An heritor paying dry multure to a foreign mill, and craving deduction thereof from his rent, was found entitled thereto if he had not thirled his lands to his own mill - other-wise if he had.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Sir John Maxwell of Pollock pursuing a valuation of his teinds, against the University of Glasgow, titular thereof, claimed a deduction of the sum of ———, paid in name of dry multure to the mill of Partick, to which his lands had been attricted, for which sum he had purchased an immunity from the astriction, so that the payment was a real diminution of his rent.
Answered: The heritor has thirled his tenants to his own mill, for which he receives so much more rent as makes up the payment of the dry multure.
Replied: If the tenants paid the dry multure themselves, they would pay so much less rent, and notwithstanding behoved to go somewhere to grind, and probably to their master's mill, and what he got for grinding would not be a teindable subject; therefore he taking up in the rent what he pays for the multure, is only to be considered as collecting from the tenants for the multurer, and ought to have deduction thereof.
The estate being in different circumstances, part astricted, and part not, the Lords Commissioners found, That the dry multure payable by the pursuer to the College for the lands which were astricted to his mill, ought not to be deducted from the rental; but found that the dry multure payable for the pursuer's lands, which were not astricted to any mill, ought to be deducted from the rental of these lands.
Act. W. Grant and G. Sinclair.Alt. Millar.
D. Falconer, p. 66.
