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 >>
Earl of Wintoun v the Tenants of Letterfury. [1668] Mor 10647 (15 July 1668)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1668/Mor2510647-047.html
Subject_1 POSSESSORY JUDGMENT. Subject_2 SECT. VI.
Against what Rights does it take place? - Runs not contra non valentes agere. - if competent against an Action of Warrandice? - Runs against Minors.
Earl of Wintoun v. the Tenants of Letterfury
Date: 15 July 1668 Case No. No 47.
Possessory judgment rugs against minors. Minority is excepted only in the long prescription, extinguishing the right.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Earl of Win ton being infeft in the lands Letterfury, which were comprised for Lady Seaton's tocher did intent action for mails and duties against the tenants in anno 1656, and seven years thereafter did raise a wakening of the said summons; where this allgeance was proponed, That the Tenants had made payment to their masters, who had gotten feus of the said lands, from Letterfury; and by virtue thereof had been seven years in peaceable possession. This allegeance was sustained, notwithstanding of this reply, that the feuar's possession was interrupted by the first summons, before the were seven years in possion; and being once interrupted, they could not have the benefit of a possessory judgment, by seven years possession after the interruption, especially seeing the pursuer was content to pass from the tenants, as having bona fide paid 2do, It was replied, That the first summons wars raised when the Earl of Wintoun was minor, and continued so the most part of the seven years, and there fore prescription could not run against him; which was likewise repelled: And Lords found, that the benefit of a possessory judgment did run against minors as well as majors.
Gosford, MS. No 32.
*** Stain’s report is No 15. p. 10627, Sect. 2. h. t.
