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 >> Hunter v Hardie. [1630] Mor 13793 (15 January 1630) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1630/Mor3213793-022.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 REMOVING.
Subject_2 SECT. I. Who entitled to pursue a Removing.
Date: Hunter
v.
Hardie
15 January 1630
Case No.No 22.
Effect of a base infeftment.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a removing pursued by Hunter against certain persons, compeared one Hardie, and alleged, The defender could not be removed, because they were his tenants, he being infeft in the lands libelled; for the lands belonging to the Laird of Spottiswood, he disponed the same to Hardie in 1564, by a base infeftment holding of himself, by virtue of which disposition Hardie came in possession of a part of the lands disponed. Long after, Spottiswood dispones the same lands to Hunter's author, who was publicly infeft, holding of the King, and he now sought the tenants, who occupied that part whereof Hardie never came in possession, to be removed; and replied, That Hardie could not defend them, they never being his tenants; but, on the contrary, he offered to prove, that, notwithstanding of his base infeftment, they remained still Spottiswood's tenants, by payment to him of their duties, ever till the disposition made to the pursuer's author. Duplied, The defender being infeft in the whole, long before the pursuer, and in possession of a good part, now, when the pursuer, by virtue of his posterior infeftment, is seeking possession of the rest, he he may very well impede him. The Lords sustained the exception, in respect of the prior infeftment, (although base,) clothed with possession of a part, it being unum tenementum.
*** Durie's report of this case is No 59. p. 1338. Base Infeftment.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting