[1586] Mor 14759
Subject_1 SPUILZIE.
Subject_2 SECT. VII. Command or Authority of a Superior.
Lady Marr
v.
Earl of Glencairn
1586 .April .
Case No.No. 70.
Nether the King's private letter, nor even a commission from the Privy Council, can warrant a spuilzie.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Lady Marr, Dame Annabel Murray, pursued the Earl of Glencairn for the spoliation of the hail goods and gear, both inside plenishing and jewels, that were in the Place of Erskine, intromitted, spuilzied, and taken away by the said Earl and his accomplices. It was answered by the Earl, That he had committed no spuilzie, because he intromitted by command of the King's Majesty; and for that produced a missive writing, direct from the King's Majesty to him, to take the Place of Erskine, and to intromit with the gear in the same; the Earl of Marr then being one of the rebels who enterprised the Castle of Stirling; and also
produced a commission given by advice of the Secret Council, to the same effect and purpose, et de jure quæ principi placent legis habet vigorem; et Lucius D. De empti: Si res vendita ablata sit authoritate principis, venditori non nocet, et quod quis mandato judicis facit, dolo facere non videtur, cum habeat necessitatem parere de regni jure; and certain practicks and acts of Parliament were produced, to make for them that had intromitted with other folk's places and gear, by virtue of commission. Against all this it was alleged, That all the writings and commissions were impetrated tacita veritate et ad suggestionem partis; and the meaning of the law anent parendi necessitatem et quæ debentur principi et judici in rebus solum civibus, nam privatis personis licitum est resistere, si contra juris formam aliquid fiat a judice aut a principe aut a fisco, ut in L. 5. et 7. Cod De jure fisci; and as to practicks, there were practicks in recent memory contrary to the same. The Lords repelled the exception, and admitted the libel to probation, notwithstanding of the same. In the same cause, it was alleged by the Earl, That the said Lady had intromitted again with a good part of the gear that was alleged to be spuilzied, and so had purged the hail spuilzie. The Lords admitted the exception to purge the spulzie pro tanto; and some of the Lords were of opinion, according to the ancient practice, that the allegeance was not relevant, except the defender would have qualified the same to have been done incontinenter and infra triduum.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting