Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Sir George Campbell of Cesnock v. The Earl of Melfort
1694.
Jan.24 and Feb.27.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
January 24.—Halton reported Sir George Campbell of Cesnock against the Earl of Melfort, for repetition of the rents of his lands, during his possession by the forfeiture, conform to a special Act of Parliament appointing the same. He alleged not only bona fides, which is good for bygone fruits consumed, but also the excambion of lands, which, if he had kept, he would have lucrated their fruits, they having no such special act; and that, if it was an Act of Parliament, then it should only extend ad futura, and not look backward; and if it was a decreet, then it should have proceeded on citation and hearing of parties. The Lords thought the act rigorous; but could not go over it, being a rule; and therefore decerned.
Vol. I. Page 597.
February 27.—Upon a new bill given in by the Earl of Melfort, against Sir George Campbell of Cesnock, the case mentioned 24th January 1694 was resumed, and the Lords adhered to their former interlocutor; but found the case rigorous, that an intromitter, by a title then valid, and conform to the standing laws, and who had bona fide spent and consumed these fruits, should be liable in restitution. It was acknowledged the general act did not contain bygones, except they were in the tenants' hands unuplifted; but the special Act of Parliament determined the Lords so to decide.
