BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Paton v Stuart. [1623] Mor 15040 (5 December 1623)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1623/Mor3415040-047.html Cite as:
[1623] Mor 15040
Subject_1 SUPERIOR AND VASSAL. Subject_2 SECT. XI.
Composition due by Singular Successors.
Paton v. Stuart
Date: 5 December 1623 Case No. No. 47.
Whether the payment of annual-rent by the superior to the holder of a charter, is equivalent to a confirmation of his rights
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of double-poinding betwixt Paton and Stuart, the Lords found a charter produced for the one party, whereby he desired to be answered and obeyed, to be null, albeit it was clad with present possession, and divers other years preceding the year controverted, because the same was granted to be holden of the superior, and not confirmed; which nullity was admitted in that same judgement summarily, without necessity of reduction; and albeit the charter and sasine proceeded upon a contract, wherein the disponer was obliged to give the buyer infeftment, either to be holden of himself, or of the superior, in respect the charter and sasine used in process were given to be holden of the superior.
December 5. —In the action mentioned in the aforesaid page, Paton contra Stuart, the party producer of the charter, and sasine being given to be holden of the superior, being secluded by the Lords' interlocutor, from his right, as being null, for want of confirmation; he replied, that the same was confirmed by the superior, likeas the superior had allowed of his right, by making payment to him of that annual-rent, whereof he had acquired the charter and sasine, which was also sufficient as a confirmation; This was also repelled, because the other party in that cause had comprised for a lawful cause, from the giver of this charter, and disponer of the annual-rent, the giver's right, which being comprised, albeit after the charter and sasine, yet being before the confirmation, was a just impediment, which made the confirmation unprofitable, and was a mid intervening deed, which stayed the same, to be drawn back to the time of the charter; likeas any possession acquired from the superior, before the comprising, would never be of the force of a confirmation, to make the deed, which was null, to become valid against a third party, who had comprised; which the Lords found relevant.
