The coming to a church-mill for 30 years presumes astriction.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The coming immemorially to a church-mill was found sufficient to presume astriction. So the case happened in fact to be, that the proof of coming to the mill was immemorial; but it was the unanimous opinion of the Court, that being a church-mill, a proof of 30 years coming had been enough, which, by act of sederunt 1612, came in place of the 13 years possession, which, at the Reformation, presumed the churchman's title.
Kilkerran, No. 3. p. 573.
*** Lord Kames mentions this case more fully, as follows:
In a process for abstracted multures at the instance of the Lord Maxwell, as proprietor of the mill of Cloyden, against his feuers, the Lords, in respect the mill of Clouden and the defender's lands were part of the ancient barony of Holywood, pertaining to the abbacy of Holywood, and of the defenders' coming immemorially to the mill of Clouden, and paying the high in-sucken multure, and performing services, found the lands astricted to the said mill. In the reasoning, the Court was of opinion, That the coming to a church-mill, without any constitution in writ, is as effectual to constitute a thirlage as the coming to the King's mill, notwithstanding that the contrary had been formerly determined, which was thought to be erroneous. In this case, the defenders' lands were church-lands; yet the Lords were of opinion, that this made no speciality; for the ground of the decision lies in this, That churchmen being presumed to have lost their rights at the Reformation, the law did presume the same from a 13 years possession before the Reformation, which afterwards, when it came to be impracticable to prove possession before the Reformation, by witnesses, was by act of sederunt, 16th December, 1612, altered into 30 years possession after the Reformation; and therefore 30 years possession after the Reformation was in all views held equivalent to a title in writing.
