Turpis causa. - Sale to a White Bonnet at a Roup. - Obligation not to oppose reduction of a Verdict of Fatuity. - Transacting a Crime. - Transacting Church Penance. - British Subject purchasing a Captured British Ship. - Combination of Offerers at a Sale. - Combination to raise the rate of Wages. - Combination against receiving Money of a particular Coinage. - Pactum contra utilitatem.
Macleod v. Fraser
Date: 14 December 1758 Case No. No 95.
It is no defence agains an action of relief, that the sum engaged for by the pursuer was the price of the transaction of a criminal process brought against the defender.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Normand Macleod of Macleod pursued William Fraser for relief of a bill of L. 70, granted by him, Macleod, to the Magistrates of Inverness, in the year 1745.
The facts on which he qualified his claim of relief were, That at the time of granting the bill, William Fraser was under trial in the Court of Justiciary, in the name of the King's Advocate, but at the expense of the town of Inverness, for the forcible abduction, rape, and marriage, of his now wife: That William Fraser had applied to him to make up the matter with the town of Inverness, and that he made it up with the town, by granting the bill in question, being the neat expense which at that time had been laid out on the trial; and that in consequence thereof, the prosecution was dismissed against Fraser.
Answered for William Fraser, Supposing the facts to be true, they were not relevant to give a title to relief; for transacting a crime is in itself a crime, a null act; and the rule of law takes place, Quod in turpi causa melior est conditio possidentis.
“The Lords found William Fraser liable for the contents of the bill.”
Act. Ross, And. Pringle, Ferguson.Alt. J. Dalrymple, Lockhart.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 30. Fac. Col. No 146. p. 264.
