[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> George Fowlis v The Laird of Lamington. [1632] 1 Brn 191 (14 February 1632) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1632/Brn010191-0442.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION reported by SIR ROBERT SPOTISWOODE OF PENTLAND.
Subject_2 Such of the following Decision as are of a Date prior to about the year 1620, must have been taken by Spotiswoode from some of the more early Reporters. The Cases which immediately follow have no Date affixed to them by Spotiswoode.
Date: George Fowlis
v.
The Laird of Lamington
14 February 1632 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
By appointment betwixt the Laird of Lamington, on the one part; and George Fowlis, the bairns of umquhile Mr Robert Fowlis, and John Muir of Anneston, on the other part; Lamington was to have of them their right of the lead-mines for nine years, he relieving them of the whole burdens of cautionary they had undergone for umquhile Thomas Fowlis. A contract was drawn up of this, and subscribed by all the parties, except Anneston only. Afterwards George Fowlis sought to reduce this contract upon this reason, That it being a contract betwixt the defender on the one part, and them on the other, it was not perfected before all parties had subscribed it, before which time it was lawful for any of them to resile. Alleged, The pursuer could not quarrel it upon that ground, but only the defender, if he pleased, who would stand to it; and desired that the pursuer, who had subscribed it, might fulfil to him his part of it. Replied, There being a contract of partnery among them, none of them could do any thing without the others; likeas, there were sundry things to be performed to Lamington, which could not be done by any of the rest but Anneston. Duplied, He craved no more of the pursuer but that he would perform that which was in his power to do; and, for Anneston, he should take his hazard of him. The Lords assoilyied from the reasons, and found that George Fowlis should put the defender in his place and right, he relieving him for his part, as said is.
Page 70.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting