United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

July 6, 1796.

In these circumstances, the appellant petitioned the Court to see the plans and abstract of the proof, and to lodge objections. He got till the next sederunt day in next November, to lodge objections; and this time was further prolonged till 6th July thereafter, but no objections having been lodged, in consequence, as the appellant stated, of being obliged to leave Scotland on affairs of national importance, the Court, of this date, pronounced this interlocutor:

“Upon the report of Lord Meadowbank, and having advised the state of the process, testimonies of witnesses, writs produced, scheme of probation, and memorial and abstract given in, in terms of the act of sederunt, the Lords find it proven, that the total gross value of the forest and forest lands of Culross, part of the subject of the second lot, extends to £16,610. 14s. sterling. Find it instructed by a certificate of David Ireland produced, that the ground occupied by this plantation, is holden feu of the burgh of Culross, for payment of a yearly feu-duty of £13. 8s. 8d., which the Lords value at twenty years' purchase, and which extends to £268. 13s. 4d., and that, after deduction of that sum, there remains as the net value of the forest, the sum of £16,342. 0s. 8d. Find it proven that the total value of the wood and woodlands in neighbourhood of Culross Abbey, extends to £1389. 11s. 8d., and that the total value of the subjects contained in the second lot, amounts to £17,731. 12s. 4d., Find it proven that no deduction appears to affect the subject of the third lot, being the Abbey of Culross, and which the Lords value at £5466.13s. 4d. sterling. Moreover, the Lords, from the evidence produced, value the tenth lot, being the aisle in the church and tomb, or burial place of the family, at £1200. Therefore the Lords ordain the foresaid subjects to be exposed to sale by way of public roup, within the Parliament House, on the 1st day of December next, between the hours of four and six o'clock, and remit to the Lord Ordinary on the bills for the week, to be judge of the said roup, with power to adjourn the same as they shall see cause, and to adjust the articles and conditions of roup, and to sell the said subjects jointly at the aforesaid price of £39,528, 16s., or separately, at the foresaid valuations put thereon by the Lords, or at higher prices, if the same can be had

Page: 530↓

therefor, but not under the above price or prices. And, to the effect that all concerned may be duly certified of the said roup, ordain letters of publication and intimation thereof, to be expede.”

At the same time, the Court refused the desire of the appellant's petition for delay to give in objections to the valuation.

Against these interlocutors the present appeal was brought, craving a reversal, and a remit to the Court of Session, to allow the appellant to give in his objections to the valuations, and to allow him a proof of the true worth and value of the subjects.

Pleaded for the Appellant.—The great difference between the value in 1780 and the judicial valuation, ought to have induced the Court to give time to the appellant to prepare his objections, and to lead proof as to the proper valuation. 2d. Besides, the value put upon the Abbey or mansion house, is most extravagant, and the mode of computing the value improper and unusual. Whether it is meant to sell it along with the estate, or separately, the appellant does not know, but, in either case, the high valuation is injudicious. If sold with the estate, it will be a clog when so valued. If put up to sale separately, who will purchase a large house without land annexed, without even a garden? 3d. To the sale of the burial place of his family, the appellant cannot object, if his creditors insist upon it; but he does object to the way in which the tomb of his forefathers has been valued, and by the interlocutor is ordered to be put up to sale, as the tomb is evidently devoted to destruction, and in the appellant's humble apprehension, a sort of authority is given for the commission of sacrilege.

Pleaded for the Respondents.—This process of ranking and sale has been carried on and proceeded in with an exact conformity to the act of sederunt, and the present appeal is solely got up for the purpose of retarding the sale of the appellant's estates, and delaying that justice he owes to his creditors, of receiving payment of their just debts. 2. Besides, every indulgence in the way of delay has been conceded to the appellant, for the purpose of correcting any mistakes in the valuation. It would therefore be adverse to the interests of the creditors to delay the sale longer, which has depended for so many years before the Court, and even prejudicial to the appellant himself. 3d. The respondents have taken the most proper measures for ascertaining and adjudging the true value of the debtor's estate; and if he was

Page: 531↓