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 >>
James Scott v Boyd of Temple. [1672] Mor 3723 (11 January 1672)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1672/Mor0903723-060.html Cite as:
[1672] Mor 3723
Denunciation of Comprising. - Denunciation upon Horning. - Relaxation.
James Scott v. Boyd of Temple
Date: 11 January 1672 Case No. No 60.
Found as in No 59.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr. James Scott being donatar to the liferent of escheat of Boyd of Temple, did pursue a general declarator upon the gift.—It was alleged, That the horning was null, the denunciation not being at the market cross of the head burgh of the regality of Torphichen, within which the lands did lye.—It was replied, That albeit Torphichen was a regality, yet no denunciations or other legal executions have been in use to be made there past memory of man; and therefore, being in desuetude, the lieges were not obliged to denounce there, as was found by a practique observed by Spottiswood on that same reason, No 59. p. 3723.——The Lords did sustain the defence, unless the pursuer did offer to prove, that there was a public officer and clerk of the regality, who keeped the record of all executions and hornings; seeing the said regality did comprehend the most part of the Temple lands of Scotland, and might be of a great consequence to frustrate all legal executions upon that pretence.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 261. Gosford, MS. No 438. p. 227.*** Stair reports the same case:
Mr James Scot being donatar to the liferent of Boyd of Temple, pursues declarator.—It was alleged, That the horning was null, because Temple dwells within the regality of Torphichen, and the denunciation was not at the Thorn of Torphichen, which is the place for the head burgh.—It was answered, That it is in desuetude, and that the allegeance was not relevant, unless it were alleged that the said regality had a head burgh in use, and a register for hornings there.
Which the Lords found relevant and declared.
Stair, v. 2. p. 44.
*** The like was decided 19th June 1674, Murray against Arnot, No 25. p. 3634.
