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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> William Nairne v Sir Thomas Nairne. [1757] Mor 15605 (10 March 1757)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1757/Mor3515605-135.html
Cite as: [1757] Mor 15605

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1757] Mor 15605      

Subject_1 TAILZIE.
Subject_2 SECT. VII.

Act 1685. Cap. 22.

William Nairne
v.
Sir Thomas Nairne

Date: 10 March 1757
Case No. No. 135.

Whether a remote substitute can apply summarily for the registration of an entail?


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Upon the 29th February, 1704, an entail was executed of the lands of Dunsinnan by Sir William Nairne.

Upon the 17th October, 1752, Sir William executed a second entail of the same estate, varying in some particulars from the former. Neither of these entails was recorded in Sir William’s life.

Sir Thomas succeeded to his father, and served himself heir in general.

William Nairne, brother of Sir Thomas, a remote substitute, presented a petition to the Court, craving, That the entail 1704 should be recorded, for his own behoof, and for the behoof of Sir Thomas’ children, to whom he was named curator by Sir William; and for that purpose produced one of the original copies of the entail, which had come into his possession in a regular manner.

Sir Thomas Nairne objected to this, and argued, That a remote substitute of an entail could not apply in a summary manner, by petition, for recording an entail: That such application was only allowed to the maker, or to the heir in possession: That a substitute had no other remedy, but to bring an action against the heir in possession, to compel him to apply for recording the entail; and if such an action were brought, the heir in possession would be allowed to state his defences against the recording: That this form of proceeding had been found necessary above twenty years ago, in the case of Drummond of Carron, and in the case of the tailzie of Callender: That it was even a doubt, in point of law, whether an heir in possession could be at all compelled to record an entail which had not been completed by registration during the life of the maker; and in this case it appeared that Sir William had made a second entail in the year 1752.

“The Lords appointed the entail to be recorded.” See No. 133. p. 15602.

Act. Nairne. Alt. Mackintosh, Ferguson.
Fac. Coll. No. 24. p. 41.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1757/Mor3515605-135.html