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 >> George Hay v James Hay [1775] Hailes 607 (17 January 1775) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1775/Hailes020607-0351.html Cite as: [1775] Hailes 607 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1775] Hailes 607
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 PASSIVE TITLE.
Subject_3 Found that a person passing by his father, who was three years in possession, as apparent heir, and also passing by his grandfather; - the person last infeft base, and making up titles to a remoter predecessor, who was, the last publicly infeft in the lands, is liable for the debts contracted by his father upon the statute 1695.
Date: George Hay
v.
James Hay
17 January 1775 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Folio Dict., VII. 4; Dictionary, 9755.]
Coalston. The words of the statute are remoter predecessor: the defender
therefore falls under the words of the statute. He has taken something by the service, namely the superiority which was in Agnes Binnie. I would not, at any rate, allow him to take advantage of literal criticisms, in order to disappoint the creditors of his father. Kaimes. If he takes any thing by the service, he will be liable in so far. With regard to property, the infeftment is nothing.
Gardenston. The words of the statute are quite general, though Lord Bankton has limited them in his commentary, erroneously, as I think.
President. How can the defender object to his own title? He does not seek to reduce it. Were he insisting in a removing against tenants, the title would be good: he cannot therefore be allowed to plead that the title is null as to creditors.
On the 17th January 1775, The Lords found the defender liable; adhering to Lord Kennet's interlocutor.
Act ——. Alt. A. Wight.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
