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 £5, 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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Crichton v Earl of Queensberry. [1672] Mor 6203 (11 December 1672)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1672/Mor1506203-008.html
Cite as: [1672] Mor 6203

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1672] Mor 6203      

Subject_1 HYPOTHEC.
Subject_2 SECT. II.

Extent of hypothec upon stocking.

Crichton
v.
Earl of Queensberry

Date: 11 December 1672
Case No. No 8.

Hypothec of the goods on the ground, for the proprietor's rent, was found to give him right not only to retain the goods there, but to bring them back, if carried away.


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

William Crichton pursues the Earl of Queensberry for spuilzie of a flock of sheep, who alleged absolvitor, because the sheep having been pastured upon lands which the pursuer had in tack of the Earl, and he having removed his goods off the ground before Whitsunday, without paying the Whitsunday's rent, and having driven the same to another room that he hath wadset of the Earl, he did de recenti within 24 hours, upon the first notice of the removal, cause drive the goods back to the ground again, which he might lawfully do, by the privilege of all masters of the ground who have a hypothec on the crop and stock of the ground for the rent. It was answered, That this hypothec, albeit it might allow the master of the ground to detain the goods on the ground, yet not to drive them back off another ground, which ought to have been done, not via facti, but by some sentence or authority.

The Lords found the defence relevant, for they considered that the power of retention without recent recovery, would be of no use, unless the master kept a watch upon his tenants, which were impossible.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 417. Stair, v. 2. p. 132.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1672/Mor1506203-008.html