Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION VI.
Summary Complaint to the Court of Session.
Subject_3 SECT. IV.
Whether the Court of Session may admit Evidence not laid before the Freeholders.
Sir John Ogilvie of Inverquharity v. Sir David Carnegie of Southesk
Date: 2 March 1796 Case No. No 264.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Sir John Ogilvie claimed, at the Michaelmas meeting 1795, to be enrolled, inter alia, upon the lands of Baldovan; and an article under that name appeared in a valuation-book of the county, in 1683, at L. 550. At an after period, however, there had been a sale of certain parts of the lands, which were specially excepted in the claim; and, as it did not appear what part of the valuation was applicable to the lands sold, it was objected, That, without a regular decree of division, the valued rent was not legally instructed; and, although it was shown from the cess-rolls, that the lands claimed on applied to an article of the same name, entered in a valuation-book subsequent to the sale, and consequently applied to the original article minus the excepted lands, the freeholders sustained the objection. Sir John gave in a complaint, which was followed with answers, replies, and duplies. In the pleadings, it was shown almost to demonstration, not only by the cess-books, but by various pieces of other evidence, that, in the article of valuation founded on, allowance must have been made for the lands sold; and, notwithstanding all kind of new evidence was objected to, as incompetent to show, in the Court of Session, what was said to be, not the identity of two articles, but the amount of the valuation, which ought in every case to be first laid before the freeholders, the Court reversed the judgment of the freeholders, and ordered Sir John to be enrolled.—See Appendix.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 436. Supplement to Wight, p. 6.
