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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Blair of Balgray v William Gray. [1610] Mor 6301 (28 June 1610)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1610/Mor1506301-002.html
Cite as: [1610] Mor 6301

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1610] Mor 6301      

Subject_1 IMPLIED ASSIGNATION.
Subject_2 SECT. I.

The principal conveyed, accessories follow. Conveyance of a subject to which the disponer has no right.

Blair of Balgray
v.
William Gray

Date: 28 June 1610
Case No. No 2.

Assignation to a contract, on which inhibition followed, found to give the assignee title to reduce ex capite inhibitionis, tho' the inhibition was not expressly assigned. See No 71.


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Blair of Balgray contracting with Parbroth anent the alienation to Balgray of a room of Parbroth's; thereafter Parbroth analzies the same room to William Gray of Bandiran. Balgray charged Parbroth upon his contract. Parbroth suspends, and finds William Gray caution in the suspension. Balgray obtains protestation upon the suspension, and raises inhibition upon the act of caution. Thereafter William Gray analzies that land to Gray of Balegarno; which alienation Blair, brother to Balgray, assignee constituted by Balgray to the contract past between Balgray and Parbroth, seeks to reduce upon the inhibition served

* Examine General List of Names.

by Balgray against William Gray.—It was alleged, That his assignation to Parbroth's contract could give him no interest to reduce William Gray's alienation to Balegarno, he not being made assignee to the inhibition.—It was answered, That the assignation made to the contract betwixt Balgray and Parbroth, with all action competent to Balgray thereupon was sufficient, albeit it expressed not the inhibition; which the Lords found sufficient.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 422. Haddington, MS. No 1932.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1610/Mor1506301-002.html