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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Robert Johnston v Hamilton of Gairen. [1694] 4 Brn 135 (1 February 1694)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1694/Brn040135-0308.html

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1694] 4 Brn 135      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.

Robert Johnston
v.
Hamilton of Gairen

Date: 1 February 1694

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Phesdo reported Robert Johnston, son to James Johnston, writer to the signet, against Hamilton of Gairen. The apparent heir of Gairen had got the possession, by buying in an apprising. Johnston, who had another right preferable to that apprising, pursues for maills and duties. Gairen offers to prove his apprising satisfied, and paid by intromission with Whitehead of Park's estate; which was also comprised for the same debt. Johnston finds it relevant, of consent; but alleged it was only proponed to retain the possession of the lands two or three years longer, during the dependence of the count and reckoning, wherein he would certainly succumb; and so these years' rents would be clearly lost; and, therefore, he offered to find caution, if Hamilton prevailed, to refund the rents.

The Lords thought this very equitable, if it were not to turn one out of his possession; and, therefore, they fell on this medium:—that Gairen should continue to possess, but find caution for one year's rent, in which space he might bring his account to a period, if he was serious in it, to be refunded to Johnston if he did not prove him paid. Some thought it hard to put one in possession to find caution. But it was better so, than to put the other, (whose right was unquestionably preferable, if not paid,) or to sequestrate the rents by placing a factor.

Vol. I. Page 600.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1694/Brn040135-0308.html