Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION III.
The Qualification of Freeholders possessing Lands liable in Public Burden for L. 400 Scots.
Subject_3 SECT. V.
How a division of Valuation may be set aside. - Every Party interested in a division ought to be made a Party to it. - Erroneous division.
William Cunningham v. Sir William Maxwell, Baronet
Date: 20 February 1787 Case No. No 83.
Sub-division of the valued rent of a barony, made in opposition to the old valuation-roll of the county, inept.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
By the general valuation of the lands in the county of Renfrew, made up in 1654, and transmitted in 1709 to the Court of Exchequer, the lands of Bootston, part of the old estate of Craigends, were separately valued at L. 25 Scots.
In the year 1781, the valuation of a part of this estate, including the lands of Bootston, was sub-divided by the Commissioners of Supply, when, instead of adhering to the value formerly put on this parcel, they rated it at L. 34.
William Cunningham having appealed to this decreet of division for ascertaining the valued rent of the lands in virtue of which he claimed to be enrolled as a freeholder, the freeholders refused to admit him.
After advising a petition and complaint for Mr Cunningham, with answers for Sir William Maxwell,
“The Lords dismissed the complaint.”
Act. Geo. Fergusson et alii.Alt. Wight et alii.Clerk, Robertson.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 412. Fac. Col. No 323. p. 497.
