| Oswald v. Grant |
1772
|
Commonty, Common lands |
This case concerns the division of the commonty located in the barony of Preston, known as the "Fell of Preston," a hilly area lying in the Parish of Kirkbean. Richard Oswald, pursuer, and Andrew Grant et al., defenders, were heritors in the same district. Grant, et al, claimed that Oswald had no right to that land because he was excluded earlier when the Merse of Preston, a seaside area located in the same barony, was divided. Grant et al. argued that the division of the Merse of Preston was based on customary use. Grant et al. were not excluded from this division, which occurred in 1731. Grant et al. claimed that the division of the Fell of Preston should be similarly divided, based on customary use. Oswald countered that he had a right of common property in the Fell of Preston. |
| Young and Others v. MacDonald |
1779
|
Commonty, Burgess, Burgh Royal |
The Royal Burgh of Burntisland held some land, called the Links or Commonty, upon which "from time immemorial" the burgesses would pasture their animals and wash, bleach, and dry their clothes. The Commonty was tacked to an individual who was charged with its upkeep, in exchange for which the burgesses whose livestock grazed on the land paid a grass-mail (rent). In 1776, Alexander MacDonald, tacksman for the Commonty, received permission from the town council to raise the annual grass-mail from less than five shillings to ten shillings per beast. Several burgesses applied to the Court of Session for a suspension. Lord Kennet rejected their request. They then applied to the Court to for review, arguing that neither the charger nor the Magistrates had the authority to encroach upon their rights to the Commonty. “It is well known, that every royal burgh has its own privileges and common-good, for behoof of its inhabitants . . . the Kings of Scotland, when they gave any village the privileges of a royal burgh, also gave them lands, or a common-good, for the support and encouragement of its inhabitants. They are called common lands and common-good, for this reason, that every inhabitant has an equal interest therein.” On December 9, 1779 the Court suspended the letters simpliciter, and soon afterward MacDonald submitted a petition. He argued that the Magistrates had sole authority over the disposal of the Commonty: "That Magistrates of royal burghs, as administrators of the property and common good of the burgh, can exercise every act of property and dispose of the same to the best advantage, is undoubtedly established.” |
