Manuscripta juridica

Decisiones curiae supremae Scotiae - Practicks 1610-1643 (alphabetical 'Advocati' - 'Uxor') (1610/2/23 - 1643/6/7).

The title line suggests that the material here was collected by Sir Thomas Nicolson of Carnock (admitted as an advocate in 1632). Yet, some of the material are older. The collector may have copied case note from his grandfather Thomas Nicolson of Cockburnspath.

The text corresponds to Edinburgh, NL Scotland, Adv.MSS.24.3.3 and Edinburgh, UL, Dc.4.13 (there heavily shortened). Dark brown ink, easily readable. This is a preparatory collection of material for a repertory of law reports, arranged under titles. The general title line of the collection correctly observes that the individual titles' headings are lifted from the Corpus iuris civilis ('digested under ther propper titles of the civil law'). Entries list at times two or even three titles of the Corpus iuris under which the contents of the decision may be categorized. The collector probably intended to summarize the case under the first listed title, and to place a cross-reference under the other indicated titles.

It happens that a certain title appears, and then reappears a second time a few pages later, with provision of yet another series of dated law reports. This phenomenon may be explained by assuming that the collector used loose sheets, and that he kept adding further notes on his loose sheets, but as his sheets were not arranged in any strict order of arrangement, he did at times not find the pertinent sheet and thus started a new one, or the pertinent sheet was full, so that he had to start a new one for that reason. The scribe of the present MS may have copied directly from the author's original loose leaves. This is suggested by the fact that the scribe very often starts a fresh leaf when he starts a new title, thus leaving blank space at the end of the preceding leaf.

Under each title, the collector provides abstracts of legal points of decisions, roughly arranged by dates. Most decisions date from the second and third decade and from the first half of the fourth decade of the 17th century. I also noticed some cases from the second half of the fourth decade, and even from the fifth decade, but they are very rare, so that I suspect them to be late additions. Earliest and latest year dates which caught my eye: 1610/2/23, 1610/6 (both on pag. 251), 1636/7/20 (pag. 81), 1637/2/10 (pag. 200), 1638/11/9, 1643/6/7 (pag. 94). Within each title, the dates usually ascend. Yet, at times they jump backwards to an earlier date, and then re-ascend from there. This might in part again be explained by assuming that the collector used loose sheets (see above). Yet, one could also think of another explanation, namely the rifts in time might have been caused by the fact that there existed several separate clerks' offices, and that the collector had direct access to their respective registers and extracted notes from them. He would of course exploit the registers in their order. The collector may have started excerpting a certain office's register for a series of years, and thereafter another office's register for the parallel series of years.

The individual items start with the date of the reported decision. Thereafter the court clerk who attended to the litigation is named. Next, the collector always mentions the parties' names. He then often adds a keyword for the point of law. Thereafter follows a summary of the legal point in question. At times, in lieu of a summary, the collector only refers the reader to another title under which the pertinent case is summarised.

Some case reports are more detailed, and at times these explicitly refer to Scottish statutes and to earlier judicial precedent from the Court of Session. Although I did not find any explicit references to the Corpus iuris canonici or Corpus iuris civilis, nor to pertinent literature, the contents of the text clearly imply a sound knowledge of Jus Commune. On page 2, however, some user of the MS has added explicit quotations:{i}Guido Papa, Decisiones Gratianopolitanae, quaestio 273{/i}, and {i}Lex attendit illum ... qui prodest, l. Si quis, ff. de acq. poss. {/i}[D.17.2.43 pr.], {i}l. Merito, ff. pro socio{/i} [D.17.2.51]. The pertinent additional note refers to a case of {i}Mr. Patrick Crome advocat{/i}, without supplying a date.

I have spot-checked whether cases reported in the present collection were also mentioned in Morison's Dictionary of Decisions and in Tait's index to it. Only very few of them were

---

Author(s):

• Thomas Nicolson of Carnock or of Cockburnspath

No. of pages: Pag. 2-517

Rubric: A collectione of decisiones of the Lords of Sessione, digested under ther propper titles of the civil law, being the fundatione of a large work designed but not perfyted by Sir Thomas Nicolson of Carnock. He was supposedly the sones son of Mr. Thomas Nicolsone of Cockburnspath and was admitted advocat 25 of July 1632

Incipit:

• [{i}First titles, and first cases quoted therein - I emphasize their alphabetised word:{/i}] (Pag. 2) De advocatis diversorum iudicum et diversorum iudiciorum.

  (Pag. 3) De errore advocatorum seu procuratorum concipientium.

  1611/3/8 Harvie v. Gordon [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  (Pag. 7) De advocato fisci.

  1623/2/14 Hay clerk, Bailzie v. Cromby [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  (Pag. 11) Plus valere quod agitur quam quod simulate concipitur [Jus Commune maxim].

  1626/11/28 De Kinghorne v. Wood --» vide De nov. et deleg. [{i}Tait pag. 273, from Durie = Morison 5073{/i}].

  1621/2/2 Hay clerk, Melvill v. Melvill --» casus de haereditariis actionibus 4 [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1621/2/8 Hay clerk, Licet, Montcurr v. Montcurr --» casus de haereditariis actionibus 4 [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1627/2/17 Dury clerk, Laird of Balquholly v. Laird of Murtle [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1620/1/20 Gibsone clerk, Sir John Seton v. Lady Craig and Alexander Keith [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  (Pag. 15) Quibus alienare non licet.

