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 >> Mr. Alexander Ferguson v Robert Ferguson. [1685] Mor 16608 (13 March 1685)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1685/Mor3816608-066.html
Cite as: [1685] Mor 16608

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


[1685] Mor 16608      

Subject_1 WARRANDICE.

Mr Alexander Ferguson
v.
Robert Ferguson

Date: 13 March 1685
Case No. No. 66.

Where eviction is imminent.


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

The case of Mr. Alexander Ferguson of Isle against Robert Ferguson of Hallhill, his uncle, was debated and advised: Hallhill by his bond is obliged to pay Isle the annual-rent of 2,000 merks, so long as he shall bruik the peaceable possession of these lands of Halhill; and he being pursued therefore, alleged, The condition of the bond had failed, for John Bannatine having a prior inhibition, raised a reduction, and obtained a decreet. Answered, This decreet was no sufficient eviction nor distress, because it was only a decreet of certification for not producing his writs, which he should not have suffered to pass; 2do, He had gotten a ratification from the reducer, which must accresce. Replied, A certification was all one in this case, because, though he had produced his writs, he would certainly have succumbed; 2do, Though the ratification bore gratis, yet he offered to prove it stood him 700 merks. The Lords, after a hearing in presence, found that decreet of certification was no sufficient distress, but that he should have defended, seeing there might be nullities in the execution of the inhibition; and there was probable ground to think the inhibition was paid, by his transacting with others, whose rights he had reduced.

Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 352.

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/1685/Mor3816608-066.html