Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
In 1629, the sub-commissioners for the presbytery of Deer, in a report made up by them, stated the valuation of the stock and teind of the lands belonging to Fraser of Philorth, and lying within the parishes of Fraserburgh and Rathen.
In 1826, Mr Cock brought an action against Lord Saltoun, concluding for reduction of the decree of approbation by the High Commissioners in 1647; and the ground of reduction was, that his predecessor (the then minister of Rathen) had not been made a party to the process of approbation.
On the other hand, Lord Saltoun raised the present action, which, without prejudice to the former decree of approbation in 1747, concluded for approbation de novo of the valuation made by the sub-commissioners in 1629.
A representation was refused; and, after hearing parties upon a reclaiming note, the Court altered the interlocutor complained of, and remitted this process to the Lord Ordinary to consider the same, along with, the process of approbation, &c.
In support of the objection, the minister of Rathen pleaded —1. That the action at Lord Saltoun's instance was incompetent, in respect the alleged valuation of the lands in the parish of Rathen belonging to the pursuer's ancestors, by the sub-commissioners, is not produced; and there is no legal evidence of any valuation of the teinds of this parish having been led.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.