to be restorit agane pro rata of the yeires that was restand, quia hoc iure "aequum est ut nemo cum alterius jactura locupletetur"¹⁵².

¹⁵²D. 50.17.206. See notes to nrs. 101 and 407.

The 18 day of the said moneth <maii 1542>: In ane caus of spuilyie movit be certane tenentis of Touche aganes the laird of Bowquhannan, the said laird allegit that ane copie of ane instrument of assignatioun, allegit maid be the saidis tenentis to the said laird of Touche of the spuilyie foirsaid, the quhilk the tenentis allegit maid na fayth, per Auth. Si quis, C. de edendo¹⁵³, the lordis admittit to the said lairdis preiff that that wes the weray copie of the principal instrument of assignatioun maid be ane notar publict callit Cunyngham, and previt the samyn thaireftir. The tennentis allegit that, becaus copia non probat nisi probata amissione et scriptura et signo notarii de iure, Jas. in dicta auth.¹⁵⁴ et Pan. in capitulo <Cum olim,> de privilegiis¹⁵⁵, and becaus the premis wes nocht prowin nor yit contenit in the exceptioun, thai allegit it wes irrelevant, and sua thai sould haiff ane condemnatour upone him. Et quod iudex, licet admiserit exceptionem irrelevantem probationi et fuerit probata, non tunc secundum illam sententiare debet, ut per Pan. in cap. Cum contigerit, extra de officio dele., nu. 8¹⁵⁶. Item quia de ineptitudine libelli potest in quacunque parte litis opponi, et tunc debet iudex ab observatione iudicii absolvere reum. Ergo idem de exceptione, cum illa sit libellus rei. Nochttheless (me excepto), albeit thai grantit the exceptioun wes relevant, it wes nocht for the caus foirsaid, and that thairfoir the interlocutour admittand the samyn to probatioun, and als this sentence definitive that thai war instantlie to gif becaus of this exceptioun probationi admissa et probata, mycht be all reducit, yit be thair practik thai behovit to gif sentence secundum istam exceptionem probatam, quia de practica interlocutoria semel lata et facit ius inter partes et secundum illam semper est iudicandum, si fuit prolata, donec retractetur - and for observing and keping of formall process. And sua the lordis definitive absolvit Balquhannan fra the petitione of the saidis tenentis. Et iudicio meo non licet bene fundare se in hoc super practica antedicta.

¹⁵³Authentica "Si quis in aliquo instrumento", post C. 2.1.7, ex Nov. 119 c. 3.

¹⁵⁴Commentary by Jason de Mayno on the authentica behind C. 2.1.7.

¹⁵⁵Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 5.33.12.

¹⁵⁶Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 1.29.36 [starting "Cum contingat"], marginal nr. 8 in the edition which Sinclair happened to use.

The 19 day of may <1542>: In ane caus of Patrik Kircaldies and Jonet Ramsay his wyfe aganes Mr David Pitcarne <archedene> of Brechen, the said archedene referrit to the persewaris aith quanti sua intererat the wanting of the chartour and the seasing of xli pund land or annuelrent of Carrestoun gevin in keping be the said Jonettis father. And the said Patrik allegit: contra non-exhibentem dolosum juramentum in litem deferendum actori lex non ignorabit, C. ad exhibendum, cum ibi not. per Paulum¹⁵⁷, and sua askit his intres to be referrit to his aithe. The uther pairtie allegit in the contrair that he sould prove it legittimis probationibus and nocht to haiff it to his aithe, becaus he grantit at the bar judicialiter in presens of the lordis that nather he nor his wyf evir saw the avidentis nor yit wist quhat thai contenit, als agebatur hic de facto alieno actori ignoto. Et de iure veritatem ignoranti juramentum non est deferendum, etiamsi sit casus ubi de jure debet juramentum deferri actori, ut not. Ja. in l. Si quando, C. unde vi¹⁵⁸; Paulus in l.¹⁵⁹; Bar., Pan.(!) <(= Bal.?)> et alii in l. In bone fidei, et ibi in glossa magna, C. de rebus cre.¹⁶⁰ ; Bar., Alexr. et alii in l. Admonendi, ff. de jurejurando¹⁶¹. Et interlocuti sunt domini Consilii unanimiter iuramentum in litem in causa hac premissis causantibus non esse deferendum, sed eum debere probare suum interesse aliter legittime.

¹⁵⁷Commentary by Paulus de Castro on C. 3.42.

¹⁵⁸Commentary by Jason de Maino on C. 8.4.9.

¹⁵⁹Commentary by Paulus de Castro on the same text.

¹⁶⁰Respective commentaries by Bartolus de Saxoferrato and Baldus de Ubaldis and other authors, and gloss by Franciscus Accursius, on C. 4.1.3.

¹⁶¹Commentaries by Bartolus de Saxoferrato, Alexander Tartagnus and other authors on D. 12.2.31.

19 marcii 1542 <= 1543> : Patrik Kirkaldi and Jonet Ramsay his spous persewit Mr David Pitcairne archdeane of Sanctandrois for delyverance off ane chartour of xli s. land, being annaliet of the landis of Cairnstoun, the quhilk chartour was gevin to him in keiping be the said Jonetes father. The archdeane maid litill defence in the mater, bot allegit he had nocht the charter, and denyet nocht bot that anis <he> had the same. The questione come upone the entres, and the said Patrik allegit that the said entres sould be referrit to his oath, quia contra dolosum et contumacem non exhibentem defertur juramentum in litem actori l. ff. de in litem jurando, et ibidem doctores¹⁶². It was answerit in the contrair that the entres aucht to be provin via ordinaria judicii et legitimis probationibus, in sa far as the said Jonet and Patrik grantit that thai newer saw the saidis evidentes and knew nocht quhat was into thame, et agebatur de facto alieno actori ignoto. Et de jure veritatem ignoranti non est deferendum juramentum, etiam si sit casus ubi de jure debet juramentum differi actori, ut notat Jason in l. Si quando, unde vi¹⁶³, Barto. et Alex. et alii in l. Admonendi, ff. de jureiurando¹⁶⁴. The lordis pronuncit be interloquitour that the interest sould nocht be referrit in this caice to the pairties ayth, bot that he sould prove the samyn ordinaria via.

¹⁶²Commentaries on D. 12.2; much more pertinent: D. 10.4.5.2

¹⁶³Commentary by Jason de Mayno on C. 8.4.9.

¹⁶⁴Commentaries by Bartolus de Saxoferrato and Alexander Tartagnus de Imola and others on D. 12.2.31.

The 20 of may <1542>: In ane caus of reductioun of infeftment, rasit at the kingis and Thomas Dudistoun his donatouris instance aganes N Dudistoun, allegeand that the said N granschir quha resignit the pleyabill landis and gat new infeftment aganes ros(?), and sen the said N retour wes <groundid upone the narratioun of the said resignatioun>, it wer nocht reasonabill that he sould haiff ony proffeit thairof sine titulo.

The 28 of junii <1542>: The laird of Eist Neisbit Niniane Chirnesyde persewit the lord Home for ane spuilyie. The lord exceptit that he wes cursit, per cano. Si quis suadente, in 17 q.4¹⁶⁵, for the slauchter of the prior of Coldinghame - the lordis of Counsall understanding that thairfoir he wes cursit langsyne. And sua the said lord said he mycht nocht stand in judgement in agendo. The said laird producit ane testimoniall of the bischope of Breichen commissar apostolique ad effectum absolvendi dictum Ninianum ex causa predicta, and testefeit be his letters that he had absolvit lang syne the said lord. The lord replyit that that wes na absolutioun, bot quod per testimoniales has literas non probatur absolutio, ut per auth. Si quis, C. de edendo¹⁶⁶. Et quia de actis cause non creditur iudici nisi quantum constat ex actis, ut Inno. in cap. Quoniam contra, de probat., extra¹⁶⁷. the lordis be interlocutour decernit that the said lairdis letters testimoniallis provit nocht absolutioun. Et sic repulerunt dictum Ninianem ab agendo, pretextu excommunicationis obiecte.

¹⁶⁵Decr. Grat. C. 17 q. 4 c.29 [to the point].

¹⁶⁶Authentica "Si quis in aliquo instrumento" post C. 2.1.7, ex Nov. 119 c.3 [to the point].

¹⁶⁷Commentary by pope Innocentius IV (Sinibaldus Fliscus) on X 2.19.11.

The said day <28 jun. 1542>: Schir William Silver askit ane resignatioun of certane landis of Dundie maid be ane Euphane Silver, his brother docter, in lecto egretudinis, and alienatioun followand thairupoune <...>, becaus thai landis wes gevin to hir agane and David Barbour alias Young hir spous in coniunctfie, to be reducit, as maid in preiudice of him air to the said Euphame, aganes the lawis of this realme, sayand quod nemo potest in preiudicium heredis sui alienare terras in lecto aegritudinis. The lordis decernit that de practica, et consuetudine huius regni municipali preallegata non obstante, potest alter coniugum terras suas dare alteri coniugi in coniuncta infeodatione, et eo quia sic heredes alienantis non priventur perpetue hereditate.

<Jun. - jul. 1542 or 1543> Thair was ane preist callit schir William Sommer that desyrit ane reversione of certane landis with the infeftment that past thairupone to be reducit, becaus the samyn was maid be his brother' dochter, Eufame Somme, to quhom he was to succeid as narest air of lyn, in lecto aegritudinis, juxta legem in legibus burgorum, ca. clii¹⁶⁸, quod nemo potest in prejudicium sui heredis terras in lecto aegritudinis alienare. To this was ansuerit that (nochtwithstanding of the law) the wyff or the husband may give to utheris uther landis in lyfrent or conjunctfie, albeit it be in lecto aegritudinis, quia in hoc casu multum sit prejudicium levius, quia heredes non per hunc actum privantur hereditate. The lordis fand relevant be interloquitour that the alienatione or resignatione of conjunctfie maid be the wyff to the husband aucht to stand, and sua wald nocht reduce the said resignatione and infeftment past thairupone.

¹⁶⁸"Regiam maiestatem" ?

The said day <28 jun. 1542>: James Fentoun and David Dowglas had gottin letters of lawborous aganes schir Johne Johnestoun preist be the lordis delyverance, quhilk letters the said preist callit befoir the lordis and askit thame to be simpliciter suspendit, becaus the lordis wes na competent judge to him. The lordis <of> Counsall for the said caus reducit and suspendit the letters simpliciter and remittit him to his judge exclesiasticall ordinar to find the lawborous as efferit of the law.

The said day in ane caus of N., in the quhilk schir Roger Spotiswode, archedene of the kingis chapell, the lordis decretit the said schir Rogeris summondis nocht dewlie execut upone the contrair pairtie, becaus he wes nocht personalie apprehendit. And albeit the officiar delyverit ane copy of the summondis to his servand, it wes nocht aneucht, as is contenit in the act of parliament maid thairupoun.

The said day <28 jun. 1542>: In the laird of N <caus, the said N> desyrit ane decreit of warrandice of certane landis and act thairof be the lordis of Counsall, gevin as he allegit for ane James Lyndsay (ut recordor) his foirgranschir, to quhome he allegit him to be successour lineall, to be transferrit in the laird of Dundas as air and successour to qumquhile N Dundas, aganes the quhilk N the decrete wes gevin. The laird of Dundas desyrit that his pairtie adversar ante omnia suld verefie that pairt of his summondis quhairinto he allegit him successour lineall to the said James. The laird of Covingtoun said it wes notourlie knawin, and that the said laird of Dundas wald nocht deny the same, and askit super hoc ab eo juramentum calumniae. The laird of Dundas said he aucht nocht to gif the samyn, quia adversarius suus predictus non habet actionem nisi verificet illam partem libelli sui, et idem ante omnia intelligi debere ei ius agendi competere. The uthir pairtie allegit that juramentum calumnie potest peti in quacunque parte litis. The lordis of Counsall decernit juramentum calumniae prestandum nunc a dicto domino Dundas super exceptione predicta per ipsum opposita, antequam predictum punctum libelli cogatur adversarius verificare. Quo juramento prestito per Dundas, the said laird of Dundas petiit dictum punctum instanti tempore verificari, eo quia actor debet venire cum facto parato. The lordis ad petitionem alterius partis assignarunt terminum ad premissa, eo quia de facto antiquo agebatur et de lineali 4 aut 5 personarum successione, et raro solent homines tot evidentias in manibus habere.

<28 jun. 1542?> The laird of Luss promesit certane somes of money with his dochter to the laird of Kilbirneis sone, and in securitie thairof gave heretabill infeftment of certane landis to the said laird of Kilbirnie. And vi^cmerkis beand awin thairof at the laird of Luss deceas, the laird of Kilbirnie sauld certane of the landis for four hundereth merkis to ane Mr Johne Pottarfeild, and thaireftir gat tua hundereth merkis fra the laird of Luss wyf, and that in compleit payment of the haill tochir, and gave thairupone his acquittance. And the schireff be command of the kingis letters be delyverance of the lordis tuke cognitioun heirupone and fand the haill tochir payet, and thairfoir decernit the said laird of Kilbirnie and Mr Johne to desist fra the landis to be bruikit and joysit be the said laird of Luss, becaus thai war gevin bot in securitie of that sowme and wes als prowin payit be the said laird of Kilbirneis acquittance. The said Mr Johne desyrit that rolment to be reducit, becaus he wes heretablie infeft in pairt of the landis, and his infeftment standand unreducit, he aucht nocht to haiff bene decernit to desist. It wes replyit that he wes ordourlie callit befoir the schireff, and that the laird of Kilbirnie mycht nocht mak him mair rycht nor he had him self, and that thai landis wes gevin him in maner foirsaid in securitie of the tochir foirsaid, and sua, as the laird of Kilbirnie mycht nocht him selff with thai landis the sowme being payit to him, in lyke wyis nor yit the said Mr Johne, quia "nemo potest transferre plus iuris in alium quam ipse habet"¹⁶⁹. The lordis be sentence diffinitive reducit the said decrete in safar as it wes gevin contra dominum Joannem, for his infeftment standand he aucht nocht to haiff bene decernit to desist and ceis fra the landis. In contrarium faceret l. Lex vectigali fundo, ff. de pig.¹⁷⁰, dicens <quod> resoluto iure datoris resolvitur ius acceptoris.

¹⁶⁹6. 5.(13) de regulis iuris 79.

¹⁷⁰D. 20.1.31 [to the point].

The first of junii <1542>: Alexander Inglis clamit the thirll multure of the cornes that grew certane yeiris bypast upone the landis of Blairinaid, at Andro Astie, tenent thairof to James Gordoun, quha held thai landis of the said Alexander, and the saidis multures of the cornes that grew upone the landis of Ladinspike, at James Stewart heretabill tenent thairof haldin of the said Alexander, becaus the said Alexander wes heretablie infeft in the haill forrestrie of Bonie with thirll multure of the landis thairof to his myln callit The New Myln, and the landis foirsaid lyis within the said forrest. It wes exceptit ex altera parte quod non tenebatur eam solvere dicto Alexandro, becaus thai wer heretablie infeft and immediat tenentis to him of thair landis foirsaidis in blenche, payand ane penny nomine albe firme tantum si petatur, pro omni alio onere, exactione, questione seu demanda that mycht be askit of thai landis vel occasione earum cum multuris, molendinis etc. And becaus the said Alexander father, that annaleit thai landis, reservit nocht the said thirll multuris to the said New Myln of the forrest of Boni, thairfoir that <he> mycht nocht clame the same, becaus it is ane dewetie that is aucht ratione occupationis terrarum et sic occasione earundem. And the lordis, nochtwithstanding divers allegeances maid in the contrair, be thair sentence definitive decreverunt the tenentis frie of all the said Alexanderis clame, and sua <becaus> the settar of the landis man varrand it to thame of all chargis, bot alanerlie thaim that he specifeis in the alienatioun making. And sua venditor varrantizat terras venditas emptori ab omni annuo redditu et alio onere quocunque de dictis terris, nisi aliter conventum aut expressum fuerit inter ipsos tempore alienationis. And sua the lordis fand that this thirll multure is onus reale et servitus que venit in contractu, nisi hoc dictum sit. Et quod censetur remitti nisi contrarium sit conventum, et hoc virtute specialium clausularum reservativarum predictarum in cartis specificatarum. And als the said servitude videbatur extincta, eo quia eftir the said Alexander had coft the said multur of all the forestrie, he gat all the landis in heretage to him self. And sa the landis aucht to be thirll to him selff: "Res sua nemini servit"¹⁷². Et sic illa servitus fuit semel extincta et consolidata cum superioritate et proprietate terrarum earundem, et per alienationem partis earum reviviscere non potest.

¹⁷¹Same case in nr. 358.

¹⁷²D. 8.1.26; parallel rule for "ususfructus" in D. 7.6.5 and D. 7.1.63.

<Jul. 1542 or 1543?> Thair was ane named Alexander Innes that persewit for the thirle multures of the cornes that grew upone certane landis. Comperit ane Andro Castie, tennent of the landis to James Gordonem quha held the samyn landis of the said Alexander, and siclyk ane James Stewart, heretabill tennent of the landis of Baldinspink haldin also of the said Alexander, and allegit that thai aucht no thirl multur: be ressoun that thai war heretablie infeft and immediat tennentis to him of the landis foirsaidis, haldand the samyn in blench for the payment of ane pennie nomine albefirme (si petatur, tantum) pro omni alio onere etc. that mycht be askit off the landis, and war also infeft in generali clausula "cum molendinis et multuris". And sua be ressoun off thair infeftment disponit to thame be the said Alexander thai aucht na thirl multures of thair corne. It was ansuerit be the said Alexander that he was infeft into the haill forrestrie of Boyne with all the thirle multures off the landis thairoff, to be payit to his milne callit the Newmilne, and all the foirsaid landis lyand within the said forrestrie thairfoir aucht to pay to him the saidis multuris. The lordis pronuncit be interloquitor that the said tennentis aucht nocht to be compellit to pay the saidis multures becaus thirl multures sunt onus reale a servitiis, the quhilk na man aucht to be bund except it be expreslie prowydit in his charter. The lordis had some consideratione into the matter that the said Alexander had coft and obtenit the propertie of the landis to himselff and consolidat the superioritie with the propertie.

The thrid day of junii <1542>: In ane caus of redemptioun of landis betuix James Scrymgeour and Johne Kynnarde the said Johne allegit the ferrie boit and fisching of Greinsyd nocht lauchfullie redemit, becaus the said James hes still in his handis the money contenit in the reversioun, and nocht consignit nor yit deponit in na suir manis keping as use is to the said Johnes utilitie. The said James allegit he had fulfillit the reversioun, quhilk had put the money in the constabill of Dundeis handis, in cais thai, quhomefra the landis happynait to be redemit, vald nocht resave the same. And becaus the constabill refusit the keping of the money, the said Johne allegit he mycht nocht haiff deponit it in na uther manis hand in keaping, bot he mycht hald it still him selff, and sua that thairin he had fulfillit the reversioun. And the lordis decretit planelie the samyn and sua the reversioun fulfillit and the landis redemit.

The said day <3 jun. 1542>: The lordis decernit the archedene of Brechen and his colligis preistes ad exhibendum evidentias certas ab ipsis petitas exhibere, per dominum de Segy, eo quia, licet dictus dominus super exhibitionem earundem egisset coram commissario Brechen, a quo fuit appellatum ad Sanctumandream et inde ad papam, et causa appellationis unacum negotio principali per papam commissa dictis iudicibus delegatis apud Abirdene et super articulo appellationis per delegatos lata sententia, et cognitioni principali <ante libelli> oblationem et litis contestationem in principali causa factam renunciavit instantie, litis expensis refusis. Ideo dicti domini Consilii admiserunt dominum Segy ad agendum de novo coram ipsis, et quod actor ante libelli oblationem et rei citationem possit renunciare instantie, reo etiam invito. Vide scribentes in auth. At qui semel, C. quomodo et quando iudex¹⁷³; Bal. in l. Postquam liti, ubi Alexander, Paulus et alii, C. de pactis¹⁷⁴.

¹⁷³Authentica "At qui semel" post C. 7.43.8, ex Nov. 112 c.3.

¹⁷⁴Commentaries by Baldus de Ubaldis, Paulus de Castro, Alexander Tartagnus and other authors on C. 2.3.4 [to the point].

The v of julii <1542>: Mr William Blair obtenit Mr James Multrayis collatioun of the vicarage of Carnbie and the ordinar letters thairupone retretit iudicialiter Sanctandreae, and he gat new collatioun thairof and ordinar letters thairupone. Mr James appeill ad curiam Romanam fra the sentence gevin aganes him. The said Mr William desyrit Mr James' kingis letters in the four formes, past upone his ordinar letters or his collatioun quhilk wes reducit, to be simpliciter suspendit, becaus his collatioun and ordinar letters foirsaid wer reducit be ane sentence, and sua said he the letters in the four formes aucht in lykwyis to ceis and be simpliciter suspendit. The said Mr James allegit that he wes under his appellatioun fra the said sentence and that the samyn wes actuallie dependand in Abirdene coram delegatis pape¹⁷⁵.

¹⁷⁵MS adds first words of 226 (thus doubled!): "And sua is the effect."

<CONTINUED> And sua the effect of the sentence gevin contra ipsum erat adhuc suspensa per appellationem. And thairfoir his letters in the four formes foirsaid aucht nocht to be simpliciter suspendit. The lordis of Counsall decernit conforme to Mr James allegeance that his letters aucht nocht to be suspendit, appellatione pendente.

<5 jul. 1542?> The said day James Maxwell callit the laird of Dalhoussie to heir ane instrument of redemptioun of certane landis allegit quytout be the said laird fra the said James' father to be reducit agane, becaus in the said instrument the said James father oblist him and his airis to varrand the said laird and his airis in thai landis. The lordis decretit that he aucht to haiff ane day to call his warrand.

The vi day of julii <1542>: The laird of Ruthven callit schir Johne Campbell of Lundy and certane uther persones of spuilyie, quha all wes absolvit be decrete of the lordis, quhilk decrete the said laird gat reducit agane be ane uther decrete of the lordis. Thaireftir the said laird of new callit the said schir Johne alanerlie for that spuilyie, quha allegit that he mycht nocht, bot he aucht to call thame all that he had anes chosin in prima instantia. The lordis decernit that he mycht now proceid aganes ony ane, quia sententia retractata habetur perinde ac si numquam fuisset ea lata aut causa intentata.

The 19 of maii <1542>: In ane caus of reductioun of infeftmentis rasit at the kingis and Thomas Dudistone his donataris instance aganes Noie Dudistoun, <it wes> allegit that the said N granschir, quha resignit the pleyabill landis in the kingis handis and gat new infeftment agane, wes nevir sasit in the landis. And sua his infeftment, makand mentioun that the landis pertenit of befoir to the fathir resignant in heretage, aucht to be reducit, bot gif the said N mycht now schaw his granschiris seasing. All the lordis in ane consent thocht that reus non deberet astringi ad hoc probandum, et quod carta domini regis hoc testificantis contra regem, suosque successores et eorum donatores plenam fidem de premissis deberet facere, et quod esset nimis grave toto regno et omnibus baronibus Scotie, si tam veteres sasinas ostendere compellerentur. Et de iure verba narrativa principis faciant plenam fidem contra ipsum: Cle. de probationibus, et ibi Imol., Jac., Ancha. et alii¹⁷⁶. Et licet decretum hoc non fuit in presenti, tamen omnes domini erant in hoc concordes et ita decidendum si res ad vota discendissent. Et dixerunt istud jam fuisse practicatum in simili causa olim vertente inter dominos de Loalland et Cunynghameheid et in causa dominorum de Kincraig et Lundy. And hoc procedit respectu regis, sed non in preiudicium tertii, qui legitime posset de iure suo doceri ad terras per regem cuivis hoc modo dispositas.

¹⁷⁶Commentaries by Iohannes ab Imola, Petrus Ancharanus and other authors on Clem. 2.7. The abbreviation "Jac." is probably a misreading of "Jo.a." = Johannes Andreae, glossa ad Clementinas.

About the samyn tyme <mar. - may 1542 or 1543> : Thair was ane infeftment persewit to be reducit at the instance of the kingis advocate and ane Mr Thomas D. donatour aganis ane uther J.P. The ressone of the summondis was that the defendares granschir, quha resignit the landis in the kingis handis and thairefter gat new infeftment agane, was newer seasit, and that the landis newer pertenit to him in heretage. And sua, without he sould schaw now the said seasing or quhair the landis appertenit to him, the said infeftment past upone the said resignatione aucht to be reducit, juxta l. Si quis, in authen., C. de edendo¹⁷⁷. Nam non creditur referenti nisi constat de relato. To this was ansuerit that the infeftment gevin be the king (bearand in effect that the landis pertenit of befoir to the resignatour) was sufficient. Et verba narrativa principis plenam faciunt fidem contra principem. And it was very prejudiciall to all the barrones of Scotland to be bund efter resignationes of lang tyme past in the kinges handes, to be obleist to schaw thair seasingis and tytillis quhairupone the saidis resignationes and infeftmentes <had bein groundit>. The lordis concludit all in one voice and votit (albeit it was nocht pronuncit) that the narrative of the infeftment was sufficient aganes the king and his donatour to prove that the saidis landis pertenit of befoir to the resignatour, albeit it was doutsome gif it wald prowe contra.

¹⁷⁷Auth. "Si quis in aliquo instrumento" post C. 2.1.7, ex Nov. 119.3.

The said day <19 maii 1542>: In causa Colini Campbell contra dominum de Keir, the lordis be interlocutour decernit the said Coline efficaciter obligatum dicto domino per contractum in quo promisit ipse Colinus se causaturum Elenam (ut recordor) Balquhannan ad vendendum ipso domino de Keir certas suas <terras> hereditarias. Et quod hec obligatio erat efficax de iure, pro eo Si quis alium, in fine¹⁷⁸instrumenti(?) St.(?). Et not. Jas., Bar., Alexander et alii in l. Stipulatio ista "habere licere", in principio, ff. de verb. obbl.¹⁷⁹.

¹⁷⁸Auth. "Si quando quis pro se vel pro alia persona", post C. 4.18.1, matches this garbled quotation.

¹⁷⁹Commentaries by Jason de Maino, Bartolus de Saxoferrato, Alexander Tartagnus and other authors on D. 45.1.38 pr.

20 maii 1542: The laird of Keir persewit ane Colin Campbell for the performing of ane contract in the quhilk the said Coline band and oblesit himselff that he suld caus Elein Buchanane sell to the said laird certane landis pertening to hir in heretage. It was ansuerit that he aucht nocht fulfill the said contract becaus it was aganis the law to him to contraict the thing to be done be him quhilk lay into ane uther manes hand to do, quia nemo alienum factum promittendo <se> obligat, l. Stipulatio rei aliene, ff. de verborum obliga.¹⁸⁰. To this was ansuerit that, albeit it was alienum factum et stipulatio rei aliene, yit in sa far as he had obleist himselff be contract to caus the said woman do it, he aucht to fulfill the same, quia de jure si quis effecturum se, ut alius daret, sponderit, obligatur iuxta § Si quis alium, Instit. de inutilibus stipulationibus¹⁸¹. The lordis decernit the said Coline to fulfill the said contract in all poyntes becaus he had obleist himselff to caus ane uther pairtie do it.

¹⁸⁰D. 45.1.51 is meant.

¹⁸¹Inst. 3.19.3 [to the point]. See also D. 45.1.81.

The said day <19 maii 1542>: In causa domini de Wauchtoun et collegarum suarum contra executores domini Jacobi Creichtoun de Frendrecht militis, the lordis advocat ad instantiam reorum altera parte invita causam inter reos vertentem et seipsos a certis clavigeris et aliis per specialem commissionem dominorum deputatis ad cognoscendum in eadem, ex eo quod ex antiquo agebatur debito, viz. spolio 28 yeiris, et de ingenti summa, viz. plusquam decem millium librarum. Et de practica omnes huiusmodi antique cause et summe ingentes solent tantummodo coram dominis Consilii tractari, propter eorum difficultatem.

The said day <19 maii 1542>: In ane caus of the laird of Inneis aganes Robert Richesone, James Stewart and certane utheris, the lordis be interlocutour decernit, nochtwithstanding the said uther pairteis procuratour Mr Hew Rig dissentit alanerlie thairfra, that the said laird Innes' witnessis upone his summondis to be resavit and examinat, without ony preiudice of the said Mr Hew Rigis exceptioun peremptour proponit be him aganes the summondis. Upone the quhilk he said: the lordis suld first discuss or thai resavit witnessis in the caus. Quhais allegeance wes nocht admittit and the witnessis as said is wes resavit. Et hoc ad parcendum sumptibus partis alterius in citando de novo dictos testes; et quia ex eorum receptione nullum alteri parti preiudicium fiebat.

The first day of the said moneth <maii 1542>: In the caus movit aganes the airis of Inrugie and thair spous, the erle of Merschell, Johne Keith and utheris besyd, <audivi actorem> Stirveling Glawray (ut recordor) petentem in libello certas terras alienatas per quondam N patrem (ut opinor) of the said airis to be decernit be decrete of the lordis unredemabill, and incais thai be found redemabill, petentem dictum N, a quo dicte terre fuerunt alienate ipsi actori cum pacto quod illi non possent redemi per quoscunque, decerni per decretum dominorum ad varrantizandum actori dictas terras irredimabiles. Mr Thomas Marioribankis procurator actoris petiit terminum ad vocandum varantum suum. The lordis, prout causa hec evenerat, denegarunt ei terminum. And als his said procuratour vald haiff tane up his summondis and renuncit the instance et recederet a lite, et quod materia erat iam iudicialiter disputata.

<CONTINUED> Et Mr Hew Ryge, procurator comitis predicti, peremptoriam exceptionem iam proposuit. Et sic ex practica videbatur lis in hac causa contestata. Dixit actorem non posse desistere, nec denunciare instantie. Et ita interlocuti sunt domini Consilii.

<CONTINUED> Ideo ad instantiam ipsius comitis rei, actore omnino(?) tacente, domini visis iuribus rei definitive pronunciaverunt contra actorem terras redimabiles secundum rationes reversionis ibidem iudicialiter in ostensas. Et processum fuit ad sententiam super copia summonitionis porrecta per reum, ex eo quod procurator actoris subtraxit principalem summonitionem et recusabat in causa procedere.

The 21 of maii <1542>: The lordis definitive retreitit ane few abak gevin be the king to the sone naturall of the cardinall of Sanctandrois, becaus the samyn wes in diminutionem rentalis of thai landis annexit to the crowne and sua in hurt of the crowne¹⁸². And the samyn wes prowin be witnessis that thai laite gaif mair yeirlie befoir the said few than wes contentit in the chartour maid to the said cardinall sone. And albeit he wes within aige, viz. xiii annos (or eocirca) et sic minor, et citati erant tutores, curatores et gubernatores sui in genere tantum et nemo <eorum venit et> eum <non> defenderunt, et ideo de iure sententia contra eum indefensum lata fuit nulla, l. Acta, ff. de re judi.¹⁸³, tamen domini sententiam contra eum tulerunt. Et hoc de practica esse dixerunt.

¹⁸²= Restitutio regis secundum consuetudinem Scotie; cf. parallel case in nr. 210 + 213.

¹⁸³D. 42.1.45.2 [to the point].

<CONTINUED> Et licet super proprietatem immobilium de practica et iure Scotie minor placitare non tenetur, tamen dixerunt domini non habere locum ubi agitur super retractationem sasine minoris quam nullus suorum maiorum ante habuit, et quod ei et nulli suorum unquam competit, ut in hoc casu <de> iure. Et ratio ferende sententie esse opportebat, et procedendi contra eundem, quod, licet minor etas ei debeat patrocinari, ita ad aliorum iniuriam referri non debet.

The 22 day of maii <1542>: In ane caus of Mr Johne Cheisholme assignay to the king, and to <i>iii^c merkis allegit restand awand to the king be the communitie of Edinburgh of the sowme of ane thowsand merkis lent be the kingis graice to thame, for payment of the quhilk thowsand merkis the toun gave thair obligatioun to pay the samyn to the king, or ony utheris haifand thairof his graice command. The tounis procuratour exceptit peremptourlie that thai had payit the samyn iiii^c merkis to umquhile James Colwill comptrollar, and thairwith boucht wyne to the kingis utilitie and proffeit, and that the said wyne wes expendit in his hous. And sua <thai haille sowme> payit to the <kingis> comptrollar, of that money, convertit as said is in rem et utilitatem regis, liberabat dictam communitatem de summa antedicta, licet ad receptionem solutionis summe eiusdem dictus Jacobus non haberet mandatum regis, nec ad eius officium spectaret se de huiusmodi rebus ad regem spectantibus providere. Et hoc pro ratione aequitatis, ne dicta communitas ad solutionem duplicem eiusdem debiti compelleretur contra l. Bona fides, ff. de reg. iur.¹⁸⁴, et l. dicentem "ne quis cum aliena iactura" etc.¹⁸⁵, l. Nemo, eodem tit.¹⁸⁶. Et quod de iure esset sufficiens hec solutio ad liberandum debitores allegabatur l. Debitores et l. Qui bonam § Si nullo, ubi Pau., ff. <de> solutio.¹⁸⁷, l. Non solum, cum l. seq., ubi glo. fi. et Jas., Bar. et alii, ff. soluto matri.¹⁸⁸.

Et ita interlocuti sunt domini dictam exceptionem de iure relevantem, licet in contrarium allegabatur quod defectus mandati secundum tenorem obligationis deberet obstare, et quod ad officium dicti Jacobi non pertinebat intromittere <se> cum talibus (viz. accidentibus ad regem pertinentibus), sed quod illa regio pertinebat thesaurario. Et ideo ut de iure, solutione facta uni tutori vel curatori de re aut debito pertinente ad administrationem alterius tutoris vel curatoris, ut quando certe cetere res et terre pupilli vel adulti singulis tutoribus aut curatoribus date essent ad administrandum, debitorem non liberat: l. Qui hominem, § Si nullo, l. Vero procuratori, ff. de solution.¹⁸⁹. Ideo videretur solutione premissa dictam communitatem Edinburgensem non esse liberatam, quia iura habere locum.

Fuit responsum: <Haec iura allegata> et intellegenda esse secundum illam l. Debitores¹⁹⁰ et Pan. in dicto § Si nullo¹⁹¹. Ad id quod solutio hec liberaret communitatem, allegabatur l. Pupillo (in ratione sua), ff. de solutio.¹⁹², l. Apud Celsum § Si quis pupill., de doli mali¹⁹³. Ex aduerso glo. fi. et ibi Pau., Alexander, Bar., Jas. in l. Non solum¹⁹⁴ preallegata(?).

¹⁸⁴D. 50.17.57 [to the point].

¹⁸⁵D. 50.17.206 = D. 12.6.13 [to the point]; taken up in 6. 5.(13) de regulis iuris 48.

¹⁸⁶"Nemo plus iuris in alium transferre potest quam ipse habet", 6. 5.(13) de regulis iuris 79 [to the point].

¹⁸⁷D. 46.3.28 and commentary by Paulus de Castro on D. 46.3.34.4.

¹⁸⁸D.24.3.3 and 4, with last gloss by Franciscus Accursius, and commentaries by Jason de Maino, Bartolus de Saxoferrato and other authors.

¹⁸⁹D. 46.3.34.4 and lex 12.

¹⁹⁰D. 46.3.28 [to the point].

¹⁹¹Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis), commentary on D.46.3.34.4.

¹⁹²D. 46.3.15 [to the point].

¹⁹³D. 44.4.4.4 [to the point].

¹⁹⁴D.24.3.4, with gloss by Franciscus Accursius, and commentaries by Paulus de Castro, Alexander Tartagnus, Bartolus de Saxoferrato, Jason de Maino.

22 may 1542: Maister Johne Chesholme persewit the commontie of the toun of Edinburgh as assigney to the kingis majestie of iiiic markes restand awand of the soume of i^m markis for the quhilk the toun gaiff thair obligatione to pay the samyn agane to the kingis majestie. Comperit the procuratour for the toun and allegit peremptorlie that thai had payit the samyn iiiic markis to James Colvin comptroller to the kingis majestie, in sa far as thai <had> gevin him wyne in payment and satisfactione of the same, the quhilk wyne was wentit to the kingis majesties proffeit and utilitie, et sic bona fides non patitur ut id bis exigatur, argumento l. Debitores, ff. de verborum obliga., et ibidem doctores¹⁹⁵. It was ansuerit in the contrair of the law l. Qui hominem, § Et si nullo¹⁹⁶, ubi, si debitor solverit absque mandato et is qui recipit, potestatem recipiendi non habet, non liberatur. For nather had the said James Colvill command to ressave the said wyne nor yit it appertenit nocht to his office of comptrollarie, bot the concell with the kingis debtes utherwayes nor appertenit to his propertie. The lordis pronuncit be interloquitour that the exceptione was relevant, and albeit the payment was maid sine mandato et ei qui non habet potestatem recipiendi, yit forsamekill as it was convertit in rem creditoris, liberatur debitor.

¹⁹⁵Commentaries on D. 46.3.28 are meant [to the point]. There is no lex "Debitores" in D. 45.1.

¹⁹⁶D. 46.3.34.4 [to the point].

The 23 of februar <1542>: In ane caus of airschipe, movit be ane father brother of Mr James Kincraig umquhile dean of Abirdene and provest of the Kirkheuche of Sanctandrois, aganes Mr Johne Atoun and his colligis executouris to the said Mr James, the lordis definitive decretit: the pretendit air aucht na airschipe gudis, becaus of the practik of Scotland na kirkmanis (licet in dignitate ecclesiastica sit constitutus) air aucht airschipe gudis, bot gif the said air be servit air to him of certane landis or rentis. And the said schir James' air wes nocht his air of ony sic landis, quhilkis nane had the said James quhen he deceissit.

The 23 of maii <1542>: Henrie Ramsay callit William Dempstertoun to heir and se the landis of N be decernit be decrete of the lordis laufullie redemit as use is. The said William ansuerit the samyn suld nocht be, becaus the heretabill possessor of the landis, viz. his sone, wes nocht warnit to the redemptioun of the landis; and that he wes bot lyfrentar of the samyn, and sua that he culd nocht renunce and ourgif thai landis' proprietie and possessioun thairof. And sen the heretabill fear wes nocht warnit, as said is, the landis suld nocht be decernit laufullie redemit. And offerit him to preve sufficientlie his allegeance and desyrit ane terme thairto. The lordis admittit this exceptioun relevant to preve, nochtwithstanding the uther pairteis contradictioun.

And the samyn wes practicat of befoir in ane caus of redemptioun of landis, movit betuix the laird of Polmais and Alexander Levingsoun of Drumypais.

The said day <23 maii 1542>: The laird of Inneis callit the erle of Errollis (that last deceissit) dochter, beand within thre yeir auld, as air of lyne to him of certane blanche landis, and the laird of Logy, now erle of Erroll, air of tailyie to the said umquhile erle that last deceissit, to warrand him the gift of the mariage of the airis of Barndell, to the quhilk the said erles predicessouris maid the said lairdis father assignay for certane sowmes of money. The erle of Errollis procuratour allegit that he suld nocht be callit unto the tyme the air of lyne wer callit and discussit, becaus of the practik the air of the tailyie sould nocht be distreinyeit for his predicessouris dettis or obligatiounis, bot incace the air of lyne wer nocht solvendo, et sic quod ipse non tenetur nisi in subsidium et de iure. Ubi quis tenetur in subsidium, conveniri non potest nisi discusso principali debitore. Et actio directa contra principalem debitorem nec concurrat, nec competit sine illa priori, simul et semel in eodem libello: § Sciend., Insti. de satisda. tu.¹⁹⁷, l. Decem, ubi Alexander et alii, ff. de verborum oblig.¹⁹⁸, ubi promittens in defectum seu subsidium alterius convenire nequit nisi illo prius discusso. Nochttheless the lordis be thair interlocutour decernit him to ansuer in this cais of warrandice this instant tyme, becaus of the practik actor varrantum suum, nisi in initio litis aut saltem ante litem contestatam eum vocaverit (et sic quidem causae istae in varrantum, licet executio warranti contra eum fieri non posset nisi discusso prius herede lineali), persequi nequevit, ut supra dictum est, tamen, quoniam in alia parte litis in varrantum vocari de iure regni non potest, ideo eum debere nunc respondere in hac causa varranti.

¹⁹⁷Inst. 1.24.2 [to the point].

¹⁹⁸Commentaries by Alexander Tartagnus and other authors on D. 45.1.116 [to the point].

24 may 1542: The laird of Innes persewit the dochter of the earle of Arroll that last decessit as narrest air of lyne to him, and also the laird of Logie earle of Arroll and air of tailyie, to warrand him the fit of the mareage of the aires of Ballandall, to the quhilk the said earles predicessour maid the said lairdis father assigney for gryt soumes of money debursit for the same. Compeirit the earles procuratour and alledgit that he aucht nocht to warrand nor be persewit quhill the air of lyne war first discussit, becaus of the practik that the air of tailyie suld nocht be distrenyeit for his predicessouris debtis nor obligationes bot incaice the air of lyne be nor solvendo, quod non tenetur heres tailyie nisi in subsidium. It was ansuerit that he <(= the laird of Innes)> behuifit in initio litis tak him to call his warrandice, utherwayis he wald nocht be hard. The lordis pronuncit be interloquitour that he sould ansuer now to the warrandice and in executione the air of lyne aucht to be first discussit.

The said day <23 maii 1542>: David Wallace, cessionar and assignay to Marioun Barclay his mother¹⁹⁹ in and to ane dewtie aucht to his mother be Andro and James Hammyltones, aganes the said Andro and James gat his summondis put in the puir folkis tabill. Mr Thomas Marioribankis procuratour to Andro and James allegit, the said David suld nocht haiff that privilege, becaus the assignatioun wes fraudfullie maid to get that tabill be reasone of the said Davidis puirtaithe, albeit the said Marioun wes ane riche woman and culd nocht get that privilege. And sua, the samyn assignatioun beand maid be this conclusioun, the said David suld nocht haiff that privilege²⁰⁰. The lordis be interlocutour decernit the said David to haiff that privilege, nochtwithstanding the foirsaid allegeance, becaus the tendernes of blude betuix the said David and Marioun tollebat suspitionem fraudis - the quhilk caus wes nocht relevant, and that the samyn inducit evir fraude.

¹⁹⁹Parallel problem in nr. 87.

²⁰⁰X 1.42.2.

<25-25 may 1542> Thair was ane Marion Barcley that maid David Wallace hir sone cessioner and assigney to certane debtis auchtand to hir be Andro and Johne Hamiltones. The Wallace, becaus he was, as he alledgit, ane puir man, obtenit the gift of the puir mans tabill and was <admittit> into the same. It was objectit aganis the ordour that, albeit he was puir, yit his mother was rich, and sua it appeirit ane simulat assignatione and collusione betuix the mother and the sone. And the thing <quhilk> wald nocht haiff bein grantit to the cedent, could nocht be grantit cessionario²⁰¹. The lordis fand be interloquitour that he mycht bruik the samyn benefit as cessioner and assigney to his mother.

²⁰¹X 1.42.2.

The 25 of maii <1542>: The lordis of Counsall absolvit the laird of Balcleuche fra the summondis intentit contrair him be the provest of the Quenis College, anent the reductioun of his xix yeir tak of the kirk of Lempellat, set to him be the said provest' predicessour Mr Robert Erskin, becaus the ressones of the summondis wes nocht relevant nor sufficient for to reduce the tak, viz. that the said tak wes set within the half of the just awaill of the kirkis fructis, quhilk caus of the practik of Scotland hes na place, ut de iure communi, secundum dicta in l. Rem ma., C. rescin. vendi.²⁰².

And laitlie in the reductioun of nyntene yeir tak of certane landis and teindis of Pitlethie of the pryour of Sanctandrois, movit be the kingis sone, commendatour to the priour, contra schir William Ramsay takisman thairof, the samyn resone wes repellit be the lordis, for in all takis and fewis of landis, temporall or ecclesiasticall, it is requyrit alanerlie to the effect that the alienatioun or tak be of strenth that the auld rentall thairof be nocht diminissit, how litill that evir in be eikit, and albeit the landis or teindis be worth ten tymes mair nor thai gif²⁰³.

Secoundlie the lordis repellit the reasone of the said provest, allegeand that his predicessouris mycht nocht set xix yeiris, etiam cum consensu capituli, syne the propirtie of his provestrie pertinand thairto and naways to the prebendar and chaptour, becaus de consuetudine regni prelatus quicunque secularis vel religious cum consensu capituli assedare potest proprietatem sue dignitatis et prelature pro tanto spatio etiam irrevocabiliter quoad suos successores, dummodo aliud <ius> canonicum non resistat.

²⁰²Discussion about C. 4.44.2. (laesio enormis) - see parallel cases nr. 210 + 213 and 485.

²⁰³Against X 1.41.1.

25 may 1542: The provest of the Trinitie colledge besyd Edinburgh persewit the laird of Balcleuch for the reductione of ane nyntein yeir tak set to him of all the teindis of the K. pertening to the kirk of Tempillaw. The ressone of the summondis was that the tak was set infra demedium justi pretii and within the half of the just awaill of the fruittis of the benefice, argumento l. 2, C. de rescind. vendi., et ibidem doctores²⁰⁴. The lordis repellit the ressone of the summondis and fand of thair practik and consuetude of Scotland that, how litill that ewer the dewtie of the tak be, sua it be no less nor the dewtie of the old rentall, it will nocht reduce, albeit the dewtie of the landis or teindis be ten tymes mair nor the dewtie of the takes.

²⁰⁴Commentaries on C. 4.44.2 (legal problem of "laesio enormis"). Compare X 1.41.1.

The said day <25 maii 1542>: In ane caus of escheit of Hob Hormestoun donatour to the king aganis the provest and communitie of Edinburgh, the lordis decernit that the man and forsamekill as he de cuius escheta agebatur commitit the slauchter within Edinburgh and the toun schew previlegium regis allegeand all sic escheitis to pertene to thame, the faltour nevirtheless wes fugitive and put to the horne, and be ressone he comperit nocht to underly the law for that cryme, sua becaus he past to the horne all his guidis wer escheit, the lordis decernit the escheit to pertene to the king and his donatouris, becaus it fell that the man past to the horne and nocht be ressone he committit that slauchter. And sua the tounis previlege wes found be the lordis nocht to be extendit in this cace, for in it thair is na escheit grantit to the toun bot de delinquentibus in dicto burgo et captis ibidem et convictis. Et sic cum cadit escheta ratione criminis commissi infra burgum, non autem quando cadit becaus ane faltour intra burgum past to the horne for nocht underlying of the law for the cryme be him commitit within the toun.

14 junii 1542: Hob Ormestoun obtenit the gift of ane escheitt of ane man that committit slachter in the toun of Edinburgh and was past thairfoir to the horne and was fugitive fra the law. The toun of Edinburgh comperit for thair entres and alledgit: the escheit appertenit unto thame. And producit ane priviledge grantit unto thame be the kingis predicessouris that the escheittis of thame that committis slauchter within the toun of Edinburgh sould appertein to thame. To this was ansuerit that, nochtwithstanding thair priviledge, the escheittis could nocht appertein to thame, becaus the man that had committit the cryme had fled furth of the toun and was fugitive fra the law and put to the horne, and sua (he beand the kingis rebell) his escheitt appertenit to the king. And the toun of Edinburgh could clame na richt be thair priviledge except he had bein tane red hand within the toun and thairefter convict and nocht put to the horne. The lordis decernit the escheit to appertein to the king and his donatour and nocht to the toun, nochtwithstanding thair priviledge.

The said day <25 maii 1542>: In ane caus of the laird of Astoun aganes the laird of Petslego, the lordis decernit the said laird of Petslego to entir to certane landis and thaireftir to procutoreis(?) to resigne the samyn in favouris of the said actor Astoun in the superioris handis, becaus the said laird of Petslegois father band him to resigne the saidis landis in maner foirsaid. And sua his father wes oblist thairto. And or his sone mycht do the same, he behovit to entir his selff, albeit his sone ex equo wes nocht oblist thairto - sed "obligatus ad unum, obligatus ad omne id per quod ad illud pervenitur"²⁰⁵.

²⁰⁵This doctrine mirrors the other one: "Aliquo prohibito, omne id prohibetur per quod pervenitur ad illud", 6. 5.(13) de regulis iuris 39.

The 6 of junii anno millesimo quingentesimo xlii: Quidam (ut recordor) Thomas Keir in Saltoun vald haiff provin that of the consuetude of the baronie of Saltoun the laird man nocht put out the barnis of thame that ar thair takismen during the yeiris of thair takis and that of the said consuetude the tenentis and thair barnes may nocht be removit, thai payand ilk fyve yeiris thair gressome. The lordis decernit be interlocutour this consuetude aucht to be provin be writ and nocht be witnes in temporall mennis caussis, albeit in kirklandis in consuetudis preving de practica admittantur testes, as wes laitlie done in causa cuiusdam mulieris contra abbatem de Kilvinning. Memorandum that in this caus Johne Fynlasone wes actor contra dominum Keir.

The 14 day of the samyn moneth <jun. 1542>: The lordis decernit the kingis letters in all the four formes rasit be Mr Thomas Huchesone contra tenentes ecclesiasticarum terrarum capelle Sancti Niniani dicto Mr Thomae pertinentium to haiff bene ewill rasit and nocht conforme to the ordinar letter, in safar as the saidis kingis letters contenit the fourt forme, viz. the pane of horning, and becaus the ordinar letters, quhairupone the saidis kingis letters in all the four formes wes rasit, wes bot monitoriall and contenit nocht the pane of cursing. And sua of the practik horning aucht nocht to be gevin in this case bot letters of cursing being first rasit, quhilkis war nocht than rasit, as said is.

<CONTINUED> And thairfoir the lordis decernit the said Mr Thomas' kingis letters in the four formes to haiff bene inordourlie rasit and procedit ab initio quoad quartam formam eiusdem, and reducit thame thairin for the foirsaid caus, becaus thai wer nocht conforme to the ordinar letters in that poynt, nochtwithstanding that eftir the dait of the ordinar and kingis letters the said Mr Thomas obtenit cursing and schew the samyn dewlie execute, and sua allegit that or the fourt forme wer iustlie execute, neid it wer that cursing precedit, sed quod non requireretur necessarie ante levationem quarte formae. And sua the first thre formes may be execut upone simple monitioun of the ordinar execute, bot horning may nocht be rasit quhill the cursing be first rasit and may nocht be execute nisi prius executa excommunicatione.

The said day <14 jun. 1542>: In the caus of Thomas Fergusone contra quendam A, the lordis be interlocutour decernit, the said actoris aucht nocht to cum in the ordour of the puir folkis tabill as the summondis come in, becaus albeit thai had obtenit the previlege of the pure folkis tabill, becaus he allegit that he wes ane puir man et primo aspectu miserabilis, quhilk movit the lordis to grant him the said privilege, nochtwithstanding quhene the summondis come in, it wes obiectit that he wes ane riche man haifand mair nor xl lib. in frie guidis. And thairfoir his summondis as thai come in wes cassin, quia "dolus suus nemini debet prodesse"²⁰⁶.

²⁰⁶General maxim (and part of canon law's doctrine of "restitutio"), reflected for instance in X 5.41.5 and X 2.14.2, and as well recognized by the commentators of Roman law - although Franciscus Accursius amused himself, in a gloss to D. 50.1.36, listing types of cases in which crooks retained advantages from their evil deeds (D. 1.2.2.7; D. 44.4.11; D. 46.2.19, and so on).

The said day <14 jun. 1542>: In ane caus of spuilyie intentit be A aganes B upone ane act of adiornall, the lordis decernit the summondis nocht relevant becaus the actour libellit nocht in speciall that at the allegit tyme of spuilyie his <persoun> wes in possessioun and than violentlie thairfra eiectit per reum, albeit he foundit the caus and ressone of his summondis upone ane act foirsaid contenand in speciall quhair pars recepit se ad compositionem regis pro violenta eiectione actoris de sua possessione terrarum libellatarum, ipso actore existente in possessione earundem et violenter inde eiecto per reum. For albeit the act of adiornall preif contenta in eo, et pars rea confessa in eo fuerit possessionem adversarii et violentam eiectionem per se factam, tamen quia hoc non libellatur modum probationis libelli, et libellus ipse debet expresse contineri violentam eiectionem, alias non est relevans. And sua the saidis summondis wes cassin.

14 junii 1542: Thair was ane spuilyie lybellit be A. aganis B. upon ane act of adjornall and thair was no possessione lybellit the tyme of the committing of the said spuilyie, bot onlie the confessione of ane pairtie contenit in the act of adjornall quhair he tuik him to compositione for the violent ejectioun lybellit. It was alledgit the lybell nocht to be relevant, except it had spokin that the persewar was in possessione the tyme lybellit. The quhilk alledgance the lordis fand relevant, nochtwithstanding of the act, and sua cuist the lybell.

The said day <14 jun. 1542>: In ane caus of A aganes N, the lordis admittit the pairtie to haif ane new terme for summoning of certane witnessis agane, albeit this wes the last charge upone thaim, becaus thai comperit and wes repellit a testimonio be cursing. And sua the caus quhy thai war repellit culd nocht be imput to the producear. Thairfoir he aucht nocht to tyne thaim.

The 15 day of junii foirsaid <1542>: In causa cuiusdam tenentis terrarum ecclesiasticarum capellanie sancti Niniane contra Magistrum Thomam Hutchesone capellanum eiusdem, the lordis decernit letters in the four formes upone ane rolment of the schireff of N gevin aganes the said Mr Thomas, nochtwithstanding the said Mr Thomas allegit that the samyn suld nocht be done becaus he is ane preist and that rolment gevin contra him in the law is null in the selff.

<CONTINUED> The lordis motive wes: becaus of the practik, nullitie in this caus contra sententiam judicis cuiuscunque may nocht be proponit per viam exceptionis, sed agendum est de eo per viam actionis ad reductionem sententie. And sua, quantumcunque nulla in se, de practica semper habet executionem, donec stat non retractata et declarata nulla.

254. Off libellis civill and prophane, et quod fides media facit causam non-prophanam. Et ratio est quia promittens "sub fide sua" censetur jurare, ut not. Alexand., Jas. et alii in l. Ait praetor § fin. cum l. sequ., ff. de iure iuran.²⁰⁷et Pan. et alii in capi. Ad aures, Extra quod metus causa²⁰⁸. Ratione autem juramenti, licet causa alias sit prophana, potest laicus venire coram iudice ecclesiastico, cap. fi., Extra de fo. co., in vi.²⁰⁹

The said day <15 jun. 1542>: The lordis decernit ane libell of ane actioun movit in the consistorie of Abirdene be Marioun Barclay aganes Waltar Blakhall of Bar' at the said Walteris instance producit befoir the lordis to be sene gif it wes civill and prophane, becaus the samyn wes callit ratione fidei interposite, et contractus fide media valuerat, super cuius observatione actio contra dictum Willielmum(!) intentebatur, albeit all the thingis contenit in the libell wes prophane, assedatioun of certane landis and teindschevis. And sua the lordis decernit the libell and caus to be remittit agane to the consistorie foirsaid, quia ratione fidei interposite causam iudicarunt non-prophanam.

²⁰⁷Commentaries by Alexander Tartagnus, Jason de Mayno and others to D. 12.2.3.3-4 and lex 5.

²⁰⁸Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) commentary to X. 1.40.3, and other commentators.

²⁰⁹6. 2.2.2 [to the point]. See also X 2.1.13, based on the gospel of Mathew, 18.15. Same topic in nr. 290.

The samyn day <15 jun. 1542>: In ane caus movit be ane Annabill Mais befoir the lordis, Johne Sandelans contra Gavinum Carmichall anent all thingis that ather of the saidis pairteis had to say aganes uther, the said Johne allegit that he wes violentlie put furth be the said Gavin of his maling of N. The said Gavin allegit that he wes ordourlie removit thairfra be the said Gawinis precept, quha wes takisman of the landis to the Master of Eglingtoun and his ladie, and he wes in possessioune thairof, and the said Johne payit him the maillis thairof for certane yeiris bypast. The lordis decernit that, becaus the said Gawin wes principall takisman of thai landis and in possessioun thairof, that he mycht warne, remove and eiect ordourlie as use is the said Johne his subtenent, albeit ane tenent or takisman may nocht do the samyn or he get intres and possessioun of his maling and takis. And sua the said Gavin wes assolyeit fra the allegit violence and wrangus eiectioun of the said Johne furth of his maling foirsaid.

The 16 of the said moneth <jun. 1542>: In causa Catharine Douglas contra Hob Ormestoun, the said Hob obtenit the escheit of Mathew Windigattis, sone to the said Katharine, be reasone that the said Mathew wes put to the kingis horne for non underlying of the law for the slauchter of N. Robesone. And be vertew of the said gift the said Hob causit ane officiar, be vertew of the kingis letters be delyverance of the lordis upone, intromettit with ane myln and hous thairof and insycht guidis beand thairin as pertening to the said Mathew, and put the said Catharine thairfra. Quhairupone scho menit hir to the lordis and causit warne the said Hob to compeir: to heir it be decernit be the lordis, the said Hobis gift nocht to extend to the myln houssis and geir abonwritten, quhilk (the said Katharine allegit) pertenit to hir be ressone of tak, and the geir thairin hir awin propir guidis and scho in possessioun thairof, and hir foirsaid sone wes bot hir servand alanerlie. Thairfoir the said Hob to be decernit to restoir to hir the premissis.

<16 jun. 1542> The lordis decernit be interlocutour that this caus and actioun, as it wes intentit, mycht cum in without ordour or dyet of tabill be ane simple supplicatioun, albeit the said Hob and his procuratouris allegit the contrar. And als the lordis be interlocutour decernit the probatioun of his allegeance to hir, and nocht admittit to the other pairteis probatioun that the premissis wes in the said Mathewis possessioun <at> the tyme of his escheit and haldin and repute his propir guidis²¹⁰.

²¹⁰For the distribution of the burden of proof in cases of this type see nrs. 373-375, 406-407a.

The auchten mensis eiusdem <= 18 jun. 1542>: In ane caus movit be James Hering of Glasklyne contra William Scot commorantem in Mon<t>ros, in termino assignato Magistro Henrico Lawder ad improbandum instrumentum quoddam publicum, productum per dictum Willielmum, the said Mr Henry allegit that the said pretendit instrument wes fals and fainyeit, becaus thair wes nevir sic ane notar callit N Baxter, and the samyn Baxter wes nocht, nor nevir wes knawin notar nor in quasi possessione notariatus. And sua the allegit instrument suld haiff na fayth, bot gif the said William culd preve that the said Baxter wes vere notarius, aut saltem quasi in possessione notariatus: sic habitus, tentus et reputatus. And desyrit the probatioun of this to be transferrit in the said William, et eo magis becaus agebatur hic de tempore memorialitatis, viz. 28 annorum, and the said Mr Henry culd get na wit that evir thair wes sic ane notar, and als becaus thair wes suspitio falsitatis contra dictum instrumentum, for it contenit that Mr Thomas Diksone promittit varrandice of certane landis apprysit to the said Mr Thomas, quha causit assigne the samyn to the said William, fra quhome he gat thair ane certane sowme of money. And thair wes producit ane indentour, maid anent the said mater betuix the said Mr Thomas and William, in the quhilk wes na varrandice contenit, bot that the said Mr Thomas, incace the apprysing wer reducit and the landis evictit fra the said William, that in that cace the said Mr Thomas suld refound agane to the said William his said money. And betuix the daitis of the indentour and instrument thair wes rycht schort tyme. And sua the instrument apperit fals and contenit mair than the indentour, et hoc sine ulla causa. And als in the said caus the said Mr Henrie offerit to impreve the said instrument, in sa far as he sould preve that the day contenit in the same, maid at Monros, the said Mr Thomas wes all that day in Edinburgh. And the lordis be interlocutour decernit the xxix day of the samyn moneth to the said alibi allegit to be provin. Et quod instrumentum publicum potest reprobari per testes descriptos in eodem, vide Pan., Feli. et alios in cap. Cum Joannes, Extra de instrument.²¹¹, legistas in l. In exercendis, C. de fide instrumentorum²¹², et in § Item verbo., Insti. de stipulationibus²¹³.

²¹¹Commentaries by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis)and Felinus Sandeus and others to X 2.22.10.

²¹²Commentators to C. 4.21.15.

²¹³Instit. 3.19.12 [to the point].

<22 jun. 1542> Thair was ane instrument tane to be improvine be ane schir James Hering and the kingis advocat aganis ane William Scot. They offerit to prove that ane Mr Thomas Dicksone, quha was contenit in the instrument, was alibi. And quhair the instrument buir that he was in S. at the taking of the instrument, they offerit thame to prove that he was in Edinburgh et sic alibi. The quhilk the lordis admittit and fand relevant.

The xix of junii <1542>: In ane caus of Thomas Vas contra Gawand Dundas, anent the letters in the four formes rasit be the said Thomas upone his ordinar letters upone confirmatioun of the paroche klerkschipe of Kirklistoun, gevin him be lord of Sanctandrois iure devoluto, quhilk the said Gawand askit to be suspendit, becaus he had appeillit in dew tyme fra the bischopis ordinar letters monitoriales grantit to the said Thomas. And becaus the lordis understude be the dait of the executioun of the ordinar letters and the dait of the said Gawandis appellatioun, producit befoir the lordis, that the said appellatioun wes nocht maid and interponit fra the saidis ordinar letters nor executioun thairof within ten dayis, as accordis of the law and practik, the lordis of Counsall decernit the said Thomas' letters in the four formes nocht to be suspendit, propter notorietatem desertionis appellationis allegate, debito tempore a dictis literis ordinarii non interposite.

<CONTINUED> And als in the said caus the said Thomas producit ane decrete of the lordis of Counsall, decerning the said Thomas' letters to be ordourlie procedit. And the decrete standand (the said Thomas allegit), the said Gawand mycht nocht de novo agere ad suspensionem earundem literarum suarum. Nochttheless the lordis be interlocutour decernit to be procedit upone the secund summondis of the saidis Gawanis, becaus agebatur nunc ad suspensionem literarum predictarum ex nova causa et alia quam ex qua prius agebatur quum decretum fuit contra eum latum. Et sic exceptio rei judicate non debeat ei (ex diversa penitus causa agenti) obstare.

The said day <19 jun. 1542>: A Vallace desyrit the kingis letters, conforme to ane rolment gevin for him aganes ane Robert Guithray, to desist and ceis etc. To stop the gevin of the said letters comperit James Hammyltoun, desyring him to be admittit for his intres, becaus the said Robert wes his subtenent of thai landis, for violent occupatioun of the quhilkis and to desist thairfra the said Robert wes decernit be that rolment. And said becaus he wes takisman of thai landis and in possessioun thairof be his tenentis, and he nevir callit to the said rolment gevin aganes his subtenent Robert foirsaid, thairfoir that the sentence sould nocht preiudge naways, and sua that upone his subtenent suld nocht be gevin letters in the four formes conforme to that rolment, for sua suld he be hurt and vant his tenent, aganes iustice. The lordis be interlocutour decernit letters conforme to the said rolment, nochtwithstanding the said James' allegeance, becaus albeit the sentence culd nocht preiuge the said James, yit he for his intres culd nocht stope the executioun of the rolment aganes the said Robert. Et quia aliter sententia iudicis sepe executionem non haberet, sententia ipsa stante, quhilk of the practik is nocht usit to be. De iure, an tertius comparens pro suo interesse possit et debeat impedire executionem sententie contra alium late, vide Feli., Pan. et alios in cap. Veniens, extra de testi.²¹⁴, et in cap. Cum super, Extra de re iudi.²¹⁵, et Bar. et alios in l. Admonen. § Si super rebus, ff. de re iudi.²¹⁶

²¹⁴Commentaries by Felinus Sandeus and Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) to X 2.20.10, and by other authors.

²¹⁵The same commentators, to X 2.27.17.

²¹⁶Commentaries by Bartolus de Saxoferrato and others on D. 12.2.31. The quote "si super rebus" is perhaps garbled from the preceding quotation, X 2.27.17 "Cum super".

The xx day of junii <1542>: The lordis decernit that Niniane Bannantyne of the Camnis aucht nocht to haif bot the usit males, proffeitis and deweteis of the landis that he held of the laird of Corsby, quha lay out of the superioritie of the landis in defraud of the said Niniane, his vassall. And sua the said superiour aucht to pay to the said vassall the saidis fructis sen he wes requyrit be the said N to entir to his superioritie. And that conforme to the act of parliament maid aganes superiouris in defraud of thair tenentis lyand out of thair superioritie.

The said day <20 jun. 1542>: Johne Baillie callit befoir the lordis of Counsall Mr Johne Spittill, commissar <of> Glasgow, to hear and sie his rentall, that is rentallit in certane landis of the lord Prowand halding of the archebischope of Glasgow, to be reducit. The said commissar exceptit that he wes ane kirkman and the lordis wes na competent judges to him, and sua askit to be remittit to his ordinar. Quhilk exceptioun the lordis be interlocutour admittit and remittit him to his ordinar, nochtwithstanding that Mr Thomas Marioribankis, procuratour for the said Johne, allegit that of the practik of Scotland thair wes na competent judge in reductioun of fewis, 19 yeiris takis or rentallis bot the lordis of Counsall alanerlie. Quhilk allegeance he culd nocht preve.

The said day <20 jun. 1542>: In the caus of the lord Ogilvie contra schir Johne Campbell of Lundie, thair wes certane landis of the said lordis, as pledge and sovirtie for the laird of Doning, comprysit to ane woman callit N. And thai landis being apprysit to hir, scho causit assigne thame for the money to the said schir Johne, quha be ressone thairof obtenit infeftment thairof be the erle of Crawfurde, superiour of the same. Thaireftir the said lord gat the lordis of Counsallis decrete, upone the quhilkis thai landis wes apprysit, reducit, - the said schir Johne nocht callit thairto. And thaireftir the said lord callit the said womanis airis, and that for his entres: to heir that apprysing to be reducit, becaus the decrete, upone the quhilk it passit, wes reducit now.

<CONTINUED> The said Johne schew how he had thai landis titulo oneroso, et petiit diem ad vocandum varrantum suum. The lordis be interlocutour decernit that he aucht nocht now to haiff ony varrand, becaus thair culd na body varrand sic ane proces and thair wes nathing askit heir for him that he had titulo oneroso, for thair wes na questioune of the landis nor reductioun of his infeftment of thai landis, bot alanerlie of the proces of apprysing.

Secoundlie he askit his proces of reductioun of apprysing to be deferrit unto his summondis, ellis tabulat, or the reductioun of the decrete gevin for the lord Ogilvy, reduceand the decrete upone the quhilk the said apprysing wes past, wer first callit. And that becaus the said decrete reductive concernit the said schir Johne and wes gevin he nocht being callit thairto, or at the leist <his calling> had pro deleto, he than beand in the kingis speciall service, sua that he mycht nocht compeir than for his entres, and sua legitima absentia. Allegit that thir summondis <wes> dependand, as said is, for restoring of him in integrum aganes the said decrete reductive, and als retreiting of the samyn aucht to be first decydit or the said decrete reductive wer execute, and be wertew thairof ony proces led for reductioun of the apprysing foirsaid. And to the effect foirsaid producit our soverane lordis letters under his signet. The lordis be interlocutour decernit that the allegeance foirsaid wes nocht relevant, becaus that of the practik petitio restitutionis in integrum vel actio pro reductione alterius decreti intentata non impedit executionem eiusdem decreti,

<CONTINUED> and als becaus our soverane lordis previe letters aucht nocht to be obeyit for stopping or hindering of iustice conforme to the act maid thairupone.

And als in the samyn caus the lordis fand that nether the act of parliament spekand of reductioun of inordinar pleis to be callit within thre yeiris nor yit the act of apprisit landis to be redemit within vii yeiris culd haiff place in this cace and stop the reductioun of this apprysing, quia acta loquuntur in diversis casibus, ut ex eorum inspectione licet cognoscere.

20 junii 1542: Thair was certane landis of my lord Ogilvies comprysit be ane woman, unto quhom the said lord becam cawtione for gryt soumes of money for the laird of K. The quhilk being apprysit, the said woman assignit thame in solutum to schir John Campbell of Lundie, quha thairefter obtenit infeftment of the samyn fra the earle of Craufurd superiour thairoff. Thairefter my lord Ogilvie obtenit ane decreit quhairupone the comprysing following reducit, and thairefter summondit the said woman and the said schir Johne: to heir and sie the proces of apprysing (with all that followit thairupone) to be reducit. Compeirit the said schir Johne Campbell and alledgit that he had the landis titulo oneroso, and desyrit ane day to call his warrand. It was ansuerit that he aucht to haiff no day, for the thing that was socht was the reductione of ane decreit and proces off apprysing and off the law no decreittis nor sentences of the law aucht to be warrandit that per consequentiam it wald tak away his infeftment off the landis the quhilkis he had titulo oneroso. The lordis pronuncit be interloquitor that thai wald give no day to call the warrand.

The xxii of junii <1542>: Margaret Jardane, relict of umquhile Johne Glaidstaines of that ilk, askit the lord Somerwell to be compellit to pay to hir the males of hir terce landis, rasit be him sen the deceis of umquhile schir James Hamyltoun, superiour of the landis of Libertoun, quha wes for trasone iustefeit. The said lord allegit that he had gottin be the kingis gift the saidis landis of Libertoun, propirtie and tenendrie, and sua that the said terce fell in foirfaltour als weill as the laif of the landis. The lordis be sentence decernit that becaus the said Margaretis terce fell befoir the said schir James superiouris foirfaulting, that the samyn terce culd nocht be apprehendit thairin, and sua that for the said Margaretis lyfetyme scho suld bruik hir said teirce without ony compositioune of the said lord, donatour to the king to the landis foirsaidis that come in his graice handis be resone of the said schir James foirfaltour.

22 junii 1542: Thair was ane Margaret Jardane, the spous of umquhill John Gladstones of that ilk. Persewit the lord Somervell for profeittis and deweties of hir landis pertening to hir be terce and tane up be hir sen the deceis of umquhill schir James Hamiltone superiour of Libertoun and of hir terce landis. It was ansuerit be the said lord that scho aucht no profeitis nor meallis of the landis: Becaus of foirfaltour of the said schir James, he had gottin the gift of the landis of Libertoun to him baith of propertie and tenandrie. And sua hir terce landis became under foirfaltour. To this was ansuerit that scho was servit in hir terce befoir the tyme of the said foirfaltour and sua scho could nocht be comprehendit thairintill nor aucht to pay na compositioun to the kingis donatour. The quhilk alledgance the lordis admittit and fand relevant.

The 24 of junii <1542>: The lordis decernit assythment for the slauchter of David Forus of Hadingtoun, committit be the laird of Clerkintoun, alsweill to the said Davidis bastardis as to his laufull bairnes, bot <nocht> equall. For ilk laufull dochter gat ii^c xxv merkis, the bastard dochter bot xl libs. The eldest laufull sone and air to the said David gat ii^cmerkis, the secound sone ane c. libs., the bastard sone xl merkis. The assythment of the haill wes ix^cmerkis, becaus the said David Forus wes ane rycht honest substantius man and als the said laird wes ane riche man.

The samyn tyme <jul. 1542>: Anent the assythment of the slachter of ane David Forres burgess of Hadingtoun committit be the laird of Clarkingtoune, the lordis fand that the bastard bairne aucht and sould haiff assythment als weill as the laufull gottin, bot nocht alyik in degrue and quantitie. And in this caice ilk laufull dochter gatt the soume of ii^cmarkis, and ilk bastard bot xl li.

The 24 of junii <1542>: Mr James Murray obtenit collatioun ordinar of the vicarage of Carnbie and thair ordinar letters thairupone, and conforme thairto the kingis letters in the four formes upone the parochenaris. Thaireftir Mr William Blair gat the said Mr James' collatioun and ordinar letters following thairupone reducit and retreitit be the officiall of Sanctandrois, iuge in that cace, and gat ane collatioun of the said vicarage fra my lord of Sanctandrois, - fra the quhilkis officialls sentence the said Mr James appeillit ad curiam Romanam - and the ordinar letters thairupone to obey the said Mr William and conforme thairto the kingis letters in the four formes, the said Mr James appelatioun beand dependand. And than the said Mr James callit him to heir his said kingis <letters in the four formes decernit reducit or suspendit becaus thai wes inordourlie rasit the said Mr James' utheris> letters standand and nocht reducit, and sic per subreptionem et obreptionem tacita veritate, viz. that the said Mr James wes under his appellatioun, and nocht makand mentioun that the said Mr <James'> utheris letters in the four formes wes yit standand. The said Mr William allegit that the saidis kingis letters wer weill gevin, conforme to the ordinar letters past thairupone his collatioun, and thairfoir aucht nocht to be reducit nor suspendit. The lordis be decrete decernit the said Mr William' letters to be ewill procedit becaus thai wer obtenit the said Mr James' utheris letters standand and nocht reducit, and thairfoir suspendit the samyn simpliciter. And fand that the said Mr James' letters wer nocht suspendit be the sentence reductive of his collatioun, becaus he had appeillit thairfra, and the appellatioun yit dependand.

The said day <24 jun. 1542>: The lordis decernit ane notar publict callit N Scheves to be absolvit a falso intentato contra eum, quia per instrumentum suum constabat de sententia cuiusdam vicecomitis lata uno die et de continewatione eiusdem curie et cause facte illo die per eum vicecomitem, et hoc per actum quoddam curie, factum eodem die, per eundem notarium scriptum et signatum. Hec duo, licet contraria videantur, quod tamen potuit eodem die intervenire successive. Ideo domini Consilii a falso absolverunt eundem.

The 27 of junii <1542>: The lordis decernit certane tenentis of the baronie of Libertone to ansuer of the males to William Snype, conforme to ane rolment of the schireff of N gevin aganes thame for the said William be the said schireff. It wes understand be the lordis that the said William had bene in possessioun of uptaking of the males and had gud titill to uptak the same, nochtwithstanding the lord Somerwell schew how thai landis wes haldin of schir James Hammyltoun and be him of the said lord, and be the saidis schir James' foirfaltour in his handis as superiouris handis thairof, and wes in his handis be that ressone ay and quhill the king presentit ane tenent to him in the said schir James' place, and sua durand that tyme the tenentis suld obey him. And als thaireftir the said lord obtenit the kingis gift of the samyn landis that schir James held of him, and sua tenendrie consolidat with his superioritie in his persone be new infeftment thairupone obtenit be him fra the king, and sua sen that tyme the tenentis suld ansuer to him of thair maillis. Quhilkis lordis allegeance the lordis of Counsall repellit, becaus the uthir man wes in possessioun cum titulo, as the rolment of court buir, and sua the tenentis aucht to obey him ay and quhill he wer lawfullie callit and ordourlie put thairfra, quia in caussis of doubill poinding, of the practik, the lordis consideris alanerlie quhilkis of the pretendaris <wes> in possessioun realie cum titulo, and disputis nocht quhilk of thair titillis is iustest, nor yit upone the ground rycht and propirtie of the landis. Sententia preiudicat iis inter quos non est lata: ut sententia predicta sic obstitit dicto domino Somerwell, qui non interfuit - contra rubricam "Res inter alias actas", C.²¹⁷.

²¹⁷Rubric C. 7.60 in its medieval wording "Res inter alios actas vel iudicatas aliis non nocere". The principle is also stated in D. 12.2.10, D. 20.4.16 in fine, D. 44.2.1 and in other texts.

The 27 of junii <1542>: The laird of Inneis callit William Gardnar of Elgin for the proffeitis, maillis and deweteis of certane landis pertening to the said laird in heretage, of quhilkis the said William ves retourit and sasit and thairthrow uptuik the proffetis foirsaidis. The said William allegit that, becaus he wes servit and enterit thairto, albeit his retour wes now reducit, yit he aucht nocht to refound agane to the said laird bot the bair males of thai landis conforme to his retour, siclyk as use is quhair the landis had bene in non-entres. The lordis decernit the said lairdis petitioun iust, for he clamit alanerlie the proffeitis intromettit with be the said William, and nocht quhilkis he mycht haiff gottin. And sen the said Williames retour wes reducit, it wer nocht resonabill that he sould haiff ony proffeit thairof sine titulo.

24 junii 1543: The laird of Innes, haiffand reducit ane retour and seasing of ane William Gardiner in Elgin of Murrey of certane landis quhilk pertenit heretablie to the said laird, persewit the said William for the proffeitis, maillis and dewties of the saidis landis. William ansuerit and allegit that, he being once servit and retourit and seasit in the landis, albeit the retour thairefter reducit with all that followit thairupone, yit he aucht to pay no moir to the said laird bot the meallis and dewties quhilk war retourit in the service of the retour and thairin contenit, sic as hes bein in use quhen landis hes bein in non-entres. The lordis decernit the said William, becaus his retour was reducit, to pay the profeittis of the landis et fructus perceptos, sed non qui percipi potuerunt²¹⁸, and fand it nocht sufficient to pay onlie the retourit maillis, bot also the profeit that had bein gottin of the saidis landis.

²¹⁸See C. 7.51.2.

The 11 of julii <1542>: In causa Isobelle (ut recordor) Scrimgeour contra Joannem Ogilvie de Dunsyd, the said woman had hir summondis of spuilyie callit aganes him be the tabill and ane terme set to hir to preve, and that day scho comperit nocht, nor yit maid ony probatioun. The morne eftir the said Ogilvy protestit quod <Scrimgeour> cederet ei pro termino. And thaireftir agane the said Ogilvy comperit about thre or four monethis, and that samyn summondis being callit agane be the tabill, he protestit agane as use is. Now the woman intentit ane new summondis contra him upone the samyn that hir uther summondis wer of. He sayis he suld haiff his expensis of tua protestatiounis wer of. He sayis he suld haiff his expensis of tua protestatiounis foirsaidis or he answer to hir. Scho sayis for the first protestatioun he aucht nocht to have, becaus he is gane fra it followand the summondis laitlie callit and protestand contra it. Et sic tacite videtur renunciasse protestationi prius facte contra actum probationis. Et ab ullo processu recessit per hunc actum contra eum, quia ultimi actus semper dirogant prioribus, cum simull stare nequevunt, ut in hoc casu of thir tua protestationis, quia protestatio contra actum requirit absolutoriam finem, protestatio vero secunda contra summonitionem perimit non actionem et causam, sed instantiam tantum, ut reus nisi de novo citatus et expensis sibi refusis respondere non teneatur. Et sic altera protestatio, viz. secunda, ostendit reum velle adhuc litigare et perimit priorem, quia liti finem imponere debebat. The lordis of Counsall decernit reum videri recessisse a priori protestatione per secundam, et illa priore non obstante, licet absolutoriam sententiam eius pretextu reus <petere> poterat, per ipsum responderi debere in causa, eo quia procedendo super summonitionem per secundam protestationem videtur recessisse a priori processu.

3 julii 1542: Into the tyme of redemptione of landis betuix James Scrimgeour and John Kinnard, the said Johne alledgit the landis nocht laufullie redemit becaus the said James held still in his handis the money contenit in the reversione, nather consignit nor yit deponit the samyn in any uther manes handis conforme to the use observit in redemptione of landis. To this was ansuerit that he had fulfillit the contentis of the reversione, in sa far as he had offerit the silver reallie and with effect to the constabill of Dundie, as the reversione buir incaice of the refusall of ressawing of it to consigne the samyn into his handis, and becaus the constabill refuisit to ressave the same, he keipit it still in his awin handis, the quhilk he mycht do²¹⁹. The lordis fand be interloquitour that he mycht keip the samyn in his awin handis, and sua fand the landis laufullie redemitt.

²¹⁹Because this was a case of "mora creditoris".

The 12 of julii <1542>: In causa Jacobi Keir contra Willielmum Jacobum Keiris, quia reus exceptionem peremptoriam per eum expositam non probavit, ideo tota petitio actoris habita est pro probata. Et hoc de practica dominorum Consilii. Et sic actor non tenetur <veritatem> alterius, quorumcunque libellatorum per ipsum, probare.

Eodem die <12 jul. 1542>: In causa domini de Glenkinde contra certos tenentes domini de Erskin pro astrictione eorum <in> multuris, witnes wes producit pro secunda productione per ipsum actorem, reis contumacibus. In hoc secundo termino ad probandum comperit the said laird and wes admittit pro suo interesse in statu in quo causa tunc erat. Mr Hew Rig allegit that, becaus witnessis wer ellis producit in this caus, that as reus principalis non deberet admitti ad peremptoriam, ita nec tertius nunc pro suo interesse comparens. The lordis be interlocutour decernit that iste dominus Erskin comparens pro suo interesse deberet admitti adhuc ad peremptorias, et ideo decreverunt ei copiam summonitionis principalis, et terminum ad peremptorias proponendas statuerunt ei.

The 13 day of julii <1542>: Jonet Stradaquhy had certane landis of the laird of Moncreif haldin of the erle of Anguis, quhilk be his foirfaltour become in kingis handis and wes disponit be his graice to the erle of Argyle in the kingis less aige and gevin to the said Jonet agane be the said erle. And thaireftir wer gevin to the said lairdis men in lyfrent and him in fie, and yit be the kingis generall revocatioun become agane in the kingis handis. And the said laird wes in possessioun thairof be vertew of his infeftment. Now the said Jonet callit the said laird for the wrangus, violent uptaking fra hir of the males and deweteis of thai landis pertening to hir, be reasone scho wes thairin infeft. And libellit na possessioun. The laird allegit that he did na wrang thairintill, becaus he wes in possessioun cum titulo. And schew chartour and seasing. The lordis decernit the said Jonettis libell irrelevant, becaus scho libellit na possessioun, and als that ane man beand in possessioune cum <titulo> colorato, sa lang as his titill is unreducit, committis na wrang to tak up the males and deweteis of thai landis.

The 14 day of julii <1542>: The lordis absolvit ut libellatur the laird of Calder fra ane summondis of wrangus intrometting with the males and deweteis of the landis of Mois, rasit at the laird of Inneis' instance, becaus that the said Inneis libellit nocht that he wes in possessioun of the landis afoir the terme libellit, albeit he schew heretabill infeftment thairof. And the laird of Calder schew his infeftment and that he wes in possessioune be vertew thairof. And sua, he beand in possessioun cum titulo, intromettit iustlie ay and quhill the titill wes reducit.

The 15 of julii <1542>: The lordis absolvit simpliciter the laird of Siefeild²²⁰ fra the wrangus and violent occupatioun of the ane half of the vicar of Kingornes kirkland and the waist of the uther half contenit in the said vicaris summondis, rasit aganes the said laird upone the act of adiornall, in the quhilk wes contenit how the said laird, being indytit, come in the kingis will and fand cautioun for satisfactioun of pairtie, becaus the said laird in the iusticeair protestit that he mycht haiff all his defensis in civill iudgement, gif ony man eftirwart had persewit him for thai crymes. And becaus the confessioun in sic iusticeairis ar communlie maid ex iusto metu and the said vicar culd nocht preve his allegeance befoir the lordis utherwyis, albeit he producit divers witnessis to that effect befoir the lordis, thairfoir the lordis gave absolvitour.

²²⁰Same case in 128-130 and (in a later stage of procedure) in nr. 150.

16 julii 1543: The laird of Seafeild was persewit for the wrangous and violent occupatione of the ane halff of the kirk landis for the vicarage of Kirkcaldie and for the leiving of the uther pairt waist. And the said laird, being indyttit in ane justice court, becum in the kingis will and stand cautione for the satisfaction of the pairt, as was at lenth contenit in the act of adjurnall past thairupone. It was answerit be the laird that, albeit he confest the deid and he becum in the kingis will, yit he protestit that he sould gang fra nane of his defences in the civill judgement. And sua the said confessioun, except uther probatione sufficient war led and producit, could nocht prejudge him, becaus that the confessione that is maid in the justice court or airis est quasi extorta ex justo metu. The lordis thairfoir assolyeit the said laird fra the spuilyie in respect of his protestatioun.

The said day <15 jul. 1542>: The lordis in lykwyis absolvit ane Wilsone fra ane summondis rasit upone ane act of adjornall be Mr. Andro Blakstok and Mr James Maitland, assignay to N. Ammilget principall in the said act, becaus reus ostendit quod erat protestatus in curia iusticiarii pro omnibus suis defensionibus in causa civili, si forte contigerit agi contra ipsum ad res in dicto acto contentas per conquerentem. And becaus the said Wilsone denyit ane pairt of the guidis, viz. iii oxin, confessit be him in the said act, and Mr Andro culd nocht preve the samyn spuilyeit be him as the act contentit, and als Mr Hew Rig prewit the just apprysing of ane uther pairt of thai gudis, allegit spuilyeit fra the said Ammilgat as the said Wilsone confessit in the said act, the lordis absolvit the said Wilsone, eo quod confessio ea videbatur facta metu mortis in causa criminali. Et ideo quia reus in causa non perferabat(?), ideo non probatur plane.

The said day <15 jul. 1542>: Ane Patrik Home wes callit at the kingis instance to heir his infeftment of the landis of Barde reducit. He desyrit ane day to call his varrand, becaus he had thame titulo oneroso, viz. sauld to him. The kingis advocat allegit: "Na varrand suld be grantit aganes the king"²²¹. The lordis be interlocutour decernit him ane day to call his varrand, viz. the airis of him quhomefra he coft thai landis. And the lordis fand, the practik wes nocht in the contrair. Bot of the practik the kingis varrandis na man, and sua he can nocht be callit in varrand. Sed contra ipsum agentem bene datur reo terminus ad vocandum alium in varrantum suum.

²²¹Principle as quoted in nr. 326.

The said xv day <jul. 1542>: Talis causa erat: Mr Adame Mwir obtenit collatioun and ordinar letters of the vicarage of Kyndumme and the letters in the four formes thairupone. Mr Alexander Kyd gat that collatioun and ordinar letters reducit, becaus he wes of befoir provydit in curia Romana of that vicarage, per resignationem magistri Jacobi Lyndsay and <obtenit> thairupone letters in the four formes. Mr Adame appeillit fra the said sentence retractive of his collatioun. And the lordis decernit the said Mr Adames letters in the four formes to haiff effect and to stand, becaus he wes under his appellatioun, and thairfoir suspendit the said Mr Alexanderis letters.

Thairfoir the parochinaris callit thame bayth to produce thair letters in the four formes and thair rychtis quairby ather of thame intendit to compell thame to mak payment of the fructis of the vicarage, and that the lordis mycht to decerne to quhilk of thame thai mycht answer. And than the lordis decernit thame to obey and pay thair dewteis to the said Mr Adame, quia erat sub appellatione sua.

And than callit the parochenaris the said Mr Adame to produce his said kingis letters and to heir the said fourte forme thairin contenit suspendit, becaus thair wes na cursing yit rasit upone thame. And sua the horning aucht nocht, nor suld nocht haiff bene gevin and aucht to be suspendit. And be the saidis parochinaris procuratour Mr James McGill wes allegit that the samyn sould be done, becaus, cursing nocht being gevin be the ordinar, the fourt forme can nocht be gevin of the practik and aucht to be reducit in that cace, as wes laitlie practicat in ane caus of the paroche clerkschip of Kirklistoun, quhilk four formes wes decernit to be ewill gevin upone sempill monitoriallis and na cursing rasit, and als, albeit the parochinaris wer ellis (as said is) decernit to obey the said Mr Adame, de qua sententia exceperunt procuratores magistri Adami rei, yit McGill allegit that sententia suld nocht obstare actoribus in hoc casu, eo quia lata fuit ex alia causa, non ex ea ex qua nunc agitur. Et ideo exceptio rei iudicate non debet obstare, as wes in simili causa nuper practicatum, xix junii anno etc <1542> in causa clericatus parochialis de Kirklistoun inter Thomam Vas et Gavinum Dundas. Nochttheless the lordis decernit the parochenaris to obey the said Mr Adame, and als the letters in all the four formes ordourlie procedit in respect of the first sentence, as yit standand unreducit, gevin that the parochenaris suld answer to him and nocht to Mr Alexander. Attamen ex allegatis causis in contrarium per magistrum Jacobum McGill, videbatur mihi dubie that the fourt forme of horning suld haiff bene reducit and decernit ewill rasit, for the caus foirsaid.

16 julii 1542: The laird of Glenbervie persewit certane tenentis of my lord Earskines for thair thirle multures. Witnessis being producit pro secunda productione per ipsum actorem, reis semper absentibus et contumacibus, compeirit my lord Earskin and desyrit to be admittit for his entres in statu et casu in quo nunc erat. And the uther pairtie alledgit that, becaus thair was witnessis els ressavit in the caus and probatione deducit, the defender wald nocht be hard thaireftir to propone any peremptour defence or alledgance. Sua in lyik maner the thrid persone aucht nocht to be hard for his entres to propone any <dilatour> or peremptour, in respect of the probatione alreddie deducit. The lordis yit admittit the said lord for his entres and sett ane terme to him to propone his peremptour exceptiones²²².

²²²This was generous! See the much stricter rule in nr. 115, with note.

The tent day of julii <1542>: Hew Douglas aganes the kingis advocat allegit that he wes in possessioun of certane landis and scheip gevin to him be the laird of Dunlanrik. And he being at the horne now, to seclude the escheit of the said scheip and to preve his possessioun lang of befoir the said laird past to the horne, producit witnessis. And becaus the lordis understude that in this cace the laird mycht tyne and win incace he war relaxit fra the horne, thairfoir the lordis repellit him as suspect to beir witnes in this cace, and thame that war familiar servandis, tender, houshald or tenentis nocht heretabill to the said laird, the tyme he past to the horne, and within gre discendand to him, becaus the lordis knew be apperance evident, thai vald be evir partiall in this caus for affectioun thai had toward the said laird, cuius status adhuc erat in pendenti.

The 21 of julii <1542>: The commendatour of the priorie of Sanctandrois callit the bischope of Dunkeld befoir the lordis of Counsall, to heir and sie ane xix yeir tak of certane landis of the said priorie, set to the said bischope, be reducit. He exceptit be Mr James Macgill his procuratour that he aucht nocht to answer befoir the temporall judges, becaus he wes ane kirkman. It wes replyit that in reductioun of xix yeiris takis the lordis war alanerlie juges to all men, bayth spirituall and temporall, and that na uther spirituall or temporall may cognosce in sic caussis bot the lordis alanerlie, of the practik and use of Scotland. And to verafie the practik, thair wes producit ane act of the saidis lordis of Counsall upone ane yeir syne of thairby, in the quhilk wes contenit that the lordis of Counsall put inhibitioun to the officiall of Sanctandrois that he suld nocht cognosce upone the reductioun of xix yeiris takis, for reductioun of the quhilk thair wes ane preist and ane uthir secular man, quhilkis baith wes in the tak, callit befoir the said officiall. And that becaus the lordis understude, of the consuetude of this realme thair wes na competent judges to cognosce upone the reductioun of sic takis bot the lordis of sessioun alanerlie. And sua, becaus the said act and decrete of the lordis buir that it wes the consuetude of this realme, the said commendataris procuratouris <allegit> that the lordis aucht to proceid upone this mater aganis the said bischope.

<CONTINUED> Nochttheles the lordis of Counsall thocht that illa verba narrativa decreti prefati non probabant practicam contra ecclesiasticas personas. And thairfoir, conforme to the commoun law, thai by thair decrete and sentence remittit the said bischope to his ordinar juge ecclesiasticall, becaus thai culd nocht understand the consuetude allegit in the contrair to be trew in the selff, nor yit thair wes ony sic practik or consuetude in sic caussis aganes kirkmen.

The 24 of julii anno eodem <1542>, casus erat talis: Thair wes certane landis apprysit fra the laird of Touche to N., quha in the tyme of the apprysing causit to assigne thame to the laird of Keir for the sowme aucht to the said N. The quhilk laird Keir gat infeftment thairof fra the erle of Huntlie, immediatlie superiour of thame to the said laird Towche. And thaireftir the said laird Keir sauld thame to William Carnicros, to be haldin of the said laird Keir. The laird Towche maid Adame Hoppringall assignay to redeme thame within sewin yeiris, as the act of parliament beris. And the said Adame maid warning to the said William to resave his money, and consignit it as use is and libellit the same. Mr Thomas Marioribankis allegit that the summondis wer nocht relevant, becaus the said Adame libellit nocht that he had consignit nor yit offerit the expensis maid upone the infeftment gaitting upone the apprysing, and that the act of parliament beris that the sowme principall and expensis sould be offerit within vii yeiris. The uthir pairtie replyit that he aucht nocht to offer sic expensis to the said William, becaus he maid nane upone the infeftment obtenit upone the apprysing. And sua he had na actioun to ask expensis. And sua in respect of him the uther pairtie aucht nocht to haiff offerit ony sic expensis. The lordis be interlocutour for the caus foirsaid decernit the summondis relevant, and that, in respect of this pairtie to quhome the landis wes nocht apprysit, the uther pairtie aucht nocht to pay the expensis maid upone the infeftment. And this caus the act speikis nocht. And sua the act comprehendis bot thame that maid the expensis upone the apprysit landis, the samyn being redemit be the said persones.

24 julii <1542 or 1543>: Thair was certane landis apprysit be A.B. fra the laird of Touch. Quhilk A.B. thairefter assignit the said landis to the laird of Keir for payment of certane soumes auchtand be him to Keir. The laird of Keir obtenit infeftment fra the earle of Huntlie, immediat superiour thairoff. Thairefter the laird of Keir disponit thaim to William Cairnecros haldin of himselff. Within vii yeir ane Hoppringill in the name of the laird of Touch warnit and socht the landis to be reducit and offerit the money for the quhilk thai war comprysit and numerat and consignit the same. It was allegit aganes the summondis that thai war nocht relevant becaus he had nocht lybellit that he had offerit the expensis maid upon the infeftment obtenit upon the comprysing, and that conforme to the act of parliament the principall soume with the expensis sould be offerit. It was answerit that the said William maid na expensis upone the infeftment in obteining the comprysing and sua had na actione to desyr the expensis. The quhilk the lordis fand relevant and sua fand be interloquitour that the pairtie onlie that maid the expensis (upone the infeftment obtenit upone the comprysing) had actione to seik the expensis.

The said day <24 jul. 1542>, casus erat talis: William Ramsay induellar in Breichine obtenit ane rolment of court, decernand the laird of Arnot to desist and ceis fra x merkis worth of his landis of Arrot lyand at the sone, and upone this rolment obtenit letters in the four formes aganes the said laird, quha callit thame to be suspendit, becaus the decrete and rolment wes generall and tellit nocht quhat ten merk land it spak. And thair wes(?) l. merk land lyand in the place specifeit in the rolment. And sua said he that the saidis letters sould ceis ay and quhill it war declarit quhilk war the x merk landis. The lordis decernit the saidis letters to ceis and to be suspendit usque ad liquidationem terrarum earundem.

The said day <24 jul. 1542>: The lordis decernit ane publict instrument producit be Eduard Stewart aganes Johne Merschell to mak na fayth, becaus it buir nocht in quhat toun the samyn wes tane, albeit it said "acta" etc. "in domo Joannis Paislay", and becaus it tellis nocht quhair the said hous is, thairfoir that defectu loci non probat. De hoc vide in script. in cap. Abbate, de re iudi.²²³, Pan. in cap. 1^o, de fide instrumentorum, extra²²⁴.

²²³Commentaries to 6. 2.14.3 [to the point].

²²⁴Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.22.1.

The 23 novembris anno 1542: The lordis decernit Robert than bischope of Ros to pay na expensis of play befoir the lordis, quhilk wes intentit be Robert Bruce younger anent the reductioun of ane rolment of the bailleis of the Cannongait gevin for the said bischope, than abbote of Halirudehous aganes Robert Bruce, eldar, the said rolment beand reducit be the lordis. Ratio erat becaus the said bischope had probabilem causam litigandi in ista secunda instantia²²⁵ and the caus that came befoir the lordis wes verray doutsome and the first sentence gevin for him thairupone, viz. that the lowsing of the arreistment sould be provin per scripta, as the said bailleis decernit, albeit the lordis decernit in that caus it mycht be etiam per testes²²⁶, quhilk thing de practica regni ante erat valde dubitatum. Sed vide Pan. in cap. Finem litib., Extra de dolo et contumacia²²⁷.

²²⁵This point was controversial in Ius Commune, as explained at nr. 33. See the contrasting decision there!

²²⁶The same parties litigate in nr. 194. Similar legal problem in nrs. 24, 194, 425.

²²⁷Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X. 2.14.5.

The said day <29 nov. 1542>: The lordis decernit ane libell gevin in befoir the officiall of Lowthiane for delyvering of ane reversioun be vertew of ane promis and obligatioun, maid be N. to N. and fayth of bodie interponit thairupone, it being civill and prophane becaus it concernit heretage and sua aucht of the consuetude of the realme to be decidit alanerlie befoir the lordis of Counsall. And thairfoir thai inhibit the officiall, nochtwithstanding fidei interventione, ratione cuius it wes allegit that it mycht be callit in the consistorie, per cap. fi., de fo. co., in vi^o228. To the quhilk it wes ansuerit that of the consuetude sic materis pertendis alanerlie to the lordis. And na uther judge may mell thairwith. In simili dicitur of redemptioun of landis.

²²⁸6. 2.2.2 [to the point]; same topic in nr. 254, with note.

The said day <29 nov. 1542>: The lordis decernit ane petitioun of Joannes Mak anent certane leid, allegit bocht be the abbote of Cambuskenneth fra him and his brother and na payment thairfoir maid to thame be the space of xvi yeiris, to the said Johnis preiff, nochtwithstanding the abbote allegit that of sa lang he aucht nocht to ansuer for ony merchandice coft, nor yit praif payment thairof, becaus it wer ane preiudiciall thing gif everie man wer compellit to pruif payment of all merchandyce quhilk thai had coft sa lang syne. Quhilk allegeance wes repellit, quia de iure regni actioni personali non prescribitur nisi quadraginta(?) annis.

The last day of julii anno 1542: The laird of Lawreistoun (ut recordor) aganes David Wood, comptrollar to the king, than intentit ane actioun for reducing of ane decrete of the lordis of Counsall anent certane landis gevin for the said David aganes the said lairdis father be vertew of ane obligatioun in writ producit than be the said David. For reductioun of the decrete the said laird libellit that it wes gevin be vertew of that obligatioun, quhilk he now allegit wes fals, and askit the samyn to be producit for impreving thairof. The lordis decretit be interlocutour that this caus wes nocht relevant now nor to be admittit, quia pater eius in prima instantia non excipiendo de falsitate, imo proponendo aliam exceptionem quae presupponebat obligationem illam veram, tacite visus est illam approbare. Et quod, si ille viveret, non esset iam audiendus ad improbandum quod semel pater eius approbavit, ut predicitur. Ideo nec esse admittendum istum dominum Lawreistoun heredem aut saltem successorem ad hoc allegandum, for he now being in the place and rycht alanerlie of the uther man de iure exceptio falsitatis post sententiam <non> possit opponi.

Ultimo julii 1542: The laird of Laurestoun persewit David Vode comptroler for the reductioun off ane decreit gevin at the instance of the said David aganis his father, be vertew of ane obligatione maid be the said lairdis father to the said David. The ressone of the summondis was that the decreit was gevin be vertew of the said obligatione quhilk was fals and fenyeit in the selff²²⁹, and he offerit to improve the same. It was answerit that he aucht nocht now to be hard for to quarrell the said obligatione, be resson of: his father (quha was the maker thairoff) had in ane maner ratifiet the same, becaus it being producit, he allegit na thing aganes the treuth thairoff, bot proponit sum uther defence, et sic videbatur tacite approbasse, and giff now the sone wald quarrell the deid of his father quhilk war inhonest, videbatur revelare turpitudinem paternam, et sic non audiendus. To this was answerit quod jam agitur in secunda instancia, in qua fraus semper est audienda etiam post latam sententiam: extra de exceptione²³⁰, to propone that quhilk was ather throw slewfulnes or of ignorance pretermittit be his father. The lordis pronuncit that the sone could nocht be hard now in the secund instance to improve the thing that was ratifiet in the first instance be the father, and sua wald nocht reduce upone that heid.

²²⁹See note to nr. 55.

²³⁰X 2.25 [not specifically to the point].

The 6 day of december anno 1542: Thair wes ane summondis rasit be Mr Jone Hay of Feinyeine aganes Robert Diksone, of reductioun of the said Robertis infeftment of certane landis haldin be him of the said Mr Johne, becaus the said infeftment wes gevin with conditioun that it suld be null in the selff quhen the said Robert resavit nocht the said Mr Johne in the toure of the saidis landis quhen he desyrit to be thairin upone his awin expensis, and that the said Mr Johne requyrit the said Robert for entrie in the place conforme to his conditioun and obligatioun maid thairupone and the said Robert refusit to resave him, and sua askit his infeftment to be reducit. The said Robert allegit that the instrument producit in writ be the said Mr Johne wes fals, in probatioun of the quhilk exceptioun he failyeit. The lordis decretit the infeftment to be reducit for the caus foirsaid and libellit, albeit the said Mr Johne previt nocht the requisitioun allegit in his summondis, for of the practik, peremptoria exceptione contra aliquam partem libelli proposita simpliciter, videtur reus reliqua contenta in illo confiteri, nisi expresse protestetur de contrario.

<1542-1543?> Thair was ane Hay of Fenyie that persewit for the reductione of ane infeftment maid be ane Robert Dicksoun of certane landis haldin of Mr Johne Hay. The resson of the summondis was that he had nocht fulfillit ane conditione that was²³¹ contenit within the infeftment, quhilk was to ressave the said Mr Johne in the tour of the landis quhen soewer he pleasit and maid laufull requisitione. The uther pairtie Dicksoun tuik to imprebe the instrument: quairintill he failyeit. The mater being at the adwysing befoir the lordis, it was alledgit be Dicksone his procuratour that, albeit he had failyeit in the improbatione, he aucht to prowe the ressone of the summondis quhilk buir oft and sindrie requisitiones. It was alledgit in the contrair that in respect he <(=Dicksoun)> had succumbit in improbatione of ane peremptour exceptione, he <(=Hay)> was releivit ab onere probandi libellum. The lordis fand be interloquitour that he misterit nocht to prove the ressone off the summondis, and sua reducit the said infeftment. Et quod peremptoria exceptione contra aliquam partem libelli proposita simpliciter videtur reus aliqua contenta in libello confiteri, nisi expresse profiteretur in contrarium²³².

²³¹MS wrongly adds "not".

²³²This turns a rule of Ius-Commune upside down: see note to nr. 414.

The 9 of december or thairby the yeir foirsaid <1542>: The lordis be interlocutour decernit that acta iudicialia mycht nocht of the practik probari bot per scripta. And thairfoir in ane caus movit be ane puir woman of Brechene aganes Jonet Maccall for accusing hir wranguslie of certane thift, of the quhilk scho wes maid quyt be ane assys, and thairfoir the said Jonet aucht to pay hir be act of parliament x li. for amendis, the lordis vald nocht admit the judge and baillie and certane utheris famous men, that wes upone the said vomanis assys, to preif that the said Jonet accusit hir.

<In canon law, the principle that procedural acts may only be proven by means of written court records was enacted in a decree by the Fourth Lateran Council, anno 1215.>

About the samyn tyme <jul. 1543>: Thair was ane puir woman that persewit ane Johne McGill for the wrangous accusatione and defamatione of hir, forasmeilkill as he had accusit hir off theift befoir the bailyie of the regalitie of Broughtone. And scho was acquyt be ane assys. And thairfoir he aucht to pay to hir the act of parliament, to wit the soume of x li. Scho, nocht haifand any wreit to prowe the said accusatione, bot wald haiff prowin the samyn be the judges, assyse and famous witnesses. The quhilk the lordis repellit, quia non creditur processus nisi quatenus constat actis iudicialibus²³³, and that all actes and wreitis judiciall may nocht be prowin bot be wreit.

²³³Procedural reform, brought about in canon law by the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

The 12 day of the moneth foirsaid <dec. 1542>, the cace wes this: James Ker of Mersyntoun wes condamnit to the woman callit Rutherfurd in ane thowsand merkis be the officiall of Lowthiane. This sentence wes reducit in causa appellationis be the officiall principall of Sanctandrois in Sanctandrois. The secund sentence wes reducit and the first confirmit be ane Magregor delegat of the pape, to quhome it wes appeillit fra the said sentence. Upone this Magregor sentence wes cursing rasit and letter of apprysing aganes the said James, albeit he had appeillit fra the last sentence. And the said James askit the said kingis letters to be suspendit, causante sua appellatioun, conforme to the law. The uther pairtie Mr Nicholl Rutherfurd, executor to the said woman, allegit that of the practik, quhair ane hes tua sentences for him, albeit the uther pairtie haiff ane in the contrair, executionem literarum regiarum levatarum, super executione levata super illis sententiis conformibus et altera earum, conforme to the act of parliament maid upone cursit folkis non debet appellatio ab ultima sententia confirmatoria prime interposita impedire. Et quod, ea non obstante, dicte litere regie dictam executionem <possunt> mandare, data cautione per appellatum appellanti de refundendo eidem quod virtute literarum predictarum captum fuerit, casu quo appellans obtinuerit. And this practik wes allegit be the lordis in causa Jamesone contra Jamesoun of Couper in the moneth of etc, as that sentence and decret of the lordis buir. The lordis of Counsall continewit this mater unto the 2 day of J., bot the practik is as aboue(?) allegit in the caus of David Jamesone aganes Alane Jamesone, as the lordis decrete in the buikis of Counsall beiris of the dait at Edinburgh the 13 Decembris anno 1541, as ye may sie.

In the said moneth anno predicto <dec. 1542>: The lordis decernit in ane caus of Cunynghame contra alium quendam Cunynghame that, albeit the ane of thame had be gift of waird the landis and fortalice of N., and the waird being outrun the uther gat asedatioun of the saidis landis and tour of the heritour, and that the uther, being inclusit within terminis, that he, albeit he culd nocht be remowit fra the landis unto the nixt terme, nochttheles that he aucht and suld leve and delyver the hous and fortalice incontinent to the uther, becaus the practik is that houssis and fortalices suld be delyverit to thame that haiff rycht thairto upone vi. dayis warning bot ony delay or appellatioun of ony terme.

<1542-1543?> Thair was one Cuninghame that had certane landis in tak and assedatione with tour and fortalice off the same. Thir samyn landis befell thairefter in ward, and uther Cunninghame getting the gift of the ward of the same. Efter the outrunning off the ward he that had the takes persewit the delyverance off the fortalice. It was answerit that he was inclusid within termes and aucht nocht to delyver the samyn without he had bein laufullie warnit. It was answerit that, in respect the hous was ane fortalic, thair misterit bot vi. dayis warning. The quhilk the lordis fand relevant.

The said moneth <dec. 1542>: The lordis decernit the letters of horning past upone ane decrete of the lordis of Counsall aganes the lord Oliphant at the laird Inneis' instance for payment of ane certane sowme to be put to executioun upone the said lord, nochtwithstanding he wes instantlie presoner in Ingland and tane at the raid of the Moss, quia absentia eius necessaria in causa presenti non deberet impedire executionem sententie iam ante late.

In the moneth of januar anno eodem <1543>: In causa cuiusdam mulieris N. Richardsone contra quendam N., the said woman askit the letters of cursing rasit at the said manis instance aganes N. upone cursing of 40 dayes to be suspendit and decernit nocht to be execute (upone certane cornis allegit of befoir assignit to hir). Mr George Leslie, procuratour for the man, said that thai cornis wes in the cursit manis possessioun haldin and reput his awin, and offerit him to preve the samyn conforme to the officiaris arreistment and apprysing. And that in sic cace the preve aucht to be gevin to him for quhome the apprysing wes maid, becaus of grit presumptioun that is for the officiar, and thairfoir that the said Richardsone suld nocht haiff to hir preiff the contrare. Nochttheles the lordis be interlocutour admittit the said vomanis allegeance to hir preiff.

The 18 day of februar anno quo supra <1543>: To preve the non-entres of the landis of Langschaw and myln of Mashaw within the baronie of Breidwode, Alexander Dowe, haifand the said non-intres of the king, producit ane copie of Mergaret Forestaris instrument, conjunctfear thairof, under tua notaris subscriptiounis comperit but ony auctoritie of juge or calling of pairtie thairto; als ane act of the lordis of Counsall in the quhilk the said instrument wes insert at James Stewart, laird of Cragyhallis instance, heritour of thai landis; askand the act of the lordis quhar the said Mergaret <obtinuit> in ane caus movit be hir aganes Helene Carcarse for the wrangus intrometting with the saidis landis pertening to the said Mergaret in conjunct fie; als ane decrete of the lordis gevin for the said Mergaret quhair the said Helene in the caus foirsaid be vertew of the said instrument and uther great presumptiounis <had bene condamnit, nochtwithstanding hir exceptioun> that the said landis wes ane tenendrie and thairfoir aucht nocht to be in non-intres. Nochttheles the lordis decretit the said copie bayth be notaris and the lairdis extract to mak na fayth nor probatioun contra dominum de Glentowe, reum in hac causa, ex eo quod dicte copie non erant transsumpte auctoritate iudicis et vocatis quorum intererat, and sua mycht nocht of the law mak fayth contra dominum reum in dictis notarii et dominorum Consilii actis(?), nec presentem nec legitime ad hoc vocatum ut de iure debuerat, ut notatur <in> dict. <authentica²³⁴> etc.

²³⁴Commentaries to Auth. "Si quis in aliquo documento" post C. 2.1.7, ex Nov. 119.3.

The said day <18 feb. 1543>: The lordis decernit ane summondis rasit at the kingis instance to be instantlie bot ony delay transferrit in the quene, at the advocattis instance. Et ideo causa nomine regis mortui non poterat procedere.

In the said moneth <feb. 1542>: The lordis in ane actioun movit be the laird of Strachirde aganes the <ladie> Beridell his gudmother, at the said ladeis instance advocat fra the schiref of Perth, juge ordinar, to the lordis of Counsall, becaus it wes ane greit actioun of xx thowsand merkis, as the said schireffis precept buir. And of the practik the lordis usis to tak all sic gret materis to thame salffis, albeit that thai be nocht auld, as this mater wes bot tua or thrie yeir auld.

And als the saidis lordis, in ane caus movit be A. aganes B. upone spuilyie of certane cattell <quhilk> war tane and apprysit be the kingis letters past upone the lordis of Counsallis decrete, becaus the <said caus> war for the executioun of the said decrete, and that it aucht nocht that the effect nor strenth of the lordis decrete nor executioun thairof wer disput befoir the schiref, and becaus it war accessour to the said decrete, thairfoir the lordis advocat the caus fra the schiref to thame self.

Eodem die et mense <18 feb. 1543>: In ane caus of spuilyie movit be freir Arnot (allegit minister of Scotlandwell) aganes N., anent the restoring of him to the place of Scotlandwell²³⁵, the lordis decernit that the delyverance of that religious place aucht nocht to cum in be ane bill or letters of vi dayis warning, as the delyvering of fortalices dois, bot suld byd dyet and tabill.

²³⁵Further stages of this case in nrs. 379, 398, 400.

Eodem mense <feb. 1543>: In causa Home contra Home, the lordis decernit ane chartour producit be A. Hwme to mak na fayth, becaus it wes nocht subscryvit with the man that wes allegit to haiff maid it nor yit be ane notar, as the act of parliament²³⁶maid thairupone requyrit, albeit the manis seill wes appendit to it. And the said chartour wes maid eftir the said act-making in parliament. And lang eftir it wes prentit. And the lordis decernit that the first publicatioun in parliament wes sufficient to astrenyie the kingis liegis thairto, albeit it wes nocht than prentit bot lang eftir. And Mr Hew Rig allegit quod non obligabat nisi a tempore publicationis²³⁷, quhilk he allegit wes quhen the actis wer prentit. Quhilk allegeance the lordis repellit as said is.

²³⁶Statute ...

²³⁷About this topic (under the Ius Commune) see the article by Dolezalek, Scriptura non est de substantia legis, published in: Diritto comune e diritti locali nella storia dell'Europa. Atti del convegno di Varenna 1979. Milano: Giuffrè 1980, p.49-70. The leading doctrine was that the legislator may validly promulgate law by voice, without writing, if he deliberately wants to do so. Nevertheless ignorance of that law would be excused as long as no promulgation in writing had followed.

The 21 februar anno quo supra <1543>: Ane Douglas obtenit the eschete of bastardie of ane manis, and the kingis letters upone his gift to the schiref in that pairt to caus him to be ansuerit of the said manis gudis. And be vertew of thai letters ane officiar and he past and tuik up all the manis guidis and geir and insycht. The manis executour callit for spuilyie thairof and schew how the man wes rebellit to the king; and sua the escheit wes null. The lordis decernit and condamnit reum in spolio petito, et actori juramentum dandum de quantitate rerum, licet reus habuerat titulum colorativum intromettendi - yit he aucht nocht to haiff tane the gudis and geir at his awin hand, bot suld haiff callit the possessouris. And now his titill reducit: falsum fuisse ab initio.

The 23 februarii anno quo supra <1543>: Andro Rynd gat ane gift of the commoun clerkschipe of Sanctjohnestoun and wes in possessioun of the office be vertew thairof. And thaireftir Mr Duncan Maii gat the kingis requeist to the provest, bailleis and communitie of the said toun to gif the said office to him as vacand be the deceis of him be quhais deceis the said Andro had gottin it ellis. And at the said requeist thay maid ane new gift to the said Duncane. And he be vertew thairof possidet the said office vii yeiris or thairby. Than the said Andro callit the said Mr Duncane for spuilyeing of him in the said office. He exceptit that in the outputting of him in the said office he did na wrang nor spuilyie, becaus he wes enterit thairto be his gift and the provest and bailleis auctoritie. The lordis nochtwithstanding decernit him spuilyie, becaus he enterit in the said Androis' office and put him furth thairof but ordour of law, he nevir being callit nor ordourlie destitute of the said office.

In Januar anno quo supra <1543>: The lordis be interlocutour decernit quod de eorum practica non auditur quis ad impediendum processum, volens executionem <propter> summonitionem actoris ipsius de falso impugnare. Et hoc in casua Isobell Machan et Mr Clement fratris eiusdem contra quendam virum Joannem Maxwell.

The 26 februarii <1543>: Quidam (ut recordor) William Wauchope agebat super spolio quorundam bonorum contra Gavinum Borthuik. Qui excipit quod ipse virtute precepti vicecomitis gat thai oxin apprysit to him for ane sowme that he had obtenit aganes the said Wachope be ane decrete of the said schiref. Et excusari <a> spolio virtute precepti et auctoritatis judicialis debuerat, quamvis ei per dictum decretum debitum et iudicatum iam esset solutum. The lordis decernit and condamnit him in the spuilyie of the oxin, nochtwithstanding <thai> wer apprysit to him be ane officiar and precept, becaus he wes in culpa lata: resavit the precept wranguslie, nathing beand aucht to him.

The last of februar anno eodem <1543>: In causa Patricii Weymes contra dominum de Rires, the said lairdis procuratour allegit that the lordis of Counsall wer na judges competent to the reductioun of his infeftment vi. yeiris auld, becaus thairthrow vald cum in disputatioun of the rycht of his landis, quhilk ground rycht of auld aucht be act of parliament be decydit be ane breif of rycht befoir the justice, and nocht befoir the lordis of sessioun. The lordis of Counsall nochtwithstanding decernit thame competent judges in this mater, sic as thai wer thir divers yeiris in use of calling sic materis befoir thame and divers sic interlocutoris gevin, ut in causa domini de Sanquhair et in causa cuiusdam Pringill de Torsounis et aliis diversis, and als becaus the breif of rycht is (nor hes) nocht yit bene mony yeiris usit in this realme.

The case "Pringill de Toursounis" is reported in case note nr. 72: Hoppringill of Torsones v. Ker of Sesfurdis.

Case note nr. 308 was corrected and edited by Hector L. MacQueen, Jurisdiction in Heritage and the Lords of Council and Session after 1532, pp. 60-85 (63) in: David Sellar (ed.), Miscellany two, Edinburgh 1984 (The Stair Society, vol. 35). He emended the number of years in line 2, which the oldest manuscript gives as "vi.xx" (probably garbled from "vi.x" = sixty) to read "vi." = six, because he found evidence that Forbes' disputed title to land was but six years old. Otherwise, "sixty" would not have been improbable. Namely in a parallel case in notes 74 and 51 the same defender's Forbes of Reres title to land is said to be sixty years old.

The 2 day of marche anno eodem <1543>: Peter Colquhen callit the executouris of umquhile Mr Adame Colquhen to delyver to him ane letter of tak of the land N., maid be the abbote and convent of Newbottill to A. Colquhoun, and B. Colquhoun eftir his deceis and C. Colquhoun eftir this B. deceis. Comperit tertius quidam for his intres, allegeand the said tak to pertene to him, becaus B. committit ane cryme, quhairfoir all his moveabill geir ves escheit to the king, and that umquhile Mr Adame had gottin fra the king that tak than pertening to the said B, and this thrid persone wes maid assignay to the escheit foirsaid to the said Mr Adame. The said Petir allegit that the said B. wes realie and naturallie deid and, becaus the tak culd nocht pertene to the said B. eftir his lyfetyme, the king be his escheit culd nocht pretend rycht thairto bot in the said B. lyfetyme, quia non potuit plus pertinere regi quam confiscato, ut est regula iuris²³⁸etc. And als allegit l. Statius Florus § Cornelii Felici, ff. de iure fisci²³⁹ubi videtur casus. Et secundum hec iura the lordis decernit the said tak to pertene to the said Petir and to be delyverit to him.

²³⁸"Nemo plus iuris in alium transferre potest quam ipse habet", 6. 5.(13) de regulis iuris 79; D. 50.17.54.

²³⁹D. 49.14.48.1 [to the point].

<1542-1543?> Peter Colquhome persewit the executouris of Mr Adame Colquhome to delyver to him ane letter of tak of certane landis, maid be the abbot and convent of Newbotle to umquhill A<dame> Colquhome and efter his deceis to B. Colquhome, and efter the deceis of B. to C. Colquhome. Thair comperit ane thrid persone and alledgit the tak to apperteint to him and desyrit to be admittit for his entres. And for his entres alledgit that B., secund persoun in the tak, was convict of ane cryme. And being declarit guiltie of the same, his moveabill guidis became under escheit, and thairefter the said Mr Adame obtenit the gift of his escheit and maid the thrid persone assignay to the same. Thairfoir he aucht to be admittit for his entres and the said tak as escheit guidis to appertint to him. To this was answerit that, the said thrid person beand admittit for his entres, that the said B. was bot now laitlie departit ane naturall deid and induring his lyftyme came newer in possessione off the tak as secund persone, nor yit could the samyn appertein to him be ressone of A. befoir namit in the tak. Thairfoir, giff he beand on lyff, could pretend na rycht to the tak. Ergo the king or his donatour or thai that occupies that place can pretend na rycht to the same, quia non potuit plus juris pertinere regi quam fischato²⁴⁰. Et casus hic videtur decisus in l. Statius Florus § Cornelio Felici, ff. de jure fischi²⁴¹. The lordis repellit the alledgance off the thrid person quha alledgit the kingis richt and decernit the said tak to appertein to the executour.

²⁴⁰6. 5.(13).79 and D. 50.17.54: Nemo plus iuris in alium transferre potest quam ipse habet.

²⁴¹D. 49.14.48.1 [to the point].

In the moneth foirsaid anno eodem <mar. 1543>: In causa spolii quorundam N. Douglas contra quendam Begge, the lordis be interlocutour decernit quod reus in actione spolii non erat de practica audiendus, volens de alio spolio priore etiam earundem rerum per eundem contra eum commisso excipere, ad repellendum actorem ab agendo. Quod etiam est iuri conforme, ut notatur per Pan. in cap. ul., § i(?) et iia, extra de ord. cogni.²⁴²

²⁴²Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.10.4 [to the point] and to the passage in X 2.10.2 immediately before modern § 1 [also to the point].

