Dating from time immemorial
as the arms of the Moirs of Leckie; and if used, without addition, diminution, or alteration of any kind, by the pursuer and the said heirs, that this shall be held sufficient implement of the provision relating to the arms in the entail." The defender contended, That it was a lawful condition in a tailzie to a stranger that he should bear the granter's arms ; and quoted Sir George Mackenzie's Essay on Heraldry, p. But this opinion does not affect the present action, which is not competent, as the pursuer does not claim the arms given to the defender. I found it impossible to form a satisfactory opinion without looking to the summons; and I deny the power of a Lord Ordinary to ask the Court for an opinion on an abstract question of law, without reference to the action before him. Held, 1st, That it was not competent for the Lord Lyon to enquire whether the heir of line or the heir-male was entitled to the heraldic honours of the family,that question being, in this ease, decided by the Act of Parliament.It is on the competency of this particular action that we are to judge; and I entertain great doubts of its competency, as it does not sufficiently set forth that what the Lord Lyon has done is to the prejudice of the pursuer. SIR ROBERT KEITH DICK CUNYNGHAM, BART., Respondent. 2d, That under the Act of Parliament the heir of line alone was entitled to supporters, and it was incompetent in the Lord Lyon to grant them to the heir-male.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.By taking a higher rent himself, he exercised the right of an unlimited proprietor; but did nothing which was inconsistent with his intention of circumscribing the powers of his successors. In the case of Murray it was found that the Lyon's jurisdiction was not privative, and this implies that the Court of Session has such a jurisdiction; that a question of this nature, while depending in the Lyon Court, may be brought here by advocation, or, after the thing is done, by reduction; and this I hold to be a well-founded doctrine.
[sections 3 and 4 repealed by the Scottish Laws Revision Act of 1906] (5) ITEM Last that becaus the Jurisdictioun of the lyoun king of armez is nocht able to execute dew punishment vpoun all personis that salhappin to offend in the office of armezz Thairfoir our souerane lord with auise of his estaitis in parliament Ordanis and commandis all ciuile Magistratis as thay salbe requirit be the king of armez or ony vtheris in his Name To concur with him To sie the actis maid in his fauouris of his office put to dew executioun in thair iurisdictiounis As aslua To concur with him to the pvneisment and incarceratioun of all sic personis as sall vsurp the bearing of his Maiesties armes efter dew depriuatioun vnder the pane of rebellioun and putting of the disobeyaris to his hienes horne With certificatioun to thame and thay failye being requirit lettrez salbe direct simpliciter to put thame to the horne (italics indicate sections repealed by the Scottish Laws Revision Act of 1906) Our Soveraigne Lord Considering that albeit by the 125 Act of the 12 Parliament holdin by his Maiesties grandfather in the yeir 1592 the usurpation of Armes by any of his Maiesties leidges without the authority of the Lyon King of Armes is expressly discharged And that in order therto Power and Commission is granted to the Lyon King of Armes or his Deputes to visite the whole Armes of Noblemen Barrons and Gentlemen and to matriculate the same in their registers and to fine in One Hundreth pounds all others who shall unjustlie usurp Armes who should bear none and many of these who may in law bear have assumed to themselvis the Armes of their cheiff without distinctions or Armes which were not caried by them or their predicessors Therfore His Maiestie with advice and consent of his Estates of Parliament Ratifies and Approves the forsaid Act of Parliament And for the more vigorous prosecution therof Doth hereby Statute and Ordain that lettirs of publication of this present act be direct to be execute at the mercat cross of the heid Burghs of the Shires Stewartries Bailliaries of Royaltie and Regallitie and Royall Burrowghs chargeing all and sundry [Prelates] Noblemen Barons and Gentlemen who make use of any Armes or Signes armoriall within the space of one yeir aftir the said publication to bring or send an account of what Armes or Signes armoriall they are accustomed to use and whither they be descendants of any familie the Armes of which familie they bear and of what Brother of the ffamilie they are desended With Testificats from persones of Honour Noblemen or Gentlemen of qualitie anent the verity of their haveing and useing those Armes and of their descent as afoirsaid to be delivered either to the Clerk of the Jurisdiction where the persones duells or to the Lyon Clerk at his office in Edinburgh at the option of the party upon their receipts gratis without paying any thing therfore Which Receipt shall be a sufficient exoneration to them from being obleidged to produce again to the effect that the Lyon King of Armes may distinguish the saids Armes with congruent differences and