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 >> George Keith v David Murray. [1675] 2 Brn 189 (10 December 1675) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1675/Brn020189-0446.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JAMES DALRYMPLE OF STAIR.
Date: George Keith
v.
David Murray
10 December 1675 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
George Keith pursues David Murray for wrongous intromission with fifty-nine
barrels of salt, left in the custody and cellars of Patrick Trail, in Kirkwall, by Captain Keith, and by him disponed to the pursuer. The defender alleged Absolvitor; because he, being collector of the customs in Orkney, had warrantably seized upon this salt, because there was no entry made of the ship that imported it. It was answered, That the pursuer's author was in bona fide to buy the salt, seeing bulk was broken, and parcels sold to the defender himself, and many others.
It was replied, That it is not the breaking of the bulk, but the not making of entry before bulk broken, that warrants the collectors to make seizure; neither did the defender give warrant to break bulk; but, on the contrary, offers him to prove, that, he being in Zetland, and the ship coming there, being in distress for want of vivers, and having no money to buy, and there being there no port to enter, did consent for the sale of ten barrels of salt, for the company's necessity, and sent a certificate to the customers at Kirkwall, that, accordingly, entry might be made there; which not being made, he did warrantably seize upon the salt in question.
Which the Lords found relevant.
Vol. II, Page 379.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
