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 >> John Lang v The Duke of Douglas and Executors of the Countess of Forfar. [1752] 2 Elchies 336 (21 December 1752) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1752/Elchies020336-006.html Cite as: [1752] 2 Elchies 336 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1752] 2 Elchies 336
Subject_1 LIFERENTER.
Date: John Lang
v.
The Duke of Douglas and Executors of the Countess of Forfar
21 December 1752
Case No.No. 6.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Countess of Forfar was infeft in the lands of Bothwell and the woods, which woods had been in use to be cut in 25 or 30 years. The Countess sold them to Lang, allowing him a certain time to cut them, and he paid her down the agreed price; but she died before the time limited by the contract for finishing the cutting, and before the woods in fact were all cut; and the Duke of Douglas the heir stopped further cutting. Wherefore Lang sued the Duke of Douglas and the executors of the Countess, the one or other of whom should be found liable in his damages. The Lord Justice-Clerk, Ordinary, allowed a proof, and on advising found it proven that the Countess had sold these woods before the ordinary time of selling in that country, and therefore found her executors liable. But on a reclaiming bill the Court thought that she had no right at all to sell the woods, but only to cut them for the use of the tenement, agreeably to the judgment of the House of Lords, in the case betwixt the Duke and Dutchess of Hamilton touching the woods of Kinneil; and therefore would not adhere simply to Justice-Clerk's interlocutor, but found the executors liable, leaving out the reason expressed in his interlocutor. (See Dict. No. 12. p. 8246.)
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting