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 >>
George Skene and Charles Hunter v David Ogilvie. [1768] Mor 8792 (19 January 1768)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1768/Mor218792-169.html
Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION IV.
Decisions common to qualifications upon the old extent and valuation.
Subject_3 SECT. V.
Freeholders must be infeft on proper Titles, and their infeftments recorded, year and day before Enrolment.
George Skene and Charles Hunter v. David Ogilvie
Date: 19 January 1768 Case No. No 169.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the course of the contest between the Earls of Strathmore and Panmuir, for the county of Forfar, previous to the general election 1768, the Earl of Strathmore complained of fourteen different enrolments, in virtue of dispositions granted by the Earl of Panmuir.
It was pleaded against one of them, that of David Ogilvie, That the tenements of which his qualification was composed, lay discontiguous, and that infeftment had not been taken upon each tenement respectively, but upon one pair, of the whole.
Answered, There is a clause of union in the charter, with a disposition, declaring, that the infeftment taken super aliqua parte fundi diet, terrarum sufficiens erit pro integris terris, baroniis supra scriptis, vel quavis earundem parte, non obstante quod discontinue jacent.
Replied, That the concern being dissolved by the different dispositions, the effect of the disposition was at an end.
The Court of Session sustained the objection, but the House of Lords, 4th March 1668, reversed the judgment.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 424.
*** The same judgment had been given by the Court of Session in thirteen other cases; which was likewise reversed in the House of Lords.
