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 >>
George Worsley v John Graham of Redford. [1708] 4 Brn 705 (18 June 1708)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1708/Brn040705-0203.html
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL. Subject_2 I sat in the Outer-House this week.
George Worsley v. John Graham of Redford
Date: 18 June 1708
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Stewart of Ardvorlich, by a written contract, sells his woods to John Graham of Redford for 300 merks, and gets payment of the price, conform to his discharge. George Worsley, esquire, in the county of Surry, alleging he had bought the woods before, and given a crown of earnest, and two guineas in part of the price; and had begun his cutting, and furnished horses and mills for the work, and sent one Peter Stranger, a carpenter, to oversee it; but Redford had intruded himself upon the bargain, and seized upon the timber and bark; therefore he raises a process against him, for spuilyie and damages, and executes an inhibition upon the dependance. Redford gives in a bill to the Lords, complaining, That though he had made a fair bargain for these woods, as appears by the contract of vendition produced, and the discharge of the price, at the foot of it, yet he is interrupted by Worsley, whom he knows not. And for Stranger, he offered his service and assistance, and he simply trusted him with 400 load of bark to carry to Ireland, which he never made any account of. And all they say is mere assertions, noways instructed by any writ, whereas he documents all scripto: and therefore craves the inhibition may be recalled, and its registration stopped, as both invidious and calumnious.
Answered,—Though his agreement for the woods was only verbal, yet he offered to prove every article of it; and that Redford came in most indiscreetly upon his bargain. And to stop inhibitions were to stop the vena portœ et cavœ that conveys the blood through the body politic. And inhibition uses never to be refused, except where a clear discharge is produced, or the libel offered to be redargued by the party executor his oath.
The Lords considered, that bargains for woods of so considerable a value use ever to be in writ, and parties never rely on bare communing thereanent; and that nothing appeared on Worsley's and Stranger's side but bare assertions, without any manner of instruction in writ; therefore they discharged the inhibition as groundless, for any thing yet seen; but allowed them to go on in their process for proving the bargain, and liquidating the damages, as accords, where it will appear whether there was ground for serving the inhibition or not: and the damages may be heightened accordingly.
It seems Ardvorlich has been tampering with them both to screw up the price, and at last settled with Redford.
