If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, 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 >> Robertson v Arbuthnot [1681] Mor 10643 (4 February 1681)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1681/Mor2510643-038.html
Cite as: [1681] Mor 10643

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1681] Mor 10643      

Subject_1 POSSESSORY JUDGMENT.
Subject_2 SECT. V.

In what Subjects Possessory Judgment takes place.

Robertson
v.
Arbuthnot

Date: 4 February 1681
Case No. No 38.

Found in conformity with Home against Scot, No 37, supra,


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

Mr Thomas Robertson, minister at Longside, having obtained decreet against Arbuthnot of Carugal for the vicarage of his land, which being turned into a libel, the defender alleged, No process; because the pursuer had neither locality nor possession, and his presentation is limited to the possession of his predecessor. It was answered, That the pursuer hath sufficient title by his presentation, and is founded in jure communi, that decimæ debentur parocho, either parsonage to a parson or vicarage to a vicar. The Lords sustained the pursuer's title. The defender further alleged, That these vicarage teinds were a part of the patrimony of the abbacy of Deer, erected in favours of the Earl of Marischal, from whom the defender and his predecessors had tacks for terms to run, and by virtue thereof have been seven years in possession, and thereby are secure till the tack be reduced, and have also been forty years in possession, and thereby all action against his tack is prescribed, albeit the setter had had no right, and cannot be questioned till the years of its endurance be ended.

The Lords found both these defences relevant separatim.

Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 90. Stair, v. 2. p. 855.

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/1681/Mor2510643-038.html