Objections, &c. competent to some and not to others.
Murray v. the Commissary of Dunkeld
Date: 24 March 1630 Case No. No 63.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a special declarator of the Commissary of Dunkeld's escheat, pursued by Mr Patrick Murray, the defender proponed an allegeance upon the ordinary back-bond given to the treasurer by the donatar, which bore, that he should not use the gift to the prejudice of the rebel's creditors. This the rebel alleged might be proponed in his own name, as well as in the creditors, seeing he was interested to see his creditors rather paid by his own escheatable goods, than that the donatar should meddle therewith, and then the creditors should have recourse to his lands or his person. The Lords repelled it as not competent to be proponed in the rebel's own name, 23d March 1630.
Next, because the donatar craved three or four year's crops of land laboured by the rebel since the rebellion, the Lords deducted the expenses bestowed by him upon the winning of the corns, with the seed likewise.
Spottiswood, (Escheat.) p. 103.
*** See Durie's report of this case, No 11. p. 3622. voce Escheat.
