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 >> The Laird of Wardes v Balcomie. [1629] 1 Brn 293 (2 July 1629) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1629/Brn010293-0757.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR GEORGE AUCHINLECK OF BALMANNO.
The Laird of Wardes
v.
Balcomie
1629 .July 2 and14 .Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a summons of excambion, it is not necessary to summon any other parties but the first maker of excambion and the present possessor of the lands.—2 d July 1629.
In the said action, it was alleged, That no declarator should be given to restore the pursuer to the lands of Balcomie, because the Laird of ——— and his predecessors were infeft in the said lands by the king simply, without any mention or respect to any former excambion made betwixt the king and Wardes: and although the charter granted by the king to Wardes, of the lands of Carioch, made mention that they were given to Wardes in excambion with the lands of Balcomie; yet that narration contained in the king's charter could not infer nor compel Balcomie to quit his lands of Balcomie to the Laird of Wardes, wherein Balcomie was purely and simply infeft, except Wardes should produce and verify his predecessors were infeft in the said lands of Balcomie before the excambion. To the which it was replied, That Wardes had no necessity to produce any former [right,] preceding the charter of excambion; but the king's charter, bearing excambion, and obliging the king and his successors, in case of eviction of the lands of Carioch from Wardes, that he should have regress to the lands of Balcomie, was sufficient right to instruct his pursuit; neither could he be obliged, after so long a time, to produce this former right. Which reply the Lords found relevant, and repelled the exception.
Page 69.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
