Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 MULTURES, (THIRLAGE.)

Lockhart
v.
His Vassals

1736, July 27.
Case No. No. 2.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

The Lords found that corns which the vassals should happen to grind though not necessary for their own families are thirled to the mill of Carnwath, and liable in the highest multures. The Lords adhered.—10th January 1736.

Some recent charters contained thirlage and the special multures but no mention of services. The Lords found services due by the nature of the thirlage; the words are, that the astriction comprehends services when there is no immunity by prescription.—16th January 1736.

Upon a clause “all grindable corns growing upon the lands,” the Lords found that clause tantamount as the clause, “all grindable corns that they shall happen to grind,” and pronounced the same interlocutor as they did on the 10th instant, quod vide. The clause was expressed in the Latin charters grana molibilia, in the dispositions, grindable corns; and the charters being recent, they did not regard a proof that the tenants paid multures for what they sold;—and they judged the same way some time ago in another process betwixt this same Mr Lockhart and another vassal.—17th January 1736.

Upon a question, Whether a mill is not sufficient for the sucken, having only a gathered dam, whether the sucken may go elsewhere, how much they may carry elsewhere, and what they should pay? the Lords found they may carry what is necessary for their families after waiting 48 hours and are to pay no multures for it.—21st January 1736.

The Lords adhered to the former interlocutor of 21st January last with this addition, “and the mill not capable to serve them through want of water or other defect in the mill.”

The Lords adhered to their former interlocutor finding that the clause of thirlage to pay a peck of multure for five firlots, was the same with the clause, out of five firlots.—18th February 1736.

The Lords found that immunities from mill services could not be prescribed where the vassals were by their charters expressly tied to services, and some were of opinion that immunity could not be prescribed where the astriction was by the charters though without mention of services, but this not determined; because they found it proven that services were paid to Cleugh mill; and though there was no proof of services paid to other mills, yet there was no proof of immunity for 40 years; and therefore they adhered to their interlocutor of 16th January last They thought also that payment to any within the thirl, though as a gratuity, interrupted the prescription of immunity as to all within the thirl, like payment of annualrent out of one tenement where the annualrent is constituted upon more tenements.—25th June 1736.

The Lords adhered, with the addition, that in case of want of service in the terms of the former interlocutor they may carry the whole corns to another mill, and found no more due to the miller than the multure in the former interlocutor.—1st July 1736.