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 >>
Heirs of Lord Yester v E. Buccleugh. [1627] Mor 16085 (2 March 1627)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1627/Mor3716085-017.html Cite as:
[1627] Mor 16085
Whether one base infeft may pursue reduction of public infeftments?
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a reduction at the instance of the heirs of the Lord Yester, against the Ear1 of Buccleugh, The Lords found, that the pursuers, as being retoured to their fathers, and infeft in the lands libelled, to be holden of the Lord Kilmawers, who held of the King, had good interest to reduce the infeftments made to the defender and his predecessors by the King's Majesty; so that one infeft by a base infeftment might reduce infeftments public; but it is to be remembered, that this public infeftment granted by the King, and desired to be reduced, proceeded upon a recognition for a fault done by the Lord Kilmawers' predecessors, who were the King's vassals, and authors of the pursuer's rights; so that the infeftment quarrelled, which flowed upon the recognition was accounted, as if the same had been given by the Lord Kilmawers' predecessors, and therefore the pursuers' interest was sustained: And it was also found, that the pursuer needed not to summon the Lord Kilmawers, nor these pursuers' own authors to this reduction. Likeas it was found, that they needed not in ingressu litis for their interest, show any more to verify that they were infeft by the Lord Kilmawers' predecessors, but their retour, bearing them to be served to be holden of him, with the sasine following thereupon; neither needed they in that place, before the reason was disputed, show that the Lord Kilmawers' predecessors were infeft by the King, and that they were his vassals, albeit the sasine produced and used by the pursuers bore, that the same was given upon the King's precept to the Sheriff, in respect of the Lord Kilmawers' refusal to seise them, which refusal in effect made rather, that the Lord Kilmawers was not superior, than that he was their superior, except they shewed where he was infeft, and wherein he was their superior; which was repelled against the interest, and sustained to be disputed after the production against the reason in causa, and needed not to be instanter shown.
