If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thirlage in a vassal's charter to a superior's mill found not to infer multures upon the vassal, although he influenced his tenants to come to his own mill. The tenants only were liable personally for abstracting.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Earl of Cassilis pursues the Sheriff of Galloway, and the tenants of Achnotoroch, for abstracted multures, and insists on this ground against the Sheriff, that he being heritor of the lands, and vassal to the pursuer, did command them to leave the pursuer's mill, and to come to his own mill, and so was liable. The defender alleged, That this member of the summons is not relevant, because any man may desire any person he pleases to come to his mill, and there was never a pursuit sustained against any others than the abstracters, and not against those to whose mill they came; 2dly, It is not libelled that the defender got a greater duty upon the tenants coming to his mill; and although he had, it were not relevant; 3dly, By the defender's right, he is liberated of all multures, except knaveship and bannock, which is only the hire due to the millers for their service, and there is no obligation upon him to cause his tenants come to the mill. It was answered, The pursuer offered to prove the defender had gotten a greater duty upon the tenants coming to his mill; and albeit the astriction be only of knaveship and bannock, that is not alone due for the millers' service, but there is a profit thence arising to the master; that the Sheriff, being heritor and vassal, albeit he be not personally obliged to cause the tenants come to his mill, yet the lands being astricted by his infeftment, it was his fault to remove them.
The Lords assoilzied from that member of the libel, and found it not relevant against the heritor, but only against the tenants.
