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 of Wigtoun v Earl of Cassillis. [1630] Mor 2246 (17 June 1630)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1630/Mor0602246-128.html Cite as:
[1630] Mor 2246
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an improbation and reduction of a sasine produced by the Earl of Wigtoun, granted to one of his predecessors, to instruct his interest in that pursuit moved by him, for improving of the writs of the lands libelled, made to the E. of Cassillis by that person seased, or his predecessors, this sasine was sustained, albeit it bore not, that the sasine was given by tradition of earth and stone, or by such symbols as are usual in giving of sasines, but only proported, that the bailie gave actual, real, and corporal possession of the lands, but no other mention of any further tradition, which was sustained; the party seased, the bailie and notary being all deceased, long before this time, when it was quarrelled. Item, Another sasine of these lands controverted, granted to the pursuer, being a transumpt, transumed since the intenting of this cause, the said transumpt was sustained, albeit this defender, who was pursued for improving and reducing of his right of the same lands, contained in the same sasine, by the same parties whose right was transumed, long before the intenting of the action of transuming, was not summoned to the said transuming. Item, It was found, that the pursuer, whose pursuit to improve the defender's right of certain particular lands libelled, was founded upon his right and interest of a barony, of the which barony the lands controverted (the defender's right whereof was quarrelled) were libelled to be part and pertinent; that the pursuer in ingressu litis, and before the reasoning of the cause, was not holden to prove nor qualify, that these lands were part of that barony, wherein he libelled and shewed himself to be infeft; especially seeing the defender proponed no exception tending to deny the same, and which might urge him to prove the same in ingressu.
Act. Advocatus, Stuart, et Robertson.Alt. Nicolson, Aiton, et Craig.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 143. Durie, p. 518.
