Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 REDEMPTION.

Dr Frazer
v.
Hoc

Date: 16 June 1676
Case No. No 53.

Whether usury could be pleaded, to obviate the plea that less bad been of fered for redemption than stipulated?

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

In anno 1593, contracte permutationis seu excambii (ut loquimur) celebrato inter Georgium Comitem Mariscallum et Menonem Hog de Blaridtyn; quia dictus Menon dederat et disposuerat dicto comiti quasdam terras villæ piscatorum vulgo of the fishertoun de Peterhead; et villa de Peterhead erecta fuerat in burgurn baroniæ adeo ut terris istis dicti Menonis commode comes carere nequiret: Et quia dictus Menon habebat jus ususfructus et locationem ad longum tempus terrarum de Blairldryn, ideo dictus comes disposuerat dicto Menoni et suis hæredibus prædictas terras de Blairidryn; sed redimendas a dicto comite et suis successoribus, solutione trium millium mercarum et locatione dictarum terrarum in annos novemdecem post redemptionem; pro mercede sedecem librarum singulis annis pro dictis terris pendi solita: ut in contractu asseritur: Et pro implemento dicti contractus, charta a dicto comite et filio ejus concessa in anno 1617, dictus Menon investitus et ejus hæredes, dictas terras possederant, donec Dominus Alexander Frazer archiatreus regius, acquisito jure reversionis seu retractus in dicto contractu et, investitura contento, Jacobo Hog nepote dicti Menonis præmonito (ut moris est) at dictam summam reciperete et prædictas terras revenderet, actione declaratoria dictas terras vendicabat jure retractus, rite ut asserebat redemptas.

Excipiebat Reusretract um seu pactum de retrovendendo apud nos stricti juris esse et specifice implendum; eo autem pacto cautum terras dictas redimendas non solum solutione dictæ symmae, sed adjectum eas esse relocandas in tempus prædictum; locationem antem seu assedationem nec oblatam nec depositam.

Replicabat Actor pactum illud de relocatione injustum et usurarium et illicitum esse; terra siquidem ejus esse valoris ut merces relocationis tantum non imaginaria sit; colomum enim pro iis pendere aut pendere posse quotannis sex centas minas; et si reo non solum dicta summa 3000 minarum, sed etiam locatio adeo diuturna et pro mercede adeo exili danda foret; specie locationis ipsam proprietatem vel ejus pretium consecuturum: Adhæc, constitution Jacobi adi. Parl. 6. cap. 19. statutum esse, in contractibus hypothecariis, quibus terræ alienantur sub pacto de retrovendendo, et relocando post redemptionem; conditiones et assedationes istas haud servandas, terris redemptis, nisi convenerit de justa mercede et pensione, saltem haud multum citra justam firmam, ut loguimur.

Respondebat Reus, multum interesse inter contractus mutui et alios puta venditionis et permutationis, &c. Ubi enim pecunia fœneratur et creditur, usarariæ stipulationes illicitæ sunt; et pacta alioquin licita reprobantur, ut pacta legis commissoriæ; ea ratione, quod debitori obærato et inopi creditor nihil non exprimet; ea autem ratio in aliis contractibus cessat; et in hoc casu; nec enim in eo mutuum, et consequenter nec usura nec pactum usurarium nec debitor inops, sed contractus permutationis inter Rei avum, virum haud locupletem et comitem præpotentem, cui terras suas ut sihi si non necessarias, saltem commodas flagitanti recusare non potuit nedum leges inquiores dare: Constitutionem autem prædictam Jacobi 2di. in contractibus pignoratitiis locum habere, ubi terræ creditori impignorantur, ut ex verbis constitutions liquet (when lands are wadset.) In casu prædicto nec creditum nec pignus esse; avum suum nec pecuniam comiti dedisse, nee repetera posse; cum dicto contractui clausula requisitionis (ut loquimur) non insit; nec reus prædictam summam petere possit; nec comes teneatur persolvere; avum suum permutasse terras suas de Blairi-dryn, ea lege et satis iniqua, ut reo haud liceat terras avitas reluere; cum penes actorem extraneum et singularem successorem facultas sit redimendi, si ea uti velit conditioni parendum; terras tempore permutationis incultas et forte steriles fuisse, in regione saltuosa et montana; si sua et parentum industria excultæ et meliores sunt, id in suum detrimentum haud retorquendum.

Quæstio ista, Domino de Castlehill referente, in domum interiorem introducta; et inter dominos disceptata; cum de ea sententiis variatum, visa est altiorem indaginem requirere; et, coram ipsis, partibus et patronis vocatis, audienda.

Act. Lockhart, &c. Alt. Cuninghame. Dirleton, No 358. p. 173. *** Gosford reports this case:

In a declarator of redemption of the lands of Blairidein, at the instance of Sir Alexander, as having right to the reversion of the lands given in wadset by the Earl Marshall to the defender's predecessors, in anno 1593, it was alleged, no declarator, because the reversion did bear, not only the payment of 3000 merks, but likewise a tack, to be granted to the wadsetter or his heirs, of 19 years, for payment of the sum of L. 19 yearly. It was replied, That the redemption being suspended during the wadsetter's lifetime, and the granter's lifetime only, and the lands being possessed thereafter by the space of many 19 years, the tack falls within the act of Parliament, King James the Second, ordaining tacks of wadset-lands set near to the half of the duty, and not near to the full value, to be void and null; but so it is, that the wadset-lands are worth of yearly value 1200 merks, and the tack-duty only L. 19, and some service, yearly. It was duplied, That the tack could not fall within the act of Parlialiament foresaid, because the act was only as to tacks where lands were given in wadset, for security of a sum lent upon the wadset, for which the duties of the lands were given in place of the annualrent, which was antichresis; but here no such wadset, for it was a contract, where the wadsetter disponed the absolute and irredeemable right of the heritage to the Earl of Marshall, as most necessary for his barony, and harbour of Peterhead; as likewise his right of other lands and milns, with the rental of the lands controverted and tacks thereof, so that they were in the case of an excambion; and it was expressly provided, that the 3000 merks should be paid in case of redemption, and a 19 years tack of the lands for the same duty they then paid the time of the contract, which is therein expressed; and, there being no order used by the Earl of Marshall himself; the pursuer could be in no better condition, who was in place of his right. This was not decided, but, before answer, the defender ordained to condescend upon the years of his tack and rental, which were to run the time of the contract.

Gosford, MS. p. 543.