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!
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the action of double-poinding between Mr. Robert Bruce, Bailie-depute of Torrie, constituted by my Lord Lindsay, and James Wardlaw, my Lord Lindsay's sasine of the Bailiery was quarrelled as null, in so far as it might be extended to the lands of Torrie, because sasine was not taken upon the ground thereof, but at the cross of St. Andrew's, by virtue of an union granted by the Bishop, who could not give it, nor any subject, unless it had been confirmed by the King. The Lords found, That there was a great difference in lands that lie divided, and in an office and jurisdiction which is indivisible, and therefore sustained the sasine. Some were of opinion, that there was no necessity of a sasine in an heritable office, but a naked constitution by writ was sufficient.
Spottiswood, p. 23.*** This case is reported by Auchinleck:
My Lord Lindsay's sasine of the regality of St. Andrew's by North Forth, taken at the cross of St. Andrew's, was alleged null, because the Bishop, granter of the infeftment, had no power to make an union, or give power to take sasine at a certain place for all his regality, in which there are divers baronies lying discontiguous. To which it was answered, That although no subject, but the King, can make an union of land, yet the office of Bailiery being quid mseparabile, may be taken by a sasine at any part appointed by the Bishop: Which the Lords sustained.
