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 >> Laird of Lees v Lindsay. [1628] Mor 3653 (18 March 1628) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1628/Mor0903653-050.html Cite as: [1628] Mor 3653 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1628] Mor 3653
Subject_1 ESCHEAT.
Subject_2 SECT. VII. Competition Single Esheat with Executor-creditor.
Date: Laird of Lees
v.
Lindsay
18 March 1628
Case No.No 50.
A creditor confirmed himself executor dative to his deceased debtor, and obtained decree against the defunct's debtors, and payment from them. The donatar of the defunct's escheat pursued a special declarator, and his gift being posterior to the executor's decree and recovery of payment, the Lords ordained the goods to be divided pro rata.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
William Blair dies at the horn, at the young Laird of Lees' instance, who had paid 500 merks as cautioner for him, and for recovery of his just debt, takes the gift of the defunct's escheat; but, before he obtained the gift, Thomas Lindsay merchant, to whom the said umquhile William Blair was addebted, confirms himself executor dative to the defunct for payment of the debts, and obtains both sentence and payment before young Lees obtained the gift of escheat; but when young Lees pursues a special declarator, compears the said Thomas Lindsay for his interest, and alleges no declarator for the goods which
he had recovered as executor, and had got payment thereof before the gift, and seeing he was a just creditor, and ought to be preferred in respect of his diligence.—To which it was replied, That the defender deceasing rebel, could have no executor; and seeing, immediately after his rebellion, jus fuit acquisitum domino regi; and the pursuer was not only donatar, but creditor also, he ought to be preferred.——The Lords ordained the goods to be divided pro rata, in respect the defender had got payment, and it was hard to take all back from him.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting