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 >>
Earl Marshal v Wadsetters. [1683] Mor 16533 (22 March 1683)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1683/Mor3816533-028.html Cite as:
[1683] Mor 16533
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Found, That in order to restrict the rents of the wadset to the annual-rent security needs only to be offered for the annual-rent, and not for the sors, seeing the infeftment continues a security for that.
Harcarse, No. 1025. p. 292.***This case is reported by P. Falconer:
In the action of count and reckoning pursued by the Earl of Marshal against his wadsetters, for superplus duties, wherein the Earl's title was as donatar to the single and life-rent escheat of his brother, who had interned process, in the year 1665, against the wadsetters, as also as having right to the reversion by virtue of several comprisings; it was alleged for the defenders, That they could not be liable since the time of interning the late Earl's process, in respect the deceased Earl never made to the defenders offer of surety for their annual-rent, in the terms of the act of Parliament anent debtor and creditor; 2do, That albeit the pursuer did offer security in anno 1679, yet the same was pot sufficient whereupon the defenders could rely, and quit their possessions; 3tio, That they could not be liable to the pursuer to count, unless he would come in the place of the late Earl, and be liable in the requisition, because the said act of debtor and creditor bears, in case of the offer of security, that the wadsetter shall be liable to count during the not requisition or redemption, which supposes the pursuer for the superplus duty to be always liable in case of requisition. It was replied for the Earl, That the defenders ought at least to be liable since the date of the offer of security, in respect there was no objection against the caution then offered, and the pursuer being a singular successor in the reversion, ought not to be liable in the requisition. The Lords found the defenders liable since the date of the offer of caution, in case the Earl, either upon requisition or premonition, should redeem from the said wadsetters within five years after the date of the interlocutor; but in case he did not redeem within the space foresaid, then they were obliged to allow him the superplus duty when redeemed.
