Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 MULTURES, (THIRALGE.*)

Bruce of Blairhall,
v.
Colonel Erskine, and Other Feuars of Shirriffsmill

Date: 19 November 1741
Case No. No. 7.

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

The pursuer's infeftment in the mill from the Abbots of Culross gave the multures of a great many lands therein, paying a peck each boll of insucken, and a peck for six firlots of outsucken, without distinguishing what lands were insucken and what were outsucken. One parcel of lands had paid immemorially the one and twentieth peck, i. e. less than the insucken and more than the outsucken; yet that parcel was found astricted, but only liable for the one and twentieth peck.

2do, Some of that same parcel and some other lands, paid immemorially one firlot bear yearly of dry multure for each malt-barn how soon it was built; but when malting was discontinued for a whole year for any one barn, the firlot was not paid for that barn that year. This dry multure was also found due out of those lands where that immemorial custom was proved for all malt-barns built and to be built.

3tio, The feu-duty of some of those lands payable to the superior, who came in place of the Abbot, being payable in oats, these oats were found not thirled.

4to, The charter mentioned also aridas multuras without specifying out of what lands, and some of the lands were in use of paying a small dry multure in bear, but never came to the mill, and these lands were found astricted for the dry multure allenarly, and no further.

5to, Of one of the tenements mentioned in the charter, the principal part of it, and which still retained the same name, was still in use of coming to the mill and paying insucken multure; but some of the farms of that tenement, though belonging to the same heritor, immemorially did not come to the mill; yet these last were found not to have prescribed an immunity, since the principal part, and belonging to the same heritor, was in use of coming.

6to, Two parcels of land that were in use of bringing all their oats, and paying insucken multure, were also in use of bringing what bear and peas they consumed in their families to the mill, and paying therefore insucken multure; but one parcel of them paid also a dry multure in bear, and the other did not. This last parcel was found also astricted for the bear that they consumed in their families, but for no more bear; but the Court was divided as to the other parcel that paid also a dry multure in bear, whether the bear was at all astricted further than that dry multure, or if they behoved also to pay multure for what they consumed in their families, and if that was astricted to be brought to the mill; and it carried that it was astricted.

7mo, Complaints had often been made of the measures by which the multure was exacted. But they being proven to have continued immemorially the same, notwithstanding the complaints, they were sustained and approven.

8vo, The lands that paid only a dry multure immemorially had not paid any services to the mill; but of the other lands found liable to come to the mill, some had paid services, and others had never paid any as far as the witnesses remembered. But the mill had always been served by one or other in the sucken, and that was found sufficient to preserve the services as to the whole that were astricted to come to the mill, and to prevent any of them from prescribing an immunity; as an annualrent payable out of different tenements. (See Dict. No. 82. p. 16020.)