may matriculat the same in his Bookes and Registers and may give Armes to vertuous and well deserving Persones and Extracts of all Armes expresssing the blasoning of the Armes undir his hand and seall of office [For which shall be payed to the Lyon the soume of Tuentie merkes by every Prelat and Nobleman, and Ten merks be every Knight and Baron, and Five merkes by every other persone bearing Armes, and noe more:] And his Maiestie hereby Dispensses with any penalties that may arise be this or any preceiding act for bearing Armes befor the Proclamation to be issued hereupon And it is Statute and Ordained with consent forsaid that the said Register shall be respected as the true and unrepeallable rule of all Armes and Bearings in Scotland to remain with the Lyon office as a publict Register of the Kingdome and to be transmitted to his Successors in all tyme comeing And that whosoevir shall use any other Armes any manner of way aftir the expireing of year and day from the date of the Proclamation to be issued hereupon in maner forsaid shall pay One Hundred pounds money toties quoties to the Lyon and shall likewayes escheat to his Maiestie all the moveable Goods and Geir upon which the saids Armes are engraven or otherwise represented And his Maiestie with consent forsaid Declaires that it is onlie allowed for Noblemen [and Bishopes] to subscrive by their titles And that all others shall subscrive their Christened names or the initiall letter therof with there Sirnames and may if they please adject the designations of their Lands prefixing the word Of to the saids designations And the Lyon King at Armes and his Brethren are required to be carefull of informeing themselvis of the contraveiners heirof [and that they acquaint his Maiesties Councill thewith, who are hereby impowered to punish them as persones disobedient to, and contraveiners of the Law:] It is likewise hereby Declaired that the Lyon and his Brethren Heraulds are Judges in all such causes concerning the Malversation of Messingers in their office and are to enjoy all other priviledges belonging to their Office which are secured to them by the Lawes of this Kingdome and according to former practice. The Gentlemen found on the Interdictum uti possidetis : the Lyon says, it is but vetustas erroris, and an usurpation. The tradition was, that most of the old records of arms were destroyed by fire ; there are, however, in the office several old manuscript books of heraldry which are of great use in matriculation.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.were in public possession of a coat armorial in 15, long prior to the Act of Parliament 1592: finds that this public possession has been continued in the family of the Murrays of Touchadam unto the present times, with respect to charge, as well as with respect to field: finds, that it must be presumed, since no evidence is offered to the contrary, that the colours of field and charge were the same anciently as now: finds it proved, by the evidence produced, or referred to, and not contradicted, that, ever since the year 1660, the family of Murray of Touchadam has been wont to give or bear the supporters, crest, and device which the said William Murray now gives or bears: finds, that such long possession infers an antecedent right, or excludes all challenge on account of defect of such antecedent right : finds,that although the Procurator-fiscal has been called upon, by an interlocutor of the Ordinary, specially to set forth whether it is proposed to matriculate the arms of William Murray of Touchadam as of one entitled to bear arms on matriculation, or to give arms to him as a well-deserving person, in terms of the Act 1672; and of the former, is proposed, what are the arms which Murray of Touchadam ought to bear on matriculation ;yet that he refuses to make any answer to this question, which is plain, and can be answered by any one, versant in the science of heraldry : Therefore, and upon the whole, finds, That the representative of the family of Touchadam was entitled to be matriculated, in terms of the statute 15, for the armorial bearings whereof William Murray of Touchadam, raiser of the advocation, is in possession. It was pleaded in limine that the action was incompetent before the Court. Lyon), before answer as to the pursuer's title, made avizandum with the cause to the Lords of the Second Division of the Court, and ordained parties' procurators to prepare informations thereon as to the competency of the action in this Court." Informations were accordingly lodged, in which the pursuer pleaded, 1.And having considered the original precept or summons at the instance of the Lord Lyon and the Procurator-fiscal of Court against the said William Murray, finds, That the conclusions thereof are altogether penal ; and having considered. that prior to 1672, the Lyon had no jurisdiction in matters of arms, the cognisance of which belonged solely to the Privy Council, and the Supreme Civil Court, which had also the power of reviewing all the proceedingsof the Lord Lyon; 2.
Search for dating from time immemorial:
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.