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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> The Earl of Buccleugh v David Young. [1629] Mor 2204 (25 March 1629)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1629/Mor0602204-055.html
Cite as: [1629] Mor 2204

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1629] Mor 2204      

Subject_1 CITATION.
Subject_2 SECT. XIV.

Citation in Declarator of Redemption.

The Earl of Buccleugh
v.
David Young

Date: 25 March 1629
Case No. No 55.

A compriser from a wadsetter, charged the reverser to receive him as vassal. The charge was suspended, and litiscontestation made in the process; yet, in a declarator of redemption, found not necessary to call the compriser.


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

The Earl of Buccleugh pursued a declarator of redemption against David Young, for redeeming of the five merk land of Limpitlaw. Compeared Walter Ker, who had comprised the same lands from David Young, before the order of redemption, and alleged, That all parties having interest were not warned, viz. himself, who had comprised the lands, and charged the Earl himself to receive him; which charge the Earl suspended, and litiscontestation was past in the suspension, and that long before the order of redemption; so that the Earl could not misken him, but he should have warned him to the redemption.—Replied, That there was no necessity of warning any but David Young, who was heir to the receiver of the wadset and granter of the reversion. The Lords repelled the allegeance.

After that the order was sustained, the compriser sought to have the consigned money delivered to him.—Answered far the Earl, That he should have retention of the money, because long before the comprising, David Young, in whose place the compriser was only come, was debtor to the Earl in greater sums than the money consigned.—Replied, It could not compense against the compriser of the heritable right of wadset, before the sum consigned became moveable by the order, seeing an heritable right and moveable sum could not compense.—— The Lords ordained the compriser to have up the money consigned. See Compensation.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 136. Spottiswood, p. 264.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1629/Mor0602204-055.html