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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Alexander Lorran v Henry Hume. [1672] 2 Brn 157 (24 January 1672) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1672/Brn020157-0394.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JAMES DALRYMPLE OF STAIR.
Date: Alexander Lorran
v.
Henry Hume
24 January 1672 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Alexander Lorran having a gift, from the bishop of Edinburgh, to be procurator-fiscal of the commissariot of Lawder, pursues Mr Henry Hume to admit.
him to the place, and pay the bygone profits since the intimation of his gift. The defender alleged Absolvitor; because his gift from the king to the commissary expresses a power to nominate a procurator-fiscal; and, by the reservation in the Act restoring bishops, gifts granted by the king before are reserved. It was answered, That the fiscal having no gift to himself from the king immediately, the power in the commissary's gift was but ex stylo, and by inadvertence, and could not exclude the fiscal nominated by the bishop; especially seeing the fiscal is a check upon the commissary, and lifts the bishop's dues, and so cannot be constituted by the commissary himself. 2do. That the Act bears an exception of the present, and of the fiscals that then were. The Lords found, That the fiscal nominated by the commissary by virtue of his gift, if he were authorised and admitted by the commissary, before the intimation of the bishop's nomination, that the same was sufficient. Vol. II, Page 55.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