The iiii of merche anno eodem <1543>: Ane Johne Glencros annaleit certane landis within his less aige to the laird of Kirkpatrik sine decreto iudicis. Quhairfoir quidam N. Glencros heres Joannis callit the said laird to heir that alienatioun decernit to be reducit and declarit null of the law for the caus foirsaid, intra rub. et leg. C. de prediis et aliis rebus min. sine decr.²⁴³. The lordis, ex reductis coram iis in judicio understandand that the said Johne had nocht movit causam nullitatis infra quinquennium post perfectam suam aetatem xxi annorum, repellit the actour in this caus ab hac actione per l. fi., C. si maior factus²⁴⁴, que habet quod de nullitate contractus per minorem sine decreto iudicis facti, lapso post perfectam etatem illius minoris quinquennio, non auditur ipse postea agere de hoc volens. Immo videtur ex taciturnitate tanti temporis contractum ratificasse.

²⁴³Rubrica and leges in C. 5.71.

²⁴⁴+C. 5.74.3 [to the point].

<1542-1543?> Thair was one callit Glencors that persewit ane alienatione that his father had maid in his les age et minori aetate to be reducit, alledgand for him quod res minorum sine decreto judicis non sunt alienandae, C. de prediis minorum <non alienandis>²⁴⁵. It was answerit that the said alienatione aucht nocht to be retreitit quia hic minor tacuit per quinquennium post perfectam aetatem xxi annorum, ex quo anno ex consuetudine regni Scotiae censetur maior²⁴⁶. Et sic ex taciturnitate sua videtur ratificasse et approbasse predictam alienationem, C. l. ultima, si maior factus²⁴⁷. The lordis fand be interloquitour that the persewer be ressone of his taciturnity had na place now to seik the said reductione of the said alienation.

²⁴⁵C. 5.71.

²⁴⁶MS minor.

²⁴⁷C. 2.45.2 [to the point]. The five years result from C. 5.74.3.

The said day <4 mar. 1543>: Valtir Striviling callit James Striviling of the Keir to varrand him ane contract of the selling of certane victuall maid to him be the said James of certane landis be ressone of wairdis pertening to the said James, quha allegit he sould nocht varrand him, becaus he in tyme of making that contract erat Jacobus ipse minor, habens magistrum Abraham Creychtoun curatorem, sine cuius consensu et auctoritate dictum contractum fecerat, et ideo de iure erat nullus²⁴⁸. Unde de iure non tenebatur varrantizare eundem. The said Valtir allegit that the said James culd nocht nor suld nocht be hard ad impugnandum contractum ex causa nullitatis per viam exceptionis. Et ita interlocuti sunt domini Consilii. Of the practik thai admittit nevir nullitie of ony evident producit befoir thame per viam exceptionis²⁴⁹. And sua decernit the said James to varrand, contractu stante.

²⁴⁸C. 5.59.2-3.

²⁴⁹Based on the principle stated in nr. 16: According to the court's practice, in contrast to Ius Commune, a contract deed (= 'evident') remains binding even if the underlying contract is void - until the deed has been voided by judicial decree of "reduction". This decree must be applied for separately. It cannot be applied for "per viam exceptionis" against a summons grounded on the contract deed. Parallel nrs. 56 and 82.

About the samyn tyme <1542-1543?>: Walter Stirling persewit James Stirling of the Keir to warrand him ane contract quhairintill the said James had sauld certane victuallis to him as fermis of certane landis quhilk fell in the said James handis be ressone the land wardit in his handis. It was answerit be the said James that the tyme of the making of the said contract he was minor annis, habens curatorem magistrum Abraham Crichton. Et absque illius consensu fecerat dictum contractum. Ideo de jure nullus, and thairfoir he aucht nocht to warrand the same. To this was answerit that he aucht nocht be hard to improve the said contract be way of nullitie be ane exceptione becaus of the practick of Scotland na evident can be tane away be nullitie be way of exceptione, bot will stand quhill it be reducit be way of actione. The lordis fand the said last alledgance relevant²⁵⁰ and sua ordanit the said laird of Keir to warrand the said contract.

²⁵⁰Reasons as in nr. 312; parallel nrs. 56 and 82.

<4 mar. 1543?> Quidam Mowit gate Johne Somerwell condamnit be the lord Arrane, schiref of N., in certane gudis and reiff. The Mowat foirsaid producit alanerlie coram vicecomite the act of adjornall quhairupone he condamnit the said Johne of the foirsaidis guidis, quhilkis the said Johne grantit he had reft in ane justice<air>, to preve thai guidis and raiff. Thaireftir the lordis of Counsall retreittit in secunda instantia that sentence, becaus the said Johne schew befoir the lordis the protestatioun maid be him in the said justiceair, quhair he denyit bayth the quantite and the pricis of the gudis that he grantit thairfoir for feir of his lyfe, quhilk protestatioun of the practik saevis confessum a quantitate et valore rerum per eum in acto adjornali confessatarum bot gif actor preve the samyn sufficientlie per alias probationes. Et ita in hoc casu actum adiornale non probat quantitatem et valorem. And becaus befoir the schiref the said protestatioun wes nocht schawin, the schiref did na wrang in sentencegeving, bot the samyn wes reducit ex hac protestatione noviter in hac secunda instantia producta. Et hoc actum fuit per dominos Consilii quinto Mercii anno 1541.

Nono die aprilis i^m v^c xliii <= 1543> : The lordis in ane caus of N. indweller in Leith aganes Purves messinger decernit that the said officiar aucht nocht to haiff the haill fee for his office siclyk as and he had maid poinding, viz. xii d. of ilk pund, becaus the dettour maid payment of all det and the officiar na poinding. Bot for his passing to Leith for poinding the lordis modefeit to him for his panes ten s.

Vigesimo secundo aprilis anno 1543: The quenis advocat allegit that the lordis mycht nocht proceid contra reginam pupillam et minorem annis upone the retractatioune of the <resignatioun> of the landis of the erledome of Mortoun maid be the erle in the kingis handis, quia hic agitur de perdenda hereditate et minor non tenetur placitare de iure municipali regni Scotie nisi in quatuor casibus, ut habetur in "Regia Maiestate"²⁵¹, of the quhilk this is nocht ane. And actour allegit tua caussis in the quhilk the lordis had decernit minorem non teneri respondere in causa retractationis infeodamenti hereditariarum terrarum. Nochttheless the lordis be interlocutour decernit the quenis advocat to ansuer, becaus it is provydit be ane act of the lordis of Counsall laitlie maid sen the deceis of the king that quhatsumevir complenis that thai war hurt in thair possessioun, landis, heretage, guidis or geir be the king and his servandis in and to his grace profeitt mediat vel immediat that it suld be lesum to thame to call the kingis advocat and comptrollar be ane simpill bill without delay of dyet or libell and to heir thame restorit agane to thair possessioun. And that becaus it wes havelie murmurit that the king oppressit sum of his liegis in sic sortis and in his lyfetyme and thai nocht complenit thairupone. And the lordis now for releve of thair conscience and saull devysit the same. And becaus that the foirsaid municipall law <wes> ovirrigorous just or unjust, gif the erle of Mortoun and his airis suld vant his heretage wranguslie, as wes allegit, tane fra him utpote per metum cadentem in constantem virum²⁵², ay and quhill the quene cum to perfyte aige or quhill thair wer ane king or quene of sic aige - quhilk mycht be apperance of men <be> rycht lang. Et quia iniquum videbatur quod alieno scelere, viz. paterno, ditior et ditata maneret regina minor annis cum gravi admodum preiudicio conquerentis²⁵³, thairfoir the lordis decernit as said is.

²⁵¹"Regiam maiestatem" ...

²⁵²D. 4.2.6 [definition of "metus" = non vani hominis, sed qui in constantissimum virum cadat], taken up in X X 1.40.4 et 6.

²⁵³Canon law doctrine of "restitutio", see note to nr. 101.

Als in the said caus the samyn day the laird of Lochlevin exceptit that the erlis summondis mycht nocht cum in be that ordour, becaus it wes tabulat in ane tabill befoir the quhilk thair wes ane uther tabill nocht disertit and yit procedand. And sua, the first standand undisert, the lordis mycht nocht proceid upone na summondis in the secound tabill. The lordis decernit proces to the erle, becaus the first tabill wes all callit the day befoir the calling of the secound. And wes nocht disert, albeit thair come na man to persew ony summondis contenit in it, <alanerlie> becaus the lordis vald nocht do the samyn for it wes bot the begynning of the sessioun eftir Pasche and the kingis liges for cummar of weir traistit nocht that the lordis vald sit sa sone. And nochttheles the lordis thocht that the negligens of thame that war in the first tabill nocht prejudge thame of the secound tabill, becaus thai had nocht ado in the first, as said is. And than the said erle be the secound tabill desyrit proces and the lordis decernit the samyn for the caus foirsaid. And the said secound tabill wes put up upone the durris lang befoir the said summondis calling in the said erlis caus. He allegit he wes compellit to resigne his landis and lordschip of Mortoun in the kingis handis, compulsus regio metu qui poterat cadere in constantem virum²⁵⁴, and to preve that the king befoir had gret ee and ardent to his landis and devisit divers caussis to get thame to him selff and that he wes lawfulie befoir the resignatioun maid in the kingis handis in favouris of the laird of Lochlevin chargit be the king to waird in Invernes in the winter and that he wes seik in his persoun and mycht nocht gudelie sustene the said trawell and waird but danger of his lyf. And incontinent eftir he had maid resignatioun, viz. eodem die, he gat ane discherge of his waird and passing thairto. And a litill eftir the said resignatioun maid in favouris of the said laird of Lochlevin he resignit the samyn in the kingis handis to remane perpetuallie with his grace, and that he wes chargit to waird for na uther just caus and culd get na relaxatioun and discharge of the waird quhill he had maid that resignatioun, quhairthrow of thir presumptiounis he allegit that it wes sufficientlie provin that he did the samyn for dredour and feir of his lyfe. And sua the lordis gave sentence definitive and thaireftir retreitit baith the resignatiounis foirsaidis and reponit him in the samyn stait that he wes in befoir the making thairof.

²⁵⁴Again D. 4.2.6 quoted.

<1542-1543?> The earle of Mortoun persewit for the reductione off the resignatione of his earldom, maid be him in the kingis handis ad perpetuam remanentiam and ane pairt thairof in favour of the lord Lochlevin, to be retreitit and reducit, becaus he did the samyn compulsus regio metu qui poterat cadere in constantem virum²⁵⁵. This he qualifiet be sindrie presumptiones and conjectures in sa far as the king had divers tymes socht the samyn of him to be done and at lenth (seing onnawayes he wald do the same) chargit him to ward in Innernes, a place far distant fra him, and he being seiklie and waik and could nocht sustein the samyn travell, sic (per metum carceris a rege illatum) coactit and compellit, maid the samyn resignatione.

To this was answeret that, the commandment of the earle to waird was no just fear.

To this was answerit that, gadderand all the circumstancies togidder, the feir was sufficientlie qualifiet, viz. the feir of presoun and the passing sua far to ane agit man and the taking away of him fra his leving. The lordis thairfoir retreittit the said resignatione, moved be the last et l. ultima, C. quae metus causa²⁵⁶, que ait omnes "venditiones, donationes, transactiones que per potentiam extorta sunt", debere infirmare.

²⁵⁵Words from D. 4.2.6, see note to nr. 315.

²⁵⁶C. 2.20.12 [to the point].

The 27 aprilis anno 1543: Quidam William Bannantyne (ut recordor) callit befoir the lordis tua clerkis of Halierudhous to delyver to him ane letter of tak of the landis of Slipperfeild (ut recordor), gevin to thame be him in keping. Thai declynit the judges, ratione clericatus. The lordis be interlocutour decernit thame selffis competent juges to all kirkmen callit be ony persone for producing or delyvering of evidentis, secundum practicam et consuetudinem Scotie.

Eodem die <27 apr. 1543>: Ane summondis of error wes intentit at the kingis instance and the erle Bothuell for his entres aganes certane personis, being upone ane inqueist that servit William Rutherfurde of certane landis of Langnewtoun. And the saidis summondis wes callit be the kingis tabill, and sua far soner nor it mycht haiff bene callit at the said erlis instance. The king dischargit his summondis and all his entres aganes the assyis for error and thairfoir the said William allegit that the said summondis at the erlis instance aucht nocht to haiff proces be that incuming and privilegit tabill of the kingis grace. The lordis be interlocutour decernit that the caus sould proceid at the erlis instance, nochtwithstanding the allegeance, et iudicio meo non bene, quia ex persona sua dictus comes non habebat privilegium illius tabule et regis instantie, quod, cum concernebat ipsum, renunciavit, quia ex persona regis eo invito comes non debuerat ullo privilegio gaudere.

The 23 (aut eocirca) mensis eiusdem <apr. 1543>: The lord Hay of Yester askit the kingis declaratioun of his will, decernand him to haiff tint his schireffschip of Peblis pertening to him heretablie for his brotheris falt in the awaylatting of tua thevis, gevin in keping to him be the king, for the quhilk falt the said lord Hay come in the kingis will, to be reducit, with ane infeftment thairupone maid to the lord Fleming of the said schireffschip, becaus the king excesserat arbitrium boni viri in declarando suam voluntatem, quia gravius punierat dictum dominum quam de iure puniendus erat hoc delicto, becaus of na law, ressone nor consuetude aucht he to haiff tint his heretage thairfoir. And he askit sua the kingis will to be reducit ad arbitrium boni viri, quia quando quis refert se voluntati adversarii sui, ille non potest de iure inique arbitrari et contra rationem. Quod, si fecerit, reducitur eius declaratio et voluntas ad arbitrium boni viri, ut ex gloss. in leg. pen. ff. de arb.²⁵⁷, Jason <et> al. in l. Si sic, ff. de leg. 1^o258, Benedict. in cap. Raynucius, in verb. "condidit", extra de testa.²⁵⁹. The lordis be sentence definitive propter iniquitatem predictam retractarunt declarationem predictam cum infeodamento inde secuto.

²⁵⁷D. 4.8.51 [to the point].

²⁵⁸D. 30.1.57 [to the point].

²⁵⁹Benedictus ..., commentary on X 3.26.16.

24 aprill <1542 or 1543?>: The lord Yester desyrit ane declaratour of the kingis will decernand him to haiff tint his office of the schireffschip of Peiblis perteininge to him in heretage, for the fault of his brother in letting away tua theivis gevin to him in keiping, for the quhilk fault the said lord cam into the kingis will, to be reducit - with the infeftment thairupone maid be the king to the lord Fleming, becaus the kingis will and declaratour thairoff excesserat arbitrium boni viri; et quando quis se refert ad arbitrium adversarii sui, ille non potest de jure inique arbitrari et contra rationem. Quod si fecerit, reduceretur ejus declaratio ad arbitrium boni viri, ut colligitur ex glossa l. penultima, ff. de arbitrio²⁶⁰. The lordis fand the ressone of the summondis relevant, and sua reducit the declaratione of the kingis will and the infeftment that followit thairupone, haiffing consideratione that the kinges majesties will was rigorous to tak his heretabill richt fra him for the offence of his brother being so small.

²⁶⁰Gloss by Franciscus Accursius on D. 4.8.51 [to the point].

The first day of maii <1543>: Isobell Hopper callit the bischope of Dunkeld, the laird of Drylaw and certane utheris befoir the lordis to heir thame decernit to desist fra the teind scheves of Abircorne, becaus thai pertenit in tak to Archibald Douglas, as be his foirfaltour wes as escheit disponit during his takkis be the king to the said bischope, and now laitlie the foirfaltour wes reducit in parliament haldin in Marche anno 1543, and sua scho that wes in possessioun thairof and in the tak with hir said husband desyrit to be put in hir possessioun. And becaus this caus dependit fra the decrete and censement of parliament, thairfoir, said scho, the said bischope aucht to answer heirupone befoir the lordis. Nochttheles the lordis be interlocutour remittit him to his competent judge of the kirk.

<CONTINUED> And becaus the summondis wes libellit conjunctlie contra ipsum and thai culd nocht proceid aganes him, thairfoir thai also decernit that thai culd nocht proceid upone this summondis aganes the temporall man.

The 3 day or thairby of the said moneth <maii 1543>: In ane caus of reductioun of heretabill infeftment of Stevinstoun, mowit be the laird of Wachtoun aganes Mr Henry Sinclar, persone of Glasquow, and James Sinclar, the lordis be interlocutour decernit the said Mr Henry, non obstante privilegio fori ratione clericatus, to answer befoir thame in this caus, quia de iure et practica Scotie thair is na juge spirituall nor temporall to reduce heretabill infeftment or cognitioun in materis of heretage bot the lordis of Counsall alanerlie, and decernit the said Mr Henry to answer befoir thame upone the retreiting of personall obligatiounis maid to him upone the said infeftment be the said laird, et hoc ratione connexitatis et quia erant accessoria ad dicta infeodamenta.

Quinto die mensis eiusdem <maii 1543: The lordis decernit the bischope of Abirdene to answer befoir thame in ane caus movit upone ane obligatioun of ane certane sowme of money borrowit be him fra the king at the quene and the laird of Adenelauchis instance as his donatour to the said dett, becaus that of the practik of Scotland, as the lordis allegit, et clerici in omnibus civilibus actionibus pro debitis quibuscunque regis debent coram dominis Consilii respondere.

<CONTINUED> And actour in the said caus the lordis decernit exceptionem compensationis appositam pro parte episcopi Abirdene de alia summa sibi per regem debita (ut, quod asseretur, liquida) non admittendam, becaus of this practik the said exceptioun had nevir place and wes oftymes befoir thame proponit in uther caussis and nocht admittit. And sua in causa <iura> de compensationibus loquentia²⁶¹ coram dominis Consilii in hoc regno locum non habent²⁶².

²⁶¹D. 16.2; C. 4.31.

²⁶²This criticism is probably too global - as the Court's decision merely forbids to argue "compensation" against a formally perfect deed before "reduction" of that deed has been applied for - in accordance with the rule in nrs. 56, 82, 343, based on the principle in nr. 16.

<1542-1543?> The bischop of Aberdeine being persewit at the kingis instance for certane debtis alledgit that he aucht nocht to pay the samyn becaus the king was awand him ane liquidat soume, quhilk tak wau or at least mak recompensatione for the soume auchtand be him. The lordis fand be interloquitour that the bischops exceptione of recompensatione, albeit it was upon ane liquidat soume, aucht to be repellit becaus of the practik of Scotland na recompensatione admittit.

The 6 of maii or thairby <1543>: Robert Gib wes callit at he quenis instance and als Robert Diksone of Hadingtoun abay to produce thir infeftment of the landis of Gukhill, the tane maid be the king in fewferme, the uther in lykmaner be the said Robert Gib to the said Diksoun, and to heir thame reducit, and sua thai war baith summond in this caus. Diksoun desyrit ane day to call his varrand, viz. Robert Gib, quhome of he had thai landis titulo oneroso. The quenis advocat allegit that he aucht nocht to haiff sic ane delay, quia dictus Gib eius authour erat citatus principaliter ad instantiam et sic sciebat bene ab initio litem moveri. And attour, becaus the caus wes intentit at the quenis instance, thair aucht na delay to be gevin bot his awin warrand reservit to him. The lordis be interlocutour decernit him ane day to call the said Robert Gib for his warrand, et quod non erat satis venditorem scire litem moveri emptori, imo quod adhuc hoc non obstante emptor denunciare ei litem motam et petere ut defensioni cause adsit adhuc, ut de emptione teneatur venditor. Et ita notatur in apostella ad Dy. in cap. Cum quis certus, extra de re iu., iii. col.²⁶³

<CONTINUED> And attour the lordis decernit him ane day to call his varrand, albeit the king varrand nocht na man nec possit de practica regni vocari in varrantum a quocunque²⁶⁴, cum iniquum esset quod, cum quis ad regis instantiam placitatur et habet alium certum obligatum sibi ad varrantizandum idem quod rex ab eo petit, non daretur ei tempus ad eum vocandum.

²⁶³Commentary by Dinus Mugellanus on 6. 5.(13) de regulis iuris 31: "Eum qui certus est, certiorari ulterius non oportet" - and there a printed remark, added by the editor.

²⁶⁴See nr. 281.

The aucht day or thairby <maii 1543>: The lordis decernit that Oliveir Sinclaris procuratour comperand for him at George Douglas' instance aucht nocht to answer aganes his will the first day contenit in the citatioun.

The 16 junii <1543>: The lordis decretit the laird of Houstounis retour of the landis of Carnis, becaus the assys saw na chartour of blanche haldin of thai landis, bot 2 or 3 retouris of iii.xx yeiris auld, makand mentioun that thai war haldin blanche. And als the superiouris thairof, viz. the lordis of Calder Comitis, had nocht thair preceptis of seasing conforme to thai retouris of blanche. And thairfoir domini superiores videbantur confessi tacite terras easdem in albam firmam teneri. And heirfoir the lordis assoilyeit the assys fra vilfull error, becaus the mater wes doutsum.

<CONTINUED> And nochttheless, becaus blanche halding can nocht be provin bot be chartour and seasing thairof and that retouris in this cace makis nocht sufficient probatioun, thairfoir the lordis retretit the retour for ignorance of assys, as said is. And in this cace the lord of N. wes the uthir pairtie and this retour wes be the said James' tenentis solisting and moyen of court, quhilk vald nocht thane bene done.

16 junii 1543: Thair was ane retour desyrit to be reducit at the instance of the pairtie and the kingis advocat quhair that the laird of Houstoun was servit and retourit in the landis of Carnes, becaus the inquest servit and retourit the landis to be haldin blench, and thair was nothing producit befoir thame for probatione of the samyn, nather precept nor chartour of the halding of the said land blench. It was ansuerit that thair was thrie retoures producit that contenit into tham the space of lxxx yeiris of halding of the samyn blenche. To this was answeret that the retour was nocht sufficient nather to prove the blench halding, nor yit the inquest to serve upone the halding, bot the halding behouvit to be provin be chartour and seasing. The lordis pronuncit that the assys sould be assolyeit fra wilfull error and yit reducit the retour be resoun foirsaid.

16 junii 1543: The laird of Achtermane alledging him to be the tutour testamentar to the bairnes of the laird of Haning Craufurd desyrit the lord Levingstoun to delyver the bairnes and heretrixis to him to be in his custodie and keiping. The said lord alledgit that the keiping of thame unto thair perfit age appertenit to the king unto quhom thair ward and mareag appertenit and the said ward and mareag being disponit to him as donatour thairof aucht to pertein to him, ut habetur in "Regia Ma." de heredum minorum custodia²⁶⁵. The lordis decernit conforme to the law the keiping of the bairnes to appertein to the king and his donatour.

²⁶⁵"Regiam maiestatem ..."

The 18 of junii <1543>: The lordis advocat ane caus of N. fra the schiref of Air, becaus that the pairtie convenit befoir allegit that he wes suspect to him becaus he had gottin divers rolmentis aganes him quhilkis he had gottin retreittit be the lordis of Counsall. Et licet hec causa non sufficit de iure ad recusandum iudicem quod alias contra eum male iudicavit²⁶⁶, et alia causa seu causis, nochttheles the lordis fand that it wes thair practik²⁶⁷. And sua decernit the same.

²⁶⁶Wrong. Ius Commune does regard this as a valid reason: X 2.28.6.

²⁶⁷Recusatio iudicis ordinarii: see X 2.28.61, X 2.2.4; recusatio iudicis delegati: C. 3.1.16.

Eodem die <18 jun. 1543>: In causa reductionis rolmenti curie vicecomitis de Fyf contra quendam Narne lati, the said Narnes pairtie obtenit letters of cognitioun be delyverance of the lordis of Counsall to the said schiref in ane cace betuix thame. Befoir the schiref it wes exceptit judicialiter quod reus non tenebatur vicecomiti respondere, becaus he duelt within the stewartrie and the stewart wes his competent judge, and the cryme pleyabill also wes committit within the said stewartrie. And thairfoir the schiref wes na competent judge in this cace, and thairfoir askit to be remittit to his judge competent, and this exceptioun to be admittit, for the lordis bad "admit to bayth the pairteis thair just and laufull defensis". Quhilk he offerit him to preve. The schireffis repellit the same. Quhilk the lordis decernit wranguslie repellit, and thairfoir retreittit the said rolment, becaus actor debet sequi forum rei²⁶⁸, and the stewart within the stewartrie is judge ordinar and nocht the schiref. And this commissioun of the lordis givis him na jurisdictioun, bot <he> alanerlie exercit ordinariam vicecomitis jurisdictionem. Quod habet arg. cap. Licet, extra de offi. ordi.²⁶⁹

And actour in the said caus it wes exceptit that the said N. mycht nocht ask the said rolment to be reducit, quia sponte paruit ille, voluntarie solvendo in eodem contenta: quod sic videtur de iure illud approbasse, ratificasse et tacite renunciasse appellationi et petitioni reductionis eiusdem. Arg. l. Ad solutionem, C. de re iudi.²⁷⁰ Quo non obstante reductum fuit rollamentum, quia petitio hec reductionis decreti aut sententie non est omnis similis appellationi. Nam appellatione pendente reus de iure non cogitur finem parare. Ideo, si <finem parat> non invitus, sibi imputet quod voluntarie id facit. Itaque faciendo sponte sua actum contrarium appellationi, suo merito videtur renunciare et sententiam approbare. Sed de practica regni Scotie, decretorum et sententiarum secularium iudicum quoruncunque executio <non> defertur propter petitionem reductionis earundem jam impositam et pendentem. Imo cogitur condemnatus parere sententie quamdiu stat irritractata. Ideo, licet condemnatus solverit in summam contenta, non ideo videtur petitioni reductionis eiusdem renunciasse. Et licet solverit absque literis compulsatorialibus desuper levatis, non ideo de sponte solvere <videtur>, nec debet expectare levationem earundem unde possit gravioribus expensis gravari.

²⁶⁸X 2.2.8; C. 3.13.2.

²⁶⁹X 1.31.12 [to the point. Commands by the Court of Session to local sheriffs compared to commands by the pope to local bishops].

²⁷⁰C. 7.52.5 [to the point].

The 20 day of junii <1543>: In causa perambulationis inter magistrum de Borthuik et Hugonem Douglas, bayth the pairteis in presens of the lordis had consentit: in 15 persones to pass upone the breif of perambulatioun, and letters of the lordis direct to the justice and his deputtis to summond thai persones to that effect. Quhilk comperit upone the ground except ane. And in his place the justice depute tuik ane uther man, in that absentis place. To the quhilk the said Hew vald nocht consent, and thairfoir he askit this rolment to be reducit. The lordis for that caus reducit the said sentence, becaus the judge did by the command of the lordis letters, putting uther upone the inqueist, nor thame that bayth the pairteis had consentit in and that the lordis ordanit be thair decrete and letters past thairupone.

The 21 day of julii <1543>: The charteraris of Sanct Johnestoun callit the persone of Creytht, James Gordoun, to restoir thame the keyis of the place tane be him fra thame. The lordis decernit thame selffis competent judges in this caus, nochtwithstanding he exceptit de privilegio clericali, and that becaus the mater wes sclanderous and in greit prejudice of the said religious place, pertening to the kingis patronage, and of the devyne service, and quia res hec declinationem non patitur.

The 22 of junii <1543>: The lordis decernit letters upone Mr Andro Blakstok to delyver ane sowme of money to Violat Gourlay conforme to his obligatioun, quhilk money he had obtenit as procuratour to hir aganes Mr Johne Spens be ane decrete of the lordis of Counsall. And the lordis anent the payment thairof decernit him to pay the samyn and answer thairupone be ane bill but ordour, dyet, tabill or summondis peremptouris, quia inconveniens erat ut super re judicialiter obtenta de uno cogatur paupercula litigare.

²⁷¹This is a later stage of the case in nr. 147.

The 23 of junii <1543>: Johne Tennent askit ane caus of spuilyie intentit aganes him be capitane Lundie befoir Archibald Betoun, judge of the regalitie of Sanctandrois, to be advocat befoir the lordis, becaus he had <thair> na duelling place. Nochttheles the said Archibald wes judge competent to him in this cace, becaus the landis upone the quhilk the spuilyie wes maid wes within his jurisdictioun, et ita ratione rei de qua agibatur dictus Joannes ibi sortiebatur forum. Et hoc per l. unicam, C. ubi de possessione²⁷², ut per Pan. in cap. fi., extra de foro compe.²⁷³. Et ita contra dictum Joannem sententiaverunt domini Consilii.

²⁷²C. 3.16.1 [to the point].

²⁷³Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.2.20 [to the point].

The 25 of junii <1543>: The foirsaid Johne Tennent wes callit for ane spuilyie of Mr William Creychtoun out of the Monkraw besyd the Falkirk. He allegit that he had tak thairof of my lord Dunkeld and he wes enterit thairto be his precept, and sua askit ane day to call his varrand in this cace. Quia de iure regni Scotie "wrang has na warrand"²⁷⁴, the lordis decernit that he aucht to haiff na day to call his varrand.

²⁷⁴Maxim also quoted in nrs. 161, 167, 583.

The 28 of junii <1543>: Thair wes ane sentence of foirfaltour, gevin in parliament langsyne aganes George Dowglas, reducit alsua in parliament eftir the kingis deceis, and he decernit be the said sentence reductive to be restorit agane to all landis, takkis, steadingis and possessiounis that he had in tyme of the said sentence of foirfaltour gevin aganes him. He callit Oliver Sinclar befoir the bailleis of Brughtoun to heir him be decernit to be restorit to his possessioun of the landis and teindis of Quhitkirk, pertening to him in tak and assedatioun of befoir his foirfaltour, he than beand in possessioun thairof be vertew of his tak, of the quhilk thair wes now, eftir his restoring as said is, certane yeiris to rin. And that conforme to the said decrete of parliament restorative of him as said is. Oliver Sinclaris procuratour allegit that thai landis and teindis pertenit now heretablie in few, and that he be the space of iiii yeiris last bypast wes in possessioun thairof and had the samyn titulo oneroso of the abote and convent of Halierudhous. And thairfoir, quia erat in possessione titulo oneroso, desyrit ane day to call his varrand. It wes replyit for the said George that thair aucht na day to be gevin, and that becaus this wes upone the exceptioun of the decrete of parliament and that he aucht but ony delay to be restorit. The lordis of Counsall, becaus Oliver wes in possessioun cum titulo oneroso, decernit him ane day to call his varrand, for of befoir he had na place to haiff callit the same, sen he wes nocht specialie summond to the said sentence reductive of his foirfaltour and restoring of him to all his possessiounis foirsaidis, and vald tyne his varrand as he gat nocht the samyn now at this tyme.

The said day <28 jun. 1543>: In ane caus of spuilyie movit be the bailleis, Counsall and communitie of Carrell aganes the laird of Inglis Tarvate, the pairteis beand removit furth upone the relevancie of ane exceptioun peremptour proponit for the saidis lairdis pairt, the lordis, becaus thai fand the libell nocht relevant, albeit thair wes nathing objectit thairof be the said laird, thay ex officio rejectit the libell and absolvit the laird prout erat libellatum. And sua of the practik the lordis repellis libellis inept, albeit the uther pairtie say nathing thairof.

About the samyn tyme <16 jun. 1543>: Into the caus of spuilyie movit be the balyeis, toun counsell and community of Carrell aganis the laird of Inglishtarvet, the pairties beand removit furth upone the irrelevancie of the exceptione opponit be the laird, the lordis hawand consideratione off the lybell and findand the samyn nocht relevant albeit thair was no thing objectit be the pairties aganis the same, assolyeit the laird prout libellatur, quia iudex ex officio suo potest ineptum libellum rejicere, vide glossam circa l. ff. de officio assessorum²⁷⁵et c. Examinata, Extra de judiciis²⁷⁶.

²⁷⁵Gloss by Franciscus Accursius on D. 1.22.1.

²⁷⁶X 2.1.15.

The penult of julii <1543>: The laird of Fyffes sone, donator to the quene of the non-entres and waird of the barony of Petkery, pertening heretablie to the laird of Fyiffie, askit be summondis the saidis landis to be decernit in non-intres be the space of xi yeiris, and the laird of Petslego condamnit to restoir it and to pay the males thairof durand the said space to him as donatar to the kingis grace, becaus he intromettit with thai landis be the said space and bruikit thame. Petslego allegit that to be by the practik of this countrie, be the quhilk in sic caussis first aucht the ground to be poindit, and the samyn nocht beand strenyeabill, the landis to be apprysit for the maillis and deweteis of thame without ony distrenyeing. Nochttheles the lordis be interlocutour decernit that the intromettouris with the landis during the non-entres of thame mycht be callit for thair males and deweteis without ony distrenyeing or poinding or apprysing of the landis and ground thairof.

The 6 day of julii anno 1543: The lordis of Counsall decernit the seasing of the baronie of Petkerie, gevin to the laird of Fyves that now is his father, conforme to the chartour of conjunct fie of the said baronie, gevin with precept thairupone to the said auld laird and Jonet his spous be the king, previt nocht that the said Jonet was saisit in thai landis, albeit the laird tuik saising conforme to the chartour of conjunct fee, quia maritus nihil agit nomine uxoris sue, nec ulla mentio in datione sasine et cartura eiusdem facta fuit de muliere, prout clare ex instrumento sasine patebat. And thairof the lordis decernit hir nocht to haiff bene sasit, and sua the landis to be in waird and in non-intres sen that manis deceis.

30 junii 1543: The laird of Fyvies sone, to the quein donatour of the non-entres and ward of the barronie of Pitkerrie, desyrit the landis to be decernit to be in non-entres for the space <of> xvi yeiris and to that effect summond the²⁷⁷laird of Pitsligo to heir him compellit to pay the meallis and dewties thairof, becaus that during the said space he occupeit the lands. Pitsligo ansuerit and alledgit that he aucht to pay no meallis nor dewties bot conforme to the practick he aucht for the meallis and dewties poynd first the ground. And incaice the ground be nocht fund strenyeabill, he aucht nixt to apprys the landis for the same. It was ansuerit that it was in his optione to persew the occupiar of the ground or to poynd the samyn or to comprys as he pleasit best, and that the apprysing (quhilk was the last refuge) was incaice thair could be gottin na uther remeid. The lordis decernit that the occupiar of the ground during the tyme of the non-entres micht be persewit for the maillis and dewties without any poynding or apprysing of the samyn ground.

²⁷⁷MS has "and" instead of "the".

The said day <6 jul. 1543>: The lordis be interlocutour decernit the laird of Wachtounis summondis, intentit aganes Mr Henrie Sinclar and James Sinclar for reductioun of thair infeftmentis of the landis of Stevingstoun (becaus the same, as wes allegit, <wes> maid be the said laird per metum qui poterat cadere in constantem virum²⁷⁸) nocht relevant, becaus the said laird in the said summondis offerit nocht the money (that he gat for the infeftment-making) in his saidis libell and summondis to the said Mr Henry and James. Et agens actione "quod metus causa" tenetur in libello offere pretium quod accepit, ut notatur in l. prima, C. quod metus causa²⁷⁹, et l<ege> Ang<elum> et alios in § Quadrupli, Inst. de act.²⁸⁰ And sua the lordis decernit reos non teneri respondere in libello prout libellatur. Et hoc ex causa predicta.

²⁷⁸Words from D. 4.2.6, see note at nr. 315.

²⁷⁹C. 2.19.1 [not to the point. Sinclair should have quoted C. 2.19.3 and 4].

²⁸⁰Commentaries by Angelus de Gambilionibus de Aretio on the title "De actionibus" of Justinian's Institutiones, and by other authors = on Instit. 4.6.25.

6 julii 1543: The laird of Wachtoun persewit certane infeftmentis maid be him off the landis of Steinsone to be reducit, becaus the samyn was gevin metus causa et propter metum qui cadere potuit in constantem virum²⁸¹. It was ansuerit to the samen be Mr Henry Sinclar that the summondis was nocht relevant, except he had lybellit that he had offerit the money (that he had gottin for the making off the infeftmentis) agane, quia agens actione metus causa tenetur in libello offerre praetium acceptum se restituere, ut collegit ex l. iii, C. de his quae metus causa fiunt²⁸². It was ansuerit that the lybell was sufficient without the offer, quia ante omnia is, qui metum passus est, restitui debet in integrum. The lordis fand be interloquitour that the lybell was nocht relevant as was lybellit and that the thing that was ressavit behuifit first to be reallie offerit againe be the persewar.

²⁸¹Words from D. 4.2.6, see note to nr. 315.

²⁸²C. 2.19.3 [to the point].

The 4 of julii <1543>: In the laird of Glencros caus, Barkmichall, anent the reduceing of the said lairdis infeftment of certane landis of umquhile Johne Clencros, producit at the bar in witnessis in his caus that war nocht summond, and askit thame instantlie to be summond in judicio and ressavit. The lordis, nochtwithstanding the uther pairteis objectioun that thai aucht nocht to be resavit, quia venerunt non citati et ideo erant suspecti, decernit be interlocutour thame to be resavit and suorne, cum hoc de iure liceat, ut notatur in decisione Capellae Tholosanae 284²⁸³. And als the samyn is of the practik of the lordis of Counsall.

²⁸³Decisions of the 14th century archiepiscopal court at Toulouse (Capella Tolosana), collected by Iohannes Corserius, "officialis" of that court, nr. 284.

The 8 of julii anno eodem <1543>: The abote of Lundoris callit be ane simpill bill to charge the lord Gray, donatour to the quene of the escheit of David Weddirburne in Dundie for the slauchter of Robert Lok (ut recordor) in Dundie, producit his gift thairof, to heir the samyn decernit nocht to be extendit to the gudis perteining to the said David Vedderburne beand within the regalitie of the said abacie of Lundoris. It wes allegit that the lord aucht to be callit ordourlie be ane peremptour summondis. The lordis decernit be interlocutour: The said mater mycht of the practik cum in be ane simpill charge but ordour dyet or tabill, and that of the practik the samyn hes bene hithertill in use.

Eodem die <8 jul. 1543>: Margaret Crawfourde and Robert Simpill, hir spous for his intres, askit airschip guidis of his guidschir, the laird of Camnis, at Thomas Crawfurd, now laird thairof and intromettour thairwith. It wes exceptit, becaus scho wes nocht air to him of ony landis, scho aucht <to haiff> nane of his gudis, and als he non obiit vestitus de ullis terris ut de feodo. Nochttheles the lordis decernit hir to haiff actioun, quia erat deservita heres non de terris. Et hoc eo magis quia pater dicte Margarete obiit dominus liberi tenementi in Camnis et erat nobilis et baro and thairfoir aucht to haiff ane to haiff airschip guidis.

9 julii 1543: Thair was ane Margaret Craufourd (and Robert Sempell hir spous for his entres) that persewit for the airschip guidis of hir guidschir (the laird of Camner) fra Thomas Craufourd laird thairoff. It was alledgit that scho aucht to haiff na airschip guidis becaus scho was nocht air to him of ony landis nor servit in the samen. And als that he decessit nocht westitus ut de feodo in aliquibus terris. It was ansuerit that it was yit²⁸⁴sufficient that scho was servit air generall, and hir father being ane barron and hawing guids and geir, scho aucht to haiff airschip. The lordis fand hir to haiff airschip guidis, nochtwithstanding scho was nocht servit air to landis.

²⁸⁴MS has "not" instead of "yit".

346. Quod prescriptio temporis triennalis contra reductionem <in>ordinatorum processuum per statutum parliamenti Jacobi quarti inducta²⁸⁵non habet locum contra regem.

The said day <8 jul. 1543>: In the laird of Dunlenrikis caus for reductioun of his retour at the quenis instance, the lordis be interlocutour decernit the act of parliament of king James the feird, saying that na inordinat proces suld be callit eftir thre yeiris at the instance of the pairtie pretendand thame hurt thairthrow etc., to haiff na place in the kingis caus, and that he mycht haiff reductioun of inordinat proces of retouris of utheris non obstante lapso triennio, quia de practica regni statutum illum hactenus non habuit locum contra regem, sic nec habere debet contra reginam.

²⁸⁵Statute ...

Ultimo julii <1543>: Thomas Maxwell of Teiling, allegeand that Johne Maxwell, portionar of Golgowar, wes awin to him greit dettis and intendit to persew thairfoir and that he in his defraude intendit to annalle his landis and gudis in the mentyme, thairfoir he gat the kingis letters inhibitentis to the said Johne that he sould nocht annale his landis nor guidis in defraud of him his creditour. Quhilkis letters was gevin upone fals narratioun, becaus the said Johne wes awand him nathing that he culd schaw to the lordis. The said Johne askit <the letters> to be reducit and suspendit simpliciter. The lordis of Counsall decernit the letters to be suspendit simpliciter for the caus foirsaid, et quia libera dispositio rerum suarum²⁸⁶non est alicui interdicenda sine causa, et quod tales litere sunt quodammodo diffamatorie. Ideoque sine causa non concedende.

²⁸⁶Cf. the definitions of ownership (dominium) given by Bartolus de Saxoferrato and others, on D. 41.2.17.1.

About the samyn tyme or the samyn day <9 jul. 1543>: The laird of Teilling Maxwell had purchessit inhibitione upone Johne Maxwell his cousing, alledging the said Johne to be auchtand to him divers soumes of money. The said Johne desyrit the said letters of inhibitione to be dischargeit or suspendit simpliciter, becaus thai war purchessit upone fals narratioun²⁸⁷, quia libera dispositio rerum suarum nemini est auferenda sine justa causa. The uther pairtie allegit the inhibitione aucht nocht to be dischargit, unto the tryell was tane of the debt auchtand. The lordis, without he wald schaue presentlie the said debt restand to auchtan, dischargit the said inhibitione and suspendit the samen simpliciter.

²⁸⁷See note to nr. 55 about voiding of such letters.

The said day <31 jul. 1543>: The lordis, in ane caus of N. aganes N., decernit that the souertie condamnit be act of adjornall for the principall pairtie mycht bot <be> ordour, dyet or tabill call the pairtie or his air for to releif thame be ane simpill bill within vi dayis warning, and that thai mister nocht ane peremptour summondis, in the cace Blakstok rei et Macgill actoris procuratour.

The 12 julii <1543>: The quenis advocat askit letters be delyverance of the lordis to mak inhibitioun to the lord of Crawfurde²⁸⁸ to sell or annale ony landis or reversioun of the said erledome and als that nane suld contract thairupone with him in defraude of the quene. And that becaus he wes oblist to the king to resigne to his hienes and his airis thai landis and reversionis howsone he war be him or thame requyrit. And for the doing heirof he wes under his summondis at the quene and governaris instance. The lordis of lang disputatioun delyverit the saidis letters aganes him, nochtwithstanding that sic lordis and gret barrounis <mycht be offendit>, quia videbantur tales litere quasi diffamatorie, ut ipsi allegabant. Bot the mair pairtie of the lordis said "nay", for thai war conforme to the practik and commoun law²⁸⁹. And thairfoir na man suld think him hurt or diffamit quhair thair is na thing contrair him done - bot be the law and ressone.

²⁸⁸Same case in nr. 494.

²⁸⁹D. 50.17.55: "Nullus videtur dolo facere, qui suo iure utitur."

20 july 1543: Thair was ane action intendit at the queines instance aganis the earle of Crawfurd for to resigne his landis in favouris of hir grace and mak hir assigney to the reversione of his landis, conforme to ane contract maid betuix the said earle and the kingis grace. Thairfoir the queines advocat desyrit letters of inhibitioun that the said earle sould nather sell, delapidat nor put away or analie ony of his landis. The earle insistit in the contrair and alledgit: na sic letters aucht to be gevin, quia erant quasi defamatorie, he beand ane nobill man in the countrey. The lordis newertheles thocht expedient that the letters of inhibitione sould be grantit.

The said day <12 jul. 1543>: George Drummond clamit at the erle of Atholl the males and fructis of certane landis of Rettray quhilk come in the kingis handis be waird be deceis of his fader, to quhome it pertenit be ressone of the courtesie of Scotland, becaus he mareit Grissall Rettray, heritrix thairof madin, and sua eftir hir deceis hir husband aucht to bruik thame for his lyftyme as he did, and the waird of thame wer disponit be the quene to the said George. The erlis <of Atholl> procuratour exceptit that the waird pertenit to the erle be reasone thair wes ane act maid be the king and his lordis laitlie at the passing of his armie aganes the Inglismen invaidand Scotland in the yeir of God 1543 <(= 1542?)> in August or thairby, that the airis of thame that happinnit to deceis in the armie or to be tane in passing to the armie or cumand fra it suld haiff thair waird frie, and sua the said erle suld haiff his waird. It wes replyit, nay, for he wes nocht air to his father, quha diet of sicknes tane in the armie, of the haill landis of Rettray, upone the waird of the quhilk the questioun wes, bot of the landis he wes air to his mother, and the act maid privilege to thame quhais fatheris or utheris freindis diet as said is, to quhome thai war immediat airis and suld entir to thair landis within thre termes nixt eftir the persones deceis to quhome thai war air. And sen the erle wes air to his mother of thai landis, that deceissit nocht as said is, thairfoir the said erle aucht nocht be vertew of the said act <haiff> the waird of the landis, bot the samyn suld pertene to the quenis donatour. The lordis of Counsall decernit for the pairt of the erle contra reginam et eius donatour, eo quod beneficium principis contra ipsummet latissime interpretandum, l. Beneficium, de consti. prin., ff.²⁹⁰, ergo et contra eius donatorem. Et ex coniecturata mente regis fuit that the airis of thame that diet as said is suld be of na wars conditioun nor thai war thair freindis levand, that thairthrow all nobillmen suld be weill gevin to the defens of the realme. And als indubitanter, si princeps tempore statuti dicti fuisset interrogatus de hoc casu dubio, beneficium suum ad illud quoque extendisset. Et sic paritate cause et rationis et mente dicti acti et conditoris eiusdem eque bene debeatur varda predictarum terrarum dictarum comiti ac si de eisdem heres fuerit patri suo. Et hoc eo magis quia pater eius ut predicitur easdem tenebat be reasone of the courtesie of Scotland, et per ipsius decessum venerunt in manibus regis ratione varde.

²⁹⁰D. 1.4.3 [to the point]; see also 6. 5.(13) de regulis iuris 16.

The xx day of julii <1543>: Quidam Villielmus Henrisone in Sanct Johnestoun callit ane preist (ut recordor) cognomine Gray to heir letters in the four formes gevin, conforme to ane decrete arbitrall gevin be certane thair arbitouris. The preist exceptit the lordis wes na competent juges to him in this cace. The lordis decernit be interlocutour that of the practik thai war competent judges to him in this cace for executioun of sic decretis, non obstante privilegio²⁹¹.

²⁹¹"Privilegium fori" of clergy, to be sued in competent church courts only: Decretum Gratiani D. 96 c. 1; X 2.2.2; 6. 2.2.2.

The 21 julii <1543>: In causa Mirabelle Scugall contra Joannem Forrate de eodem, the said Mirabillis' mother upone hir deidbed grantit ane annuell, heretablie annaleit to hir be the said laird put of his landis of Forrate, laufulie redemit and hir thairfoir to haiff resavit the samyn tyme xx lib., upone the quhilk the said annuell lay in wedset. Hir dochter than callit that redemptioun and outquytting to be reducit as maid in defraud of hir, air to hir said mother, and of the law of the realme nemo potest alienare hereditatem suam in lecto egritudinis in preiudicium heredis sui, as sayis "Regiam Majestatem"²⁹². And that the samyn pretendit redemptioun wes maid in hir defraud it apperit, becaus for the money that scho grantit hir for to haiff reasavit for the redemptioun of the annuall the said laird wes actit to hir executouris, and sua the samyn confessioun wes fenyeit. It wes exceptit that this wes na voluntar alienatioun of heretage and that it wes necessaria alienatio, to the quhilk scho be hir reversioun wes oblist, and thairfoir did bot as scho aucht to do and wes oblist, and thairfoir the said redemptioun wes laufull. Nochttheles the lordis decernit to be reducit and retreitit as maid contra ius municipale regni and in defraud of the air.

²⁹²"Regiam maiestatem" ...

21 july 1543: Thair was on Miragall Scowgall that persewit for the reductione of the redemptione of ane anuelrent furth of the landis off Forret, becaus the samen redemptione of the anuelrent was done be the said Miragalis mother in lecto aegritudinis in prejudicium haeredis, prout de iure in l<ibro> "Regi. Ma." nemo potest alienare hereditatem suam in lecto aegritudinis in prejudicium heredis²⁹³. It was ansuerit that this was na voluntar alienatione of heretage, bot quod fuit actus necessarius, to the quhilk scho was obleist be hir reversione. Et id potuit quod de jure potuit. The lordis decernit nevertheles this alienatione and redemptione to be reducit quia contra ius municipale regni facta fuit.

²⁹³"Regiam maiestatem ...

The xxvii of julii <1543>: Oliveir Sinclar callit the commendatour and convent of Halirudhous to varrand to him the teindschevis of the Quhytkirk at George Douglas' handis, clamend him to be restorit thairto becaus he had tua yeiris to rin of his xix yeir tak thairof maid to him be umquhile Robert, thane abote and now bischope of Ross, and convent of the said abay, be the quhilk he wes put be the foirfaltour led aganes him, the quhilk is now reducit in parliament. He (be decrete thairof decernit) <desyrit> to be restorit to all takis that he had the tyme of his foirfaltour. It wes allegit for the commendatour and convent that thai aucht nocht to varrand him, becaus the emptio proveniebat sine ipsorum consensu, et metu. Nochttheles the lordis decernit thame to varrand the said tak set be the said abote and convent, quia litera assidationis facta dicto Oliverio continebat eandem factam in utilitatem ecclesie de hoc, pro certa summa pecuniae ideo etiam date abati et conventui. Et de iure successor tenetur ex contractu predicessoris facto in utilitatem ecclesie²⁹⁴.

²⁹⁴Rule also stated in nrs. 64 and 98.

<CONTINUED> In eadem causa Georgii Douglas contra Oliverium Sinclar, the penult of julii, the lordis be interlocutour decernit that Oliveiris procuratour aucht to preve his exceptioun dilatour instantlie and that but ony delay of thair practik, nisi cum proponens haberet iustam causam petendi dilationem.

Ultimo julii <1543>: The lordis absolvit the laird of Luss fra the actioun of non-entres of the landis of Glen intentit aganes him be Eduard Stewart, becaus his gift of the non-entres buir that the king had gevin him the proffeitis, fermes and deweteis of the landis beand than in the kingis grace handis be reasone of non-entres. And thane in veratie the land wes few be heretabill sasing, albeit the auld retour and sasing thairof wes thaireftir reducit, and sua the landis thaireftir came in non-entres. Bot or the reductioun of the retour and sasing thai wer nocht in non-entres, viz. the tyme that he obtenit his gift, quhilk extendit nocht to the non-entres of thai landis that than wes or sould happin eftirward ony tyme to be. And sua the lordis decernit aganes the said Eduard and absolvit his adversar fra the summondis.

The xvi of november anno 1543: The lordis advocat ane actioun of ane puir woman of Striveling fra the bailleis thairof, becaus scho allegit that thai war patrone of the altar of the quhilk the chaplane clamit of hir befoir thame certane annuall. And albeit scho culd nocht preve the samyn allegeance, the lordis presupponit it in pena contumacie of the bailleis nocht compeirand. And sua de practica in sic caussis procedunt domini ad sententiam contra contumacem sine ulla vereficatione aut probatione iuris ipsius agentis²⁹⁵.

²⁹⁵This modernization of Ius-Commune-procedure was introduced sooner or later in all respective countries. Originally, when a defendant did not come to court, the procedure was halted and the pursuer was sent into possession of the defendant's property "causa rei reservandae" (X 2.6.3, X 2.15, see nr. 149). After a year, the pursuer could request a decree of definite possession.

The xxviii day <nov. 1543>: The laird of Lethingtoun callit Alexander Hammyltoun for non-intres of certane landis as donatour to the quene thairto and to the males, proffeitis and fermes decernit to pertene to him and his guidis, and, failyeing thairof: his landis to be decernit to be apprysit. Thairfoir comperit George Sinclar for his intres and producit xix yeiris takkis of thai landis and desyrit to call his varrand now to stop the proces. <The lordis of Counsall decernit:> He aucht nocht to haiff ane day to call his warrand now to stop the proces of non-entres, bot reservit the samyn to him to dew tyme and place.

The xxix novembris <1543>: The laird of Inneis callit James Stewart of Baldinspink for spoliatioun of him of his possessioun of the myln of Baldinspink²⁹⁶, libelland that he wes in possessioun of the said myln the tyme of the allegit spuilyie be uptaking be him self and utheris in his name the multuris of the cornis that wer grindand of the said myln, and setting and rasing of thame. The lordis decernit this libell inept, and <quod non> concludebat possessionem molendini, quia esse poterat that the myln pertenit to the said James and the multuris foirsaidis to the said laird, to caus all the cornis of the forrestrie of Boyne, of the quhilk the thirll multuris pertenit heretablie to the said laird, to be ground at his foirsaid mylne and the multuris to cum to the foirsaid laird, prout de facto erat in causa proposita. And sua the possessioun of uptaking and rasing of the multuris of the said forestrie culd nocht preve that the said laird wes in possessioun of the myln. And becaus the laird of Inneis petiit se restitui ad possessionem molendini possessi per ipsum, ut allegabat, modo predicto, qui quidem modus libellatus non continebat possessionem molendini ut dictum est, ideo domini absolverunt reum a spoliatione prout libellatum erat, ob ineptitudinem <libelli>.

²⁹⁶Same case in nr. 222.

20 november 1543: The laird of Innes persewit James Stewart of Baldinspink for the spoliatione of him of his possessione of the mill of Badinspink, lybelland that he was in possessione of the said milne the tyme of the alledgit spuilyie be uptaking be him selff and utheris in his name of the multures of the corne that war ground at the said milne and be setting and rasing thairoff. It was ansuerit aganis the lybell that it was nocht relevant without the said <laird> concludit in his lybell that he had bine in possessione of the milne and milne landis, for it mycht be that the milne mycht appertene to the said James and he to tholl the laird to tak up the multures of the forrestrie of Boyne the quhilk appertenit to the said laird and to be ground at the said milne. The lordis pronuncit be interloquitour that the uptaking and ressaving of the multures could nocht be sufficient for the possessione of the milne except the samyn had bein lybellit that he was in possessione of the milne or occupatione of the samen.

The xx day of januar anno 1544: The tenentis of the landis pertening to Sanctblais altar in the kirk of Perth callit schir Thomas Swyntoun and schir Patrik Ros to schaw thair rychtis quhairby ilk ane of thame intendit to found thame. Ros producit his gift of the patroun of the altar and the institutioun and the ordinar letters thairupone. The <uther> preist producit ane uthir gift and institutioun of the altar of ane uther allegit patrone iure devoluto, and that of the dait lang eftir the uther preistis, becaus he had gottin and tane up the last Mertinmes males and deweteis, and that of the practik in caus of the doubill poynding the tenentis aucht to answer to him that is fund in ultima reali possessione cum titulo. Nochttheles the lordis decernit the tenentis to answer the preist that gat the first giftis and institutioun, for thairthrow he wes in possessioun first of the altar cum titulo, and that the uthir preist had done wrang in uptaking of the Mertinmes maill, and thairfoir decernit him to delyver the samyn agane.

The 16 februarii anno 1544: The lordis decernit be thair interlocutour that the laird of Ormestoun mycht nocht of the practik preve the prebendaris of the quenis college factour to thair teindis of Ormestoun be witnessis, bot that the samyn aucht to be prowin be writ.

The fourt of merche <1544>: The abote of Newbottill summond Hew Dowglas of Langmerie to heir letters gevin aganes him as succedand in the vice of James Achesone in wrangus occupatioun of ane salt pane. Quhilk James wes laitlie decernit be the lordis of Counsallis decrete to haiff done wranguslie occupyit the same, and ordanit him to desist thairfra at the said abbotis instance. The said Hew allegit that sic letters suld nocht be gevin aganes him, quia longe ante dictum decretum et tempore eiusdem, etiam adhuc hodie ipse Hugo possidebat the salt pane cum titulo. Et sic non succedebat in vitium ipsius Jacobi.

<CONTINUED> Et abbas replyit that the decreit buir the said James in possessioun, swa in contrair of the decrete the said Hew aucht nocht to be hard. The said Hew duplyit that the said decrete previt nocht aganes him, quia "Res inter alios actas ..." etc.²⁹⁷ The lordis be interlocutour decernit the said Hewis allegeance relevant, et quia sententia lata contra Jacobum Achisoun non probat contra tertium, ut iuris est vulgati²⁹⁸. And sua admittit his allegeance to his preif.

²⁹⁷See quotations in note to nr. 272

²⁹⁸As quoted at nr. 272.

The 6 merche <1544>: The lordis decernit Nicoll Dundas' precept of spuilyie aganes Helene Hoge relevant, as it buir the said Nicoll in possessioun of myln and myln landis of N. at the tyme of the allegit spuilyie, albeit the maner and qualitie of possessioun wes nocht specifeit in the precept and libell.

The 7 of merche <1544>: The lordis decernit that ane man haifand annuell mycht poind thairfoir ony pairt of the landis bund to the annuell and that, gif thair wer divers annuellis upone ane tenement, thai mycht all poynd ony ane pairt thairof for thair annuellis.

Eodem die <7 mar. 1544>: In the actioun of Nicoll Dundas foirsaid, the lordis decernit that the said Helene <Hoge> and hir sone (fundand thair summondis upone ane tak in causa turbate possessionis per ipsos intentata contra ipsum Nicolaum) aucht to produce ad instantiam rei the said tak in initio litis, bot nocht to disput upone the strenth of it than, sed in processu exceptionis quhen the said titill is producit per modum probationis cause. Sed fundans exceptionem suam super titulo non tenetur illum citius exhibere, sed satis est quod producat in termino dato ad probandum exceptionem²⁹⁹.

Et sic interlocuti sunt domini Consilii die quarto (aut eo circa) Mercii anno 1543, in causa abbatis de Newbottill contra Hugonem Douglas in precedenti latere lata³⁰⁰, sed potius ut superius.

²⁹⁹See note to nr. 53 for the legal problem.

³⁰⁰Nr. 361.

7 martii 1543: The lordis pronuncit be interloquitour into the caus betuix ane Nicoll Dundace and ane Helen Hoge and hir sone that the perswere quha had lybellit upone ane tak aucht to produce the samen instantlie, bot nocht to disput upon the validity thairoff initio litis, - bot to ressave the samen in termino probationis et ubi dicendum fuerit contra producta bot giff the defendar except and alleg the tytill. Et si fundaverit <se> super aliquem titulum, non tenetur id statim exhibere, sed satis est quod producat in termino probationis seu exceptionis.

The 8 merche <1544>: The parochnaris of Elgyne callit schir Thomas Hay (ut recordor), allegit paroche klerk of Elgin, to produce the quenis letters in the four formes obtenit be him upone the gift and admissioun and to the paroche klerkschip of Elgin, becaus the parochnaris allegit that the quenis letters wer nocht conforme to the ordinaris, becaus the ordinaris wer bot simpill monitoriallis and contenit na cursing, and of the practik the fourt forme, viz. horning, aucht nocht to be gevin bot quhair thair wes cursing first precedand. And thairfoir, sen thair wes na cursing first precedand in this cace gevin be the ordinar, thairfoir the fourt forme, viz. horning, wes gevin inordinatlie and thairfoir aucht to be reducit. The uther pairtie denyit this. The lordis of Counsall decernit all the four formes ordourlie gevin and procedit upone the ordinar letters monitoriallis alanerlie and nocht contenand ony cursing, bot thai decernit the executioun of the fourt forme to ceis quhill cursing wer first rasit and execute aganes thame, aganes quhome horning suld be in lykwyis execute.

The 9 of merche <1544>: certane Flemingis callit certane Leithmen befoir the lordis of Counsall for spuilyeing of thame and thair schippis and geir fra thame, to wit tua schippis. My lord admirall, the lord Bothuell, comperit befoir the lordis and allegit that that mater pertenit to him as admirall of heretage, and desyrit the mater to be admittit to his admirall court and the lordis nocht to proceid thairin. The Flemingis allegit that, albeit the admirall wes juge and mair in this cace, nochttheles the lordis of Counsall were also judge ordinaris to all civill actioun within the realme, be the first institutioun of the college of justice, maid be the king and the thre estaitis in parliament, and that the lordis wer in use and possessioun in proceding.

In sic actionis of the Flemyngis aganes Robert Bartane, in the yeir of God i^m v^c sextene yeiris, the samyn exceptioun wes proponit be the erle Bothuellis procuratouris. And nochttheles the lordis procedit in that mater and sua tacite repellit that exceptioun. And alsua allegit that, albeit thair be divers schireffis ordinar judges in heretage and als lordis of regaliteis ordinar judges, nochttheles thai mycht nocht of the practik of Scotland repledge ony actioun fra the lordis, and sua the lordis of Counsall ar ordinar juges to all the realme. And of the law actor potest reum habentem plures iudices eum convenire coram quo eorum voluerit. And sua the actioun beand begun befoir the lordis, it mycht nocht be remittit to the admirall to his court. The lordis of Counsall decernit thame selffis competent judgis in this cace and repellit the said admirallis exceptioun for the foirsaid caus and procedit finalie to sentence diffinitive in the mater, and (as use wes of befoir) war content that the admirall come and sat with thame, and to haiff his woit with thaim incace that he mycht say that justice wes <nocht(?)> equalie done.

9 martii 1543: Thair was certane Fleminges that persewit certane men in Leyth for spoliatione of thair guidis and tua schippis upone the sea. Comperit the admirall for his entres: Desyrit the mater to be admittit to his judgment as maist properlie apperteining to his jurisdictione. It was ansuerit for the Flemingis that, albeit the admirall was judg competent in this caice, yit newertheles the lordis war judges ordinar to all civill actiones, according to the first institutione off the colledg of justice. And albeit thair be divers utheris ordinarie judges, as schireffis and lordis of regalitie, yit thai may nocht repledge from the lordis of the sessione any caus or actione intendit betuix pairties duelland within thair jurisdictione fra the lordis, becaus the lordis ar judges ordinar in civill caussis to all the haill contrey. Et actor potest reum plures habentem iudices convenire coram quo voluerit: l. Heres absens, ff. de judiciis³⁰¹. The lordis fand thame selffis judges competent in this caice and proceidit in deductione of the proces and was content the admirall sould cum and sit in judgment with thaim and haiff his woit amang thame.

³⁰¹D. 5.1.19 [to the point].

The 20 merche of thairby <1544>: Schir Johne Campbell of Lundie askit the laird of Grange' infeftment of certane landis haldin be him of my lord Glammis and become in the kingis handis be reasone of the lord Glammis' foirfaltour and thairthrow geving be the king to the said laird Grange, to be reducit, becaus the said foirfaltour wes reducit be censement of parliament haldin be my lord governour eftir the kingis deceis, quhairthrow all the said lord Glammis' frie tenentis aucht to be put in the samyn place thai war in befoir the foirfaltour. The laird of Grange replyit that his infeftment suld nocht be reducit for the caus foirsaid, and becaus bayth befoir and eftir the reducing of the said foirfaltour and in the tyme thairof in judgement the said lord Glammis consentit that that infeftment suld nocht be reducit, bot suld stand and be of effect siclyk, and als the foirfaltour wer nocht reducit for the caus foirsaid and that the reductioun thairof suld nocht be prejudiciall to the said infeftment. The said schir Johne duplyit that, sent the said foirfaltour wes reducit and decernit to be null fra the begynning and in all tymes cuming with all that followit thairupone, and that the said schir Johne' (fre tenent to the said lord Glammis) rycht wes tynt be the foirfaltour, and that the said lord mycht nocht haiff tane fra the said Schir Johne (without his consent) rycht, sua he mycht nocht consent that the foirfaltour, being reducit and declarit null fra the begynning, that it suld be of na awaill anent the escheit of the said schir Johne Campbellis landis, et quod pacta inter ipsos dominos de Glammis et Grange non poterant preiudicare ipsi domino Joanni, cuius jus hereditarium <per> dictum dominum suum superiorem ledi ante forisfacturam non poterat. Et ita domini Consilii decreverunt diffinitive, reduceand the said lairdis infeftment and reponand the said schir Johne in his heretage and in that samyn estait he wes befoir the foirfaltour.

20 martii 1543: Thair was certane landis haldin of the lord Glames, quhilk the tyme of his foirfaltour was disponit to the laird of Grange, falline in the kingis handis be ressone of the foirfaltour foirsaid, quhilkis of befoir pertenit to schir Johne Cambell of Lundie. The lord Glames being restorit and his foirfaltour reducit be sentence of parliament, the said schir Johne desyrit the laird of Granges infeftment to be reducit becaus he, being ane frie tennent, aucht to be put into the place quhairintill he was of befoir the foirfaltour. Grang ansuerit that, nochtwithstanding of the said reductione of foirfaltour, his infeftment aucht to stand and haiff place, becaus (baith befoir, efter and in the meane tyme of the reductione of the said foirfaltour and in judgment) the lord Glames consentit that the foirsaid reductione of the said foirfaltour sould nocht hurt nor be prejudiciall to the laird of Granges infeftment, bot that it sould stand in the awin forme and effect. To this was ansuerit that, sen the said foirfaltour was reducit and maid null from the beginning and in all tyme cuming with all that he followit thairupone, the confessione and grant of the said lord could nocht hurt nor be prejudiciall to the said schir Johne, nor tak away his land without his awin consent mair nor the samen had newer bein led. For the reductione of the samyn was alyk as giff the samen had newer bein led. The lordis be sentence pronuncit reducit the said lairdis infeftment and reponit the said Mr Johne in his awin place, quia ius hereditarium semell acquisitum tenenti sine illius consensu tolli non potest.

The 25 mercii or thairby anno 1544: In the actioun of redemptioun of the landis of N. intenit be A. Vallace of Johnestoun aganes the laird of B., the lordis of Counsall decernit the reversioun of the saidis landis seillit alanerlie and nocht subscryvit that it maid fayth and wes laufull, becaus it wes maid befoir the act of parliament that ordanes all reversionis to be seillit and subscryvit be the pairtie or notar publict.

The 22 of julii anno 1546: Mr Henry Sinclar, fermorar of Kilvynning, callit Robert Boid for the wrangus intromissioun with the teind scheves of the kirk of Kilmernoche of the 1545 yeiris crope pertening to him be his assedatioun. Robert exceptit that he did na wrang, becaus he, the tua yeiris immediatlie preceding, of the abbote of Kilvynningis licence, tolerance and command intromettit with the saidis teindis for the payment of tua hundreth merkis yeirlie. And the said 45 yeir thair wes na intimatioun of his assedatioun maid to the said Robert thairof, nor yit na inhibitioun put to him in the abottis name, nor yit the fermoraris that he suld nocht intromit thairwith, and sua he intromettit ex tacito consensu, licentia, tollerantia et tacito mandato abbatis causatus³⁰², ex eo quod non fuit ipse Robertus inhibitus ut predicitur, et sic videtur ipse abbas sibi remandasse intromittere cum decimis illius anni; quod quemadmodum ex taciturnitate locatoris, elapso termino locationis, videtur anno inde proximo relocare colono, ut habetur in l. Item queritur § Qui impleto, ff. locati³⁰³. Et sic dicebat Robertus that the fermorare mycht crave him na mair wrang in the intromissioun foirsaid. The lordis of Counsall admittit the said exceptioun and said all, that he aucht to preve that tempore mandati predicti it behovit be provin that the abbote bad him intromet for the said sowme of ii^c merkis yeirlie, et sic quod ante intromissionem fuerit inter ipsum et abatem conventum de summa pro decimis solvenda - or allis his exceptioun vald nocht be provin.

³⁰²Parallel legal problem in nrs. 26 and 40.

³⁰³D. 19.2.13.11 [to the point]; and see D. 19.2.14.

<1543-1546?> Maister Henry Sinckler fermorar of Kilwinning persewit Robert Boyd for the wrangous intromissione with certane teind schavis pertening to him be vertew of ane assedatione. Bot he alledgit he had done na wrang becaus tua yeir (preceiding the tyme he persewit) he intromettit with the said teindis be licence and tollerance of the abbot of Kilwinning. And na inhibitione being put to him be the said Mr Henry, he did na wrong in intrometting with <them> that yeir, ex tacita licentia et tolerantia. Nam quemadmodum ex taciturnitate locatoris nascitur nova locatio, ff. loca., l. Item queritur, § Qui impleto³⁰⁴, ita ex predicti magistri Henrici aut abbatis nascitur nova tollerantia. The lordis pronuncit be interloquitour that the said Robert Boyd had done <na> wrang and admittit the exceptione.

³⁰⁴D. 19.2.13.11.

The said day <22 jul. 1546>: The lordis of Counsall retreitit the erle of Catnes' retour, quhair he wes servit of the schirefdome of Catnes as air to his broder quha wes saisit thairin, becaus George erle of Huntlie producit quhair he wes sasit be ane retour lang of befoir the said erlis serving in all and haill the schirefdome Innernes, within the quhilk all Caitnes lyis, and his predicessouris and the erlis of Huntlie in continuall possessioun of the said haill schirefschip and heretablie infeft thairin, that the said schirefschip wes full the tyme of the said erle of Caitnes retour and serving, and sua the lordis retreittit the samyn.

372. Exceptio contra spolium de antiquiore possessione (et defensione eiusdem <per> continuum tempus) quam actor possidisse se dicit, et die etiam de-eiectionis³⁰⁵, vide Abba. in capitulo 1^o, extra de rest. spo., colum. ult. nu. 9³⁰⁵et 20.iii in Di.³⁰⁷

Eodem die <22 jul. 1546>: In causa spolii A. contra B., actor dicebat se spoliatum per dictum B. reum tertio die, et continue per 20 aut 40 dies proxime precedentes se fuisse in possessione terrarum spoliatarum. Excepit reus quod die allegate spoliationis nullum spolium commisit, eo ipso quod per annum proxime precedentem diei dicti spolii allegati fuisset ipse in possessione earundem terrarum, et toto tempore possessionis allegate per actorem ipse actor molestabat ipsum in sua possessione. Quem tamen ipse continue repellebat, quemadmodum etiam fecit die pretense spoliationis, quo die ut antea semper repellendo eum et defendendo suam possessionem antiquiorem, pretensa possessione actoris, ipse reus spolium non commisit. Quam exceptionem rei domini Consilii admiserunt probationi.

³⁰⁵Parallel problem in nr. 92.

³⁰⁶Commentary by "Abbas antiquus" = Bertrandus de Montemirato on X 2.13.1, last column, marginal numbering n. 9 in the edition which the collector happened to use. Else: commentary by abbas Panormitanus (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis).

³⁰⁷Garbled quotation - probably from Decretum Gratiani.

The 23 of julii 1546: The laird of Weddirburne callit Mr George Hay of Myryearie³⁰⁸ for the spuilyie of certane gudis. Hay allegit he did na spuilyie, becaus thai gudis wer apprysit be ane pursivant be the kingis letters past upone ane decrete of the lordis of Counsal aganes the laird of Blacader for apprysing of the said lairdis gudis, and the gudis wes gottin be the officiar cum and out of the toun of Blacader. It wes replyit that the tyme of the apprysing and immediatlie befoir the samyn the laird of Weddirburnis servandis come to the officiar and offerit to mak fayth and to preve be witnes thai gudis to be the said lairdis (thair maisteris) guidis, and that in presence of Mr George Hayis servandis and houshald men beand presentlie with the said officiar, send with him be the said Mr George Hay, and that thai guidis come to his proffeit, and sua wranguslie tane be the said officiar and his servandis in his name and of his knawlege and command and to his use and proffeit. The said spuilyie suld be jugit of his command and ratihabitioun, for he culd nocht pretend ignorance of it done be the saidis persones in his name and command to his use. The lordis repellit the exceptioun, admittand the summondis and <laird Weddirburnis> reply to probatioun. And sua in poinding the officiar aucht nocht to poynd bot the mannis gudis that the letters specifeis, and he aucht to admit ony man and to mak fayth and to preve his gudis and to stope the poynding. And howbeit the officiar indorse the gudis that he poyndit the mannis awin gudis, yit the lordis will admit ane uther man to preve that thai guidis <ar> his and nocht the mannis guidis quhais guidis the letters biddis poynd, becaus the officiar may faill in the executioun of his office and err.

³⁰⁸Same case nrs. 373-375 continued in nrs. 406-407a. An abstract formulation of the same legal issue can be found in nr. 19. Similar problem in nrs. 256-257.

Bot and the officiar or the pairtie that gat the gudis poindit, vald except thai gudis the <debitoris> pairteis awin propir gudis, than the probatioun of the propirtie of the gudis vald be gevin to the officiar and him for quhome thai war poindit, becaus it is to presume for the officiar and it that he dois, and nocht to the uthir pairtie³⁰⁹ that allegis thai guidis to haiff bene his (and nocht the mannis fra quhome thai war poindit). And this is the practik of Scotland. And anent the said reply in the said actioun of spuilyie of Weddirburne contra Hay recitata fuit lettre precidente that the said Mr George Hay culd nocht be excusit fra the spuilyie, becaus the officiar wes send be him and his awin houshald servandis with him and the geir brocht to him and cumin to his use and proffeit and that thairfoir it is nocht to presume bot that the knawledge of the geir poindit, and how the laird of Weddirburnis servandis offerit and preve the geir thair maisteris and nocht the laird Blacaderis quhilk come to his eiris.

³⁰⁹MS wrongly adds the word "to"

Sed his omnibus non obstantibus credo de iure contrarium, et quod spolium allegatum non presumi debuerat nec de voluntate, nec scientia, nec mandato magistri Georgii factum, per not. Glo. penul., ubi Pan. et alii in cap. Cum ad sedem, extra de rest. spo.³¹⁰, in cap. Presumitur, de re iu., in vi.³¹¹, ex quibus locis habetur quod "scientia in dubio non presumitur", nec mandatum ac voluntas domini in delicto servi, et ultra in dict. glo. pe. habetur³¹² et ibi per Pan. in cap. 1^o eodem titulo³¹³, quia dominus non tenetur ex facto servi nisi vel scivit et potuit prohibere et non prohibuit, ut l. Nullus, ff. de re iu.³¹⁴, vel mandavit, vel nisi res ad eum pervenit: tunc enim (quatenus ad eum pervenit) tenetur, ut l. 1^a, Quia ergo, ubi Bar. et alii, ff. de vi et vi ar.³¹⁵. Et sic ego concludo quod ad condamnandum magistrum illum Georgium de spolio oportet quod aut probetur ipse eum spoliasse, aut mandasse spoliationem autem fieri, aut factum eius nomine ratum habuisse, aut scivisse spoliationem factam et nichilominus approbasse eandem. Et breviter secundum predicta non concludit contra eum spoliationem quae ad definitionem cause convenerit. Attamen predicta exceptio illius magistri Georgii non secludebat necessarie spoliationem obiectam. Ideo domini Consilii (ea repetita) admiserunt summonitionem spolii et replicam probationi, quod mutuo se juvabant.

³¹⁰Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.13.15.

³¹¹6. 5.(13) de regulis iuris 47: "Praesumitur ignorantia, ubi scientia non probatur."

³¹²Last-but-one gloss on X 2.13.15.

³¹³Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.13.1.

³¹⁴D. 50.17.55, remote argument; 6. 5.(13) de regulis iuris 62 "Nullus" would also be a remote argument.

³¹⁵Commentaries by Bartolus de Saxoferrato and others on D. 43.16.1.15 [to the point].

Eodem die <23 jul. 1546>: In causa advocationis cuiusdam Petri Masone contra quendam puellam que eum convenerat coram ballivis de Kelvynning, the lordis be interlocutour assignit him ane terme to preve the caus contenit in his summondis of advocatioun quhairfoir he desyrit the mater to be advocate befoir the lordis, bot thai thocht that wes lang to delay and vald nocht mak ane practik thairfoir.

377. Questio³¹⁶

<27 jul. 1546> Obligatur Titius ad infeodandum me in certis terris, et ego promitto illi reversionem earundem. Et adiecta est clausula in contractu quod, si contigerit me non infeodari per ipsum in aliquibus de terris predictis, hoc casu reditus et devoria istarum terrarum (in quibus me non infeodavit) prestabit mihi semper, donec in illis etiam me infeodaverit. An per istam clausulam videatur inter nos recessum a reversione unica omnium terrarum sic, quod quatenus fuero infeodatus, eatenus cogar reversionem ei dare?

³¹⁶This is an abstract of the following piece.

Die 27 julii anno 1546: The laird of Keir had contractit with Mr Thomas Marjoribank that the said Mr Thomas suld delyver to him certane money for to redeme his landis of Ratho, and that the said laird suld redeme thairwith and infeft Mr Thomas heretablie in the same, extending to xxxvi oxingang of landis, and that the said Mr Thomas suld gif him ane reversioun of the samyn landis agane upone sic sowmes of money and yeiris takis as was agreit amangis thame³¹⁷. And this contract wes actit in the buikis of Counsall. And in the samyn thair wes ane claus that in cace it happin the lairdis of Keir nocht to infeft him in ony of thai landis, he sall content and pay to the said Mr Thomas the males and dewtes of samekill of thai landis that he infeft him nocht in, ay and quhill he be infeft thairin. The laird of Keir had infeft him in xxxiv oxingang of land and restit tua oxingang that he had nocht infeft him in. Now the laird of Keir raisit letters upone the said Mr Thomas for non-fulfilling that contract, forsamekill as he had nocht gevin him ane reversioun of thai landis that he wes infeft in as said is. Mr Thomas allegit that he sould gif na reversioun, becaus this contract <wes> ultro citroque obligatorius et sic ex eo neuter potest agere nisi cum partem suam eiusdem plene prius adimpleverit, l. Julianus § Offerri, ff. de actio. empt. et ibi Bar.³¹⁸ Et ex <eo> quod adhoc dictus Mr Thomas non est per dictum dominum infeodatus totaliter in dictis xxxvi bovatis terrarum ut predictum est, allegit Mr Thomas that Keir had nocht fulfillit the contract for his pairt, and thairfoir he had na actioun to compell the said Mr Thomas to gif him reversioun. And he allegit that he aucht nocht gif bot ane reversioun of the haill landis as the contract proportit and sua mycht nocht be compellit to gif ane reversioun - or ellis the laird of Keir infeftand him in ane oxingang than he mycht haiff compellit him to gif ane reversioun thairof, and infeftand him thaireftir in ane uther to gif siclyk ane uther reversioun thairof, et sic consequitur to gif mony and divers reversiounis and particularlie contra the contract berand ane reversioun, quhilk wer ane great inconvenient to gif de minima quaque parte reversionem.

³¹⁷Similar cases in nrs. 383-385 and in nr. 463.

³¹⁸Commentary by Bartolus de Saxoferrato on D. 19.1.13.8.

29. july 1546: Thair was ane contract betuix the laird of Keir and Mr Thomas Marjoribankis. The quhilk being registrat, the laird of Keir persewit Mr Thomas for the delyvering of ane reversione quhilk was ane pairt of the contract. It was ansuerit and alledgit be Mr Thomas that he aucht nocht to delyver the said reversione, becaus the laird off Keir had dischargit the said contract. And producit his discharge, quhairintill he grantit him to haiff ressabit certane soumes of money, the quhilk the said Mr Thomas was bund be the contract to pay to him, and als grantit that he was satisfiet of all the rest off all the poyntis of the contract. And thair was na uther poynt bot the said reversione and payment of the saidis soumes, and thairfoir be that generall claus he had dischargit the said contract. And sua na reversione aucht to be gevin. To this was ansuerit be Keir that this generall claus could nocht comprehend the reversione, becaus the reversione was of grytter avail nor the soumes of money that was speciallie spokin of, viz. the heretable tytill to bring him to his landis, et clausula illa generalis non potuit operari nisi quoad majora expressa. To this was ansuerit that the generall claus behuifit to comprehend the said reversione, be ressone thair was na uther poynt or claus of contract by and attour the soumes of money except the said reversione. The lordis fand be interloquitour that the generall claus of discharge could nocht be extendit to the reversione nor speciall mentione maid of the same. Vide doctores scribentes in l. Si de certa, C. de transactio.³¹⁹ Et plene disputata fuit haec questio in causa in controversia que agebatur in anno 1577 <(!)> inter dominum Somervellum et dominum de Cambus<ken>nethum; bene an male a dominis judicatum fuerit, novit ille qui nihil ignorat³²⁰.

