Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION reported by SIR ROBERT SPOTISWOODE OF PENTLAND.
Subject_2 Such of the following Decision as are of a Date prior to about the year 1620, must have been taken by Spotiswoode from some of the more early Reporters. The Cases which immediately follow have no Date affixed to them by Spotiswoode.

Sir Robert Dowglass
v.
William Kelly

Date: 22 July 1631

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

Sir Robert Dowglass of Spot being heritably infeft in the bailiary and chamberlainry of the lordship of Dunbar, and having cited Mr William Kelly, one of the heritors within that lordship, to his court; he raised an advocation from Sir Robert's court, upon that reason, That his lands were given to the Earl of Holderness, his author, to be holden in free blench, and so could not be subject to any jurisdiction but that of the sheriffs; which infeftment was ratified in Parliament: Likeas, he had gotten a decreet of exemption from Sir Andrew Dowglass, the pursuer's author, before the Lords, 1624. When he had opponed this decreet standing, the king's advocate, for Sir Robert, alleged the 14th Act of Parliament 1600, concerning the omission of the king's officers, which may be supplied by their successors, even by way of exception, to take away any deed done in his Majesty's prejudice, as he alleged this was, where the king wanted the service of a vassal he had before. Answered, 1mo. The Act meaned not of mean officers, such as chamberlains, but of officers of state. 2do. The king had no prejudice here, for the defender was subject to the sheriff's jurisdiction, albeit he was exeemed from the bailie's. The Lords, notwithstanding of the decreet standing, would have Mr William to reason upon his rights. And when he alleged, He, having gotten his lands blench, could only be subject to the sheriff, and not to the king's chamberlain of the lordship, whose office is most to intromit with the rents within the lordship; and more, he was infeft cum curiis et earum exitibus, which, at the least, should free him from the bailie's courts, &c.;— yet, for all this, The Lords found, that unless, by his infeftment, he had been expressly exeemed from the bailie's jurisdiction, he remained still subject thereunto, notwithstanding of his blench holding.

Page 23.