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!
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
Lord Forbes v. -
1673.
July.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
My Lord Forbes pursues a reduction, ex capite inhibitionis, of an eke to a wadset; Alleged, he cannot quarrel the said eke, because the pursuer, as superior, has granted a confirmation of the said wadset, since the eke; et quod semel approbâsti non licet amplius reprobare.
Answered,—These are penitus disparata, to confirm a wadset, and crave to reduce an eke. 2do, It is an absolute inconsequence to argue from any person's deed, as superior, to their other actings; for as superior they refuse none, yea may be forced to receive vassals: and therefore the common acts which they do under that reduplication as such, can never prejudge them of any rights that are competent to them as creditors or otherwise. And thus, lately, in the case betwixt my Lord Torphichen and Ja. Maison, younger, the Lords found Torphichen, as a creditor, had interest to reduce Maison's right and infeftment, though granted by himself as superior. And really the same is most just and consonant to law, by which actus agentium non operantur ultra eorum intentionem. And where a superior granted charter of an irredeemable right, without mentioning the right of reversion he then had, it was found not to prejudge his right of reversion; as Dury marks, 20th March, 1635, Bishop of Glasgow against Mauld.
I heard not if this was decided; but I think it ought not to hinder my Lord Forbes from quarrelling the eke, that he had confirmed the wadset.
