Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.

Stewart and Hamilton
v.
Maxwell

Date: 2 March 1754
Case No. No. 69.

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

Sir Archibald Stewart of Castlemilk, and Hamilton of Aikenhead, having complained of enrolling Sir John Maxwell on a right of property and superiority of several small parcels of land, of one of which parcels (the superiority of one of the feuars of Meikle Govan,) the valuation had not been lawfully divided from the other lands valued in cumulo with it. The case was, that there being many small feuars of Meikle Govan, they entered into a voluntary contract in 1726 for dividing the valuation of their lands, and Cess in proportion to their real rent, and the contract contains the real rent and proportional valuation of each feuar, and that valuation the Collector entered in his books. In 1748 on a representation to a general meeting of the Commissioners that there was no authentic valuation of that county, and that the clerk had prepared one as exact as he could, a Committee was appointed for examining that book, who after several meetings made their report that the book was right except as to one amendment, and the general meeting approved of that book; and as the division was made when there could be no suspicion of any sinister view or design, and had the sanction of a general meeting, we repelled the objection. The 2d objection was, that the late Sir John Maxwell, who acquired this superiority in his son's name, had granted an obligement or letter, that his son should re-dispone that superiority, which he referred to oath. Sir John deponed that he did not hear of any such letter till after he had lodged his claim, and after hearing of it, that he sent a friend to enquire about it, and the gentleman to whom it was written sent him the letter by that friend to dispose of it as he pleased, and that before the enrolment. The complainers therefore objected that Sir John had no title when he entered his claim. The Court also repelled this objection, and dismissed the complaint, but several doubted of this last.—The President thought, that the objection would not have been good though the letter had not been returned, for that he heard the letter was only to re-dispone after ten years, and that a temporary right, though no proper wadset, was a good title to vote, and that the act 12th Annæ made no alteration in our law, only introduced a new mean of proof.