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 £5, 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 >>
Aitken v L. Grinislaw. [1623] Mor 16397 (16 January 1623)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1623/Mor3716397-004.html Cite as:
[1623] Mor 16397
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a removing pursued by Mr. Hary Aitken contra L. Grinislaw, the Lords found, That no subject under the King might, in his charter of divers lands lying discontiguous, disponed to his vassal, unite the lands, and appoint a sasine to be taken at one place for all the lands disponed by him; and therefore would not sustain the sasine taken, conform to that charter, at the place appointed by the charter for the taking of that sasine, seeing they found, that sasine should be taken at the ground of ilk tenement; and consequently found, that the sasine taken, at the place appointed by the charter, for the mill, was not sufficient for the mill, which, being discontiguous, required that sasine should have been specially given thereof, by deliverance of the clap and happer; and therefore found, that the sasine, by virtue of that union made by a subject, was not sufficient, except the same were confirmed by the King, who only might unite lands, and that no subject could do it.
Alt. Mowat.Clerk, Hay.
Durie, p. 42.*** This case is reported by Haddington:
Mr. Hary Aitken, Commissary of Orkney, pursued a tenant to remove from a mill. Compeared James Stewart of Grinislaw—Alleged, That the tenant could not remove, because he was his tenant, who was heritably infeft, and in possession of the mill, many years before the warning. It was replied, That his sasine was not of the mill, because it was not taken at the mill, and so could not comprehend the mill. He duplied, That he was infeft by the Earl of Orkney with an union, and having taken sasine at the place appointed by the charter it was, sufficient, and comprehended all the lands and mill. It was answered, That none might make an union but the King; if their own infeftment granted by the King contained not union. Which last answer the Lords found relevant, unless the defender would allege that his author's infeftment contained union, or that his own was confirmed by the King.
