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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Robert Gordon v Andrew Mellis. [1786] Hailes 991 (24 January 1786) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1786/Hailes020991-0658.html Cite as: [1786] Hailes 991 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1786] Hailes 991
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 PRISONER-ACT OF SEDERUNT 1671.
Subject_3 The temporary enlargement of a prisoner on a meditatione fugæ warrant, falls not under it.
Date: Robert Gordon
v.
Andrew Mellis
24 January 1786 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Faculty Collection, IX. 382; Dictionary, 11,756.]
Eskgrove. The Act of Sederunt does not apply to this case, which respects an imprisonment on a warrant till caution should be found judicio sisti, and not
an imprisonment for a debt. As the prisoner was restored to prison, no possible loss could accrue to the creditor, and so the jailor is not liable: had the prisoner not been restored to prison, the case would have been different. Hailes. My displeasure at the presumption of the jailor, in taking upon himself to allow the prisoner to be at large, made me overlook the just sense of the Act of Sederunt.
On the 24th January 1786, “The Lords assoilyied the jailor;” altering the interlocutor of Lord Hailes, but “found no expenses due.”
Act. Ch. Hay. Alt. Allan M'Connochie.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
