Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER, LORD FOUNTAINHALL.
Mathy v. -
Date: 5 November 1671
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One being pursued to pay annualrent for a sum since his denunciation, it was alleged absolvitor from annualrent, because he was denounced not at the market cross of the head burgh of the shire where he then dwelt, viz. Glasgow, but at the market cross of Edinburgh, within which sheriffdom he dwelt never: upon which denunciation, no annualrent can be due; because the Lords after a most contentious debate betwixt Dicksone and Hutchesone in anno 1664, found, where a man was not denounced within the sheriffdom where he dwelt, that on such a horning neither his escheat should fall, nor annualrent be due; but the only effects thereof should be caption and debarring him ab agendo et defendendo: yea, the common law would teach a man so much, though we had no practique for it. Escheat is the punishment of contempt and contumacy; now a man cannot be made contumax by a denunciation made at another place than where he lives, since it is not probable it can ever come to his knowledge.
This was found relevant. Vide supra No. 243, [10th November 1671, Fraser of Middelty;] and infra No. 304, [18th January 1672, Ramsay against Renton;] and 463, § 3, [February 1676.]
