Subject_1 COMMONTY.
Duke of Douglas, &c
v.
Baillie
1740 ,Feb. 2 .
Case No.No. 5.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a division of a common which had been immemorially possessed by certain definite proportions of horse, nolt, and sheep, in 1719 the parties or their tenants observing that the grounds were overstocked, they by a birley-court restricted the number, but still by the same proportions. The question was, Whether the division should be made after the rate and by the proportions in which they possessed, which was the rule that Littlegill insisted for, or, if on the other hand it should be according to the valuation of the lands, the rule mentioned in the act of Parliament, which the Duke of Douglas and Mr James Baillie insisted for, and it was said would have a very different effect? The Lords found
the valuation the rule, nem. con.— but some of us inter quos ego had not seen the memorials, at least those for Littlegill, till the cause was called.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting