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 Haldane v Thomas Traill. [1781] Mor 8806 (10 February 1781)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1781/Mor2108806-181.html
Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION IV.
Decisions common to qualifications upon the old extent and valuation.
Subject_3 SECT. VI.
Apparent Heirs.
George Haldane v. Thomas Traill
Date: 10 February 1781 Case No. No 181.
The claim of an apparent heir was set aside, though he produced titles, and his grandfather and father had been enrolled on the same lands, because there appeared a defect in the proof of bis having the legal valuation.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
At a meeting of the freeholders in the county of Orkney, in 1780, Mr Trail demanded an enrolment, in the character of apparent heir.
In support of this claim, he produced two re tours of the ancestor, and the instruments of sasine following hereon, both dated in 1723, and duly recorded.
To this claim Mr Haldane
Objected: To connect an instrument of sasine with the retour upon which it proceeds, it is necessary to produce the precept issued from the Chancery, by which the Sheriff is warranted to infeft the person served, in the lands contained in the retour. Without this, the feudal title is incomplete, and could not be the foundation of a freehold claim in the person of the ancestor. Of necessary consequence, Mr Traill's neglecting to exhibit the precepts must, in terms of the statute 16th Geo. II. prove fatal to his enrolment.
Answered; Mr Traill and his predecessors have been in possession of these lands for more than 40 years, upon heritable titles. They are, therefore, by the statute 1594, c. 218. freed from the necessity of producing the precepts of sasine upon which their infeftments have proceeded.
“The Lords repelled the objection.”
N. B.—This gentleman's claim was rejected by the Court upon another ground, which was, his not having properly ascertained the valuation of his lands.
Objector, Ilay Campbell, et alii.Alt. Rolland, et alii.Clerk, Tait.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 425. Fac. Col. No 30. p. 55.
