BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Grier v Maxwell. [1622] Mor 12072 (6 February 1622)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1622/Mor2812072-164.html Cite as:
[1622] Mor 12072
In a process of abstracted multures, incident diligence refused to recover writs executed by the defender's author, because presumed to be in the defenders own lands.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Gilbert Grier, heritor of the mill of Glenisland, and thirled multures there of, pursues Homer Maxwell, heritor of the lands of Speedoch, which were astricted to the said mill, for abstracting of the thirled multures thereof; against which the defender alleged, That he was infeft in the said lands, cum molendinis et multuris, by John——, his author, likeas, his said author was likewise infeft in the same lands cum molendinis et multuris before the pursuer's right. This exception being admitted to the defender's probation, he used incident against certain persons, for having of his said author's evidents, which incident the Lords would not sustain, for the writs made to his author, because it was presumed, that the same behoved to be in the defender's own hands, he having acquired his right from that same author, who is probably presumed to have delivered all the evidents made to him of these lands, the time when the excipient acquired the right thereof from him; and therefore, the incident for his author's writs was refused, likeas the same incident was refused against certain persons convened therein, who were out of the country, seeing they were not summoned upon threescore days, albeit the user of the incident alleged, that he behoved to summon them necessarily to that day which was assigned by the act of litiscontestation, and could not chuse another day, so that it was not his default, seeing there was not a term of sixty days assigned by the act, and it behoved that the day of compearance in the act, and in the incident, should convene together, which was repelled by the Lords, and the incident refused.
Act. Lautie.Alt. Cunningham.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 190. Durie, p. 14.
