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 >>
Douglas v Laird of Swinton. [1630] Mor 6631 (19 February 1630)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1630/Mor1606631-036.html Cite as:
[1630] Mor 6631
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One Douglas, heir to William Douglas, who was infeft in Coldingham, by John Stewart, and Alexander Cranston of Moreston also infeft, to be holden of the said John, pursuing improbation against the Laird of Swinton, for writs of the lands pertaining to Coldingham, holden of the King, and granted by the King, author to John Stewart; this action was sustained at the instance of the pursuer, upon his base infeftment, for production of the public infeftment, and all rights of these lands, made to the defender, because they were libelled to be false.
Act. Craig & Stewart.Alt. Nicolson & Nisbet.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 442. Durie, p. 493.*** Auchinleck reports the same case :
Anna Douglas, general heir served and retoured to umquhile William Douglas of Blackerston, who was donatar to the escheat and liferent of John Stewart of Coldingham, whereupon he had obtained a general declarator, and which umquhile William was infeft in the lordship of Coldingham, pursues the Laird of Swinton for improbation of old writs and evidents, made by her father, or any others, his predecessors, priors of Coldingham. To which (it was alleged,) that she, as heir, could not be pursued, by virtue of the gift of John Stewart's escheat and liferent, except the declarator obtained by her umquhile father was first transferred; which allegeance the Lords repelled, and found no necessity of transferring the general declarator. To which second part of the pursuit it was alleged, That she being only served general heir, and not being seased, could not pursue writs made by the Priors, but for improbation of these made by her father, to whom she was, and could succeed as heir, jure sanguinis, which they likewise repelled.
