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 >>
Chiesly v Dalmahoy. [1697] Mor 15989 (4 February 1697)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1697/Mor3615989-053.html Cite as:
[1697] Mor 15989
One of the vassals of a barony having obtained his lands to be disjoined from the same by a disposition of the superiority in his own favour; the Lords, nevertheless, found, that these his lands, which had been formerly thirled to the mill of the barony, remained still thirled and that the dismembration alone did not import immunity.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
It was a declarator of liberation from thirlage, for finding and declaring, that his lands of Cockburn were no more astricted to the mill of Balerno; because though they were formerly thirled thereto, as a part of the barony, yet he had obtained his lands disjoined from the same, by a disposition of the superiority of his lands, in his own favour, from my Lord Balmerino, superior, by which he came to hold of the King. Answered, By the contract past betwixt Lowis of Merchiston, Mr. Peter Paterson, and Mr. William, it is indeed agreed, that Mr. William have his own superiority, and Mr. Peter is to have the property of the mill, cum multuris earumque sequelis, which is now conveyed to Dalmahoy; yet the resigning and quitting the superiority can never carry a renunciation of the multures of his lands, unless the same had been particularly so expressed, or that his disposition had been cum molendinis et multuris; and their ceasing to be a part of the barony does not liberate him from his astriction, unless it had been so agreed; and though the lands be disponed to him prout optimum maximum, so is also the mill to Mr. Peter ; nor is his thirlage made less than it was before. The Lords remembered what they had done in Greenock and Carseburn’s case; and found Mr. William Chiesley’s lands remained still thirled, and that the dismembration alone did not import impunity; and therefore assoilzied from his declarator.
