Small fields, disjoined by others intervening, not the subject of the act 1695.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Murison was proprietor of two inclosures situated near the village of New-haven, one of which contained two acres of ground, the other somewhat less than one. These little fields were separated from each other by another piece of ground, of more than one acre in extent, which belonged to Drysdale; as did likewise a fourth little field, disjoined from this by one of Murison's already mentioned.
Murison sued Drysdale on the act 1661 relative to the inclosing of ground, and on that of 1695 respecting lands lying run-rig; concluding in his summons, for straightening marches, and for a division of the grounds.
But the Court, agreeably to the decision, December 7. 1744, Hall contra Falconer, No 2. p. 14141, by which it was found, ‘that small parcels of land, surrounded by a greater estate, and lying at a distance from each other, but each parcel lying contiguous, and not run-rig, did not fall under the act for dividing of run-rig,’ were of oginion, that the statutes libelled on did not apply to this case, which was neither that of run-rig, nor of run-dale; and therefore
‘The Lords dismissed the action.’
Act. C. Hay.Alt. Hen. Erskine.Clerk, Tait.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 246. Fac. Col. No 115. p. 214.
