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 ÂŁ1, 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 >>
Cathcart v Holland. [1681] Mor 8471 (16 June 1681)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1681/Mor2008471-064.html Cite as:
[1681] Mor 8471
Where Writ is not necessary. - Where a Bargain is agreed to be perfected in writing. - Locus pćnitentić after Writ is interposed. - Where the Right to be granted is disputable. - Verbal Bargain for a Lease
Cathcart v. Holland
Date: 16 June 1681 Case No. No 64.
Locus pćnitentić, before the vendition of a ship was put into writing, not sustained, because a ship is a moveable which requires no writing.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Elias Cathcart pursues Ralph Holland for payment of the price of the eighth part a ship sold to him. The defender alleged absolvitor, because there was locus pænitentiæ, seeing the bargain was never perfected in writ; 2do, The defender was never put in possession of the ship.—It was answered, That a ship being moveable, requires no writ to the sale thereof, for jewels, though much more valued, pass without writ; and as to the possession, though it were not yet delivered, it cannot dissolve the sale; but there needs no delivery, seeing the defender was already a part owner, and so was in possession; and the other partner's share accresced to him by the bargain, without necessity of any other delivery.
The Lords found the vendition of the ship required no writ, and that there is no locus pænitentiæ, unless it had been agreed by the parties that there should be a written vendition; and found, that there was no necessity of tradition, the buyer being already in possession as a part owner.
