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!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Earl Morton v Creditors of Cuningham of Boquhan. [1738] Mor 14175 (14 November 1738) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1738/Mor3214175-015.html Cite as: [1738] Mor 14175 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1738] Mor 14175
Subject_1 SALE.
Subject_2 DIVISION I. Sale of Heritage.
Subject_3 SECT. IV. Sufficient progress. - Sufficient title.
Date: Earl Morton
v.
Creditors of Cuningham of Boquhan
14 November 1738
Case No.No 15.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A purchaser at a public roup sought a defalcation, upon account of the teinds purchased by him along with the stock, to which he alleged the bankrupt had no good right. It was answered, That he purchasing with his eyes open, knowing the nature of the rights to the subject, and having also the creditors bound in absolute warrandice for the sums they receive, there ought to be no defalcation. The Lords found the pursuer was not entitled to a deduction of the price, but that, if he would, he might give up the bargain. It was taken notice of, that the case was not of a total want of right. Here was a right ex facie good, the purchaser only starting objections, which were never sustained to infer a defalcation of the price.
*** Kilkerran reports this case: The estate of Boquhan having been brought to a sale before the Lords by Mrs Helen Cuningbam, as apparent heir, and the Earl of Morton having become purchaser of a part of the lands, with the teinds thereof, the Earl did thereafter insist for a defalcation of the price, on account of an objection discovered to the sellers right to the teinds; or that he might be allowed to retain the price corresponding to the teinds, for his security in case of an eviction, paving the annualrent thereof in the mean time.
But the Lords “refused to allow him either;” the right being ex facie good, and he having the creditors' warrandice, to the extent of the debts whereof they received payment; but in respect of the discovery made of a possibility of eviction, found that the earl might give up the bargain if he pleased.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting