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 >> George Irving v The Duchess and Duke of Buccleuch, and Patrick Scott of Langshaw. [1671] 1 Brn 636 (8 July 1671) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1671/Brn010636-1577.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR PETER WEDDERBURN, LORD GOSFORD.
Date: George Irving
v.
The Duchess and Duke of Buccleuch, and Patrick Scott of Langshaw
8 July 1671 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a suspension of double poinding, raised at the instance of Jean Scott, relict of John Maxwell of Broomholm, against Langshaw, as donatar to her husband's escheat, and the said George Irving, as executor-creditor to her husband, and who had obtained decreet against her as intromittrix;—it was alleged for Langshaw, That he had right as donatar, because Broomholm was within the regality of Langholm, belonging the Duke and Duchess of Buccleuch, from whom he had right, and to whom Broomholm's escheat did fall, as lord of the regality.
It was alleged for the said Irving, That he ought to be preferred, being executor-creditor, and thereupon having obtained decreet; because the barony of Langholm was not erected in a regality long after Broomholm was rebel; and his escheat fell, and so could not belong to the lord of regality, who could have no right but from the date of the erection.
The Lords preferred the executor-creditor; and found, That the donatar to a single escheat, by a gift from the lord of regality, had no right but from the date of the erection: and that the escheat, before that time, did belong to the King or his donatar, who could only pretend right and enter in competition; whereas no such gift was produced.
Page 182.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
