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 >>
His Majesty's Advocate v The Creditors of Cromarty. [1683] Mor 7043 (00 March 1683)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1683/Mor1707043-112.html Cite as:
[1683] Mor 7043
If Inhibition strikes against Renunciations, Recognitions, or Conditional Alienations.
His Majesty's Advocate v. The Creditors of Cromarty
1683.
March. Case No. No 112.
Found in Conformity with the above.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the declarator of recognition at the instance of his Majesty's Advocate against the Creditors of the estate of Cromarty, the Lords decided these points, First, That alienations, though without consent of the superiors, yet if they be confirmed before the major part be annalzied, cannot recognosce themselves, nor come in competition to make the recognition as to other lands. Secundo, That a confirmation after a major part is alienated, and before the gift, doth secure the rights confirmed, but must come in competition to make up the major part for the recognoscing of what is confirmed. 3tio, That a novodamus doth so secure anent a recognition, that all the alienations before the novodamus cannot come in competition to make up the ground of recognition. 4to, That notwithstanding the infeftments upon which recognition is craved, by likeness of lands of different holdings, and belonging to different heritors, must be considered as a ground of recognition quoad valorem of the whole sums whereupon infeftment was taken, without respect to the relief that might be expected out of the other lands. 5to, The Lords repelled the allegeance that the infeftments were in trust, as it was qualified, viz. That they were in the vassal's charter-chest, and that he detained the possession, except that the vassal's fraud or dole were instructed, or that the gift were to the vassal's behoof. 6to, The Lords repelled the defence founded upon the resignation made by old Cromarty in favour of his son, albeit bearing a confirmation of what relates to rights made to the vassal, and not to rights made by the vassal. 7mo, Repelled the defences founded upon the inhibition, which was prior to the deeds made use of for making up the recognitions. 8vo, Found that the infeftments that were habile modo extinguished before the concourse of the major part, cannot come in competition. 9mo, That sasines which are intrinsically null, are not to be respected as grounds of recognition.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 475. Sir P. Home, MS. v. 1. No 473.
*** This case by P. Falconer and Harcarse, is No 60. p. 6467. voce Implied Discharge and Renunciation.
