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 >>
David Dick v Ker. [1668] Mor 3629 (26 June 1668)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1668/Mor0903629-018.html Cite as:
[1668] Mor 3629
What falls under Single, what under Liferent Escheat.
David Dick v. Ker
Date: 26 June 1668 Case No. No 18.
Bonds bearing annualrent are moveable before the term of payment of annualrent, and fall under single escheat.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
David Dick, as donatar to the escheat of———Ker, insists in a special declarator for payment of a sum due to the rebel. —The defender alleged absolvitor, because it being a bond, bearing annualrent, it fell not under the single escheat.—It Was replied, That bonds bearing annualrent are still holden moveable until the first term of payment of annualrent, and are disposeable by testament, if the defunct die before that term; but here the rebellion was before the date of the bond, and so the sum fell to the fisk the day it was subscribed.—It was answered, That the 32d act, Parliament 1661, declares bonds bearing annualrent to exclude the fisk, without any exception or limitation.
The Lords having considered the act, found, That it left bonds bearing annualrent in the same case that they were formerly; and found, that before the term of payment of annualrent they were moveable.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 253. Stair, v. 1. p. 544.*** Gosford reports the same case:
David Dick, donatar to the escheat of Alexander Ker, did pursue a special declarator against James Ker, debtor to the rebel, for payment of 500 merks, conform to a bond bearing annualrent, granted to the rebel anno 1653. After his rebellion, this bond was found to belong to the donatar, notwithstanding it was alleged, That by the late act of Parliament, bonds bearing annualrent, quoad fiscum, should remain in the same condition as they were before November 1641, not to fall under escheat, because the bond being granted to the rebel, who was at the horn before the term of payment, before the year 1641, it would have fallen in escheat by the constant law and practique.
