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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Grant v L. Balvanie. [1629] Mor 199 (14 February 1629)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1629/Mor0100199-017.html Cite as:
[1629] Mor 199
Subject_1 ADJUDICATION and APPRISING. Subject_2 ADJUDICATIONS and APPRISING pass periculo petentis; and all Defences are reserved contra executionem, unless instantly verified.
Grant v. L Balvanie.
Date: 14 February 1629 Case No. No 17.
The same found.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One having comprised lands as pertaining to his debtor, and having thereupon charged Balvanie as superior of the lands, to enter him therein as vassal, in place of his debtor from whom he had comprised; and the superior suspending, alleging that that debtor was never his vassal, and that he could not be compelled to enter the compriser, until he produced and shewed where the debtor was infeft in the same lands as his vassal; and the compriser answering, that he could not allege that he was not his vassal, because he had accepted of him a resignation of the same lands made by him in his hands ad perpetuam remanentiam; and also that he had received from him divers years before, payment of the feu-duties owing by him, and contained in the infeftments of the said lands, and that his said debtor had also a charter of the same lands, granted to him by another, who was vassal admitted and entered by Balvanie, which were great presumptions that he was infeft, and by the which he had acknowledged the said compriser's debtor to be his vassal. This answer was not sustained to enforce the superior to receive the compriser in place of his debtor in these lands, except he shewed where the debtor was seased therein: For the superior might receive a resignation in his own hands, from one who was never infeft, and when he liked he might enter or not enter him who resigned, as he thought expedient for his security; but he not being infeft, and the comprising deduced against him as having right to the lands, he ought to show the same to the superior, and also he might receive payment of his feu-duty from any who would pay the same; from whence, it could not be necessarily inferred, that the payer was his vassal.
