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 >> Wilson v Brysson. [1752] 5 Brn 798 (30 June 1752) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1752/Brn050798-0965.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS OF THE LORDS OF COUNSEL AND SESSION, COLLECTED BY SIR JAMES BURNETT, LORD MONBODDO.
Date: Wilson
v.
Brysson
30 June 1752 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A society of Seceders, calling themselves the Associate Congregation, did contribute among themselves, and purchased a piece of ground, upon which they built a meeting-house. This house they disponed to one Wilson and one Baine, under a back-bond, declaring that the ground was purchased and the house built “for the behoof of Mr Adam Gib, ordained minister of said Associate Congregation by the Associate Presbytery, and his successors in office, and the members of said congregation, and obliging themselves to denude thereof in favour of any person or persons whom the said Mr Adam Gib and his successors, and the other members of the said Session and their successors, members of the said Associate Congregation, and the said contributors, shall, by a plurality of voices, nominate in a meeting to be called for that purpose, and intimated from the pulpit of the said congregation, at least ten days before the said meeting.” In consequence of the power granted to the congregation by this back-bond, they made choice of other trustees, who pursued the said Wilson and Baine to denude.
The Lords found, That the Associate Congregation, being no body corporate, could not hold lands or tenements, either by themselves or trustees, nor could not sue or be sued; and therefore denied action to these new trustees against the old. This was contrary to the opinion of Lord Elchies, who thought that by this decision the rights of several other societies, such as the Musical Meeting in Edinburgh, were greatly affected.
This interlocutor adhered to November 15, and a like decision was said to have been given in the case of a lodge of freemasons pursuing an action.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
