United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

The Sheriff, on the 18th May 1822, found the rent of Inverguseran and others, to be L.560 yearly;—that Cameron, having occupied Torrery, as sub-tenant of M'Kinnon, was liable in the same rent as M'Kinnon;—that the rent of Aultfern must be L.30 yearly, (agreeably to a report by a valuator, to whom the Sheriff had remitted that point);—that a retired draft by Cameron for L.200, and two receipts granted by Glengarry's factor on 16th November, and 8th December 1821, for L.281, must be imputed in extinction pro tanto of the half-year's rent due at Martinmas 1821; and that the half-year's rent for Aultfern, due at the same term, must be imputed in the same manner; and on Cameron consigning L.300, subject to the future orders of the Court, to meet the half-year's rent due at Whitsunday 1822, when the exact amount thereof should be ascertained, recalled the sequestration. Both parties were dissatisfied with this judgment—Cameron, because the valuator's report had been adopted, and that expenses had not been awarded to him, and because it was not declared that Torrery was given in exchange for Aultfern, and the rent fixed for the former by a valuation of both;—Glengarry, because the rent was struck at L.560, instead of L.570, and because the sums in the agreement, and paid to his factor, had been imputed to the 1821 rent, and not to previous rents, alleged to he yet unsettled. Thereafter the Sheriff, on the 11th October 1822, pronounced this judgment:—

“Sustains the claim for the road assessments, amounting to L.5; Finds, that the agreement among the Knoidart tenants for the fox-hunter's does, does not apply to this question,

Page: 597↓

and besides, bears no date; and as the defender, Mr Cameron, avers that he paid the fox-hunter's dues for the year mentioned in the petition, and as no evidence is produced or offered to the contrary, or that the fox-hunters were paid by Glengarry, rejects this article of charge : Finds, that upon the principles of this and the former interlocutors, the half-year's rent payable by the defender at Martinmas last, after the deduction of the half-year's rent of Aultfern, amounts to L.295 sterling, whereof there was paid, as appears by Mr Hood's two receipts, and the defender's bill, the sum of L.281, 4s., leaving a balance of L.13,16s. due by the defender of that year's rent: Finds, that the half-year's rent payable by the defender at Whitsunday last, including the road assessment as above, amounts, after deduction of the half-year's rent of Aultfern, to L.300, whereof there has been uplifted by the pursuer L.280, out of the sum consigned by the defender with the Bank of Scotland, leaving thereby a balance of L.20, which, being added to the balance of the Martinmas rent, makes the amount now due by the defender L.33, 16s.; and in payment, pro tanto, of this last mentioned sum, grants warrant, at the petitioner's instance, for uplifting the balance of L.20 sterling, consigned with the Bank of Scotland's agent at Inverness, and authorizes the Bank's agent to pay the same to the pursuer, with the periodical interest arising due on the whole sum consigned, and appoints the pursuer to give in a report of the sum so recovered by him, and decerns accordingly; and appoints the defender, within fourteen days, to pay the balance now found due, with certification, if he fails, that warrant for selling the sequestrated effects, to that extent, will be granted.”

By this time the advocation in the removing process had been passed, and the declarator raised. ^* Both had been executed, but neither called in Court. Cameron then presented a bill of advocation of the sequestration process, ob contingentiam. The bill having been passed, the Lord Ordinary repelled the reasons of advocation, and remitted simpliciter to the Sheriff, with expenses. But the Court, on the 1st December 1824, “altered,— advocated the cause,—sustained the reasons of advocation,— assoilzied the petitioners (Cameron's representatives) from the conclusion of the process,—found that the sequestration was illegal and oppressive,—and expenses due to the petitioners, both in the Court of Session, and before the Sheriff;” and