Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL. Subject_2 I sat in the Outer-House this week.
Forbes of Waterton v. The Earl of Aberdeen
1711.
February.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Forbes of Waterston gave in a protest for remeid of law to the British Parliament, against the Earl of Aberdeen his uncle. The case was,—Waterton, holding lands of the Earl of Dumferling, employed my Lord Aberdeen to transact the bygone casualties, and procure a change of the holding, which he did; and, after counting, paid in 8000 merks to his uncle for the same. Water-ton apprehending that he was overreached in this sum, and that his uncle, when Chancellor, had by his power obtained the same either gratis or at least for a very small gratuity, he raises a reduction, and craves repayment of the 8000 merks, as indebite solutum et ob injustam causam; for, being his trustee, he could charge him with no more than he actually gave.
Answered,—I made a most lucrative and profitable bargain for you. There were two marriages due, which far exceeded the sum paid; and I got you both a novodamus and a change of the holding; all which you have ratified by several reiterated deeds since your majority; and all know Waterton to be both sciens et prudens, and after so long an interval cannot now draw such solemn transactions in question.
Waterton contended no transaction could validate or take off fraud and dole.
The Lords assoilyied from the reduction; and found he could have no repetition of the money paid. Against which interlocutor he protested for remeid of law.
