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 >>
The Earl of Callander v Patrick Hadden. [1671] 2 Brn 521 (21 February 1671)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1671/Brn020521-0882.html Cite as:
[1671] 2 Brn 521
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER, LORD FOUNTAINHALL.
The Earl of Callander v. Patrick Hadden
Date: 21 February 1671
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Two comprisers, viz. Earl of Callander and Patrick Hadden, competing for the mails and duties of lands, it was objected by one of them against the other, that his comprising was null, in so far as it proceeded upon a gift of the ward of a marriage given, which marriage and ward could not fall, in respect the laird of Glennagies, by whose death the ward fell, was slain in the troubles at Dunbar in 1650; to whose heirs, by act of Parliament, their wards and marriages were gifted, viz. Act 30, Parl. 1640. To this it was answered, that 1 mo, That act was introduced only in favours of the heir and relict of the party slain; but so it was, the proponer of it here was neither heir nor party, and so he had not interest to propone it. 2do, It was but a temporary act, to last during the time of the then troubles; but so it was, they were all after composed, and an act of oblivion and pacification past in 1641, and so it expired. 3tio, It is expressly rescinded. replied, any thing that is is competent to a party is also competent to a creditor of that party; and for its rescission there is a special salvo in the act rescissory 1661, that it shall noway prejudge private persons' rights; but ita est this is such. They were to have the Lords' answer.
The Lords found they would not extend the benefit of the act in 1640, to those slain in 1650, because that was not the war mentioned in the act.
Vide infra, June 1677, No. 579, § 5. Brown and Arbuthnot.
