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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Ramsay of Torbanie v M'Lellan. [1662] Mor 7131 (11 February 1662)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1662/Mor1707131-010.html Cite as:
[1662] Mor 7131
Virtual Interdiction. - Solemnities in publication. - Effect after publication. - Effect as to moveables or personal execution.
Ramsay of Torbanie v. M'Lellan
Date: 11 February 1662 Case No. No 10.
Interdition extends only to lands within the jurisdiction in which it is published and registered.
Found also, that interdictions do not affect moveables.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
David Ramsay of Torbanie having raised suspension and reduction of a decreet against him, at the instance of Thomas M'Lellan, in anno 1658, insists upon this reason, That he being pursued as heir to his father, at the instance of Thomas M'Lellan, he proponed this relevant defence, absolvitor, because the bond pursued upon was granted by his father after he was interdicted, without consent of the interdictors, and so could not affect the person interdicted heir, albeit he had succeeded in his estate. —The defender answered, That the said allegeance was justly repelled, in respect of this relevant reply, that the interdiction hath no effect as to moveables and personal execution, neither as to any other lands than such as lay in the shires or jurisdictions where the interdiction was published and registrated, conform to the act of Parliament, ita est, this interdiction was published and registrated only at Linlithgow; and therefore, if the defender hath succeeded to any lands, not lying in Linlithgowshire, or if he hath meddled with heirship moveables, or be vitious intromitter with his father's moveables, he is liable for this sum, albeit after the interdiction, ita est, he succeeded to lands in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, and moveables, &c.; and therefore the defence was justly repelled.
The Lords found the decreet just, and therefore repelled the reasons of suspension and reduction.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 479. Stair, v. 1. p. 96.
*** The Court adhered to the judgments pronounced in the above cases, that interdiction has no effect as to moveables or personal execution. —20th June 1671, Crawford against Haliburton, No 78. p. 2741. voce Competition; and 24th July 1678, Grierson against Tailzifer, No 4. p. 6298. voce Imbecility.
