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 >>
Patrick Young v The Creditors of Gavin Hamilton of Raploch. [1680] 3 Brn 361 (25 June 1680)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1680/Brn030361-0476.html
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
Patrick Young v. The Creditors of Gavin Hamilton of Raploch
Date: 25 June 1680
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Patrick Young, as donatar to the single and liferent escheat of Gavin Hamilton of Raploch, granted to him by the Duke of Hamilton as Lord of the Regality within which Raploch dwells and his lands lie, pursues a special declarator. Alleged for Raploch's creditors,—That no more can fall under the Lord of Regality's gift of escheat but only the maills and duties of the lands lying within that regality. Replied,—His moveables do likewise fall under this gift, and not only those lying within the bounds of that regality but wheresoever they lay; and particularly the liferent of houses within Edinburgh belonging to his lady, John Bonnai's relict, and now appertaining to Raploch jure mariti.
The Lords found quod bona mobilia sequuntur personam, and that not only his moveables then lying within the regality fell under the escheat and gift by the Lord of the Regality, but also all his moveables throughout the whole kingdom, and even his jus mariti. Which was judged an interlocutor very prejudicial to his Majesty's interest, and extending the Lords of Regality their rights to single escheats too far, seeing there should be no more in a Lord of Regality's power to dispose of but what lies within his own regality; and no person ought to grant gifts of escheats to extend farther than the bounds of their own jurisdiction. Yet Hope, Min. Pr. tit. 8, affirms they have right to single escheats.
