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 >>
Williamson v Threapland. [1682] Mor 6306 (00 January 1682)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1682/Mor1506306-010.html Cite as:
[1682] Mor 6306
The principal conveyed, accessories follow. Conveyance of a subject to which the disponer has no right.
Williamson v. Threapland
1682.
January Case No. No 10.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
An inhibition was found to fall under the assignation to a bond, and sum therein contained, without the general clause of all that followeth, or might follow thereon, on a competition with the cedent's singular successor.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 422. Harcarse, (Assignation.) No 98. p. 19.*** Sir P. Home reports the same case.
John Williamson, sheriff-clerk of Perth, being assigned by Agnes Lamb, relict of James Dykes, to a bond of 2700 merks, granted by Patrick Anderson of Tullieallan to her and her husband in liferent, and the children in fee, whereupon there had been an inhibition served, pursues a reduction against Sir Patrick Threapland of the right made by Anderson to him of certain lands ex capite inhibitionis. Alleged for the defender, That there could be no process upon the inhibition, because it was only an extract under the pursuer's own hand, which could not make faith for him, unless the principal were produced; as also, albeit it were produced, yet it could not be a ground of reduction of the defender's right; because, albeit the pursuer be assigned to the debt, yet he is not expressly assigned to the inhibition. Answered, that the extract under the pursuer's own hand was sufficient, he having extracted the same ex officio, as being clerk, and if he has taken out a wrong extract, he is liable for malversation. And farther, to instruct that it is a true extract, there is another extract produced under the clerk-depute's hand; and albeit the pursuer be not assigned to it per expressum, yet he being assigned to the debt, and to the bond, and to all right, title, and interest, that the cedent had, it will carry a right to the inhibition, and all legal diligence that has followed upon the bond, as being accessory thereto. The Lords sustained the pursuer's title, although his assignation was only to the liferent, and did neither assign the inhibition per expressum, nor contained these general words, “with all that has followed thereupon.” And found the extract of the inhibition, out of the books of the sheriffdom of Perth, under the hand of the pursuer's own depute, to be sufficient in the action of reduction, reserving improbation to the defender, as accords.