³¹⁹C. 2.4.31 [to the point].

³²⁰Reference to God, also used in the decretal X 2.1.13 which was commonplace among jurists.

Item de iure (invito creditore) non admittitur particularis solutio, l. Tutor § Lucius, ff. de usuris et fruct.³²¹, § Offerri³²². Et sic, cum dominus Keir integre non infeodaverit magistrum Thomam in dictis 36 bovatis et non impleverit contractum pro parte sua, sequitur quod in nihilo est liberatus et quod ei ad reversionem competere non potest actio. Hoc facit l. Julianus, de verbo.³²³, l. Etiam, ff. de solu.³²⁴, quia dicunt rem cum defectu aliquo solutam posse adhuc peti totam. Facit par<agraphus> Stipulationes non dividuntur, ff. de verbo.³²⁵, quod <si> facta sunt individua, nec dicitur factum fecisse nisi qui totum perfecit, l. In executione, ff. de verbo.³²⁶, l. Nisi is qui quadraginta, ff. ad l. Falci.³²⁷, ex quibus sequitur quod, cum in duobus bovattis terrarum adhuc Mr Thomas non fuerat infeodatus per dominum Keir, quod ipse contractum pro parte sua nondum implevit et ideo ex eo non agere possit contra magistrum Thomam, per iura predicta. Quibus rationibus et iuribus non obstantibus maior pars dominorum concluserunt contrarium et quod ei competebat actio ad reversionem, ex eo quod per clausulam illam predictam dicebant videri provisum quod, si in aliquibus terris dominus Keir non infeodav<er>it magistrum Thomam, quod ex eo casu magister Thomas haberet proficua terrarum illarum a domino predicto semper et donec in illis ipsum infeodaret, et quod sic videbatur tacite actum inter partes contrahentes quod sic in hoc casu magister Thomas reversionem daret domino Keir saltem de terris in quibus extiterat infeodatus. Et hec decisio dominorum videtur omnino irrationalis et contra iura predicta, tamen pluralitate votuum obtinuit hoc tempore.

³²¹D. 22.1.41.1 [to the point].

³²²D. 19.1.13.8, as above.

³²³D. 45.1.131.1 [to the point].

³²⁴D. 46.3.27 [to the point].

³²⁵D. 45.1.72 [to the point].

³²⁶D. 45.1.85 pr. et § 1 [to the point].

³²⁷D. 35.2.80.1 [to the point].

Eodem die <27 jul. 1546>: The laird of Arnottis sone, pryour of Scotlandwell, callit freir Galter Moncur (allegit pryour thairof)³²⁹ to heir letters in the four formes (impetrat aganes him upone ane pretendit sentence and cursing-geving be the minister of Faill aganes the said freir Archibald to desist and ceis fra the place of Scotlandwell) retreitit and suspendit as inordourlie gevin and procedit. Moncuris procuratour allegit, he aucht to be repellit ab agendo in hoc casu, eo quia excommunicatus per suum superiorem antedictum. He replyit that (dato et non concesso quod erat excommunicatus) admitti tamen hic deberet, eo quia venit ad iudicium provocatus et <ad> suam defensionem contra literas illas contra ipsum impetratas, et quia reus excommunicatus de iure ad defendendum se semper admittitur, cap. Inter., de excep., in antiquo³³⁰. Et quod nuper hoc practicatum fuit per interlocutoriam dominorum Consilii in causa Colvini Wallace qui (licet esset excommunicatus) tamen per dominos Consilii fuit admissus ad prosequendum suum <libellum> ad relevandum ipsum de quadam summa pecuniae, pro qua summa pecuniae ipse nomine domini sui erat summonitus. Hoc non obstante maior pars dominorum interlocutoriam tulerunt in contrarium, repellendo istum ab agendo (ratione excommunicationis allegate per ipsum actorem), per cap. Solet, de sententia excommunicationis in vi.³³¹. Et iudicio meo male tulerunt hanc interlocutoriam, cum ipse ad defensionem suam venerit ad iudicium, et <propter> literas contra ipsum levatas. Tamen pluralitate votuum obtinuit in hoc casu³³².

³²⁸Decisions by the "Capella Tolosana", 14th century, collected by Iohannes Corserius (see nr. 343), nr. 137.

³²⁹Other stages of this case in nrs. 302, 398, 400.

³³⁰X 2.25.5; the point of law also results from X 2.25.12 and X 5.39.40. Parallel problem in nr. 65.

³³¹6. 5.11.2 [to the point, but not cogent for the outcome of this case].

³³²Contrasting decision taken in nr. 495.

The xxix julii anno 1546: Ane gentill man callit Mr Johne Hepburn of Benistoun for xl lib., becaus he oblist him to restoir and delyver to him the Inglisman that he borrowit fra him out of the Stanepetht upone xx dayes warning, under the pane of xl(?) lib., and the said Mr Johne had failyeit thairin³³³. Mr Johne allegit that he aucht nocht to delyver that Inglisman, becaus the king of Ingland had be oppin proclamatioun eftir the said oblissing forbidden under the pane of deathe ony of his lieges presonaris <to> enter in Scotland. And sua the man culd nocht get <to Scotland> agane³³⁴.

³³³Case 380 + 381 continued in nr. 492. Other ransom cases in nr. 413 and 421-423. It appears that the English prisoner had been set free, to return to England in order to raise ransom money, and that a Scottish friend, the defendand, had promised a conventional penalty if the prisoner would not come back - which came down in effect to disguised surety for the ransom sum. [Side remark: According to Roman law, the person who had redeemed a Roman citizen from the enemy could hold the released prisoner "in mancipio" as a sort of slave until the costs of redeeming were paid off, or worked off: D. 30.1.43.3 - maximally for five years: C. 8.50.20. Compare Jewish law in Exodus 21.2 and Leviticus 25.49. The topic is amply treated by Adalbert Erler, Der Loskauf Gefangener, Berlin 1978.]

³³⁴First point: "Impossibilium nulla obligatio", stated in 6. 5.(13).6 and D. 50.17.185, against a promise "effecturum se ut Titius daret" (Inst. 3.19.3), combined with the defense "Cum non stat per eum, ad quem pertinet, quo minus conditio impleatur, haberi debet perinde ac si impleta fuisset": 6. 5.(13).66.

<CONTINUED> Secoundlie he allegit, incace he aucht to delyver him agane, howbeit he failyeit thairin, he sould nocht be compellit to pay that pane bot safar alanerlie as his adversar culd preve that he wes skathit in wanting and non-delyvering to him agane of the said Inglisman, quia (ut ipse allegabat) pene iste conventionales de practica Scotie non practicantur nisi quatenus interest partis cui contractus penalis est factus. Sed iis non obstantibus domini diffinitive condamnaverunt magistrum Joannem actori in dicta pena 40 librarum predicta secundum tenorem sui promissi³³⁵.

³³⁵Second point: If the prisoner had come back, the pursuer would not be 40 pounds richer. Although he would have the person back, he would not have a lever to extort from that prisoner ransom in that quantity. The prisoner would know he could never return home to England anyway, as he would be hanged there - so he might as well remain in Scotland.

The defender's argument implies that conventional penalties (if they are admitted in Scotland at all) must be seen as a sort of pre-estimated liquidated damages, with an agreement to shift the burden of proof of damage from the person who sustained the damage to the person who must redress it: Inst. 3.15.7, D. 4.8.11.3, D. 46.5.11. The defender in this case would undertake to prove that the pre-estimate was far too high, and that the real damage sustained by the actor was much lower.

The counter-argument of the Court of Session is that Roman law also allowed a second type of conventional penalties, namely "absolute" ones, stipulated as a threat and punishment, independent from any damage which might result: D. 44.7.44.5, D. 45.1.38 pr., C. 2.55(56).1, and that the agreement in question had to be interpreted in this sense.

The defender's argument, however, was based on canon law doctrine which forbade "absolute" conventional penalties and regarded respective contract clauses as void. Canonists held that "absolute" penalties tasted of usury and taking advantage from something which (according to morals) should not have happened, and thus it tasted of sin: doctrine based on Decretum Gratiani C. 12 q. 2 c.11 § 1 and X 5.37.9, connected to canon law's doctrine of "restitutio" (see note to nr. 101). Although the Court of Session tended to side with canon law in this question (see nr. 492), the English were hated so much that the Court sided here with Roman law.

Modern English law sticks to the canon law doctrine. Among modern Ius-Commune-countries, only Louisiana still maintains this doctrine (Civil Code art. 2005 and 2005, with official interpretation). All other civil codes of Ius-Commune-countries have returned to Roman law. They merely express a presumption that penalty clauses be meant as global pre-estimates of minimum damages (and - in some countries - as well maximum damages). In Pearl Assurance Co. v. Union Government 1934 A.D. 560 (P.C.), the Privy Council brought South Africa in line with English law. This was resented by South African lawyers. As soon as appeals to the Privy Council had been abolished, the South African parliament restored Roman law: Conventional Penalties Act no. 15 of 1962.

29. julii 1546: Thair was ane gentill man that persewit Mr Johne Hepburne of Bersatoun upon his band and obligatione anent the delyvering off ane Inglish man quhom he borrowit furth of the Stenipeth and promesit him to delyver him againe within xl dayis warning under the pane of xl li., and becaus he had failyeit in delyvering of him, to pay the said soume of xl li. He ansuerit and alledgit that he aucht nocht to pay the said soume becaus the delyverie of the Inglishman stuid nocht be him bot be the king of Ingland quha had be opin proclamatione dischargit any Inglishman to enter in Scotland, and incaice he was obleist to redelyver the said man he aucht to pay na farder peny bot in sa far as the pairtie was interest, quia paenae conventionales de jure Scotie non prestantur, sed tantum quatenus interest parti cui contractus penalis est factus³³⁷. The lordis decernit and pronuncit that the said xl li. aucht to be payit, quia fuit interesse conventum - quod semper prestatur, nisi dolus aut fraus intercesserit, juxta illud "Pacta servanda sunt", l. Juris gen. § Pretor, ff. de pactis³³⁸ et cap. i, extra de pactis³³⁹.

³³⁶This is a ransom case, also reported in nrs. 380-381 (note); parallel case in nr. 413.

³³⁷Famous legal problem. See notes for nr. 381.

³³⁸D. 2.14.7.7 [to the point].

³³⁹X 1.35.1.

Ultimo julii predicti <1546>: James Andersone eldar callit William Mowbray officiar and Johne Aird for the spoliatioun of certane oxin and ky fra him. It wes allegit exceptit that James Andersone and Johne Andersone, sone to the said James eldar, wer actit in the schiref of Edinburgh buikis to releve the said Johne of certane guidis spuilyeit be thame fra N. and that the schiref depute directit furth his precept to the said William Mowbray officiar to poynd the said James' tua sones gudis and geir for the said Johne Airdis releif, at command of the quhilk precept the said officiar past to poind thair guidis, and that the said James eldar of his awin will frelie put befoir him the saidis guidis (that he callit now) for the said Johnes releif, and that he did the samyn and thairfoir did na wrang nor spuilyie, and offerit him to preve the samyn be his indorsatioun of the precept and witnes contenit thairin. It wes allegit that that exceptioun suld nocht be admittit as contrair to the summondis of spuilyie. Nochttheles the lordis decernit it to be admittit probationi reorum, et eo maxime quia presumptio est pro officiario in executione sui officii, et eo petenti in similibus casibus danda est probatio, et non impugnanti illam.

Eodem die <31 jul. 1546>: The laird of Keir dischargit all the sowmes of money contenit in the contract foirsaid maid betuix him and Mr Thomas Moncur and grantit him weill payit thairof, except ane certane sowme, and als dischargit the said Mr Thomas of the remanent poyntis of the said contract. And suith it wes, thair wes na uther poyntis in it that Mr Thomas aucht to do bot the geving of ane reversioun³⁴⁰ of the landis contenit in the said contract, as the said contract mair fullelie proportis. The laird rasit letters upone the said Mr Thomas for non-fulfilling of the contract, viz. in the poyntis of reversioun. He allegit, it wes dischargit be the lairdis acquittance as fulfillit, quia clausula illa generalis, and of the remanent poyntis suld nocht be superflue, and that it behovit to comprehend it, becaus that thair wes na uthir <poynt> in the contract concerning Mr Thomas, as said is. It wes allegit that the reversioun wes of grittar awaill nor the pointis specialie dischargit, viz. the sowmes of money, becaus the reversioun wes ane heretabill rycht of the landis, and sua it suld nocht cum under that generall claus.

³⁴⁰Similar case in nr. 377a.

<CONTINUED> It wes allegit for Mr Thomas pairt that, albeit it <(= the reversioun)> wer of greittar awaill nor the poyntis specialie dischargit, nochttheles in this cace yit it suld be comprehendit heir, becaus ubi clausula generalis non potest operari nisi quoad maiora <clausulae> expresse, ut quia <maiora> tantum restant, tunc comprehendit illa, ut per Joannem Monachum in cap. In generali, de re. iu. in 6.³⁴¹ et per Feli. et alios in cap. Sedes, extra de rescriptis³⁴². Sed in casu nostro nullum restabat punctum contractus per magistrum Thomam adimplendum preter promissionem reversionis. Et ex quo in acquittantia erat dictum quod dominus Keir fatebatur se plene solutum de omnibus pecuniarum summis in contractu contentis et de eisdem et omnibus aliis punctis contractus prefati exoneravit magistrum Thomam, igitur per generalem illam clausulam exonerat ipsum etiam de danda reversione.

³⁴¹Commentary by Iohannes Monachus on 6. 5.(13).81: "In generali concessione non veniunt ea quae quis non esset verisimiliter in specie concessurus."

³⁴²Commentary by Felinus Sandeus on X 1.3.15 [to the point].

<CONTINUED> Et ulterius dicebat Magister Thomas quod reversio longe erat minoris valoris quam summe pecuniarum de quibus erat exoneratus, et ideo deberet illud punctum tanquam minus <clausulae> expresse videri per clausulam generalem remissum. Is omnibus non obstantibus maior pars dominorum interlocuta fuit clausulam predictam non comprehendere reversionis donationem, et quod oportebat specialiter et in specie eandem remitti - et judicio meo male iudicata et contra jura. Et <in> hac questione domini erant equaliter divisi. Et dominus chancellarius votum suum tulit pro domino Keir.

In august anno 1546: In the parliament haldin be the governour and thre estaitis for foirfalting of thame that slew the cardinall archiebischope of Sanctandrois, the governour and the thre estaitis admittit the vicaris generalis of Sanctandrois letters of repleiging of ane preist callit thair to underly the law as airt and pairt of that slauchter fra the said parliament and temporall judge to the spirituall judgement of the saidis vicaris generalis and thair officiallis and commissaris in the said caus.

<CONTINUED> The thre estaitis decernit be interlocutour that it wes treasone to slay the said archiebischope, chancellar of Scotland, per l. Quisquis, C. ad l. Juliam Ma.³⁴³. And thairfoir the thre estaitis of censement of parliament for treasone committit (as said is) foirfaltit Normand Leslie, fear of Rothes, the laird of Grange and thair complices slayaris of the said archebischope, cardinal.

³⁴³C. 9.8.5 pr. [to the point].

<25 aug. 1546> In sciptis debent reo ante omnia exhiberi contractus vel instrumentum in libello actoris mentionatum. Et convenienter vide Rotam in Novis decisionibus 34³⁴⁶. Et ibi plene allegat Pan., In. et alios in cap. 1^o, extra de probationibus³⁴⁵.

³⁴⁴This is an abstract of the following piece nr. 389. Parallel rule in nr. 53 (note).

³⁴⁵Decisiones Rotae Romanae novae, collected by Guilielmus Horborch (1378-1381), nr. 34 = de probationibus 2 [to the point].

³⁴⁶Commentaries by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) and pope Innocent IV (= Sinibaldus Fliscus) on X 2.19.1.

The 25 of august <1546>: The lordis decernit that the erle of Cassellis, allegeand in his clame of spuilyie of the place and fruitis of Glenlus (gevin in be him aganes the laird of Lochinvar) that he had tak and assedatioun of the same³⁴⁷, sould produce and schaw the said allegit tak or the uther pairtie aucht or mycht be compellit to answer to his clame, becaus fundans se super aliquo scripto in suo libello debet ante omnia ad partis adverse petitionem ostendere illud scriptum super quod se fundavit³⁴⁸. Et hoc dicebant domini verum in actione spolii - sed in hac instantia non tenetur actor super validitate tituli sui disputare. Et quamquam in actione spolii satis sit de iure probare possessionem et violentam eiectionem, cap. Consultationibus, ubi Pan., extra de officio dele.³⁴⁹, tamen fundans se in huiusmodi actione super certo titulo debet, si pars petat, illum producere, de practica dominorum Consilii. Ad quod videtur facere quod notant Inno. <et> Io. An. cap. 1^o, Extra de probationibus³⁵⁰. Et de hoc plene et singularie Rota in Novis decisionibus³⁵¹. Sed contra: quod exhibere in casu nostro teneatur actor comes de Cassillis assedationem suam, de qua in libello suo mentionem fecit.

³⁴⁷MS wrongly inserts "and".

³⁴⁸Parallel rule in nr. 53 (note).

³⁴⁹Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 1.29.10 [to the point].

³⁵⁰Commentaries by pope Innocentius IV (= Sinibaldus Fliscus) and Iohannes Andreae on X 2.19.1.

³⁵¹Decisiones Rotae Romanae novae, collected by Guilielmus Horborch (1378-1381), as in nr. 388.

<CONTINUED> Videtur quod narratio proprietatis facta in libello possessorio non arctat libellantem ad probandum proprietatem, secundum Pan. in cap. Ex parte 6, nu., 322^o, Extra de fo. compete.³⁵². Et ad obtinendum interdictum recuperande possessionis satis est de iure (ut predicitur) probare possessionem et violentam eiectionem. Igitur.

³⁵²Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.2.15 [to the point].

<CONTINUED> Sed hoc non obstante domini bene interlocuti sunt, quia in hoc casu dictus dominus comes huiusmodi rerum ecclesiasticarum et <quasi->possessionis earundem erat omnino incapax, nisi haberet titulum aliquem saltem colorativum. Et ideo, ubi sine titulo non cadit possessio, ibi restitutionem petens debet habere titulum aut saltem colorativum et eum ostendere³⁵³, secundum Rotam in Novis Decisionibus, 34³⁵⁴. Et sic bene interlocuti sunt domini Consilii comitem debere ostendere assedationem suam, sine qua <quasi->possessionem, pro qua se petebat restitui, habere in iure non poterat.

³⁵³6. 2.5.2 - see problem in nr. 172 (note).

³⁵⁴Decisiones Rotae Romanae novae, collected by Guilielmus Horborch (1378-1381), as in nr. 388.

Eodem die anno 1546, dictus comes in eadem causa petiit terminum ad producendum suum titulum, quia eo presenti producere non potuit, ex eo quod abbas de Glenlus recepit in custodia eius assedationem per ipsum et conventum suum factam dicto comiti. Et cautionariis suis propter impletionem eiusdem arctitat, <et> ipsi comiti; et dare dictus comes <... ...>. Quam assedationem restituere dicti comiti recusabat. Et ideo petiit terminum ad producendum titulum suum predictum assignare, et monitoriales contra abbatem pro productione eiusdem.

Allegabat dictus dominus Lochinvar: Comitem hic actorem debuisse venire cum facto parato, et ante iudicium providisse sibi propter³⁵⁶recuperationem assedationis ab ipso abbate. Et terminum non dandum ei ad hoc, sed ab eius ipsummet petitione absolvendum, quia titulum nullum ostendebat comes. Sed hec interlocutoria non fuit probata quia dictus comes tandem exhibuit assedationem predictam sub forma instrumenti, et decretum arbitrale in quo dictus abbas eandem affirmare fuit ordinatus, et etiam per illud decretum affirmavit eandem, et literas factorie sue, sibi per abbatem de Corsragell (cui assedatio illa facta fuit) factas. Et ita colorativum saltem titulum ostendebat.

Exceptum fuit ex parte domini de Lochinvar quod illud decretum et assedatio retractata erat per sententiam iudicum delegatorum archiepiscopi Sanctandree ad quem abbas de Glenlus reclamaverat, et sententia definitiva ipsorum delegatorum producta ab illo.

Replicavit comes se appellasse, et protulit scripturam manualem magistri Thomae Huchesone, confitentem receptionem appellationis et promissionem commissionis ex ea curia desuper; et appellatione pendente sententiam esse suspensam.

Duplicatum fuit ex parte altera quod comes appellationem nullam ostendebat et quod ipse actor debebat venire cum facto parato ad iudicium.

Triplicatum fuit ex parte comitis quod instanter appellationem producere non poterat, et petiit dilationem duorum dierum tantum ad illam producendam. Et quod ipse non venerat deliberate ad iudicium, sed res erat dudum(?) sub compromisso relata ad dominum gubernatorem et per ipsum de consensu partium relata ad dominos Consilii. Et etiam quia illa appellatio erat in manibus dicti Thome pro commissione levanda.

Respondit pars adversa: Iis omnibus non obstantibus terminum ad producendum appellationem comiti non esse dandum.

Conclusum et interlocutum fuit per dominos ex equitate, rationibus quibus supra: dandum comiti dictum terminum.

³⁵⁵MS: penes.

393. Quod petens fructus et proficua terrarum violenter vel iniuste occupatarum possit libellare certam summam pecunie pro omnibus proficuis earundem, et annua proficua earundem non sit necesse libellare in specie, vide Pan. in cap. Gravis, Extra. de rest. spo.³⁵⁵.

The 15 of December anno 1546 in sessione apud Sanctumandream: N. callit Colintoun for the wrangus intrometting of the landis of the Grange pertening to him as donatour to the quene, to quhome the samyn and remanent of the moveabill guidis of A. Johnestoun pertenit as escheit throw being of the said N. etc. at the horne, and askit the said laird to be decernit to desist fra the tak foirsaid and to refound, content and pay to him as donatour foirsaid the proffeit of the saidis tak landis of Grange for the space of ane yeir that the said laird occupyit thame, extending in all proffeitis to 40 lib. It wes exceptit contra the generalitie of the libell, as the proffeitis aucht to haiff bene libellit in speciall and the laird foirsaid aucht nocht to answer to the said generall libell. The lordis for the maist pairt interloquendo decreverunt that libelling generall of the proffeitis of the ground sufficient, howbeit thair wes divers of the lordis in the contrair. For the use and styll of libelling of summondis of spuilyie of wrangus occupatioun of landis is that the proffeitis be specifeit, viz. the sawing of the landis, the males, gressowmes, quhat scheipt, nolt or horsis the ground may beir and quhat be the yeirlie proffeit of the cornes that the ground may saw and guidis that it may beir and pryces thairof.

³⁵⁶Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.13.11 [to the point].

Eodem die <15 dec. 1546>: The lord Lyndsay, wardar of Craighall, askit the place thairof and tour at Mr Alexander Kynninmonthe³⁵⁷, quha exceptit that he suld nocht be decernit to delyver it to him, becaus it wes convenit of befoir betuene the said lord, the erle of Rothes, Mr Alexander and Petir Kynnynmonthes that the said Mr Alexander with consent and consall of the saidis erle of Rothes and lord Lyndsay sould haiff the said tour in keping.

It wes replyit: That contract wes nocht consentit to, <namely nocht> be Petir, ane of the persones contenit in it. And als it wes maid or the laird wes wardatar, and nevir ane of the saidis four persones contenit in it had uther rycht or intres to the same. And that the samyn buir bot that the said Mr Alexander with consent of the lord and erle foirsaid suld intromit thairwith - quhilk consent oblissit him nocht varrand that to him; that the contract had na foundament ressonabill, nor inducit na obligatioun anent that poynt upone ony of the persones³⁵⁸, and thairfoir that the said lord mycht ask as vardatour foirsaid, maid be the quene lang eftir that appoyntment, the said toure fra the said Mr Alexander, ex iure suo longe post conventionem predictam sibi domino Lyndsay superveniente. Quemadmodum vana et inutilis omnino de iure videri poterat conventio inter Titium et Sempronium super rebus Caii, in quibus vel ad quas conventionis tempore neuter eorum nullum omnino ius aut interesse pretendere poterat. Quod si Titius de consensu Sempronii haberet fundum dicti Caii et Sempronius haberet de consensu Titii omnia mobilia Caii, si postea ad causam vel hereditario iure vel legati deferretur fundus Caii ad Sempronium et tempore delationis hereditatis vel legati Titius possideret ipsum iniuste: vanum debet dicere, si sibi iure novo hereditario vel legati competentem petiit Sempronius fundum a Titio, Titium posse repellere eum ab agendo, exceptione predicti conventionis et consensus Sempronii, quod Titius fundum Caii haberet, cum tempore consensuum suorum conventionis predicti neuter eorum in vel ad bona mobilia vel immobilia Caii ullum ius haberet. Et sic de iure pactum inter aliquos de iure tertii ad eos nullo modo spectante omnino est inutile³⁵⁹. Et si res illa ad alterutrum eorum iusto titulo postea pervenerit, neuter potest contra alterutrum vel de illo pacto vel consensu prestito excipere. Et sic domini Consilii decreverunt (prescripta conventione non obstante et consensu domini de Lyndsay in ea contento) turrim deliberandam ei tanquam vardatario per dictum magistrum Alexandrum.

³⁵⁷Continued in nrs. 405 and 415.

³⁵⁸Point: An immoral contract is void: cf. 6. 5.(13).64 "Quae contra ius fiunt, debent utique pro infectis haberi."

³⁵⁹Inst. 3.19.3 et 21.

Die 20 (vel eocirca) septembris anno 1546, apud Sanctumandream: A. petiit arrestamentum bonorum B. sui tenentis (factum ad instantiam C. virtute decreti arbitralis lati contra dictum B. ad eius instantiam) in magnis pecuniarum summis relaxari, ad effectum ut ipse A., dominus terrarum occupatarum per dictum B., <possit> namare easdem <(= summas)> pro firmis et lie males et devoriis earundem terrarum per dictum suum tenentem sibi debitis, ex eo quod divoria terrarum ante omnia et omnes alios creditores sunt solvenda. Et dominus terrarum in eo preferitur ceteris creditoribus. Tamen dictus C. allegabat hoc fieri non debere in preiudicium sententie pro eo late contra dictum B. Domini Consilii decreverunt dictum arreistamentum relaxandum ad petitionem dicti domini tenentis predicti ad effectum predictum, quia de practica Scotie the males, deweteis and firmes of the landis aucht and sould be first payit, et quoad ea dominus terrarum prefertur ceteris omnibus creditoribus tenentis ipsius, <in> bonis existentibus super fundum domini.

20 december 1546: Thair was ane supplicatione gevin in at the instance of A.B., desyreand ane arrestment to be lowsit at the instance of N. upone the guidis moveabill of D. tennent to A. - A.B.C.D. alledgit that the arrestment aucht nocht to be lousit be ressoun it proceidit upone ane decreit obtenit be him aganis D. the tennent, and sua thair aucht na arreistment to be lousit in the preiudice of the said decreit. To this was ansuerit that the lord or laird of the ground aucht to be preferit in payment of his maillis and dewties to all uther creditouris, and except the arrestment war lousit, he cold nocht poynd for the samen. The lordis (nochtwithstanding of the decreit) decernit the arrestment to be lousit; and that of the practik of Scotland the lord or laird of the ground in payment of his maillis and dewties is preferit to all uther creditouris.

Eodem die (vel eocirca) <20 sept. 1546>: A. petiit decretum vicecomitis de P. (latum contra eum ad instantiam B., assignati C. executoris quondam D., in et ad certas res quondam defuncto pertinentes) retractari, ex eo quod ipse executor de iure donare bona defuncti vel constituere in et ad ea vel eorum aliqua cessionarium vel assignatum non potest. Et pretextu dicte assignationis ipse B. non habebat ius neque actionem exigendi dicta bona. Domini Consilii retractaverunt decretum dicti vicecomitis et causa allegata quod executor non potest donare vel dilapidare bona defuncti, sed est nudus executor et minister ultime voluntatis defuncti. Et in nostro casu non apparebat ulla legitima causa assignationis. Et ideo tanquam gratuita donatio bonorum defuncti, et reiecta fuit et decretum nullius roboris et momenti, et ex ea actio non competisset assignato.

Primo decembris (vel eocirca) anno eodem <1546>: Quidam Vilsoun capellanus petiit literas regias in quatuor formis, levatas per magistrum Jacobum Rolland rectorem de Balvadder (conformes literis ordinariis super collatione sua rectorie eiusdem) ad faciendum parochianos suos sibi respondere de fructibus, suspendi, ex eo quod ipse dominus Wilsoun extat presentatus ad eandem rectoriam per dominum de Methven patronum eiusdem et vacatio rectorie ipsius nunc demum devenit ad notitiam suam, quamvis ad spatium anni ipse Rolland de eadem fuerit provisus per collationem ordinariam ad presentationem domine regine asserte patrone dicte rectorie. Et ipse Wilsoun nunc a tempore notitiae vacationis et collationis predicte debite appellavit. Et per appellationem dicebat collationem, literas ordinarii desuper, et literas quatuor formarum regine conformes illis, suspendi debere. Sed domini Consilii decreverunt appellationem non suspendere effectum premissorum. Alioquin nullus beneficiatus in hoc regno gauderet fructibus suis, utique aliquis nebulo semper inveneretur qui a collatione ipsius appellaret. Et hoc esset valde absurdum. Et practica dominorum Consilii non solet admittere.

Die 7 decembris (vel eocirca) <1546>: In causa regine contra fratrem Archibaldum Arnot, ministrum de Scotlandwell³⁶⁰, et nonnullos alios clericos, ad videndum literas quatuor formarum dirigi contra eos pro occupatione iniusta loci de Scotlandwell (vacantis per decessum fratris Galteri Moncur, asserti ministri etiam eiusdem loci, nuper defuncti), contra tenorem acti cuiusdam dominorum Supremi Consilii regine de non capiendo per quoscunque loca religiosa vel prelatorum (prelaturis ipsis vacantibus per prelatorum decessum), ex eo quia dictum actum factum fuit in favorem clericorum, domini Consilii <interlocuti sunt> se iudices competentes in hac causa contra clericos, quamvis earundem iurisdictionem expresse in hoc casu dicti clerici excipientes declinarent³⁶¹, et bene, pro mea opinione; sed maior opinio contra me in illo.

³⁶⁰Other stages of this case in nr. 302, 379, 400.

³⁶¹Grounded on "privilegium fori", see note to nr. 353.

Eodem die <7 dec. 1546>: In causa spolii intentata per tenentes de Cokburnispethe contra dominum de Home et suum premonitum pro certis victualibus per ipsum ab eis spoliatis, exceptum fuit pro parte reorum quod actores renunciarunt sponte dicte actioni spolii. Sed pars tenentium replicavit quod metu cadente in constantem virum³⁶² per eos omnes relato fecerunt dictam renunciationem. Duplicatum fuit pro domino et magistro de Home quod metus via exceptionis non esset hic admittendus, cum tunc rei produxerint instrumentum publicum dicte renunciationis, sed quod debuerunt tunc tenentes querere per viam actionis "quod metus causa" ad retractandum renunciationem predictam. Triplicatum fuit quod per viam exceptionis vel replice metus opponi potest³⁶³. Domini Consilii interlocuti <sunt>: de metu posse agere via exceptionis vel actionis. Ad libitum metum posci, iuxta jura ff. quod metus causa et de doli mali et metus exceptione³⁶⁴.

³⁶²Words from D. 4.2.6, see note to nr. 315.

³⁶³Exception to the rule stated in nr. 312.

³⁶⁴D. 4.2 et D. 44.4.

7 december 1546: Thair war tenentis of the landis of Cokburnepeth that persewit the lord Home for the spoliatioun of certane victualis. It was ansuerit be the said lord that the tenentis had renuncit and quytclamed all actione that thai had intendit or mycht intend aganis him be way or occasione off the taking away and spoliatione of the said victuall. To this was ansuerit be the tenentis that thai maid the said renunciatione be just fear et qui cadere poterit in constantem virum³⁶⁶. To this was ansuerit that thai could nocht alledge this fear and dridour be way of exception bot the said renunciatione aucht to stand quhill it war tane away be way of actione. The contrair was alledgit on the uther pairtie et juxta leges ff. quod metus causa et doli mali et metus exceptione³⁶⁵. The lordis fand be interloquitour that the pairtie mycht alledge and except "quod metus causa" and feir and dridour be way of exceptione or actione, as it pleisit best the pairtie³⁶⁷.

³⁶⁵Words from D. 4.2.6, see note at nr. 315.

³⁶⁶D. 4.2 et D. 44.4 [to the point].

³⁶⁷The decision corresponds to Digest texts quoted above. In is an inroad, however, into the rule stated in nr. 16 (see note there) and parallel cases, according to which documents are treated as valid until they have been invalidated by "reduction".

Undecimo decembris <1546>: In causa regine contra ministrum Scotlandwell predictum³⁶⁸, domini Consilii interlocuti sunt regine procuratorem non posse aliquid libelli sui pro deleto habere post peremptoriam ex altera parte propositam, quia de practica dominorum inducit litis contestationem, post quam de iure actor libellum mutare, addere aut minuere non possit³⁶⁹, nec in eo aliquid pro deleto habere.

³⁶⁸See nr. 398, with nr. 302 and 379.

³⁶⁹C. 2.1.3

Eodem die, anno quod supra <11 dec. 1546>: Duncanus Dundas, donatarius regius ad et in omnia bona quondam Joannis Moffat bastardi et ea ratione spectantes regine ratione eschete per bastardiam, fecit per literas vocari omnes interesse habentes ad videndum literas decerni officiariis regine ad inquirendum omnia bona dicti quondam bastardi et deliberandum eidem <Duncano> predicto. Comparuit Mr Thomas Marjoribankis procurator Moffat et uxoris defuncti et produxerunt testamentum ipsius defuncti in quo erant executores ipsius confirmati et opposuerunt contra ordinem literarum et dixerunt peremptoriam summonitionem xxi dierum esse dandam et non esse procedendum per simplices literas mandatorias. Domini Consilii interlocuti sunt ordinem esse bonum et non esse necessariam dictam xxi dierum summonitionem. Preterea allegat Duncanus escheatam decernendam quia defunctus de corpore suo heredem non habebat et sic omnia bona eius de practica huius regni debentur regine ratione eschetae.

7 december 1546: Thair was ane Duncane Dundas that was maid donatour to the escheit of ane Moffat as diand bastard without ony laufull successione off his bodie, and thairefter acclamit the guidis and geir of the defunct to appertain to him. Compeirit the wyff and the executrice of this Moffat and allegit that he had, the tym of his deceis, ane dochter gottin laufullie in mareage. And sua, hawand the dochter laufullie gottin, scho was his laufull heretrix, and the geir aucht to apperteine to hir and his wyff divisive, conforme to the ordour. To this was ansuerit that this dochter could nocht be his air, be ressone na persone can haiff ane air except he be barron, burges or sacerdos. And the said Moffat hawand na landis nor immobilia could nocht be barrone, nor was he burges or sacerdos. To this was ansuerit that giff he had landis or immobilia, his auin laufull dochter was habilis ad succendendum patri and sua the king and the donatour was ay secludit respectu legitimae prolis. The lordis fand be interloqitour that, in respect of the lawfull dochter, thair could be no escheit socht of bastardie.

Respondet Marjoribankis quod tempore decessus sui habebat filiam unam ex legitimo matrimonio natam, et ubi bastardus natus habet heredem legitimum de corpore suo cessat escheata et de bonis suis libere potest disponere, prout ut dictus Moffat (ut supra dicitur) fecit, et sic regina eschetam pretendere non poterat. Et replicavit Dundas quod defunctus heredem non poterat habere quia terras non habebat et sic nec baro nec burgensis nec sacerdos preter quos de iure Scotie heredem nullus potest habere. Duplicavit Marjoribankis quod filia erat legitima patri et habilis ad succedendum ei et si possidisset immobilia et quod sic cessaret escheta. Interlocuti sunt domini quod, legitima et naturali proli existente bastardo de corpore suo procreata et qui posset ei heres esse, si immobilia hereditaria possedisset bastardus, cessat escheata ipsius ratione bastardie. Tamen domini Consilii assignarunt terminum reis ad probandum prolem legitimam extitisse defuncto, tempore sui decessus.

Eodem die <11 dec. 1546>: Jacobus Hammyltoun, heres quondam Jacobi Hammyltoun de Finnart militis, petiit heredem domini de Gastoun producere infeodamentum suum regium certarum terrarum patri suo factum (ratione forisfacture dicti quondam Jacobi) et illud decerni nullum, quia dicta forisfactura iam extat per decretum parliamenti reducta cum omnibus inde secutis. Reus, quia minor annis, allegabat se non placitare teneri in hoc casu super hereditate sua, secundum leges regni et "Regie Maiestatis"³⁷⁰. Domini Consilii nihilominus in hoc casu interlocuti sunt minorem in hoc casu teneri respondere super hereditate illa ad eum delata per forisfacturam que extat reducta, prout erat in hoc casu, alias sequeretur magnum inconveniens et absurdum, et iniuste hereditate sua defrauderetur heres dicti domini Jacobi iniuste forisfacti.

³⁷⁰Statutes and "Regiam maiestatem" ...

Eodem die <11 dec. 1546>: Quidam dominus Thomas Diksoune presbiter levabat literas quatuor formarum super literis episcopi Dunkeldensis, conformibus collationi cuiusdam capellanie ecclesie Dunkeldensis, facte sibi per episcopum Dunkeldensem ratione sententie diffinitive late pro dicto Diksone contra dominum Willelmum Struduris pretensum capellanum eiusdem, retractantis collationem ipsius prius sibi de eadem capellania factam per decanum dicte ecclesie. Quas literas in quatuor formis dictus W. petiit suspendi, ex eo quod ipsi prius legitime in dicta capellania collationatum erat et literas ordinarias desuper cum aliis similibus regiis literis habebat et in possessione eiusdem et perceptione fructuum erat ad spatium unius anni (vel eocirca) et ipse legitime appella<vi>t a predicta sententia cum omnibus inde sequtis, et secuturis. Ideo appellatione sua pendente dicta sententia erat suspensa cum omnibus inde secutis, et ea pendente nihil esset de iure innovandum. Domini Consilii pretextu appellationis et predictas suspenderunt literas dicti N. <(= Thomae Diksoun)>, quamvis, si a collatione simplici alicuius esset appellatum per non habentem legitimum titulum sed pretendentem interesse, non solerent domini deferre appellationi, prout nuper extat iudicatum in causa Vilsoun et Rolland folio precedente relata.

Die tertio (vel eocirca) 1546 <= 3 feb. 1547?> : The lord Lyndsay callit Mr Alexander Kynnynmonthe³⁷¹ to heir and sie his gift of the said Mr Alexanderis guidis moveabill throw his being at the horn for non-delyvering of the place of Craighall disponit to the said lord be the quenis grace and my lord governour, hir grace tutour, and letters of horning on the said Mr Alexander and executioun thairof and his gudis foirsaidis decernit to pertene rychteouslie to the said lord as donatour foirsaid. The said Mr Alexander allegit that the said lord had na actioun in the premisses becaus he mycht nocht of the law compell the said Mr Alexander ad agendum, et "ut nemo invitus" etc.³⁷²; et hac via videbatur dictus dominus quasi compellere dictum magistrum Alexandrum ad agendum. Sed non obstantibus allegationibus dicti magistri Alexandri, domini decreverunt per sententiam interlocutoriam dominum Lyndsay habere bonam actionem ad petendum bona ipsius magistri Alexandri declarari sibi pertinere ratione eschaete prefate, et declarare ipsum iuste et debite positum ad cornum regine et literas cornus contra eum iuste et legitime executas esse.

³⁷¹Same case as in nrs. 394 and 415.

³⁷²Principle "Ut nemo invitus agere vel accusare cogatur", stated in C. 3.7.

