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 >> Mr William Donaldson of Murrach v James Donaldson. [1749] 2 Elchies 89 (10 February 1749) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1749/Elchies020089-002.html Cite as: [1749] 2 Elchies 89 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1749] 2 Elchies 89
Subject_1 BLANK WRIT.
Date: Mr William Donaldson of Murrach
v.
James Donaldson
10 February 1749
Case No.No. 2.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A disposition of lands, about 500 merks rent, by a father to his second son in 1716 was found null, for that it appeared to have been written blank in the disponee's name, which was filled up by a different hand, and in two places the name still remained blank; which we found presumed that it was subscribed blank, unless the defender would prove that it was filled up before subscribing, or before the same witnesses that witnessed the deed; and that in a process at the instance of the eldest son against the infant heir of the second son; notwithstanding that to occular inspection the disponee's name was filled up with the disponer's own hand; that the disponee, when in the Indies, was infeft upon it in December 1721 by the father; that the father homologated it by several deeds, particularly a bond of provision in
January 1721 reciting it, and pursuant to a faculty reserved in it, burdening the disponee in a certain event with 12,000 merks to a third son; and though the second son possessed on it by his factor from the 1723 that his father died till his own death in the 1738; and we also repelled the defence, that minor non tenetur placitare, because the disposition being null, this was not hereditas paterna. (See Lord Kilkerran's report of this case, Dict. No. 21. p. 9080, and Append. II. h. t.) See Earl of Caithness against Sinclair, June 13, 1746, and Ruddiman against Trades Maiden Hospital, voce Prescription.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting