Whether one is liable for the malversation of those under his authority? - Complaint raised in name of another without his authority.
Laird of Ludquairn v. Earl Marischal
1590.
November. Case No. No 65.
A man found liable for the violent act committed by his wife in his absence.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Laird of Ludquhairn pursued the Earl Marischal and his Lady for the demolishing and down-casting of a mill and dam thereof. Excepted by my Lord, That he could not be convened for any deed done by his Lady, because, in the mean time, he was forth of the country, and knew not what was done by her. Likeas, by the law, ne maritus pro uxore, aut uxor pro marito, &c. it is plain. Replied, That my Lady, in his absence, was præposita negotiis, and had my Lord's household servants at the down-casting thereof. The Lords found, That my Lord might be convened notwithstanding of his absence at the time. Next, it was alleged, That there was no wrong in the down-casting thereof, because my Lord having all the Lordship of Innerrugy pertaining to him in heritage, together with the mills and multures thereof, with the thirlage of the same lands to the mills of Innerrugy, licuit ei uti suo jure, and stop any other mill to be bigged. Replied, That the pursuer's mill had gone for the space of fifteen days, without any stop or impediment; so that the defender could not have stopped her but by order of law, quia non potest sua auctoritate jus sibi dicere. The Lords found he might not have cast down the said mill by way of deed.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 343. Spottiswood, (Husband and Wife.) p. 154.
