BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> The Earl of Galloway v Gordons of Grange and Kilsture. [1636] 1 Brn 217 (22 March 1636)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1636/Brn010217-0493.html

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1636] 1 Brn 217      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION reported by SIR ROBERT SPOTISWOODE OF PENTLAND.
Subject_2 Such of the following Decision as are of a Date prior to about the year 1620, must have been taken by Spotiswoode from some of the more early Reporters. The Cases which immediately follow have no Date affixed to them by Spotiswoode.

The Earl of Galloway
v.
Gordons of Grange and Kilsture

Date: 22 March 1636

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

In a double poinding, raised at the instance of some tenants, against the Earl of Galloway on the one part, and Gordons of Grange and Kilsture on the other; Alleged for the Earl, He should be answered and obeyed of the mails and duties, because he had comprised the lands in anno 1630, from the Laird of Sorbie, long before any right in the person of Grange and Kilsture. Replied for them, They should be answered, notwithstanding of the comprising, because they are infeft in the same lands in April 1632, by disposition flowing from Sorbie for onerous causes; and, by virtue thereof, in possession for the space of two years and above; and the Earl's comprising cannot be respected, he neither being infeft thereupon, nor having done any diligence against the superior to get himself infeft; and so, the comprising being no real right, and they having obtained a real infeftment for onerous causes, and possession conform thereto, ought to be preferred. The Earl duplied, His comprising, without infeftment following thereupon, gave him right to the mails and duties; and that Sorbie, being denuded by the comprising, could not make any voluntary disposition in prejudice of the compriser. The Lords preferred them that were infeft and in possession, in respect the compriser had done no diligence against the superior.

Page 56.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1636/Brn010217-0493.html