Manuscripta juridica

[Principal Investigator: G. R. Dolezalek]







Index huius voluminis


Index huius voluminis , obviously penned by Patrick Grant Lord Elchies (1690-1754).

[{i}Anonymous. The writer of these lines still used the old abbreviation for 'quhilk', but obviously pronounced it 'which', because at times he spelled out the word 'which'.{/i}].

[{i}Text:{/i}] The following collection of decisions from October 1573 to February 1583, which is ten years and a winter session, seem to me to be the Practiques commonly ascryved to Allexander Colvill commendator of Culross. From the decision that in this book immediately preceeds 10 December 1577 (for itself has no date) [{i}= fol. 22r{/i}], it corresponds to Fountainhall's copy that I have of those decisions [{i}this description matches MS 37, thus showing that it was once owned by Sir John Lauder Lord Fountainhall (1647-1712){/i}], giving allowance for errors that may be in the one or the other in transcribing and copying, that here some of them are somewhat curtaild and some quotations sometimes lessent. But after the decision in July 1583 'Allan Coutes' [{i}= fol. 126v, January 1583{/i}], there are in Fontainhall's copy no less then seven leaves of decisions before the next decision is in the copy, and which are quite omitted here [{i}this description matches again MS 37{/i}].

But from the beginning till the said decision preceeding 10 December 1577 the decisions here are toto caelo different from those in Fountainhall's copy. I have before now observed in some loose schedules in my copy of Leidingtons Practiques that I gott from young Grant and which I take to be the originall MS [{i}= Edinburgh, NL Scotland, Adv.MS.32.2.2 (i){/i}], that that first part of Colvill's Practiques till 1577 have been taken from the later part of Leidington's, but somewhat varied in some cases, and mostly somewhat curtaild. But in others I find them even enlarged - one 1 June 1574 - which is some evidence that it has been done, if not by Lord Colvill, att least by a lawyer, and probably one of the judges [{i}It thus appears that the writer erroneously thought that in MS Signet 37 part III the first twenty folios already belonged to Colvill's Practicks, whereas they still contain the end of the enlarged version of Maitland's Practicks{/i}]. But the cases observed in this book [{i}MS Signet 34 is meant{/i}] during that period are altogether different: the parties for the most part different. And even (...?) decisions (involving?) the same parties are observed by both j(urisconsul)tis altogether on different points. Example: the case here immediately after 26 November 1576 'L. Kelwood contra E. of Cassels' [{i}= fol. 21r, also in R. Sutherland's transcription of the Orr MS, nr. 401{/i}], I find a decision betwixt the same parties in Fountainhall's copy, 4 December 1575, but it's a quite different point, tho' both were in a proces of spuilzie. It seems to me probable that the copy is the collection that Lord Colvill himself made, and the other he has taken from Leidington's. For I doubt not that he was on the Session in or before 1573, for we'd find him in 1575 the vii. his rank. It woud seem he had been some years there (tho' we have not the Sederunt book from 1567).

In the book I find also decisions collected from November 1592 to December 1593, and probably there have been more. The fact seems plain that there were no more when the alphabeticall index apart, that I have of Sinclair's, Leithington's and other decisions, was composed. But who the author of them was, I know not. Lord Colvill indeed lived long enough to have composed them and continued on the Session (except from 2 to 26 June 1587), for upon his death Mr. David MacGill succeeded no earlier than May 1597. But however(?) that, it's improbable that he would have discontinued till November 1592 and then begun again. So the two collections seem not to have been made by the same person - not the same (original?).

To the whole are subpenned first a summary of Sinclair's Practiques, and next a summary of Lethington's, both of the order (that) were the collections, but not in the order of the alphabet.

Fol. 1v blank


No. of pages: Fol. 1r