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!



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

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Stewart v Dalrymple. [1761] Mor 8820 (28 July 1761)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1761/Mor2108820-192.html
Cite as: [1761] Mor 8820

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


[1761] Mor 8820      

Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT.
Subject_2 DIVISION IV.

Decisions common to qualifications upon the old extent and valuation.
Subject_3 SECT. VIII.

Splitting the Superiority.

Stewart
v.
Dalrymple

Date: 28 July 1761
Case No. No 192.

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

Alexander Earl of Galloway, in the view of creating certain freehold qualifications, granted a feu-charter of certain lands to Lord Garlies, his son, and afterwards obtained a charter from the Crown upon his own resignation, and conveyed parcels of the superiority to Mr Walter Stewart and others, his friends. The freeholders, on different grounds, refused to enrol; and complaints being presented, it was pleaded for them, inter alia, That the dispositions to the claimants were null, as granted without the consent of Lord Garlies the vassal, which was necessary before the superiority could be divided. Answered, That as the vassal may sell part of the lands without the consent of the superior, so, in like manner, may the superior sell a part of his superiority without consulting the vassal. But here there was no division of the superiority of any one fee, but a distribution of the superiorities of several distinct fees, distinguished into several parcels, each parcel consisting of so many pounds and merk lands; and that at any rate the objection was jus tertii to the freeholders, as the vassal did not object. The Lords repelled the objection.

Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 427.

*** This case is No. 18. p. 8579.

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/1761/Mor2108820-192.html