Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR ALEXANDER GIBSON, OF DURIE.

The Master of Lauderdale
v.
the Vassals of the Priory of Haddington

Date: 28 March 1623

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

The priory of Haddington, being erected in a temporal barony to the Master of Lauderdale, in the Parliament 16 years: in the which Parliament also, Sir John Scot obtained a ratification of his infeftment of the lands of Pittarchy, which was disponed of before by the king, to be holden of the king, by virtue of the act of annexation; the same lands before the act of annexation, being holden of the abbey and priory of Haddington:—the Master of Lauderdale intents an action of improbation against the vassals of the priory, erected to him as said is, and amongst others against the said Sir John, for production to him of his evidents of the said lands. In the which action the said Sir John compearing and defending himself, that he could not be compelled to produce at the instance of this pursuer, in respect he was vassal to the king by the annexation; likeas his infeftment so granted to be holden, was ratified the same time by that same Parliament, wherein the erection was expede, and so the pursuer was not his superior:—this allegeance was repelled by the Lords; and the defender ordained to produce at the pursuer's instance, as was craved by the summons, being an action wherein the pursuer alleged all the writs made to him by the priors, or since by the king, of these lands, to be false.

Act. Hope. Alt. Stuart and Cunningham. Scot, Clerk.

Vid. 25th July 1622, E. Nithisdail.

This decision in my opinion solves not the doubt, if Sir John, or such others as are in the like case, or have been vassals to the lords, who have obtained erection of the benefices after rights made, by virtue of the act of annexation, to others, of lands to be holden of the king; but the doubt remains yet undetermined, for, in this decision, there was a necessity for Sir John to produce, seeing he was called to produce his evidents made to him by the priors, and sensine as false, the pursuer who might do all that the priors might have done, had reason to see if Sir John had right to the lands or not; but, if the writs were produced, it appears yet to remain free and unprejudged to the excipient, to dispute, in its own time and place, that he is not his vassal, but only the king's.

Vid. 7th February 1627, John Stuart.

Page 64.