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!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> James Donaldson v Robert Donaldson. [1624] 1 Brn 131 (24 February 1624) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1624/Brn010131-0273.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION reported by SIR ROBERT SPOTISWOODE OF PENTLAND.
Subject_2 Such of the following Decision as are of a Date prior to about the year 1620, must have been taken by Spotiswoode from some of the more early Reporters. The Cases which immediately follow have no Date affixed to them by Spotiswoode.
Date: James Donaldson
v.
Robert Donaldson
24 February 1624 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
James Donaldson having an action of reduction of an assignation to a bond of
4000 merks, made to his brother Robert Donaldson, by their umquhile father Mr James, as being made in lecto ægritudinis, the bond being heritable;—the Lords first assoilyied the defender from the byrun annual-rents, ever till the intenting of the action. Next it was alleged by the defender, that the bond was made moveable by a charge the time of the cedent's health, and so might be assigned. Answered, Not relevant; because no execution had followed that charge; and furthermore, that the assignation bore not only to byrun annualrents owing, but also for time to come; whereby he should be reputed to have past from the first charge. The Lords sustained the assignation, in respect or the charge; because, the bond being once made moveable by a charge, made the assignation following thereupon good and valid; which being once so, and nothing having followed which might frustrate it, (for the assignee might lawfully continue the payment, the right being established in his person,) except they would say, that, after the same charge, the cedent himself had received annualrent for the term following,—these words (to come) could not prejudge the assignee. Page 18.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting