Faculty. In the language of the law, a faculty means a power which a person is at liberty to exercise; hence it follows that a faculty does not fall under the negative prescription, since it is of the very essence of the right that it may be exercised at any time. Faculties may be adjudged: thus, an heir's right to reduce his ancestor's deed on the head of deathbed,—a minor's right to reduce a deed on the head of minority and lesion,—a faculty to burden lands,—a power to recall an annuity,—may all be adjudged. But it has been held that the right to pursue a declarator of irritancy against the heir of entail in possession cannot.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Faculty.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Faculty |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dr William Liechman, Principal of the College of Glasgow, and Others v. Dr Robert Trail, and Others | 1770 | Powers of the Principal and Masters of the University, Deed, Deeds, Faculty, Patronage, Representation | The pursuers called into question an attempt by Doctor Leechman and others to impose a rigid interpretation of the constitution of the University of Glasgow, which would bar the rector and faculty from participating in the university's fiscal administration. The parties called attention to the set of rules prescribed by King James VI in 1577 concerning the government of the College and its funds. The Lord Ordinary found that based on the charter granted by the king, the whole revenue and property of the university (excepting such mortifications for bursars and other uses which are otherwise conveyed) was vested in the Principal and Masters. The Defenders asked the Lord Ordinary to alter his interlocutor. |
| Knox v. Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow | 1798 | Procurator, Charter, Faculty, Penalty, Interlocutor, Contract | Hugh Knox, Writer in Glasgow, petitioned the Court against the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, seeking to remit their regulation that imposed £30 of entry money upon him on the grounds that his apprenticeship had ended before the regulation was enacted and the charge was therefore retrospective and oppressive. The Faculty answered, defending the regulation against his claims. |
| Robert Forsyth v. Hon. Henry Erskine and the Members of the Faculty of Advocates | 1790 | Faculty, Jurisdiction, Presbytery, Trial | Robert Forsyth petitioned for admission to trial, and Henry Erskine and the Members of the Faculty of Advocates responded that his ecclesiastical status disqualified him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
Documents discussing this subject (12)
- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR Doctor WILLIAM LEECHMAN principal of the college of Glasgow; Doctor James Moor professor of Greek; Mr James Clow professor of Logic; Mr George Muirhead p
- Dr William Liechman, Principal of the College of Glasgow, and Others v. Dr Robert Trail, and Others — Petition, 4 Dec 1770
- Hugh Knox v. Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow — Answers, 27 Nov 1798
- John Anderson v. William Richardson — Information, 24 Nov 1786
- John Johnstone v. William Morehead — Duplies, 7 Dec 1790
- Knox v. Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow — Petition, 18 Oct 1798
- LC Volume 06 — Petition, 25 Nov 1816
- Melvilles — Petition, 10 Feb 1797
- Mr Robert Forsyth v. The Hon. Henry Erskine of Newhall, Dean, and the remanent Members of the Faculty of Advocates — answers, 15 Dec 1790
- Patrick Sellar and James Thomson v. Patrick Duff and Robert Bain — Productions, 20 Oct 1808 [3]
- Robert Anderson and others v. Hugh Knox — Answers, 20 Jun 1797 [3]
- William Forbes Mitchell v. The Creditors of the deceased Duncan Forbes Mitchell — Information, 4 Apr 1805