  1623/3/27 Dury clerk, Crighton v. tennents of Cluny [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1622/3/19 Hay clerk, E. Roxbrugh v. Gra. Oy [{i}Tait pag. 406, 1622 March 19, Haddington, Nicolson, Kerse = Morison 7189{/i}].

  (Pag. 19) De alimentis praestandis.

  1620/3/8 --» Ubi pupillus educari.

  1622/1/8 Hay clerk, Paip v. Geight.

  (Pag. 20) De assessoribus.

  1621/3/24 --» De iurisdictione omnium iudicum.

  (Pag. 21) De concessionibus bonorum.

  1620/7/1 Narne v. creditors.

  1622/12/18 Dury clerk, Murheid v. creditors.

  1623/1/20 Dury clerk, Mureheid v. Munro [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1623/3/8 Dury clerk, poor persons v. the Prows.

  1623/1/8 Ormistoun v. Scot [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1635/1/29 Dury clerk, Chartors v. Halyburton [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1628/7/31 Dury clerk, Maxwell v. his creditors.

  (Pag. 27) Annuells, caution, compensation.

  1627/11/15 Dick v. Black [{i}Tait pag. 126: Durie, Nicolson = Morison 520{/i}].

  (Pag. 28) (De rebus creditis [= the pertinent title D.12.1 in the Digesta is implied for alphabetising!]) de literarum obligatione, de probationibus.

  1627/11/20 Lockie v.

  1630/7/11 Dury clerk, Levyston v. Scot.

  (Pag. 31) De compensationibus.

  1611/1/18 Croing v. Stewart --» de fide instrumentorum.

  1611/7/20 Charters v. Hempsfield --» de tutelis [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1611/7/26 Pyet v. Sonct(?)er --» de usuris [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1611/7/31 Laird of Waughton v. Lawder [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1620/7/11 Levingston v. Scot [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1620/2/28 (ult.) Dury clerk, Paterson v. Hall, also refers to the title De fide instrumentorum [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  1621/11/14 Dury clerk, Finlason v. Gardyn [{i}not in Tait's index{/i}].

  (Pag. 35) Contravention. De vi et vi armata.

  1610/3/3 Mr. David Home of Godscroft and Gilbert Wauchop his tennent v. Andrew Home of Nynewalls and others.

  1611/12/21 L. Kilbirnie v. Crawfurd [{i}etc. etc.{/i}].

  [{i}Further titles, again all taken from Corpus iuris, the word for alphabetising is at times only implied:{/i}] De (de)positionibus. Division of testament. (Depositiones:) de reprobatione testium. De divortiis. De donationibus propter nuptias. De donationibus inter virum et uxorem. (Domicilium:) ad municipalem et de incolis. Soluto matrimonio quemadmodum dos petatur. De sacrosanctis ecclesiis et rebus earum. De edendo. Quando liceat ab emptione discedere. De evictione. De fideiussoribus. (De fide instrumentorum:) De probationibus. De foro competenti. De his quae in fraudem creditorum facta sint restituendis. (De haereditatibus et) de iure deliberandi [D.28.8]. De haereditatis petitione. De acquirenda et amittenda haereditate. De haeredibus instituendis. De actionibus et exceptionibus haereditariis. De haereditariis actionibus (et) de bonis auctoritate iudicis possidendis. De fide instrumentorum. De iurisdictione omnium iudicum. De iis (quae) a non suo iudice. De in ius vocando. Si quis in ius vocatus non ierit. De iureiurando (et) de confessione. De iudiciis. De ordine iudiciorum. De officio iudicis. De re iudicata. Si adversus rem iudicatam. Iudicatum solvi. Quibus res iudicata non nocet. De iure accrescendi [{i}etc. etc.{/i}].

  (Pag. 59-64) [{i}Particularly detailed reasons are given for a decision 1611/12/4 L.Thorpichon v. L. Mar (not in Tait's index), partly in Latin, e.g. pag. 61:{/i}] There is four cases in law quhair donation inter virum et uxorem hes place, videlicet si fiat ante nuptias intuitu matrimonii [D.24.1.27; D.24.1.5 pr.], si unus non fiat pauperior et alter locupletior [D.24.1.5.16, etc.], si morte confirmetur [D.24.1.9.2 ss.; D.24.1.32.2], si fiat in testamento et ultima voluntate [D.24.1.32.2, self evident analogy] - and in the four only [D.24.1.1].

  [{i}In the above mentioned case the references to the Corpus iuris civilis are only implied, none is expressly quoted. It is interesting to see that both parties' advocates and the judges take it for granted that the reasons why the Romans forbade donations between spouses still apply as well in Scotland, and also the reasons for the four exceptions to this rule. The lawyers did not question this in any way. The pleadings just discuss whether the facts of the case might be brought under one of the four exceptions, because otherwise the Roman general rule would apply. This is representative for the way how Scottish lawyers thought and argued. Judicial precedents apply legal rules from Jus Commune, but no need is seen to quote the Corpus iuris expressly, or to justify why its rules should be applicable.{/i} The pleadings take it for granted that the judges and the other advocates know the Jus Commune well, and that they will abide by its rules, so that one does not even need to quote the pertinent texts expressly.]