II DOW, LAWRIE LAWRIE 1814 by the destination of the entail in which it is contained, he knew would become a fee-simple in the Pursuer's person, in the event of his having no [558] heirs male of his body, and applied part of the price to redeem the land-tax of the whole lands under both entails; whereas, he was bound by the Act of Parliament to have made two separate applications, one for each of the entailed estates, in order that a part of the lands under each entail should be sold, and the price obtained for each of the parcels applied to redeem the land-tax payable out of the lands contained in each of the entails respectively. This proposition neither requires nor admits of any other proof than the terms of the two entails, and the proceedings in the Court; from which last it appears that this circumstance was entirely kept out of the view of the Court. 2d, That the land-tax of the whole lands in both entails amounted only to £17 188. 3 d. viz. £8 1s. 11d. out of the lands in the first entail, which does not terminate in the Pursuer's person, and £9 6s. 4d. out of the lands in the other entail, which includes the lands of Edgarton, and terminates in the Pursuer's person that, to have afforded a sufficient price for purchasing the whole land-tax, there were other smaller farms, etc. 3d, The Pursuer offered to prove that Mr. S. Lawrie purposely kept back from the Court all the above circumstances, which it was his bounden duty to have laid before them. That he did so, stands established by the records of the proceedings. That he did so purposely, being a matter of intention, can only be proved, or rather inferred, from what followed. 4th, That at the sale of the lands, no proof of the value was laid before the Court, and which the [559] Pursuer has undertaken to prove to have been £8000, were set up at 21 years purchase of the old rent, by Mr. Hunter, Mr. S. Lawrie's own agent and trustee for the sale, at £1680. That to give the appearance of a competition, the reality of which had been precluded by its having been made known that Mr. S. Lawrie was desirous of acquiring the lands, a confidontial friend was brought forward, who bade the upset price, and, upon Mr. Hannay, Mr. S. Lawrie's factor, offering £10 more, gave up the contest, and allowed the lands to fall into Mr. Lawrie's hands at £1690. The Lord Ordinary, thinking there was sufficient evidence without resorting to parole proof, took the cause to report to the Court on informations; and the Court by interlocutors, May 22, 1805, and Feb. 11, 1806, reduced the sale; " reserving "to the Defenders all claims of relief competent to them." From this judgment the Defenders appcaled. Lord Eldon (Chancellor). This case arose out of a transaction very singular in its nature, and one which required little now to be said about it, except to take care that the effect of their Lordships' judgment should not be misunderstood. If the question were, whether a stranger, purchasing under the Acts for the Redemption of the Land-tax, and the authority of the Court of Session in the administration of these acts, could be disturbed, it would then be a question of very great interest: and he was anxious to have it understood, that he gave no opinion whatever on the point so put. But he was of opinion, that considering the relation in which Mr. [560] Sloane Lawrie stood with regard to the estates, an implied duty to the Court, and to all who had an interest, rested on him in such a manner, that whatever might be the case with respect to a stranger purchaser, the Court had authority in his case to interfere, and that the judgment which it had given was well founded. The relation in which S. Lawrie stood with respect to the estates gave the Court jurisdiction to do as they had done. On the best attention which he could give to the circumstances, it did not appear to him necessary to alter the interlocutors, if he understood them. There was a reservation of relief, which saved the equities that arose out of the transaction and judgment. But, lest any difficulty should occur as to that point, there might be a declaration, that all whose interests were affected should be entitled to relief. An additional declaration had been taken, founded on the nature of the service; hut their Lordships could give no opinion on that point, as it had not been under con- sideration by the Court below. The interlocutors might therefore be affirmed, subject to such alterations as might appear proper in case of an application to review the judgments upon the ground of the nature of the service, which had not been before under the consideration of the Court. 966
