Dating in dundee scotland Live sex chat rooms iraq males

26-Apr-2017 12:43

20th December 1776, the Lords refused a reclaiming petition without answers, and adhered. The Laird of Dundas complained to the Lyon, That Dundas of Fingask had got from the Lyon's predecessor, in the year 1744, a grant of an armorial bearing, to which he and his predecessor had right many ages before. In 1791 he executed a deed, where, after making some alterations, but none on this clause, "he approves of the foresaid deed of entail, in all the other articles and clauses thereof." At the time, however, when he executed this last deed, the rental of the estate exceeded £. had thereby revoked the above-cited clause; and that, therefore, the pursuer should be at liberty to keep up and augment the rent of the entailed estate, as freely as if it had not been inserted. There is no conclusion in favour of his right to these arms; so that, were he to obtain decree in terms of his libel, he could take nothing under it.And again, 25th June 1778, the Lords, on report of Lord Hailes, found that the Lyon can exact no higher fees for Mr Murray of Touchadam's arms than ten merks, being the fees exigible by the statute 1672 from a baron; and found the Lyon liable in the expense of process prior to the last remit, and of the whole extract of the decreet. The matter was brought before the Lords by an advocation at the instance of Fingask. In support of this conclusion he Pleaded: As the clause in question has been so far infringed by the entailer himself that it cannot be complied with in terminis, it must be wholly at an end. Popular actions are unknown in our law, and no one can bring an action to take from another what he himself has no right to.Murray of Touchadam have been actually matriculated in the Lyon register or not : that William Murray was not in mala fide to continue the use of the armorial bearings which his predecessors enjoyed ; and that there is no sufficient warrant for the penal conclusions of the original summons: and upon the whole assoilyies the said William Murray, and decerns; reserving always to the Procurator-fiscal to charge the said William Murray to matriculate his armorial bearings in the registers of the Lyon Court, in terms of the statute 1672, and to pay the fees exigible from a baron, and no more, as the statute bears: and also reserving to the officers of Court to exact whatever further sum may be judged reasonable, in case the said William Murray shall incline to be furnished, not only with a. On the other hand, it was maintained for the defender, That the act 1672, by declaring that the Lyon record should "be respected ass the true and unrepealable rule of all arms and bearings in Scotland," conferred a privative jurisdiction in such matters on the Lord Lyon; and that even if this Court had jurisdiction in competition of arms, the pursuer did not set forth his right to those matriculated by the defender. These relate to two separate and distinct matters,one regarding messengers, and the other, which we have to do with here, relating to armorial bearings.blazoning, in terms of the art, but also with a painting in water colours and other ornaments, these being things which the Lord Lyon is not bound by law to provide without a suitable remuneration." The Lords, on advising a reclaiming petition and answers, 4th December 1776, adhered to the interlocutor of the Ordinary, and refused the petition, except as to the fees exigible on matriculations; as to which, remitted to the Ordinary to hear parties further, and to do as he should see cause. The power of granting ensigns armorial is part of the royal prerogative, but every thing belonging to that power has been given by sundry statutes to the Lord Lyon's grant. The Lyon's reason is, because, by an express letter of his Majesty's, none underl the dignity of a Lord must use supporters. Mr Murray presented bill of advocation, which was past. ABOUT the same time, in June, 1673, I heard of a process some Barons and Gentlemen had intended against my Lord Lyon, to hear and see it found and declared that he had done wrong in refusing to give them forth their coats of arms with supporters, whereof they and their predecessors had been in possession past all memory, and never quarrelled till now; and, therefore, that he might be decerned to immatriculate them so in his register, and give them forth an extract; conform, as is provided by the late act of Parliament in 1672. A summons before the Lyon Court having been brought at the instance of Procurator-Fiscal against Murray of Touchadam, concluding for payment of the statutory penalty for wearing arms though not matriculated, and for confiscation of the moveables upon which they were engraved; the Lyon Court gave decreet in terms of the libel.But, as to matriculation, in consequence of the Act 1672, that was requisite in every case, and is so found by the Ordinary in this case. Among others, it contained the following condition: "Nor shall it be in the power of the heirs-male of my body, or other heirs foresaid, substituted to them, to increase the rental above £.1000 Sterling per including kain and casualties, so as the rents may be always well and regularly paid ; but without prejudice to the heir in possession to take grassums for any lease he may grant, not exceeding 19 years, of any part of said lands." The rental of the estate, at the date of the entail, was £.895 Sterling ; and when the leases expired, Mr. But a question remains behind, whether the summons in the present case is so conceived, that it could be entertained by any Court.The fees, no doubt, are fixed by the Act 1672, but Lord President thought that, as in other regulations of fees about that period, practice and change of times had introduced an alteration ; so this might be the case here, and therefore he proposed to remit that point to the Ordinary to hear further; which was agreed to. Moir augmented it, without any regard to this clause. without including any rent for 150 acres in his natural possession. Robert Moir succeeded him, under the entail, and brought an action against the substitutes, concluding, that the said George Moir having increased the rental above the sum of £.1000. The pursuer had his own arms matriculated in 1797, and he does not say that they are erroneous; nor does h set forth in his summons that he is the true chieftain or that he has right to the arms of the defender.

But, as to the former parts of the process concerning Mr Murray's right to arms, and the jurisdiction of the Lyon, they thought them unjustifiable, and that the Lyon was liable in the expenses incurred on that account; and, 9th July 1778, they refused a reclaiming petition without answers, and adhered. Indeed, supposing he had not made such a deed, there would have been no room for that presumption. The Lords " found it incumbent on the pursuer, and the other heirs of entail, to follow out the tailzier's appointment, in carrying the name and arms of Moir of Leckie ; and, for that purpose, to obtain from the Lyon-office arms of that description, descendible to the heirs of entail of Leckie." Lord Reporter, Justice-Clerk. The only question, therefore, properly before us, is the general one, whether this Court is competent to entertain an action as to the right to armorial bearings; and we cannot go into the other defences, that the pursuer has no title or interest, or that his libel is not properly laid.

Now there is no sufficient allegation to this effect here, and I hold that to be essential to the question of jurisdiction. In 1707, James Dick of Prestonfield was created a Baronet of Nova Scotia, by patent taken to the heirs-male of his body; whom failing, to the heirs-male of his daughter and sole heiress, Janet Dick.