Topics discuss while dating dating for seniors singles personals address
The statutory basis for the jurisdiction of the Lyon King of Arms consists mainly of three Acts of the Scottish Parliament, of 1587, 15. (He grants them now to some who were: in possession of them of old.). Pleaded at discussing for the Lyon:the advocation is incompetent; his jurisdiction, as to arms, is privative and independent.(The Act of the British Parliament of 1867 mainly reorganized the Court and set the salaries of the Scottish officers of arms). But the gentlemen answer, that Lords at the beginning, having been only Barons, and in regard of the considerable interest they hid in their respective shires, being commissionate from the small barons and freeholders to represent them in Parliament, they, because of that credit, got first the denomination of Lords, without any patent or creation; and, upon the matter, were nothing but Barons: and so what is due to them is also due to the other, they originally not differing from the rest by any essential or superior step of dignity. REPLIED, Whatever was their rise, the other Barons have clearly acknowledged a distinction now; in so far as they have renounced their privilege of coming to Parliaments by the 113 act in 1587; and the distinction being made, and their privileges renounced, by the small Barons in the Parliament 1427. See also Morison's Dictionary, 7656; Decisions of the Court of Session. But Lord Hailes, 30th November 1774, "Repelled the declinature, and sustained the jurisdiction of the Court of Session: Found the advocation competent in respect that the question at issue was a civil cause; neither is there any statute pointed out by the pursuer whereby the radical or consuetudinary jurisdiction of the Court of Session in matters of this sort, stands abolished;" and, 26th July 1775, the Lords adhered.In regard to matters of arms, the Lord Lyon has a ministerial power; and unless he invades the rights of others, this Court has no jurisdiction to review his proceedings. 3d, That "the badge of Nova Scotia on a canton" was not a mark of cadence, and that to assign it as the only difference in the coat of arms, was not a sufficient compliance with the statute.There was never a case where the Court entertained an action of this nature, unless it was set forth that the act complained of was to the prejudice of the party bringing it. JOHN CUNYNGHAM of Caprington and Lambrughton was, in 1669, created a Baronet of Nova Scotia, by patent taken to the heirs-male of his body.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.
in the first, immemorial possession would presume a grant even from the Sovereign himself to wear them; and many families in Scotland had right to arms before the Act 1592 ; so did not derive right to wear them from the Lyon in virtue of that Act of Parliament. George Moir, in 1787, executed an entail of the estate of Leckie, with strict irritant and resolutive clauses. But if the Lord Lyon should grant to one person arms which another is entitled to bear, and should refuse to give redress, there could be no doubt of the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an action at the instance of the party to have his right declared, as this would involve a question of property, which a right to bear particular ensigns armorial undoubtedly is.
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.
It was accordingly found, unanimously, "That the tailzier having, in his own life-time, raised the rent beyond £.1000 Sterling yearly, the clause restraining the heirs of entail from increasing the rent of the tailzied estate beyond that extent was thereby virtually revoked by the tailzier himself, and is now at an end." The entail likewise contained the following clause And that the heirs of tailzie foresaid, succeeding in virtue hereof, shall be bound to use the name and title of Moir of Leckie, and that alone, exclusive of every other name and title; and to carry the arms of Moir of Leckie, without any addition, diminution, or alteration of any kind." After the action came into Court, it was discovered that there were no arms of Moir of Leckie matriculated in the Lyon-office. As to the abstract principle, it is clear, that wherever there is a competition as to the right to armorial bearings, an appeal lies to this Court by advocation, and also by reduction, which is the proper remedy when the arms are already granted; or even if the Lyon refuse arms to a party entitled, this Court has jurisdiction to give redress. A clause in a private Act of Parliament bore"Whereas the senior heir of line of the family has succession to all their indivisible honours, and specially the right to bear and use their arms and supporters -Be it enacted, that the said rights and arms are hereby reserved entire to such senior heir of line and that the said D being a younger branch of said family, he and his heirsmale, in taking the name of C, shall do so with a difference or mark of cadence in the arms applicable to such younger branch." D was a baronet, and the heir-male of the family.
The pursuer being the heir, alioqui successurus only in one fourth of the estate, as representative of one of four heirs-portioners, it was likewise doubted, even if there had been such arms, whether they were assignable to heirs of entail, or whether they necessarily descended, jure sanguinis, to Mr. The following conclusion was therefore added to the summons: That the said pursuer, and the heirs of entail foresaid, are under no restraint with regard to the carrying of any particular arms, as the arms of Moirs of Leckie, and are exposed to no challenge for disregarding the clause in the entail ; or, at least, that the pursuer and each succeeding heir, shall be at liberty to obtain arms from the Lyon-office, and, whatever they may be, to wear and use them. On the other hand, it was stated for the pursuer, That he wished, as far possible, to comply with the entailer's intention; but that he was advised, that even where there were arms in a family, they could not descend to a tailzied succession, without certain distinctions. The Lyon Court is in fact just on the same footing as with other Inferior Courts. The Lord Lyon assigned to him the family arms and supporters, "with the badge of Nova Scotia on a canton," for a difference.
As to the arms to be given Mr Murray, when he applies for them it was time enough to answer this when he did so; and as to the illuminations, they are used for the better direction of painters, or carvers, many of whom are not sufficiently instructed in the science of heraldry without illuminations.