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 >>
Hammermen of Edinburgh v Stewart. [1664] Mor 2541 (24 June 1664)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1664/Mor0602541-035.html Cite as:
[1664] Mor 2541
Powers of a Box-master. - Liability of Interim Magitrates.
Hammermen of Edinburgh v. Stewart
Date: 24 June 1664 Case No. No 35.
The office of box-master to a trade, being annual, the Lords found that this officer could discharge only the duties, due during his inumbency; unless the trade had given him an express warrant for for discharging future duties, upon a just and onerous ground.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Hammermen of Edinburgh, in anno 1641, obtained from the King a gift of mortification of certain feu-duties belonging to the bishoprick of Dunkeld; and thereupon having charged Sir William Stewart of Innernytie, for payment of a feu-duty for certain byrun years, resting before the restitution of the bishops, he suspended upon this reason, That there being certain fue-duties resting by old Garntilly, the suspender's father, for which the suspender was charged as executor to his father, he did truly pay the same, and not only obtained a discharge thereof, but also of the same feu-duties yearly in time coming; which discharge was subscribed by the deacon, box-master, and their factor.—It was answered, That the discharge could not be respected, as to any further years than were truly satisfied; because, it being a mortification to the use of poor beedmen, the subscribers of the discharge had no power to subscribe the same, without true and real payment made thereof, unless they had an express warrant from the beedmen and whole craft; and that an answerable satisfaction should halve been made therefor: Nor could they give a discharge of future years, their charge being only annual, as deacon and box-master.— Replied, The discharge was opponed, and that the beedmen should seek their relief off the craft, whose deacon and box-master have power to uplift any thing belonging to the incorporation.
The Lords found the answer to the reason of suspension relevant, and did only sustain the discharge for the years truly satisfied; and found, that the clause for the future was either adjected by error or by fraud; which could not prejudge the beedmen nor the incorporation, unless there had been an express warrant for it, upon a just and onerous ground.
