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 >>
Elizabeth Ramsay and Mr. Ashton, in Northumberland, her Husband, v Clapperton of Wylie-Cleugh. [1694] Mor 16536 (18 July 1694)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1694/Mor3816536-033.html Cite as:
[1694] Mor 16536
Elizabeth Ramsay and Mr Ashton, in Northumberland, her Husband, v. Clapperton of Wylie-Cleugh
Date: 18 July 1694 Case No. No. 33.
Same subject.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The question was, a quo tempore Wylie-cleugh was to count for the superplus mails and duties of the wadset-lands more than paid the annual-rent of his wadset sum? It was contended, it behoved to be from the date of the offer of caution conform to the 62d act of Parl. 1661, between debtor and creditor, obliging them either to cede the possession, or else to impute the superplus fruits in sortem. It was objected against the instrument produced, that it did not bear the production of the factory and procuratory. Answered, it was not required nor called for; in which case it was sufficient, that the instrument bore quod de ejus potestate liquido notario constabat. The Lords repelled this objection. The second was, that though offered caution, yet it was only in general, and did not condescend upon any particular person; nor did it bear that any bond with a cautioner was offered, and so it was null. Answered, they offered to supply it now by finding caution beyond exception. The Lords found the instrument was not in the terms of the act of Parliament, and therefore could not oblige Wylie-cleugh to count for the superplus rents above his annual-rent from the date of it. Yet it was remembered, that in a case of the Earl of Marishal against his wadsetters, it was sustained that there was a general offer of caution, and a condescendence allowed ex intervallo; but this was not so conform to the act of Parliament.
