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 >> Moubray v Spence. [1672] 1 Brn 656 (26 June 1672) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1672/Brn010656-1608.html Cite as: [1672] 1 Brn 656 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1672] 1 Brn 656
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR PETER WEDDERBURN, LORD GOSFORD.
Date: Moubray
v.
Spence
26 June 1672 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a reduction of a disposition of lands, at the instance of Moubray against Spence, to whom one —— Stewart disponed some lands in Orkney, upon the Act of Parliament anent Dyvors, as being made to Spence as a confident person, in so far as he was intrusted and employed as agent here at Edinburgh for Stewart in all his business; and therefore, besides the disposition bearing for an onerous cause and sums of money received;—it was alleged, That he ought to condescend and instruct the onerous cause for which the right was made.
It was answered for the defender, That he was not such a person as did fall within the meaning of the Act of Parliament; which was only such confidents who, ratione sanguinis, or by reason of the nearest relation of affinity, such as utricus et gener, or a good-brother, had interest in the disponer; whereas the defender had no relation or contingency of blood, and was only called as an agent and ratione officii.
The Lords found the answer relevant to assoilyie from the reduction, unless the pursuer would prove, scripto vel juramento, that, notwithstanding the disposition did bear for an onerous cause, yet truly there was none. For, as to former decisions, it was never decided, but in regard that rights were made to persons related by consanguinity or affinity, as said is.
Page 261.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
