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 >> The Earl of Dumfries v William Crawford of Dalleagles. [1694] 4 Brn 119 (10 January 1694)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1694/Brn040119-0274.html

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


[1694] 4 Brn 119      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.

The Earl of Dumfries
v.
William Crawford of Dalleagles

Date: 10 January 1694

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

Arniston reported the Earl of Dumfries against William Crawford of Dalleagles. The question was, Whether the fine exacted by Dumfries, as Sheriff, from Dalleagles, for his church-irregularities, and proven by his discharge, was a present ground of compensation against Dalleagles' clear liquid bond to the Earl. Some were for remitting the case to the Commission of Parliament, as incompetent to be judged by the session: but the plurality rejected the compensation as not clear, in regard sundry questions arose; whether the money belonged to Dumfries, jure proprio, as Sheriff, or only as collector for the King, and countable to his treasury; and if he had accounted for this or not; or if any share of it, for his encouragement to execute the laws, fell to himself; and if repetition of such fines were allowed by the rescissory act, or only in the case of donatars; and if compensation was more favourable than repetition.

There being so many perplexed and thorny points arising from it, the Lords were induced to repel the compensation as not liquid. Some thought the right of this money was still in the King's person, and undischarged by the Act of Parliament foresaid, and that the party might get a gift of it from the King, and then it would furnish a plain ground of compensation.

Vol. I. Page 589.

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/1694/Brn040119-0274.html