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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Liviston v Burn and Liviston. [1697] Mor 10287 (18 December 1697)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1697/Mor2410287-100.html Cite as:
[1697] Mor 10287
Effect of Fraud - of Force and Fear - of Simulation of a Gift of Escheat - of Spuilzie - of Pactum contra Fidem - of Minority - of Reduction ex capite lecti - of Donatio inter Virum et Uxorem - of Payment to an Adjudger.
Liviston v. Burn and Liviston
Date: 18 December 1697 Case No. No 100.
The Lords reduced a disposition done in lecto, as being labes realis, though the defender was a singular successor, ignorant of the circumstance.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the reduction of a disposition pursued by Michael Liviston of Bantaskin against Burn and Liviston, ex capite lecti; it was alleged, That the defender was not the immediate-receiver of the disposition, but a singular successor for onerous causes, having purchased it from him to whom the same was made, and so was not bound to enquire whether it was in lecto or not; and so, though the deed might be quarrellable and reducible quoad the receiver, yet not against him, a third party, who knew nothing of its defects: And urged the parallel of the act of Parliament 1621, that singular successors obtaining rights from bankrupts for onerous causes, and not being participes fraudis, were only liable in the price. Answered, This was never contraverted but a right made on deathbed might be reduced, though it passed through twenty hands, because it was labes realis, like extortion per vim et metum; but the exception on the act of Parl. 1621 was personal. And the Lords found it so in this case, and reduced the disposition made in lecto, and consequently, the defender's right flowing therefrom by progress, though he was a singular successor, and knew nothing of its being done in lecto.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 70. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 803.
