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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Allan. v Thomson. [1730] Mor 1022 (9 January 1730)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1730/Mor0301022-123.html Cite as:
[1730] Mor 1022
Reduction of Alienations made by Bankrupts where the Reducer has done no Diligence.
Subject_3 SECT. XV.
Of Alienations to singular Successors.
Allan v. Thomson
Date: 9 January 1730 Case No. No 123.
Unless there be evidence of mala fides in the singular successor; his right is secure, although his immediate author's right may have been challengeable as inter conjunctos.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
William Sangster having disponed a tenement in Aberdeen, narrating an onerous cause, to Charles Sangster, who happened to be his brother, Charles disponed the same over again to his daughter and her husband, in their contract of marriage, but without making mention that the subject was derived to him from his brother William. A great number of years thereafter, action of reduction upon the act 1621 was intented of these dispositions, by a prior creditor of William Sangster's libelling, that the disposition from William to Charles being betwixt conjunct and confident persons must be presumed gratuitous; and that therefore Charles' daughter and her husband who knew of the said conjunction, though, in the eye of law onerous purchasers, can be in no better case than their author. The defence was, that it was extremely likely, the daughter and her husband knew of the relation betwixt William and Charles Sangster's, but at the same time there was no sort of evidence of their knowledge that Charles's right was derived from his brother William, without which they were in optima fide to purchase; and unless this knowledge be proved they can never be brought in as particepes fraudis. The Lords, in respect there was no evidence that the defender was in the knowledge that Charles Sangster's right flowed from William Sangster his brother; therefore they assoilzied from the reduction.
