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 >> Mr Alexander Liske v Patone. [1650] 1 Brn 452 (3 January 1650) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1650/Brn010452-1216.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by ROBERT MACGILL, LORD FOORD.
Date: Mr Alexander Liske
v.
Patone
3 January 1650 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the suspension of double poinding, Mr Alexander Liske and Patone, the said Liske alleged an infeftment in the year 1603, given by his father, reserving his own liferent; and Patone, being a creditor, alleged an infeftment given by the father in the year 1626, together with a ticket, dispensing with the said infeftment given by the superior, that the same should infer no recognition; but without his confirmation. (Where it is to be inquired, if the same infeftment was given to be holden of the superior, which would be public, if confirmed; but if it be base, it remains base, notwithstanding the superior's confirmation.) Then Liske alleges, That his father's possession being his while he lived, he, after his decease, obtains decreet of removing, which is civil possession: likeas, thereafter, he obtains also natural possession, by setting a tack to the tenant. Again, Patone alleged possession, by payment of the annualrent, and that Liske, as factor for his father, did pay him the same; and farther, that, in the year 1646, there being a double poinding raised by the tenants, Patone was ordained to be answered and obeyed. Whereunto Liske answered, That he did not compear in that decreet to produce his right: the which he produces now, and oppones the same together with his possession; likeas the said Patone has infeftment of other lands, which are able to pay him his annualrent.
Page 131.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