Die 7 februarii anno predicto <1547>: In causa spolii intentata per dominum de Veddirburne et matrem eius contra Georgium Hay de Manyerie³⁷³ for spoliatioun fra thaim of certane meiris and oxin, the said Mr George allegit that he did na spuilyie, becaus thai guidis wer apprysit to him be the kingis letters and officiaris for the guidis of the laird of Blacader. Weddirburne allegit that the tyme of the apprysing his servandis, he than beand in waird within Dunbar, thane come and offerit to the officiar to preve that thai war his guidis and nocht Blacaderis. Quhilk preiff the officiar refusit unjustlie, and sua the said Mr George culd nocht be excusit. He ansuerit: he did na spuilyie for all this. And gif ony wrang or spuilyie wes done, it wes the officiar and servandis with him that did that in his outrage, et sic ipse adhuc semper reus sit bone fidei, howbeit the geir come to him as apprysit for the laird of Blacaderis geir. Weddirburne allegit that he culd nocht be excusit fra spuilyie nor pretend ignorance in facto famulorum suorum, et quod ex eorum facto teneri debet et contra eum presumi, quia non est veresimile quod famuli eius, qui cum nuncio erant, non retulerunt ei domino suo that Weddirburnis servandis offerit to preve to the officiar as said is, and sua quod dictus magister Georgius scienter recepit illa bona iniuste capta per officiarium et servos ipsius. Contra: quod hoc nescivit et sic bone fidei possessor remanserit, et ideo a spolio excusandus. Probatum exstitit in causa quod servi domini Veddirburne, antequam predicta bona essent appretiata per officiarium, obtulerunt sufficienter probare et fidem facere quod bona illa erant domini Veddirburne et matris sue, non autem domini Blacader. Et quod servi magistri Georgii nolebant pati officiarium videlicet capere iuramenta et probationem predictam, sed precise abigerunt bona ipsa. Sed non erat probatum in processu hoc ad magistrum Georgium pervenisse, nec ipsum hoc mandasse ac fecisse aut ratum habuisse. Queritur quid juris. Et primo videtur quod magister Georgius condamnari de spolio debet, eo quod, concessa oblatione probationis quod bona erant domini Veddirburne et sue matris et recusata per officiarium et servos domini Veddirburne <(! = domini Gregorii)>, prout plene extat probatum, negari non potest, cum officiarius et qui cum illo erant (maxime vero quia nolebant pati ipsum capere illam probationem) spolium dictorum bonorum comiserint - quia de practica Scotie in apprysing of guidis the officiar aucht <nocht> to appryse the guidis for ane mannis det that ane uther offeris him redie to mak fayth and preif his awin and nocht that mannis for quhais det the officiar do apprys.

³⁷³Same case nrs. 406-407 in nr. 373-375. Similar legal issue in nrs. 256-257. Abstract formulation of it in nr. 19.

Dominus autem de iure tenetur pro facto famuli, quatenus ad ipsum immediate pervenit³⁷⁴. Bar. et alii in l. i § Quod ergo, et § Familiae, ff. de vi et vi ar.³⁷⁶, Carde. in Cle. i. par. <5> de sta. mo.³⁷⁵ Sed ex confessione magistri Georgii constat hec bona ad eum pervenisse: igitur tenetur. Item dominus tenetur ex delicto familie in officio quod ei commissit: Bar. in l. i. § i in prin., ff. de publi.³⁷⁷, et ibi glossa³⁷⁸. Sive etiam si domino ignorante deliquerit servus: Ratio est, imputet sibi dominus, quia bonos servos debet habere, l. Cum si exhibuisset³⁷⁹, ff. de dolo, ubi ex dolo administratorum rerum municipii tenentur municipes quatenus ad eos pervenit³⁸⁰. Concordantia in glo. 'bonos' in preallegata lege Cum si exhibuisset³⁸¹. Et per hoc magna est presumptio contra Georgium quod officiarius et servi sui, cum primum ad eum perveniebant, certiorem eum fecerunt quod servi domini W. obtulerunt probare bona ipsius esse. Quod ex spolio suorum servorum tenetur hic magister Georgius, adde etiam "Quod cum aliena"³⁸². Immo illa debet restituere cum fructibus, cum culpa non careat habendo malos servos et eis mandando hoc negotium in quo pecca<ve>runt.

Quod autem non teneatur Georgius actione spolii, patet: Nam non datur nisi contra spolii autorem aut mandantem aut ratum habentem, Pan. in cap. Cum ad sedem, ubi lex, extra, de rest. spo.³⁸³. Sed nullum horum hic extat probatum contra Georgium, sed tantummodo error et delictum servorum suorum, cuius notitiam ad ipsum pervenisse non constat, et sic ipse semper bone fidei remansit ante litem motam. Et quamvis res ad eum pervenit, non ideo presumitur mandasse, secundum Pan. in dicto cap.³⁸⁴, per glo. ibidem³⁸⁵ hoc expresse decidentem. Et quod etiam ex delicto vel facto servorum suorum non tenetur dominus nisi vel mandato, voluntate aut ratihabitione domini faciunt: arg. l. i., ff. de vi et vi armata³⁸⁶ et l. 4, C. de noxali. actio.³⁸⁷, nisi actione quatenus ex facto servorum ad dominum pervenit. Et si nihil: tunc tenetur noxali actione, ut dicit l. 4^a, eodem, C.³⁸⁸

³⁷⁴Same case in nrs. 373-375 and 407a. Parallel problem in nrs. 19 and 256-257.

³⁷⁵Commentaries by Bartolus de Saxoferrato and others on D. 43.16.1.15 and D. 43.16.1.17-18 - perhaps also garbled with quotation of § Familiae in D. 39.4.1.5 [all to the point].

³⁷⁶Commentary by Gencelinus de Cassanhis, cardinal, on Clem. 3.10.1.5.

³⁷⁷Commentary by Bartolus de Saxoferrato on D. 39.4.1 pr. et § 5 et D. 39.4.3 pr.

³⁷⁸Gloss by Franciscus Accursius, on D. 39.4.1.5.

³⁷⁹D. 39.4.3 pr. [to the point].

³⁸⁰Doctrine by Bartolus, based on the above quoted texts.

³⁸¹Cross-references in gloss by Franciscus Accursius on word "bonos" in D. 39.4.3 pr.

³⁸²"Quod cum aliena iactura quis recepit, restituere tenetur" = canon law doctrine of restitution, based on the command "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20,15; Leviticus 19,11). A related principle is formulated in D. 50.17.206. In view of this principle, the actio de in rem verso was extended beyond C. 4.26.7.3, and the actio negotiorum gestorum (contraria) beyond D. 15.3.3.2-4 and C. 2.18.24, respectively.

³⁸³Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) on X 2.13.15.

³⁸⁴Again Panormitanus abbas, same place

³⁸⁵Gloss by Bernardus Papiensis, revised by Bartholomaeus Brixiensis, on X 2.13.15.

³⁸⁶D. 43.16.1.15 [to the point].

³⁸⁷C. 3.41.4 [to the point]

³⁸⁸Again C. 3.41.4 [to the point]

The 18 of februar <1547>: The lordis of Counsall for the maist pairt decernit Mr George Hay³⁸⁹ to be absolvit fra the spuilyie, becaus the act of admissioun of the laird of Weddirburnis reply and summondis principall wer bayth admittit to Wedirburnis preve and ane terme assignit to him for preving of the reply and poyntis of his summondis and the reply wes weill provin bot nocht the principall poynt of the summondis, viz. that Weddirburnis geir wes tane in contrar of his servandis, thai offerand thame to preif to the officiar that the geir wes the said laird of Weddirburnis, of the said Mr George causing, command, assistance and ratihabitioun. For it wes nocht provin that he causit his servandis and officiar to tak the geir away eftir Weddirburnis servandis offerit to preve the geir wes his, nor that he commandit him to do that, nor assistit thairto, nor ratefeit thair deid, for in toto processu nullo modo exstitit probatum quoad scientiam rei aliene, viz. quod res esset domini Vedd., vel quod pervenit ad notitiam ipsius magistri Georgii quod servi eius noluerunt pati officiarium recipere probationem famulorum domini Veddirburne ut predicitur. Quia facta bene constituit in ipso spolio, sed non domini ipsorum qui non probatur unquam hoc rescivisse. Et sic ex delicto servorum non tenetur dominus nisi quatenus ad eum pervenit. Et si nihil: tunc tenetur noxa. Vide l. i. § Familiae, ff. de vi et vi ar.³⁹⁰, Pan. et alii cap. 1^o, de resti. spo.³⁹¹ et cap. Cum tamen ad sedem, ubi glo., et Pan. ibidem³⁹², quod de spolio servorum non tenetur dominus nisi mandaverit vel ratum habuerit; et quamvis res per servos spoliate ad eum pervenerint, non tamen presumitur illud eius voluntate aut mandato factum. Sed advocatus regis dixit esse spolium, et dominum hic de spolio servorum esse condamnandum, ex eo quod dominus tenetur de delicto familie delinquentis in officio ad quod per dominum est proposita, secundum Bar. expresse in l. prima, ff. de publi.³⁹³. Ratio est quia debet dominus sibi imputare, quia debuit bonos habere servos et certus de eorum capacitate officii, ad quod eos proposuit: l. Cum si exhibuisset, ff. eodem tit.³⁹⁴. Sed hic deliquerunt et indubie ipsi commiserunt spolium, ergo ex eorum delicto tenebatur dominus similiter de spolio. Exemplum de hoc faciant omnia iura ex facto familie dominum obligantia.

Sed hoc non obstante maior pars dominorum Consilii conclusit absolvitoriam a spolio, quia domino Georgio bona ipsa legitime appretiata per officiarium, et deliberata in solutum sibi fuerunt, et de scientia rei aliene vel mala fide Georgii nihil constabat in processu. Et quia inter dominos contravertebatur quos fructus a quo tempore Mr Georgius restituere deberet de iure, ideo pro nunc decretum absolutorium predictum iacuit in silentio, et an fuerat pronunciatum nescio. Sed certum est quod per maiorem partem dominorum Consilii fuit decisum et votis sententiatum.

³⁸⁹Same case in nrs. 373-375 and 406-407. Similar legal issue in nrs. 256-257. Abstract formulation of it in nr. 19.

³⁹⁰D. 43.16.1.17-18 [to the point].

³⁹¹Commentaries by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) and by others on X 2.13.1.

³⁹²X 2.13.15, with gloss by Bernardus Papiensis and commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis).

³⁹³Commentary by Bartolus de Saxoferrato on D. 39.4.1 pr. et § 5 [to the point].

³⁹⁴D. 39.4.3 pr. [to the point].

7 februar 1546 <= 1547> : The laird off Wadderburne and his mother persewit Mr Georg Hay for the spoliatioun of certane guidis, hors, meiris and ky. Mr George ansuerit that he had committit na spuilyie, becaus the guidis was poyndit be ane officer of armes and thaireftir laufulie apprysit to him as guidis of the laird of Blakadares. To this was ansuerit that at the tyme of the poynding Wadderburnes servantes cam and offerit to mak faith to prove that the guidis was his, and that he was in ward himselff at that tyme. The quhilk being refusit be the officer and thame quha was with him, the officer and the persones quhilk was with him, quhilkis war the servandis of the said Mr George, had committit spuilyie. To this was ansuerit that giff ony wrong was done be the officiares in refusall of the heiring to mak faith, and assistance of his servandis wyth the officer, it was <nocht> by his knawledge and witting, and he was ay in bona fide. To this was ansuerit that the saidis guidis was thaireftir ressavit be the said Mr George and his servantdis togidder, et de jure dominus tenetur de facto famuli quatenus ad ipsum immediate pervenit, ut sentire videbantur B. et alii in l. i., § Quod ergo et § Familiae, ff. de vi et vi arma.³⁹⁶. Item dominus tenetur ex delicto famuli in officio quod ei commisit: Barto. in l. i., § i. <et> in principio, ff. de public.³⁹⁵. Ratio est: imputet sibi dominus, qui malos servos elegit³⁹⁷. To all this <was> ansuerit be the said Mr Georg that, nochtwithstanding his servandis assistit the officer in the refusall off making the faith and that thay brocht away the guidis and thairefter wes res<av>et be him, <this> will newer enfer any spuilyie, except thay wald alledge that all was done be his command, assistance and ratihabitione. The lordis admittit the summondis and reply to probatione. The quhilk efterward nocht being provin, absolvitour was givin for the part of the said Mr. George.

³⁹⁵Commentaries by Bartolus de Saxoferrato and others on D. 43.16.1.15 and D. 43.16.1.17-18 - perhaps also garbled with quotation of § Familiae in D. 39.4.1.5 [all to the point].

³⁹⁶Commentary by Bartolus de Saxoferrato to D. 39.4.1.1 et pr.

³⁹⁷D. 39.4.3 pr.

Die 7 februarii anno eodem <1547>: The lordis decernit the lord Setoun beand furtht of the realme, summond be Oliveir Sinclar upone xl dayis at his duelling place of Witsounday and siclyk upone the saidis dayis be opin proclamatioun at the mercat croce of Edinburgh, as letters be oppin delyverance of the lordis proportis, nocht to be ordourlie summond, becaus Edinburgh wes nocht the heid burcht of the schyr of the said duelling place, and ane man beand out of the realme (of the practik) sould be summond upone xl dayis be opin proclamatioun at the mercat croce of the heid burcht quhair his duelling place is, and utherwyis the summondis is nocht laufull, howbeit it be maid at his duelling place in the realme and intimat to his vyfe, barnes and servandis.

Eodem die <7 feb. 1547>: The tenentis of the landis of Farme of Hammyltoune callit ane preist callit Prectitrow and ane Johne Hammyltoun of Farme for doubill poinding. Prectitrow allegit he wes infeft heretablie in the landis and in possessioun thairof of 5 yeiris and mair immediatlie preceding the terme of doubill poinding, and thairfoir he said the tenentis sould ansuer to him. The other producit quhair he wes infeft be chartour and seasing in the landis be the erle of Arrane superiour be resone of the samyn apprysit ordourlie to him fra the laird of Myntow, laird thairof.

<CONTINUED> The preist said that the apprysing suld nocht hurt him, infeft lang of befoir and in possessioun. Hammiltone said: becaus all haifand or pretendand to haiff intres wes summond generalie (as use is) to heir thai landis apprysit and the proces of apprysing suld prejudge to all persones quhill it be reducit. And sua the tenentis suld obey and ansuer to him of thair males and deweteis. The lordis of Counsall decernit the tenentis to ansuer the said Johne Hammyltoun be resone of the saidis proces of apprysing and his infeftment past thairupone, ay and quhill it war reducit, becaus of the ordour and proces thairof.

Die undecimo februarii anno eodem <1547>: Isobell Machane and hir husband coft certane landis <to be deliverit> to Frances Ure beand in France and oblist thame to caus him gif ane reversioun of the saidis landis to the sellar upone the money gevin to him for thaim. Now callit Frances Ure hir to delyver to him his evidentis of the land. And scho desyrit him first to give the said reversioun for the quhilk scho wes bound, utiliter gerens negocia ipsius absentis, and that scho aucht haiff for hir releif. He denyit to gif hir it, bot gif he war ordourlie callit thairto, for scho mycht nocht thairfoir hald his evidentis. The lordis ex equo decreverunt eam non compellendam tradere illi cartas et evidentias illarum terrarum nisi ille prius eidem Isobelle deliberaret reversionem predictam pro relaxatione sua ab obligatione predicta, de qua clare constabat dominis Consilii per instrumentum publicum et actum librorum officialis Laudonie, de data evidentiarum earundem.

Eodem die <11 feb. 1547>: The laird of Hammyltoun had summondis rasit befoir the lordis aganes Andro Murray for trubling of him in his possessioun of certane landis propir to him (as he allegit) in possessioun. This summondis dependand per citationem befoir the lordis, Andro Murray rasit letters of cognitioun to the schiref upone his possessioun upone the samyn landis as commoun to him as pairt and pertinent of his landis of Blakbarronie. Hammyltoun callit thir letters of cognitioun to be suspendit, becaus thai war prejudiciall to his summondis first rasit and dependand, quia sententia lata in causa cognitionis decreti vicecomitis parit exceptionem rei judicate, coram dominis in causa Hammyltoun contra eum. The lordis decernit for the said caus Murrayis cognitioun to ceis, quhill the first summondis wer endit befoir the lordis, in prejudice and defraud³⁹⁸ of the quhilkis the lordis understude the cognitioun rasit.

³⁹⁸Problem related to the one of "gratia subreptitia", see nr. 55 (note).

Eodem die <11 feb. 1547>: The lordis decernit the laird of Stainypet and his sone in law to pay the sowme contenit in thair band maid to the laird of Blakburne, becaus that thai (beand requyrit, conforme to the band) enterit nocht to him ane Inglisman contenit in the band, according to the promiss under the pane of payment of the said sowme, nochtwithstanding the proclamatioun maid in Ingland that na prisoneris suld entir agane in Scotland, quhilk Stanepet allegit excuis of non-entrie of the prisoner. The lordis vald nocht admit that.

³⁹⁹See the parallel ransom cases nr. 380-381 (note), 492, 524.

Die 18 februarii (vel eocirca) <1547>: In causa Andree Burrell contra Stephanum Dudeistoun, the lordis of Counsall retreitit the bailleis deputtis of Sanctandrois rolment of court, becaus of the ineptitude and nulletie of the proces, in the quhilkis the judges eftir divers termes set ad sententiandum in causa (et sic conclusa jam in causa, de practica regni huius) admiserunt actorem ad probandum suum libellum, Burrell reo contradicente, cum tamen de iure et practica post conclusionem in causa nec de iure nec de facto possit quidcumque per alterutram partem produci, et quamvis iudex potuisset sine ulla probatione actoris in eadem causa sententiare, ex eo quod Burrell reus exceptionem peremptoriam proposuerat et in eius probatione defecit. Et ideo de practica Scotie⁴⁰⁰ videbatur satis probata intentio actoris, et sic ex superabundante tantum recepit testes ad probandum intentionem actoris. Quod tamen in hoc inverserant ordinem processus, ut predicitur, ideo ob nullitatem inordinati processus eundem retractaverunt.

⁴⁰⁰If a defender raised an exceptio peremptoria, this was interpreted to imply that he would not deny the pursuer's account of facts of the case - except if the defendant had expressly protested that he wanted to deny, nevertheless (see nr. 293). This standpoint of the Court of Session disagrees with Ius Commune: Proposing an exceptio peremptoria was not interpreted as a confession of the alleged facts, according to X 2.25.6.

Eodem die <18 feb. 1547>: In causa domini de Lyndsay contra magistrum Alexandrum Kynnynmonth⁴⁰¹, the lordis be interlocutour decernit the exceptioun of horning of the said Mr Alexander at the mercat croce of Sanctandrois and nocht first at the mercat croce of the heid burcht quhair the said Mr Alexander duellis, videlicet deulie, et quod in quacunque parte regni potest quis poni ad cornum regis. Et in eadem causa domini repulerunt exceptionem dicti magistri Alexandri contra executionem eandem oppositam, videlicet quod iniuste facta fuit executio, eo quod officiarius executour of the letters in the four formes grantit him ane langar tyme nor wes contenit in the letters for delyvering of the hous. And of the consuetude of Scotland the officiar usis to prolong the dayis of sic letters, and sua he had iustam causam differendi deliberationem.

The lordis decernit that exceptioun irrelevant, and that ane officiar may nocht prolong the termes set in the quenis letters nor yit do ony thing by the tenour thairof, and als decernit that the four formes may be execute be divers officiaris of the samyn letters, as wes in this cace.

And als the lordis repellit the said Mr Alexanderis allegeance that, howbeit the four chargis and all the houris thairof wes run out, Patrik Bruce, na horning being execute, come as procuratour and in name of the said Mr Alexander, his maister, to the lord Lyndsay in Sanctandrois the day befoir the executioun of the horning with the keyis of Craighall and requyrit the lord to pas or send and resave the hous, offerit him readie than instantlie to pas and delyver it. Et sic Alexander dixit se moram precedentem in non-deliberando satis purgasse et sic iniuste postea positum ad cornum.

The lord Lyndsay replyit that Cragyhall wes fyve myl fra Sanctandrois and that servand came at four eftirnone in winter ane day or tua befoir Yuill, and he requyrit gif that servand had outher letters, command or powar of Mr Alexander, his maister, to delyver the hous to him or to requyre him to resave. Quha said he haid nather command, letters nor powar nor procuratorie of his maister thairto. And upone that the said lord producit ane instrument in respect of the quhilk he wes nocht oblesit to trow that fallow nor to pas with him. And the rather becaus the said Mr Alexander had ellis set ane hour tua dayis befoir for delyvering of the said hous and begylit the said lord thairin and keipit nocht tryst, and sua the lord culd nocht be haldin be that verball and oblatioun of that fallow in mora recipiendi.

The lordis of Counsall repellit the said Mr Alexanderis allegeance, in respect of the said instrument, aganes the quhilk thair wes nathing sed. Et hoc amplius quia ad evitationem pene, ubi est dies et pena apposita in contractu vel iudicialibus decisoriis (<sicut> et in maleficiis), non admittitur de iure purgatio more, secundum Zasium, Bar., Jas. et alios in l. Si insulam, ff. de verbo. ob.⁴⁰², unde scrib<entes> in l. Magnam, C. de contra. vel commit. sti.⁴⁰³. Et quia thir letters of the four formes wes past upone ane decrete of the lordis aganes the said Mr Alexander. And sua tendebant ad executionem sententie iam late, et sic summus in deciso iudiciorum and als summus in materia delicti, quia contumacia est delictum. Et hic agebatur de quadruplici contumacia ipsius magistri Alexandri in non-obtemperando decreto dominorum et literis regine predictis. And als quia et dies et pena apposita hic erat. Ideo elapsis omnibus terminis literarum et eo in contumacia vera constituto propter contemptum authoritatis regie, actione jam sic acquisita regine, etiam si dominus Lyndsay postea accepisset domum de Craighall adhuc, tamen potuisset regina pro suo interesse facere ponere ipsum Alexandrum ad cornua sua ob suam inobedientiam predictam, et ad consequendum bona mobilia ipsius.

Et sic, omnibus magistri Alexandri rationibus repulsis, domini decreverunt eum bene positum ad cornua regine, et ideo omnia mobilia eius esse iuste confiscata et dictas literas contra eum rite executas fuisse.

⁴⁰¹Same case as in nrs. 394 and 405.

⁴⁰²Commentaries by Ulricus Zasius, Bartolus de Saxoferrato and Iason de Mayno and others on D. 45.1.84 [to the point]..

⁴⁰³Commentaries on C. 8.37.12 [to the point].

6 februar 1546 <= 1547> : Into the actione betuix the lord Lindsay and Mr Alexander Kinninmonth, quha was put to the horne at the instance of the said lord for non delyverance of the tour and fortalice of Roghall, it was found that the executioun of the horning maid at the brucht of Sanctandrois and nocht at the brucht of Couper (quhilk was the heid brucht of the schyre quhair the said Alexander duelt and remanit) was sufficient; and that ane persone may be put to the horne at quhatsumewer brucht within the contrey.

Die 20 februarii (vel eocirca) <1547>: In causa spolii intentata per magistrum Georgium Blair contra Jacobum Ogilwy de Cloway, it wes exceptit that Mr George wes laufullie warnit, removit and ejectit out of the saidis houssis and utheris landis and houssis of Bendoquhe at the terme of witsounday, and that he grantit the samyn in anno 46, and at that witsounday he sat thairin of the tolerance and licence of the said James, fewar of thai landis of Plario, unto the xx day of Julii nixt thaireftir (and that howbeit the said Mr George <wes laufullie ejectit befoir>), and James the secund day of august or thairby, viz. within ane schort space and incontinent post finitum tempus precarii, viz. within 12 dayis thaireftir, mycht put him furth of the ground and cast doun the hous and put his guidis of the ground. The lordis be interlocutour admittit the exceptioun and thocht it ressonabill that the tollerance of the laird of the ground, tholand the man varnit, removit and ejectit at witsounday to sit thaireftir, that the laird may ony tyme forrow mertinmes put him be way of deid of the ground, and specialie within ane schort tyme, decem dierum (vel eocirca).

Primo mercii (vel eocirca) anno eodem <1547>: The lordis decernit David Weymes, secound sone to the laird of Weymes that last decessit, to answer upone the impreving of his instrument of seasing of the landis of Litillyn, for the quhilk the quenis advocat callit him to produce the samyn and to heir and sie it cumlie inprovin, nochtwithstanding the said Davidis procuratour allegit that he was minor annis et agebatur hic super hereditate sua et annullatione sue sasine hereditarie, et de iure Scotie minor non tenetur placitare nisi 4 vel 5 casibus relatis in "Regia Majestate"⁴⁰⁴. Sed domini Consilii hanc allegationem repulerunt ratione iniquitatis eiusdem: nam esset iniquum quod minor ex suo suorumve dolo et fraude confectione falsi instrumenti reportaret commodum. Et quia periculum erat in mora: quod si improbatio differretur in perfectam illius etatem, forte interea posset testis instrumentarius perire et sic instrumentum numquam posset improbari. Et ideo, ut veritas elusceret, interlocuti sunt domini ut supra, licet hic casus consequenter auferat minori hereditatem, viz. instrumentorum improbatio. Similiter extat practicatum contra reginam nondum duorum annorum que decreta fuit per interlocutoriam dominorum Consilii respondere super retractatione resignationis domini de Dalkeith facte ad perpetuam remanentiam in manibus illustrissimi quondam patris Jacobi quinti regis Scotorum per dominum de Dalkeith, in qua causa exceptio minoris etatis regine fuit repulsa⁴⁰⁶.

⁴⁰⁴"Regiam maiestatem" ...

⁴⁰⁵Case quoted in nr. 461.

1 martii 1547 <= 1548> : David Weymis, first sone to the laird of Wasterweymes, being persewit to improve his seasing of Litertoun be the kingis advocat, compeirit and allegit: he aucht nocht to ansuer becaus he was minor annis et agebatur super illius hereditatem, et minor annis non tenetur placitare de sua hereditate <nisi> in casibus in jure expressis. To this was ansuerit that minor ex suo vel predicessorum suorum dolo non debet cum alterius jactura locupletari; and also periculum fuit in mora, for the witnessis insert into the instrument (quhilis servit for the direct improbatione of the samyn) mycht die in the meane tyme. The lordis pronuncit be interloquitour that the said David aucht to ansuer, nochtwithstanding of his lesage, and admittit the kingis advocat to improve.

Eodem die <1 mar. 1547>: In causa Lachelan McClachelan contra dominum de Lewmond, the said lordis foirbearis resignit his landis of N. in manibus regis to be gevin agane to him and his airis maill, and sua the king tailyeit the landis to the airis mall. The king thaireftir revokit generalie the tailyeis maid be him in hurt of the rychteous airis, and sua this tailyie came under revocatioun, he reservand than dochteris. Nochttheles upone that resignatioun thair had past 2 or 3 retouris; and farder king James the fyft at his perfyt aige of xxv yeiris resavit this said lord Lewmondis resignatioun of the saidis landis and gave thame new agane to him, retefeand, confirmand and apprevand the said auld chartour of tailyie. Now this Lachelan wes cum of ane of the airis of the first reservand, askit the first chartour of tailye to be reducit, becaus it cam under revocatioun foirsaid and wes maid in prejudice of the airis femall, in quhais place he is now, and, sen it wes maid in the kingis less aige and revokit (as said is), he allegit that this said lord of Lewmondis resignatioun (maid be vertew of that chartour) wes nocht of awaill, nor chartour followand thairupone. And confirmatioun of king James the fyft maid na new rycht and culd nocht tak away fra the first reservantis airis femell actionem eis semel conpetentem ad petitionem declaratorie <sententie> nullitatis dicte tailye, ratione generalis revocationis ipsius regis concedentis. Sed iis omnibus non obstantibus, the lordis be sentence diffinitive decernit the said lord of Lewmondis chartour of tailyie with all that followit thairupone and the confirmatioun of king James the fyft guid and of strenth, and that the samyn wes maid at the kingis perfyt aige, and that he gave it of 21 yeiris as may be understand be the last act of parliament of king James the first and the sext act of king James the secound and king James the ferd, howbeit tempore Jacobi quinti perfecta etas regis videtur fuisse 25 annorum. Et ibidem referatur eadem perfecta etas suorum predecessorum.

<CONTINUED> And als the lordis fand that of the law of Scotland tailyeis ar usit and previt past memour of man and sua lesum, and thairfoir aucht nocht to be reducit, and that thai suld nocht cum under generall revocatioun. And of the lesumnes and notar of tailye: sa are treitit of tailye in "Re. Ma."⁴⁰⁵ paulo ante tractatum legum seu statutorum Malcolmi MakKynnoch de feodis officiariorum regis and of the breking of tailyeis⁴⁰⁷. And it is ewill to find samekill of tailye writtin agane in our lawis, et ibi agebatur quod revocatione generali regis aperta fuit via et data, competens heredibus femineis, ad petendam declaratoriam nullitatis tallie predicte, et sic actio semel illis <competens> sine eorum facto ab eis auferri non poterat - quod nec <fiebat per> supervenientem Jacobi quinti confirmationem dicte tailyie.

⁴⁰⁶"Regiam maiestatem" ...

⁴⁰⁷An unknown treatise. It appears that it was contained within the collector's manuscript copy of "Regiam maiestatem".

Ad hoc respondebatur quod, dato et concesso (ut predicitur) quod dicta charta tailyie facta fuisset in minori etate regis et venisset sub generali revocatione ipsius, et quoque in eius potestate fuit eam non revocare, immo confirmare, heredibus femineis invitis. Postquam (lite desuper non mota per eas ad declaratoriam, et re omni integra) Jacobus quintus post suam perfectam etatem 25 annorum eandem confirmavit, quod sic preclusa est eis heredibus femineis⁴⁰⁸ via agendi ut supra, provide ac si rex qui eam concessisset (etiam cum tunc minor annis fuisset), confirmasset eandem in sua perfecta etate. Et adde quod sub revocatione venire non poterat hec tallie, quia cum sit (ut predicitur) licita de iure, non potest dici fuisse in preiudicium anime et conscientie regis concedentis eandem. Et sic sub revocatione non veniebat. Et ita diffinitiva sententia fuit dominus Lewmond absolutus, et etiam tallia antiqua decreta bona et non retractanda ex causis allegatis. Et eo magis becaus thair wes thre retouris past, sent the making of the chartour. And it wes mair nor threscoir yeiris auld.

⁴⁰⁸MS draws the word "eandem" behind "etatem" and the words "heredibus femineis" behind "ut supra" - probably due to interlinear corrections in the original manuscript which were erroneously drawn to the wrong spot when the original manuscript was copied.

Ultimo februarii anno eodem <1547>: In causa magistri Andree Home et domini Edmestoun contra Thomam Keir of the Yair propter⁴⁰⁹ summam mille angelorum nobilium promissam eis penae nomine per dictum Thomam, casu quod non deliberaret quendam captivum Anglicum dictis Home et Edmestoun, certis die et loco contentis in obligatione eisdem facta in scriptis per dictum Thomam, Thomas excepit quod condamnari ad penam non deberet, ex eo quod dictus Anglicus fuit deliberatus dicto domino Edmestoun cum consensu ipsius magistri Andree, et sub cautione redeundi demissus in Angliam. Et ad hoc probandum produxit Keir scripturam confectam (ut asserebat) inter ipsum et prefatum Thomam, Home et Edmestoun, sed non subscriptam per Home, qui etiam eandem omnino negavit. Keir obtulit se probaturum per testes eum confessisse (prout in scriptura continebatur) obligationem priorem novatam et novam conventionem natam inter ipsos.

⁴⁰⁹MS: penes.

Hwme dicebat quod, ex quo obligatio prima fuit in scriptis et autentica in libris dominorum Consilii et desuper authoritas eorundem et decretum interpositum, quod exoneratio, solutio, transactio aut novatio illius nisi per aliam scripturam fieri non deberet de iure. Nec practica regni: que transactionem aut solutionem obligationis scripte aut debiti ex sententia iudiciali nisi per aliam scripturam non admittit. Alias per duos testes subornatos probaretur forisfactio decreti dominorum et judicialis cuiuscunque - quod attenta testium in hoc regno falsitate⁴¹⁰ esset valde periculosum. Et allegabat de hoc interlocutoriam dominorum Consilii latam inter abbatem de Newbottill et magistrum de Haillis:⁴¹¹ non admittendum ad probandum solutionem summe contente in decreto dominorum Consilii (cuius executionem dictus abbas contra eum petebat) per testes, prout offerebat se probaturum, - sed per scripturam tamen (ita dicebat dictus magister Andreas) debere hic fieri.

⁴¹⁰Words from C. 4.2.18.

⁴¹¹Case mentioned in nr. 462.

<CONTINUED> Domini Consilii interlocuti sunt dictum Thomam admittendum fore ad probandum exceptionem suam per testes, dum sint quidem <ad> minus quinque numero et omni exceptione maiores. Concordant <ad> probandum arg. l. Testium, C. de testibus⁴¹². Et hoc eo magis quod collega dicti Andreae scripsit hanc literam pro Henrico Keir predicto, et quia ipse partes erant inhabitatores limitum Scotie, viz. Bordouris, et inter ipsos multa sine scripto sepe bona fide fiebant. Et in eis propter ignorantiam iuris videbatur hoc admittendum.

⁴¹²C. 4.20.18.1 [to the point].

Die 12 februarii anno 1546 <= 1547> : In causa regine et Archibaldi Hammyltoun de Roplocht contra N., the lordis be interlocutour decernit that the diminutioun of the kingis rentall mycht be provin per testes in hoc casu ubi agebatur ad retractationem chartae feudifirme terrarum de A. <factae> per Jacobum quintum Scotorum regem patri ipsius N. in diminutionem (ut asserebat advocatus regius) rentalis ipsius domini regis, et sic in preiudicium corone regie.

Die 9 mercii anno eodem <1547>: In causa fracte arrestationis per dominum Gray vicecomitem de N. virtute literarum regiarum et deliberationem dominorum Consilii super certis pecuniis(?), turri<bu>s et auld treis contra tenentes domini Oliphant, the lordis be interlocutour admittit witnes to preve the lousing of the arrestment allegit be the tenentis. Et hoc de practica, ut fuit ante iudicatum per dominos, qui retractaverunt rotulamentum curie ballivorum (vice canonicorum Sancte Crucis prope Edinburgh) latum pro Roberto Canros tunc abbote Sancte Crucis contra Robertum Bruce⁴¹³ in Edinburgh super fractionem arrestamenti dicti abbatis, quia dicti ballivi noluerunt admittere ipsum Robertum ad probandum relaxationem eiusdem arrestamenti per testes. Preterea: non solent nec possunt partes semper habere (in inventione cautionis, usque ad quam, ut sepe, arrestamenta hec fiunt) notarios vel scientes scribere. Et sic domini decreverunt scripturam in hoc casu non esse necessariam, licet dominus advocatus regine dissenserit et dixerit hoc tamen per scripturam fieri debere, et protestavit quod inposterum hoc sit practicatum.

⁴¹³Similar legal problem in nrs. 24, 194 (quoted as a precedent), 289.

Die 10 marcii <1547>: Mr Patrik Panter obtenit ane decrete aganes the laird of Carmilie and thairthrow gat certane of his landis apprysit and thairupone obtenit heretabill sasing. Thaireftir the laird of Palmuris (superiour to the said laird of Carmylie) retour wes reducit at the kingis instance with all that followit thairupone, and sua all Palmuris landis, tenent and tenendrie. And sua all Carmelies landis haldin of him become in the kingis handis, and sua wes the landis appprysit to Mr Patrik. Yit na decrete of non-intres beand led at the kingis instance upone Palmuris landis (his retour beand reducit), Palmure tuik be compositioun ane new infeftment of the king and Carmelie tuik ane new infeftment of Palmurie of all his landis (and inspeciall of the saidis apprysit landis) and be vertew thairof tuik new sasing thairof. And Palmurie gat the gift of his non-entres at the king and sua, quhill Carmilie intres, tuik the proffeit of the apprysit landis or ellis componit thairfoir with auld Carmilie. And Carmilie sen his infeftment tuik up the proffeit of the saidis apprysit landis. A litill befoir the reductioun of Palmureis retour Mr William Lamb and the said Mr Patrik sister dochter, tua airis of the said Mr Patrikis, gat the act obtenit be him contra auld Carmilie transferrit in thame as airis to him active, and in this the laird of Carmilie passive as air to his said fader, be decrete of the lordis of sessioun with letters executoriales to poynd and distrenyie the laird of Carmilie and his landis for the sowmes contenit in the decrete principall, and that in king James the fyft tyme. Thai letters nocht being extinct, the king decessit. Callit Mr William Lambe foirsaid this day the said laird to heir letters gevin upone him siclyke as said is, or ellis to allege ane caus quhy thai sould nocht be gevin. Carmelie allegit that thai sould nocht be gevin, becaus the decrete tuik effect in his faderis tyme and landis as said is apprysit to hum thairfoir, and sua may nocht be maid doubill payment. Mr William Lambe answerit: that payment wes na payment and of na awaill, becaus of the reductioun of his superiouris retour with all that followit thairupone and put the landis in the kingis handis be reasone of non-entres, and that Mr Patrik bruikit nocht <nor> mycht nocht bruik thai landis thairthrow, and sua thai wer evictit thairfra. Et solutioun earundem annullavit et fuit extincta, and sua he suld haiff new payment of the decrete, re eo soluto asservata evicta (ut predicitur). Et hoc per l. Deferre § fi., cum tribus legibus sequentibus, ff. de iure fisci⁴¹⁴, et quia debitor, cuius res ex causa iudicati est creditori in solutum data <et> venditionis titulo alii vendita et assignata, tenetur de evictione equi boni ac si ipse debitor voluntarie eandem vendidisset, lege preallegata⁴¹⁶. Ad hoc respondit Carmilie (per McGill procuratorem suum) quod per reductionem sasine domini sui superioris <nec> terre ille appretiate nec proficua earundem poterant per regem occupari, nec nisi eisdem decretis per sententiam dominorum Consilii in non-introitum poterant pariter et heredes sui a quocunque de earum possessione amoveri, nec impediri aut prohiberi in perceptione fructuum, laboratione et occupatione earundem, becaus the landis nocht beand in non-entres decernit, thai past negligentlie fra the possessioun thairof. Imputent sibi quivis <quod> suum non sunt prosecuti. Et precipue heredes isti duo ad multos iam annos wer negligent to get thairselffis enterit to the landis. It wes answerit be Lambe that thai culd nocht be servit thairof, becaus Carmylie wes now set thairin, and sua he wes the stope thairof. <Carmylie answerit:> Gif he wes wranguslie sasit, he bade thame reduce his sasing. And sen sa is that thai vant the landis in thair awin default and negligence, nocht usand the samyn as said is, bot negligentlie falland fra thair possessioun, thai suld nocht haiff redie executioun of thair decrete aganes him.

⁴¹⁴D. 49.14.21 [to the point], to be read with text from D. 49.14.18.10 onward.

⁴¹⁵D. 49.14 as above.

<1547?> Maister Patrik Panter obtenit ane decreit aganis the laird of Carmelie. And thairefter for fulfilling of the said decreit obtenit his landis to be comprysit and obtenit heretabill seasing off the saidis landis. Thaireftir the laird of Palmure retour, quha was superiour to thir landis comprysit fra Carmylie, was reducit at the kingis instance with all that follouit thairupone, baith infeftmentis of tennent and tenandri, yit was thair na decreit of non-entres gevin of Palmures landis. Thaireftir the aires of Maister Patrik and Mr William Lamb and ane sister dochter persewit the laird of Carmylies aires for fulfilling of the said decreit. Carmylie ansuered: he aucht nocht to fulfill the said decreit, becaus it tuik effect in his fatheris tyme and his landis was comprysit thairfoir and he aucht nocht to mak doubill payment. To this was ansuerit that this payment was na payment, becaus the superiors retour was reducit and sua cuist all the landis in non-entres in the kingis handis, sua that the aires of the said Mr Patrik mycht nocht bruik the saidis landis. And sua the apprysit landis war evictit fra thame, et solutio, quae facta fuit per terras appretiatas, evanuit et extincta fuit. And sua he aucht to haiff new payment of the said decreit, quia res in solutionem assignata fuit evicta. Et hoc per legem Deferre § final., cum tribus legibus sequentibus, ff. de jure fisci⁴¹⁵. To this was ansuerit that, albeit the superioris retour and seasing past thairupone was reducit, yit the king had na entres to tak up the maillis and deweteis of the same, except the landis had <been> decernit into non-entres and decreit follouit thairupone. And unto that tyme Paniter and his aires had guid actione to occupey the landis and tak up the profeittis and dewteis off the same. And gif thai did it nocht, imputetur illis that negligentlie they passit fra thair richtis. The lordis decernit be interloquitour that the reductione of the retour puttis nocht the heretabill tennent fra the possessione of the landis - quhill the landis be decernit to be in non-entres. And to that tyme the heretabill tennent may justlie intromet with the profeittis of his awin landis.

⁴¹⁶D. 49.14.21 [to the point], to be read with text from D. 49.14.18.10 onward.

The lordis of Counsall be interlocutour decernit that, forsamekill as the reductioun of ane retour puttis nocht the heretabill tenentis fra thair possessioun nor uptaking of the proffeitis of the landis unto the tyme the landis be decernit be decrete of the lordis of sessioun in non-entres and the males, proffeitis and deweteis thairof decernit to pertene to the king or uther ourlord, and that of the practik of this realme the decrete of non-entres is necessar or the tenentis of the landis may be put thairfra, and sua the airis foirsaidis, na decrete of non-entres being led to this hour upone the landis, thai mycht haiff enterit thairto and bruikit the samyn, nochtwithstanding the reductioun of the retour foirsaid, and sua it wes bot thair awin negligence that thai persavit nocht thair rycht and gat nocht the proffeitis of the saidis landis and that thai haiff yit guid actioun thairto and to reduce the said laird of Carmyleis new infeftment of the apprysit landis. And sua the effect of the apprysing be reductioun of the retour wes nocht evacuat utpote thaireftir nor decrete of non-entres beand led thairupone. Thairfoir the lordis assoilyeit Carmylie fra the said Lambes summondis and ordane na new letters for apprysing of Carmyleis guidis, geir or landis for new executioun of the decrete principall to be gevin, quia (ut predicitur) prior executioun per appretiationem non expiravit, nec terre adhuc dici poterant evicte heredibus predictis per fiscum. Quod si realiter terre evicte fuissent per fiscum, thai beand decernit in non-entres be decrete off the lordis, tunc indubie potuissent heredes de novo agere ad executionem primi decreti in eos active et in istum dominum de Carmylie passive translati, ut supra dictum est.

428. Libellans plura coniunctim, quorum alterum per se sufficerit, probans alterutrum obtinet de hac re plene. Pan., Fel. et alii in cap. Licet causam, vide ex. de proba.⁴¹⁷

<CONTINUED> The lord Ogilvyis and D<unnonis> procuratour allegit that he had libellit coniunctlie his entres as is foirsaid, viz. assignatioun and heretabill infeftment, and suld preve all the samyn. Schir Johne allegit he suld be admittit be ony of thai ressonis. Howbeit thai war libellit coniunctlie, that astrictit him nocht to preve thame baytht. Et quod admitti pro suo interesse deberet, ratione assignationis predicte, virtute cuius habebat ius ad terras prosequendi infeodationem earundem etiam si nullus adhuc fuisset infeodatus in eisdem. The lordis decernit be interlocutour that assignatioun <to be> sufficiens interesse, et eum non astringendum ad plus probandum, quamvis coniunctim libellavit assignationem et infeodamentum suum inde secutum.

⁴¹⁷Commentaries by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis) and by Felinus Sandeus on X 2.19.9.

Undecimo Marcii <1547>: Schir Johne Campbell callit the laird of Dunnwne and the lord Ogilvie for reductioun of ane decrete gevin aganes the said laird' gudmother, reduceand ane decrete gevin for hir aganes the said lord as pledge and souertie for the laird of Dunnwme, be vertew of the quhilk first decrete thair wes certane landis of the lord Ogilvyis (callit "the Hall Yardis") apprysit and with hir consent assignit to the said schir Johne Campbell of Lundie, knycht, qua than payit to hir the sowmes thai war apprysit for. Now the said schir <Johne> callit for reductioun of this secound decrete, et hoc tamquam tertius pro suo interesse, for it wes nocht gevin aganes him. He libellit his entres, viz. that the landis foirsaidis wer apprysit and assignit to him as said is and he thairthrow heretablie infeft in the samyn and in possessioun thairof 7 or 8 yeiris unto the tyme of the geving of this secound decrete, quhairthrow his infeftment past upone the apprysing and assigning (as said is) wes reducit. And to verafie this, he producit the proces of apprysing, prevand thai landis assignit to him (as said is) and ane precept of the superiour of the landis to entir him thairto. And allegit his chartour and sesing-instrument wer tint and brint at the birning of Edinburgh. The lord Ogilvyis and Dunnonis procuratour allegit as is contenit in the uther practik aboue writtin⁴¹⁸.

⁴¹⁸Reference to nr. 264-266.

The 12 of merche <1547>: The laird of Kirkmichell wes callit be schir Johne chartouris in the Holme, to heir letters gevin contra eum conforme to ane rolment, decernand Kirkmichell to desist and ceis fra all trubling of him in the 5 pund land of N. and the said Johne to be kepit in his possessioun thairof, ay and quhill he be laufullie callit and ordourlie put thairfra. Kirkmichell allegit that the letters sould nocht be gevin, becaus in lentrane etc. anno 1546 foirsaid, in ane actioun of the lord Glammis aganes the laird of Erlischaw and his colligis, the lordis be interlocutour decernit the exceptioun of nullitie, proponit be Glammis aganis ane decrete of the schiref deputtis of Fyfe (producit be the said Erlischaw and his colligis), viz. that the juges wer inhibited be the lordis letters to proceid and dischargit of thair offices, et quia sic inhibiti processerunt, decretum eorum allegatum <vitiaretur> nullitate, to be admittit, howbeit Erleschaw allegit that that decrete and sentence suld haiff effect ay and quhill it wer reducit, et quod nullitas in hoc casu per viam exceptionis non esset de practica admittenda⁴¹⁹.

⁴¹⁹Another exception to the rule stated in nr. 312.

The 13 of maii anno 1547: The bischope of Murray, commendatour of Scone, callit Patrik Leirmonth, sone to the provest of Sanctandrois, for reductioun of ane few (maid be the said commendaterie and convent) per metum iustum qui in constantem virum cadere poterat⁴²⁰. Mr James McGill procuratour for Leimonth allegit that he wes minor annis et ideo secundum leges Scotie in "Regia Maiestate" cap. <...>⁴²¹ ergo non esset compellendus litigare in hoc casu, viz. super re hereditarie sibi pertinente, auferendo sibi quod iure hereditario ad se spectabat. Et produxit simile decretum dominorum Consilii nuper latum inter N. et D., ut plenius in eo patet.

⁴²⁰Words from D. 4.2.6, see note at nr. 315.

⁴²¹"Regiam maiestatem", ch. ...

<CONTINUED> Nihilominus episcopus allegabat quod, quia ipse agebat nomine ecclesie quae semper censetur iure minoris et ut minor⁴²², et ideo minor contra minorem privilegio non gaudet, item quia domini Consilii in causa comitis de Mortoun contra reginam super retractatione resignationis (per ipsum facte in manibus illustrissimi principis Jacobi 5 sui patris ad remanentiam perpetuam), exceptione minoris aetatis regine proposita per advocatum, fuerunt interlocuti eam placitare debere, iure "Regie Majestatis" non obstante, eo quod lex illa dura et contra rationem, quia ex dolo vel metu (vel suo vel alterius) res apud minorem usque perfectam eius etatem permanet cum magno incomodo alterius. Et ita domini Consilii hic per suam interlocutoriam decreverunt dictum Patricium respondere debere in hoc casu.

⁴²²This is why the church, like a minor, gets four years to apply for "in integrum restitutio": 6. 1.21.1-2.

The 15 of maii predicto <1547>: In causa redemptionis terrarum mota per Mariotam Ogilvy contra A.B., domini decreverunt terras non esse legitime redemptas, ex eo quod reversio continebat pecunias dandas esse debere boni auri et argenti, et instrumentum consignationis et numerationis continebat bonam partem summe in reversione contente fuisse lie plakkis Scotorum, nec plackis sunt de bono auro nec argento. Et reversiones sunt juris stricti et in specie implende. Et si contineret reversio summam pecunie in obolis, non liceret in quacunque alia pecunia auri vel argenti solutionem facere.

The 16 of maii <1547>: In causa episcopi Moraviensis commendatarii de Scona contra Patricium Leirmonth et patrem eius propter⁴²³retractationem infeodationis certarum terrarum illis per dictum commendatarium et conventum suum facte, excepit magister Jacobus McGill, dicti Patricii procurator, quod quia erat minor annis, viz. unius et viginti nondum annorum, de hereditate sua placitare non teneretur iuxta legem Scotie, ut habetur in "Regia Majestate", ubi habetur (nisi in certis casibus) minorem placitare non teneri⁴²⁴. Sed ipse procurator hanc exceptionem proposuit sub protestatione de non admittendo iudices et proponendas reliquas suas dilatorias et fori declinatorias exceptiones. Cum hec exceptio hic fuit repulsa per interlocutoriam dominorum Consilii⁴²⁶, postea excepit idem procurator quod dicti domini iudices in hac causa esse non possunt, ex eo quia ista infeodatio nunc fuit apostolica auctoritate confirmata, et ideo coram temporalibus iudicibus de eius retractatione agi non poterat. <Responsum fuit:> nec eos declinare <posse> quod iam videbatur admississse per interlocutoriam predictam petitionem. Nec eius protestatio predicta utpote facto contraria poterat eum iuvare. The lordis be interlocutour decernit that he had ellis preiudgit it in this caus to him selff, for he suld ante omnia declinatorias iudicum proponere, ut notat Pan.(?)⁴²⁵.

⁴²³MS: penes.

⁴²⁴"Regiam maiestatem", ch. ...

⁴²⁵See nr. 431.

⁴²⁶Commentary by Panormitanus abbas (= Nicolaus de Tudeschis), probably on X 2.28.68 or X 2.2.4 or X 3.1.16.

The 17 of maii predicto <1547>: Schir Nicoll Tullo obtenit ane sentence anent the vicarage of Rothtwene in Murray aganis schir Henry Balfour, reduceand the said Henryis provisioun of the vicarage. And Tullo gat the ordinar letter upone his provisioun of the said vicarage apostolik be vertew of the sentence that he obtenit (as said is) and thairupone gat the quenis letters in the four formes. Schir Henry allegit that thir letters suld be reducit as inordourlie gevin and procedit in contrair of his ordinar collatioun, be vertew of the quhilk he had bene x yeirs possessour of that benefice and had siclyke ordinar letters of the king. Tullo schew his sentence foirsaid. Schir Henry schew instrumentum appellationis sue a sententia retractiva sue collationis infra decem dies. Tullo allegit the appellatioun wes desert and null, becaus the intimatioun of it a tergo scripta wes nocht justlie maid, quia erat facta in loco iudicii et non in presentia iudicum qui sententiam tulerunt, viz. magistrorum Alexandri Galloway et Jacobi Veddar canonicorum Abirdene, tum cum ipsi illo tempore intimationis et continue ad spatium mensis proxime precedentis ipsam intimationem semper fuissent presentes in civitate Vetere Abirdonense ubi sententiam illam tulerunt, et de iure intimari debet appellatio judici personaliter, si presens sit. Schir Henry said the lordis had na cognitioun quhidder the intimatioun wes guid or nocht.

<CONTINUED> The lordis decernit thai aucht nocht to ken de intimatione, et quod de practica eorum erat videre tantunmodo an debito tempore fuerit appellatum a sententia, ad hoc ut ipsi admittant appellationem et ut illa coram illis effectum habeat suspensivum sententie a quo est appellatum.

The 15 of junii anno 1547: The lordis decernit <the letteris> executorialles of ane chaiplane of Sanctandrois (rasit upone the laird of Balvery be ressone of ane act transferrit) to ceis (obstante appellatione a sententia translationis dicti acti confessati) ab initio, howbeit appellatio a confessione propria non admittitur per dominos Consilii ad impediendum executionem acti confessati⁴²⁷.

⁴²⁷Because the document has not yet undergone "reduction", see rule in nr. 16. Similar problem in nr. 20. Besides, "confessus pro iudicato habendus", C. 7.59.1.

The 16 of Junii vel eocirca <1547>: In ane caus of spuilye movit be Johne Tucler in Leith contra Isobell Wauchope, relict of umquhile James Logane in Leith, the lordis decernit that the said Johne aucht na hereyeldis to hir, becaus his father (that diet) had bot four aikiris of land or thairby of the said Isobellis, lyand besyd Leyth, and duelt nocht thairupone nor wes nocht husband. And the lawis of this realme requyris ut aliquis solvat hereyeld quod sit husbandus sedens et moriens super terram alicuius liberi hominis, et quod ad minus tenuerit de eo octavam partem bovate terre. Est autem bovata terre 4 plewis of land. Et in casu nostro dictus <Jacobus> (Joannis pater) mortuus non sedebat tempore sui decessus super dictam terram, nec tantum tenebat terre. Et sic domini decreverunt hereyeldam non solvendam. Et ideo condamnaverunt in spolio dicti equi pro hereyelda capti ipsam Isobellam captricem eiusdem.

16 junii 1547: Thair was ane Issobell Wachope, the relict of umquhill James Logane in Leyth, that had tane away ane hors fra ane Johne Cuiltar in Leith. The said Johne persewit for the spoliatione of the said hors. Scho allegit scho committit na spuilyie, becaus scho had tane the said hors as ane hereyeld, the land appertening to hir and hir husband quhairupone the said Johne duelt, according to the lauis of the countrie. It was ansuerit be the said Johne that he aucht na hereyeld, becaus his father that deceissit and of quhome scho cravit the hereyeld had bot four aikeris of land or thairby of the said Issobell lyand besyd Leyth, nor duelt nocht thairupone, nor was nocht husband. And as the lauis of the countrey requyris ad hoc quod aliquis solvat heryeldum, (quod) sit husbandus, sedens et moriens super terram alicuius liberi hominis, et quod adminus teneret de eo octavam partem unius donatae terrae. Est enim donata terrae four plewis of land. And sua the said Johne allegit that he duelt newer upon the land nor occupiet sua mikill land as mycht import ane hereyeld. Thairfoir he aucht na hereyeld. The lordis pronuncit that the said Johne aucht na hereyeld and that the woman had committit spuilyie.

Ultimo januarii anno 1547 <= 1548> : In causa magistri <Georgii> Hay contra filium N. burgensem de Edinburgh, petentis ab illo N. (tanquam herede et successore sui patris) certam pecuniam dicto quondam defuncto datam Edinburgi, pro financiis faciendis ipso Magistro G. in Gallia et non factis ibidem, exceptum fuit pro parte ipsius juvenis quod non heres fuit nec successor patri suo, ex eo quod in nullis terris ei succedebat. Ideo ad eius debita de iure <non> tenebatur solvenda. Replicavit magister G. quod, ex quo ipse erat filius et heres apparens quondam patris sui et infeodatus per ipsum in vita sua in certis terris infra burgum de Edinburgh, reservato libero earundem tenemento dicto eius patri pro tempore vite sue, succedit patri in eisdem saltem quoad liberum tenementum earundem. Et quod in eisdem terris censeri debet heres et successor patri suo, licet infeodatus de eisdem a patre fuerit antea hereditarie, et ideo eius debita debet solvere. Duplicavit <N.> quod non, ex eo quod erat hereditarie infeodatus in illis longe antequam <pater suus> hoc debitum contraxisset. Et <si> ita esset quod filius semper ad debita patris teneri debeat, sive ante sive post infeodationem filii hereditariam in vita patris factam sibi de terris aut aliis immobilibus, sequeretur quod hereditarium ius filio de feodo concessum nihil ei prodesset, et quod pater posset illud (quando vellet) revocare et terras illas alienare in preiudicium filii sui, si posset eum sic obligare per debita postea contracta. Sed sic est quod pater feodum semel datum a se filio revocare non potest. Nec habet postea ius terras alienandi directe. Ergo nec indirecte potest, per nova debita - que essent si ad ea solvenda filius teneretur, quia compelleretur filius (nihil habens preter terram illam) eam vendere ad debita solvenda. Domini Consilii pro maiore parte interlocuti sunt filium teneri tanquam heredem successorem patris sui ad dictum debitum magistro Georgio solvendum, non obstantibus allegatis in contrarium. Sed ego dissensi, ex eo maxime quod debitum contraxit pater longe postea quam filium infeodasset de terris suis, et ipse renunciavit successioni et hereditate patris, et non habebat terras has ex successione patris sui, sed alienatione earundem longe ante sibi a patre facta (ut predicitur). Et quare mihi videtur quod sicut extraneus fuit singularis successor. Ut emptor vel donatarius quivis ad debita sua (dolo aut fraude cessante) non tenetur, sic nec obligari debeat in hoc casu filius, et maxime in casu nostro ubi nulla doli in alienatione nec in patrem nec in filium suspitio cadebat. Et hoc decretum dominorum duxi valde preiudiciale omnibus baronibus regni qui magnas summas pecuniarum dant in dotem, cum "heredes apparentes" ponantur in hereditario feodo terrarum omnium et dominiorum patrum suorum. Quia, si hec sententia est iusta, hac infeodatione non obstante potuerunt patres tantis debitis onerare eosdem filios suos quod pro eorum solutione cogentur isti totas terras suas alienare - quod videtur iniquum, cum iure teneatur (C. de filiis pro patre⁴²⁸) filium non obligari ad debita paterna.

⁴²⁸C. 4.13.2 et 4 [to the point].

16. junii 1547: Thair was ane Mr Georg Hay that persewit A.B. burges of Edinburgh for certane soumes of silver, quhilk was gevin to the father of the said burges air for to mak finance and furnishing to the said Mr George in France. The burges air alledgit, he aucht nocht to pay the samyn becaus he was nocht his fatheris air nor succeidit to him to nane of his roumes nor landis and wald renunce all airschip guidis. To this was ansuerit that during the tyme of his father he was infeft and seasit in certane tenementis and landis be his father, reserving the liferent of the samyn to his father, and sua he (haifand the saidis tenementis na utherwayis) he aucht to be decernit to enter as air and successour to his father. To this was ansuerit that this debt was contract be the father efter the putting of him in the landis. And giff sua be that the fear of the landis (efter he is put in the landis) was bund to pay the debtis of the father (that puttis him into the landis) contractit thaireftir the putting (of him into the landis) wald serve for litill, becaus the samen father micht ay thairefter contract for debtis and soumes that indirect he mycht eat up all the landis. The lordis nevertheles decernit the said man to pay the said Mr Georg the foirsaids soumes and debtis contractit be his father. Nonnulli dominorum in contraria fuerunt opinione quod filius in hoc casu fuit tanquam extraneus aut singularis successor ut emptor vel donatarius, et ad paterna debita (dolo et fraude cessante) non teneretur. Dicebant hoc decretum prejudiciale futurum baronibus Scotiae qui magnas pecuniarum summas dant in dotem cum filiabus suis hoc respectu ut earum mariti (prolem) in paternis hereditatibus infeodant, pro acquisitione earundem liberis et prolibus inter eosdem procreatis.

The 10 marcii anno 1547 <= 1548> : A. petiit se decerni heredem quondam patris sui de certis terris; et assisa retornavit negative, eo quod instrumentum sasine patris sui de illis terris <perfectum non exhibuerat. Petit nunc A. dictam deservitionem negativam> reduci per decretum dominorum Consilii, ex eo quod dictus A. coram dominis Consilii producit decretum antiquum eorundem dominorum, decernens dominum superiorem earundem terrarum ad infeodandum avum actoris ipsius in dictas terras in alba firma, et aliud decretum eorundem dominorum ubi dictus dominus superior iudicialiter confessus fuerat se infeodasse patrem actoris in eisdem, secundum tenorem prioris decreti, et preceptum sasine dicti domini superioris sub eius sigillo pro danda sasina earundem terrarum, et transsumptum prothogalli cuiusdam notarii publici, fand iudicialiter pro parte actoris ipsius per officialem Dunkeldensem: quod prothogallum canebat de sasina earundem terrarum, data per unum ballivorum dicti domini superioris in eodem precepto contentum, licet in dicto prothogollo deessent multa verba vel scale (ut apparebat) consumpta, nec mensem aut diem continebat. Ex quibus indiciis (decretorum, transumpti, prothogolli, instrumenti sasine ac precepto sasine) domini decreverunt sasinam defuncti satis constare, licet de eadem non haberetur ullum instrumentum publicum perfectum. Et ideo retractaverunt deservitionem negativam predictam.

The 14 marcii anno 1547 <= 1548> : Quidam vir nomine Auchinlek vendiderat certas terras suas de N. (tenendas de aldermanno et ballivis Air) suo domino superiori earundem terrarum sub reversione, obtenta etiam litera regressus a dicto domino superiore in casu redemptionis earundem terrarum de N. Postea eedem terre per recognitionem, ob alienationem maioris partis earundem tentatam sine confirmatione regis (varde et releiff de domino rege)⁴²⁹per eosdem aldermannum et ballivos, factam <in manibus regis, ad regem reversae sunt. Et sic domini Consilii> decreverunt. Rex (terris sibi approprietatis per recognitionem) denuo dedit easdem dictos aldermanno et ballivis: proviso in eorum infeodamento novo quod ipsi infeodarent hereditarios suos tenentes earundem terrarum, ut ante fuerat, solvendo ratam compositionem datam per dictum elderman et ballivos sibi domino regi pro novo infeodamento. Qui elderman ballivique infeodarunt de terris predictis de N. fratrem illius Auchinlek (hereditarii tenentis earundem terrarum tempore recognitionis). Et hoc forte de consensu heredis dicti A<uchinlek>. Et qualem literam regressus Auchinlek habuit de dictis elderman et ballivis ante recognitionem talem, post novum suum infeodamentum a rege obtentum eidem concesserunt. Dictus Auchinlek constituit filiam N. suam assignatam in et ad reversionem illarum terrarum. Quae hoc debite intimavit hereditario possessori terrarum, et premonuit eundem ad recipiendum summam in reversione contentam et ad videndum terras illas legitime redemi et omnia puncta reversionis impleri, premonitione et numeratione pecunie reversionis debite factis. Transtulit ea ius reversionis et redemptionis terrarum in quendam Seatoun cum toto processu redemptionis legitime deducto. Qui Setoun citavit coram dominis Consilii N. hereditarium possessorem terrarum ad videndum terras illas decerni legitime redemptas. Reus dixit hoc decerni non debere, eo quod per recognitionem reversio precedens erat extincta. Et contra regem effectum ullum non potest habere, ita nec contra ipsum habere deberet. Et ipse de novo obtinuerat terras illas a comitate de Air, non tanquam heres hereditarii tenentis tempore recognitionis, sed tanquam extraneus: libere a iure primi tenentis, a quo nullum ius haberet, ideo reversio illius ei preiudicare non deberet. Omnibus quibus tamen non obstantibus domini Consilii ex bono et equo et rigore iuris relicto (qui iacere videbatur pro reo) decreverunt terras legitime esse redemptas et reversionem debere adhuc habere suum effectum, eo quod (ut ex nova infeodatione burgi de Air a rege concessa) constabat de mente regis esse, et quod hoc etiam statuto in acto parliamenti (ut allegabatur) cautum erat ut <in> huiusmodi recognitionum casibus vassalli eorum qui immediati erant tenentes domini regis (terrarum in recognitionem venientium) deberent de novo infeodari, singuli de suis partibus earundem terrarum, ut ante recognitionem erant, solvendo tantum modo domino suo superiori partem compositionis per eum domino regi pro nova infeodatione date, et quod ante recognitionem dictus Auchinlek, heredes eius et assignati ius redimendi terras illas habebant per reversionem, et quod mens regis videbatur quod habentes ius hereditarium in illis terris ante recognitionem recuperare illud deberent etiam postea (ut predictum est). Ideo decreverunt terras legitime redemptas, <eo> quod redimens in hoc casu numeraverat et consignaverat etiam partem compositionis (per dictum N. solute aldermanno et ballivis burgi predicti pro sua infeodatione), una cum summa contenta in litera reversionis.

⁴²⁹MS puts "sine confirmatione regis" before "varde" - probably because these words were added above the line and were drawn to the wrong place when the original manuscript was copied.

The 28 of februar anno 1548 <= 1549, or scribal error> : The lordis be interlocutour decernit the letters in the four formis conforme to the executoriallis alanerlie schawin to thame (but ony bullis sub plumbo⁴³⁰ ) of Mr David Panter's provisioun to the abbacy of Cambuskenneth per decessum Alexandri abbatis ultimi, upone the quhilkis the vicar generall of Sanctandrois refusit to gif ordinar letters (as wes schawin per instrumentum publicum coram dominis Consilii productum). Ratio erat that the saidis executoriallis wer in autentica forma curie Romane and had the tenour of the bull principall contenit in thame. Thairfoir constare dicebant de provisione, et dominus gubernator admisit easdem tanquam legitime levatas et sibi intimatas, et quod inconveniens erat quod ordinarius quilibet, recusans literas suas ordinarias conformes eisdem, suld hald ane man <nocht> lawfullie provydit of his benefice. Et sic conclusit maior pars dominorum Consilii, quavis aliqui eorum tenerent contra, viz. quod de practica Scotie litere regie in quatuor formis dari non deberent super quavis provisione apostolica in beneficialibus nisi literis ordinariis provisione conformibus ante obtentis, et quod dicte litere quatuor formarum deberent tantum dari conformes literis ordinariis in hoc casu et nullo modo super solis executorialibus, quas etiam executoriales dicebant non esse autenticas ad probandum provisionem beneficii, licet referrent copiam principalium apostolicarum literarum provisionis sub plumbo de verbo in verbum (ut moris est) - per N<ovellam>, C. de edendo⁴³¹. Verumtamen omnes domini unanimiter fatebantur de practica regni Scotie dare literas regias predictas conformes literis apostolicis declaratoriis in beneficialibus causis, quamvis ordinarii locorum eisdem declaratoriis obedire nollent, nec literas suas ordinarias conformes dare eisdem, prout hoc mense practicatum fuit bis: Viz. in causa magistri Joannis Spens, rectoris de Kirkchris, producentis declaratorias super rectoriam de Kirkchris contra dominum Joannem Durie (in dicta rectoria per episcopum Gallavidie ordinarium intrusum et collationatum). Declaratorias dictus episcopus obedire recusabat, ac literas suas ordinarias illis conformes dare omnino nolebat, prout per instrumentum publicum coram dominis Consilii productum clare constabat. Similiter super apostolicis declaratoriis obtentis per magistrum Davidem Bonar super rectoriam de Strabuk contra abatem de Dunfermeling et super personaria prebenda ecclesie Brechenensis, idem David declaratorias produxit contra quendam Hepburne (de illa prebendaria per episcopum Brechenensem provisum), et super vicaria de Logy contra magistrum Joannem Stevinsone, et super vicaria de Panbryd contra magistrum Alexandrum Kynnynmonth - quibus omnibus Davidis declaratoriis ordinarii locorum repugnabant nec ordinarias literas suas conformes dare volebant. Tamen domini Consilii literas quatuor formarum declaratoriis omnibus premissis conformes decreverunt. Et hoc dixerunt omnes de consuetudine esse. Et id decrevit maior pars eadem ratione super executorialibus solis in causa Davidis Panter predicta, licet hoc ante super executorialibus solis practicatum nemo dominorum recordaret, et antiqui dominorum. Minor pars eorundem tamen dissenserunt et dixerunt hoc non esse practicatum. Et hoc nota bene.

⁴³⁰"Without leaden seal" = thus trusting the mere "litterae executoriales" of the papal chancery, although the underlying papal act of prebendary provision (brought to execution by these "litterae executoriales") was not proved to them in the usual way, namely by papal bulla (sealed in lead with the papal seal).

⁴³¹The decision of the majority was correctly based on Auth. "Si quis in aliquo instrumento" post C. 2.1.7, ex Nov. 119.3.

Eodem die <28 feb. 1549?>: In ane caus of retreiting of infeftment of landis gevin be the quene in tailye to Robert Carrutheres and certane his bretherane and thair airis maill, at the instance of the tua damesillis dochteris to the reservand, restitione in integrum contra dictam infeodationem (per reginam minorem annis) intentata et dicta alienationis et infeodationis nullitate etiam intentata in eodem libello coniunctim, the exceptioun beand proponit verbo contra summonitionem quod <petitio> erat inepta, continens videlicet illa dua remedia contraria, et ideo petita per reos <sententia> absolutoria prout libellatur; the <oral> exceptioun beand disput at the bar, the lordis ordanit it to be gevin in writ on the morne (and remanent exceptiounis delatouris). On the morn comperit actor et ante omnia dixit se velle habere pro deleto the haill caus of his summondis contenand the nullitie. The exceptioun beand gevin in per reos et absolutoria petita (ut supra), <rei> dixerunt: post disputationem iam habitam et exceptiones discussas (verbo latas et nunc in scriptis petitas iuxta <dominorum> desiderium termini et act desuper confecti) non licere actori habere quid pro deleto. <Pars actrix respondit> breviter quod libellus non erat adhuc acceptatus expresse verbo per reos, nec lis contestata videlicet per propositionem ulle exceptionis peremptorie. Decreverunt omnes domini licere adhuc actori libellum emendare, <habendo> quid pro deleto - quod licet de iure facere usque ad litis contestationem vel donec libellum fuerit expresse per reum acceptatum, ut notatur in l. Edita, C. de edendo⁴³², - quamvis rei dixerant per propositionem exceptionis illius dilatorie et disputationem (ut predicitur) desuper late habitam libellum in ea parte tacite esse ab ipsis acceptatum et litem desuper quasi contestatam, sic quod ultra ullam partem habere pro deleto non posset actor. Sed domini et hanc litis contestationem et tacitam acceptationem libelli negabant de iure esse. Et ideo decreverunt ut supra dictum est.

⁴³²C. 2.1.3 [to the point].

The 16 of merche anno quo supra <1549>: Johne Steill callit Johne Hammyltone in Owtoun to heir and sie ane chartour of certane landis (maid to him be the said Johne) retreitit and rescindit and the landis to be restorit agane to him, as maid be him minorem annis, viz. nondum 23 annorum existentem (confecte charte et alienationis tempore), et enormiter lesum per dictum alienationem.

Reus excepit libellum non esse relevantem, berand the said Johne "minorem annis" and specifeand his aige of xxiii yeiris: becaus of the lawis of Scotland perfecta, legitima et maior etas omnium personarum (excepto rege cuius etas perfecta est 25 annorum iure novo, licet temporibus Jacobi primi, secundi et tertii fuerit similiter 21 annorum) censetur esse 21 annorum. Usque ad quem etatem tantum durat curatela, et non usque ad 25^um annum prout de iure civili, as in sindrie passagis of "Regiam Maiestatem"⁴³³ is contenit.

Actor⁴³⁴ replicavit quod, licet erat etas perfecta to airis maill to entir to thair landis, nocht tamen quoad alienandum et contrahendum. Quum (si sic tisiserentur) possent minores 25 annis restitui iuxta iuris civilis regulas⁴³⁶ et canonici⁴³⁵, et quod ius municipale regni Scotie hunc passum non determinabat, ideo sequenda esse iura civilia et (quoad restitutionem in integrum petendam) minorem etatem semper durare usque 25^um annum completum, quia "casus omissus remanet in dispositione iuris communis", l. Si quis in aliquo, C. de eodem⁴³⁷. Et tempus heredis intrandi ad suas terras non debet censeri etas maior et perfecta quoad omnes alios actus, quia femine, quoad hunc effectum, <post completam> 14 annorum etatem censentur de iure etatis perfecti; et filii burgensium (quia primum sciunt ulnare pannos et numerare pecunias) dicere velimus perfecte personas etatis. Predictum esse perfecte et maioris etatis ad contractus et alienationes rerum immobilium (<sine> revocatione, etiam si enormiter fuerit lesus) tunc faciendum, esset valde absurdum, nam etiam infans est perfecte etatis - quo non tamen ad alienationes rerum immobilium faciendas; quemadmodum masculus in 20^o anno, femina in 18^o anno potest veniam etatis a principe impetrare et sic haberi pro maiore annis adeo ut tunc restituere in integrum contra gesta per eos (post veniam etatis impetratam) non obtinerent, ut C. de eis qui veniam etatis⁴³⁸, quo casu tamen immobilia sine decreta iudicis alienare non potest⁴³⁹: glo. in l. C. de <in> integ. restitutione⁴⁴⁰. Item ratione liberorum minores 25 annis quoad honores, dignitatem et quedam privilegia habentur pro maioribus etate, non tamen quoad alienationes rerum et contractus⁴⁴¹. Et sic, licet tales in certis his casibus habeantur pro maioribus quoad nonnullos actus, non tamen indistincte, quum immo contra alienationes (per quas sint lesi) initas ante 25^um annum tanquam minores restituuntur, ut in locis predictis notatur. Et sic restat quod minor etas quoad petendam restitutionem in integrum ratione minoritatis et lesionis durat usque ad 25^um annum etatis.

Domini tamen Consilii per interlocutoriam sententiam decreverunt: de iure municipali regni Scotie perfectam, legitimam et maiorem etatem (omnino excepto principis) tantum esse 21 annos quoad contrahendum et alienandum etiam immobilia. Etiam firmiter, sicut(?) de iure civili poterant olim maiores 25 annis. Quod probatur quia curatoris officium (qui datur adultis adhuc junioribus) expirat de practica Scotie in 21^o anno etatis eius cui datur curator. Et sic etas 21 annorum censetur etas maior.

⁴³³"Regiam maiestatem" ...

⁴³⁴MS: Reus

⁴³⁵C. 2.21.

⁴³⁶X 1.41.

⁴³⁷Authentica "Si quis in aliquo documento", post C. 2.1.7 [text not directly to the point].

⁴³⁸C. 2.44.1 [to the point].

⁴³⁹C. 2.44.2.1.

⁴⁴⁰Gloss by Franciscus Accursius on C. 2.21 [to the point].

⁴⁴¹Words from D. 4.4.2.

<CONTINUED> Et sic repulerunt domini Consilii dictum libellum tanquam ineptum, fundatum super minoritate Joannis Steill, etatis 23 annorum tempore alienationis terrarum, contra quam restitui se petebat tanquam tunc minorem et lesum. Et sic restitutionis <in> integrum petende tempus quatuor annorum immediatorum post perfectam etatem⁴⁴² (et iure civili 25 annorum, de iure Scotie 21 annorum) statim incipit currere post completum 21^um annum. Et hoc quadriennium hodie practicatur in Scotia. Et hec singularia nota.

⁴⁴²C. 2.21.4. See 6. 1.21.1-2, as churches are treated as minors. In our case, as land has been alienated, Roman law would concede five years: C. 5.74.3.

Apud Linlythtqw <16 mar. 1549>: The lordis decernit thame be interlocutour competent judgis to proceid aganis Mr William Chreichtoun provest of Sanctgeillis kirk, accusit befoir thame for barratrie, becaus (as wes allegit) he impetrat the bischoprik of Dunkeld in Rome without the licence of the quene or governour, contrair the act of parliament, nochtwithstanding he allegit he aucht nocht to answer befoir thame be ressone that he wes clerk and ane kirk man and the lordis wes bot temporall jugis. The abote of Paslay wes his contrair pairtie. And the quenis advocat and utheris dissentit to the interlocutour.

Eodem die et mense <16 mar. 1549> (the sessione beand convenit in Linlithtqw for the pest in Edinburgh): In the actioun and caus of error movit be the quenis advocat aganes the laird of N. for retreting of his serving of the landis of N., becaus the retour buir that thai landis war haldin of the bischope of Sanctandrois for serving of his castell of Sanctandrois, albeit of the law of Scotland (as the quenis advocate allegit) thair wes na halding of landis bot other blanche, vaird or fewferme and the assyis had nocht servit nor retourit ane of thay thre haldingis of the saidis landis, nochttheles the lordis of Counsall decernit the asys quyte of the summondis and to haiff retourit weill, becaus that the said lairdis chartour (that he had of my lord of Sanctandrois) buir: "reddendo nobis et successoribus nostris custodiam castri nostri de Sanctandrea pro omni alio onere".

Apud Edinburgh, xx die (vel eocirca) januarii anno eodem <1549>: In causa spolii Jacobi Sinclar contra <quendam> nomine Cokburne de <...>. Idem Copburne emerat terras de N. a domino de Bass and or Witsounday warnit lawfulie, outlaid and remowit the said James fra the saidis landis, the said James than haifand certane yeiris takis thairof of the laird of Bass for termes than to rin eftir the said Witsounday. Copburne allegit he did na spuilyie, becaus he usit the law and practik of Scotland and the landis wes his and he knew than na takis. Nochttheles the lordis condamnit him in spuilyie, becaus James beand in possessioun within termes inclusit, haifand takis of termis to rin, aucht to haiff bene callit ordourlie befoir ane judge or he mycht haiff bene put out. Et quod de practica (regni huius) possessor cum titulo colorato (nisi vocatus judicialiter de possessione) non potest amoveri per quemcunque sine spolio.

The 21 day januarii <1548>: Dominus Merchestoune et Jacobus Carmichall contra dominum de Wrychthousis. It wes allegit that the actour mycht nocht persew the spuilyie of the haill teindis libellit, becaus his summondis buir that he wes in possessioun of ane pairt of the samyn be puttin thairof upone his steadis, and sua that he had nocht possessioun of the haill. The lordis be interlocutour decernit that be apprehensioun of ane pairt of thai teindis actores erant in possessione totarum decimarum et de spoliatione totarum possunt agere, quemadmodum per apprehensionem unius partis fundi apprehendi censetur possessio totius fundi quantuncunque magni.

Primo februarii anno eodem <1549>: The laird of Durie callit Stewin Dudistoun for spuilyeing him of the landis of N., he than haifand takkis for termes to run. Dudistoun allegit that he did na spuilyie becaus that he had gottin new infeftment of the landis recognist be the bischop of Sanctandrois, superiour thairof, and lawfulie warnit and removit at Witsounday and ejectit ordourlie the said laird Durie. Nochttheles the lordis decernit reum in spolio, quia alter erat in possessione terrarum habens assedationem earundem pro terminis adhuc cursuris. Et ideo (nisi vocatus iudicialiter) de possessione non erat amovendus, posito etiam quod titulus eius non esset de iure omnino validus, arg. c. Licet episcopus, de prebendis, in 6.⁴⁴³

⁴⁴³6. 3.4.28 [to the point].

Eodem die <1 feb. 1549>: In causa Henrici Kemp contra N., the lordis advocat the mater to thame selffis, becaus eorum defensio iniuriebatur juri eis facto per regem be reasone of foirfaltour led aganes the lord Glammis, and the lordis of Counsall are judgis allanerlie to all personis concerning the king or quenis privilege concerning thair rychtis or giftis.

Eodem die <1 feb. 1549>: In causa Joannis Tennent contra Petrum Colquhone, the lordis suspendit the schireffis precept and thair letters, becaus the schireff of Lanerk (within quhair jurisdictioun the landis lay, for spoliatioun of the quhilkis Petir callit the said Johne befoir him virtute literarum dominorum Consilii) had summond the said Johne without his jurisdictioun within the quhilk the said Johne duelt nocht. Et licet (ratione rei de qua agebatur) dictus Joannes sortiretur ibi forum⁴⁴⁴, tamen vicecomes extra suam jurisdictionem citare eum alibi morantem (et infra suam jurisdictionem non apprehensum) <non> poterat. And sua <thai> suspendit the letters of cognitioun, for vrangus excecutioun of the precept, direct thairupone be the schireff.

⁴⁴⁴X 2.2.20.

The 20 februarii, anno eodem <15499: The erle of Mortoun callit George Douglas for delyvering of the dungeone of Dalkeytht, pertening to him as franctenementar thairof. McGill (procuratour for the said George) allegit that the samyn wes delyverit lang of befoir to the said George be the said erle, to be his and his sones heretablie fear thairof and duelling place. And offerit him to preve the samyn be veratie. And allegit for that caus that he aucht nocht delyver the dungeoun to him. The erlis procuratour allegit that he suld preve his allegeance instantlie. The uther askit ane terme. The lordis of Counsall be interlocutour decernit ane terme to preve the same.