[1675] Mor 2535
Subject_1 COMMUNITY.
Subject_2 SECT. IV. University, how far Bound by the Deeds of the Masters.
Date: Park
v.
The University of Glasgow
10 December 1675
Case No.No 28.
Masters of a college transacting for the benefit of the college, bind their successors in office.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr John Park pursues the University of Glasgow, alleging, That in anno 1649, he being then minister of Stranraer, and the College having the bishoprick of Galloway, he came towards Edinburgh for raising summons for an augmentation against the College, his stipend being 200 merks, within the rate of the act of Parliament; but out of his respect to the College where he was educated, he offered to the masters to agree with them suitably; aud they did agree for 100 merks yearly, whereupon he desisted; and now pursues for the same during his serving the cure; and for instructing of this agreement and acknowledgment of the debt, produces an act of the visitors of the College in anno 1664, whereby they found the College debt to be L. 34,000 and above, and therefore recommended their case to the Parliament, who gave them seven years vacant stipends; and there is produced an account of the College debts, written by umquhile Mr John Young, then one of the masters, whereby it appears, that this sum due to the pursuer was a part of the L. 34,000. It was alleged for the defenders, 1mo, That the masters were but administrators, and could not bind their successors; 2do, That a verbal agreement, having taken no effect, might be resiled from; 3tio, That the paper under Mr John Young's hand was not subscribed by the masters, and that it did bear, That Mr John Park craved that sum; and did not acknowledge it as due; 4to, That the sums in the account, besides Park's sum, extended to L. 34000, so that it could be no part thereof. The pursuer answered, That albeit the masters be administrators, yet they may well transact to the advantage of the College, in giving 100 merks, where two would have been recovered by law; for it is notour how currently and largely augmentations proceeded in anno 1649. And as to the power to resile, non est res integra; for shortly after the commission for plantation of kirks ceased, and never revived till the pursuer was out of his charge: And as for the probation of the promise, or the acknowledgment of the debt; the claim being acknowledged by Mr John Young's hand, who was chiefly entrusted in the College affairs, and being produced by the College themselves, and quadrating exactly with the act of the visitors, there was no necessity of subscription, which is not accustomed in claims; but it proves the acknowledgement of the debt, and makes up a part of the L. 34,000 allowed by the visitors, upon which the College got the vacancies from the Parliament; and though the College gave it up but as claimed, yet the visitors did allow it; for without it the L. 34,000 cannot be made up: For, whereas the College pretends, that besides it, there is L. 34,000 made up by the Earl of Kilmarnock's sum of L. 4,000, excluding this sum; it
was replied, That it is evident from the claim, that the Earl of Kilmarnock's sum was blank the time of the act of the visitors, at which time the College did acknowlege no debt to the Earl of Kilmarnock, but long since did transacted with the Earl for L. 4,000, which they have caused fill up in the blank in the claim with another hand. The Lords found the libel relevant, that the College might transact to their advantage, and could not resile, the matter not being entire; but as to their probation, they found the same not sufficient and plenary, but ordained Mr John Park to give his oath in supplement, whether truly there was such an agreement and promise, which they sustained to complete the probation, in respect Mr John Young was dead, and none of the masters that then were, are now in the College.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting