What understood to be a Spuilzie. - What Damages allowed.
Drummond v. Forrest
1581.
April. Case No. No. 7.
A life-renter in possesion, cannot be pursued for spuilzie in cutting the wood, but only for wrongous intromission et ad verum interesse actoris.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Margaret Drummond, the relict of umquhile Robert Forest in ————, pursued Robert Forrest younger, her good-brother, to hear and see a decreet given against her for spoliation of certain trees forth of the wood and lands of ————, pertaining to the said Robert in property and heritage, and to her as conjunct fiar. The reason of the reduction was, that she was convicted for spuilzie, which would be no direct action, in respect the said Robert was not in natural and real possession, et non potuit agere interdicto, Unde vi; and also, the spoliation being proved, it was refered to his oath as to the quantity et juramento in litem. It was alleged against the reason of the summons, Quod in hac actione non debuit agere actione, Unde vi, aut via spoliationis, sed tantummodo ad damnum et interesse, in respect the said Robert, proprietor, was not in real or actual possession, and she, as life-renter, was not warned to find caution, according to the act of Parliament. The Lords admitted the reason of the summons, and reduced the Sheriff's decreet, nam de jure communi hæc actio arborum furtim cæsarum est penalis, et condemnatio ejus vel in duplum est, vel facienda est estimatio quanti damni intersit non lædi, L. 7. et 8. D. Arborum furtim cæsarum; et non juramentum in litem.
