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 >> Lilias Bald and Husband v Jean Buchanan. [1786] Hailes 1003 (16 November 1786) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1786/Hailes021003-0674.html Cite as: [1786] Hailes 1003 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1786] Hailes 1003
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 CONSOLIDATION - SUPERIOR AND VASSAL.
Subject_3 Of property and superiority not effected ipso jure, or without resignation ad remanentiam: Whether a conveyance of property, along with superiority, granted by the superior who had only the dominium, directum, and accepted by the vassal, be valid as to all other parties?
Date: Lilias Bald and Husband
v.
Jean Buchanan
16 November 1786 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Faculty Collection, IX. 408; Dictionary, 15,084.]
President. A resignation ad remanentiam is necessary, in order to consolidate property with superiority. This is agreeable to feudal principles, and the opinion of the elder lawyers. If any errors have been committed in practice, these must be avoided hereafter.
Braxfield proposed that the ratio decidendi should be mentioned in the interlocutor.
Monboddo. The judgment of Craig is express on this point.
Eskgrove. Craig speaks only of a resignation in favorem, and not of resignation ad remanentiam.
On the 16th November 1786, “The Lords found that the superiority of Wester Common, vested in the person of William Buchanan, under the infeftment 1707, and that the property vested in his person under the infeftment 1731, remained separate and distinct estates; and therefore, that the property could not be carried by the special service and infeftment, which was afterwards expede in the person of Archibald the second, in respect that no resignation ad remanentiam, consolidating the property with the superiority, had been expede in the person of the said William; therefore repelled the plea of consolidation, and also of prescription and confirmation, and other defences, and sustained the reasons of reduction, so far as respects the lands contained in the contract of marriage 1730.”
Act. Matt. Ross. Alt. Ilay Campbell. Reporter, Justice-Clerk. Diss. Eskgrove. Non liquet, Rockville.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
