A miller was found entitled to seize corn. abstracted, but not the horse which carried it. See No 5. p. 1815.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the action of spuilzie, Thin contra Scot, it being alleged for the defender, That he could not be liable for a spuilzie, either of the corns or horse libelled, because the pursuer was carrying away to another miln the said corns, which was a part of the thirle of his miln; and by a statute of King William,* and by several acts in the abbey court of Melrose, of whom this miln was holden, it was declared, That it should be lawful to seize upon the corns abstracted, or horse: The Lords sustained the defence as to the sacks of corn, and assoilzied the defender from restitution thereof; but as to the horse, restricted the same to wrongous intromission, and found them only liable for restitution of the price of the horse.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 116. President Falconer, No 72. p. 48.
