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 >> Forbes v Garioch. [1628] Mor 16575 (14 June 1628) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1628/Mor3816575-021.html Cite as: [1628] Mor 16575 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1628] Mor 16575
Subject_1 WARRANDICE.
Date: Forbes
v.
Garioch
14 June 1628
Case No.No. 21.
Warrandice from fact and deed.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
James Garioch of Kinstairs dispones to Leith of Whitehaugh a part of his lands of Hauchston, lying on the other side of the water of Don; and in the disposition, the said portion of lands is called a part and pertinent of Hauchston. He dispones to him both the lands and his right to the teind sheaves of the same; conform to the which disposition, the good-man of Whitehaugh bruiks and possesses the same
piece of land, stock, and teind, by the space of twenty years or thereby. Afterwards the said James dispones to his son William Garioch the said land of Hauchston, with the teind thereof, and the pertinents; and William assigned his right made to him by his father to Mr. James Forbes, brother to the Laird of Monymusk, with warrandice also of his own proper deed. The said Mr. James pursues the first disponer for the teind of the said piece, disponed to the said Leith of Whitehaugh, as being a pertinent of Hauchston, whereof the teind was disponed by him. The defender alleged, Albeit this piece of ground was sometime a pertinent of Hauchston, yet it was dismembered therefrom, and disponed to Leith of Whitehaugh, who had bruiked the same twenty years severally from the lands to Hauchston, and ought no longer to be reputed as pertinent thereof. The Lords found that the word “pertinents” must be interpreted of such as were the time of the making of the right to Mr. James, and not such rights as were disponed long before.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting