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 >> William Fotheringham and Others v Andrew Langlands, &c. [1776] Hailes 732 (13 December 1776) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1776/Hailes020732-0433.html Cite as: [1776] Hailes 732 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1776] Hailes 732
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 BURGH-ROYAL.
Subject_3 Power of a Burgh to alter its usages.
Date: William Fotheringham and Others
v.
Andrew Langlands, &c
13 December 1776 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Faculty Collection, VII. 324; Dict., App. I.—Burgh-Royal, No. II.]
Hailes. This declarator is calculated to overturn the whole law of corporations. It is said that there is no seal of cause; and, therefore, practice must be the rule. Although there were a seal of cause, by the magistrates allowing persons not of a trade to be members of that trade, it would signify nothing. No magistrates can grant to tailors or fishmongers the privilege of hammermen. This would take away the whole method of qualifying persons in any particular profession; and all tailors might become hammermen, and all hammermen tailors. As a seal of cause could not do this, so neither can practice. Practice may have force in possessorio; but whenever a declarator is brought, the right must be the rule. The other conclusions are no less anomalous. The son of a hammerman, if he follows his father's profession, may be admitted, on paying smaller dues than a stranger; but he cannot be admitted as a hammerman without learning the craft of a hammerman. This would be to convert our corporations, or companies, into Indian castes; and so also, as to the privilege claimed from marrying the daughter of a hammerman, it resolves into this—a young
man, instead of producing a piece of work as his essay-piece, must be allowed to produce a hammerman's daughter, and to say, that is my essay-piece. Auchinleck. The use of corporations, and for which the law allows them, is, that the lieges may be insured of having persons capable to work in the several trades necessary for society. Hence, when I hear of a corporation of tailors, I send for one of them, and desire him to make me a suit of clothes; but, on conversing with him, I learn that he cannot draw a thread, but is a fishmonger. [When I want to have my horse shod, must I go to a shoemaker; myself shod, to a hammerman?]
Braxfield. The regulations sought to be declared are absurd and ridiculous, and inconsistent with the law of the land. It would, however, have been better had a reduction been brought of the strange and unconstitutional act of the corporation of hammermen in 1770.
President. I would have had the same difficulty, were it not that the pursuers have brought a declarator.
On the 13th December 1776, “The Lords sustained the defences;” adhering to Lord Kennet's interlocutor.
Act. D. Rae. Alt. A. Wight.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
