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 >> The Laird of Carse v His Brother. [1627] 1 Brn 45 (23 March 1627)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1627/Brn010045-0090.html

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


[1627] 1 Brn 45      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR ALEXANDER GIBSON, OF DURIE.

The Laird of Carse
v.
His Brother

Date: 23 March 1627

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

In a suspension of the L. Carse against his brother, who had charged the Laird to pay a sum contained in his own obligation registrat against him, and upon the which registrat bond he had raised a charge against the Laird, to enter heir to his umquhile father, in certain lands wherein his father died infeft; and to the effect he might comprise the said lands for the said debt owing by Carse himself, and not by his father, conform to the Act of Parliament 1621; and this charge to enter heir to these lands being suspended upon this reason, because he offered to renounce to be heir to his father; and the creditor contending, that he should not renounce, seeing, by his renunciation, he would not be freed of the debt, the debt being his own debt, which he is obliged to pay, so that he could not be heard to renounce where the same would not avail him, but that he might comprise against him as lawfully charged to enter heir;—the Lords found, that he might lawfully renounce to be heir, after which the creditor might seek adjudication of the same lands; which, being the ordinary remeid of law competent after the said renunciation, it would prove as profitable as a comprising deduced against the party lawfully charged to enter heir to his father in these lands, from the which he renouncing to be heir, nothing was alleged that might hinder the party charged to renounce, as said is. But because this process seemed to be deduced by collusion betwixt the two brothers, the Lords declared that whatsoever should be here done, should noways prejudge any other.

Act. Hope. Alt. ——. Hay, Clerk.

Page 294.

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/1627/Brn010045-0090.html