Robert Gairden of Latone v. Thomas Watson of Grange of Barrie
Date: 18 November 1697 Case No. No. 55.
Teind, seed corn, and horse corn, not understood to be comprehended under thirlage of invecta et illata, or even of omnia grana crescentia.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Robert Gairden of Latone pursues Thomas Watson of Grange of Barrie for abstracted multures; for though they be not debitum fundi, and the tenant, is primo loco liable therein to the heritor of the mill; yet if the Master, either or his of ent, upon a bond, poinds his tenants corns, he must be liable for the multure, as well as an intromitter with teinds would be to the teind master. But what if the heritor left as many corns behind in his tenant’s barn yard as might pay the astricted multure? Some thought this not sufficient, seeing omnia grana crescentia were thirled, and consequently even what he had intromitted with, In this case, deduction being sought for horse corn and teind the Lords allowed the same, where the right of the teind was not in the heritor’s person; and the seed being also claimed as a defalcation, the same was acknowlegde to be regularly excepted ; but here it was contended, there could be no allowance for it, because he being an exient tenant, it was no more sowed, and so could not be called seed. The Lords repelled this, finding no difference, whether the tenant staid or removed ; for though it was not made use of as seed there, yet it might be sown elsewhere. The next question was, If the corns paid for the Master’s farm duty and rent were thirled or not? If the same (person) was heritor both of the mill and the lands astricted, in that case the farm or rent is not thirled, but when the mill belongs to one and the thirled lands to another. See 11th July 1621, Keith against the Tenants of Peterhead, No. 13. p. 15964. 14th January 1662, Nicolson against the Feuers of Tillicountry No. 119. p. 10859; and 3d January 1662, Stuart against the Tenants of Aberledno, No. 118. p. 10854.
