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 >>
Dr Taylor v Bruce and Strang. [1684] Mor 3411 (00 February 1684)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1684/Mor0803411-008.html
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
It being alleged against a removing, at the instance of a donatar of ultimus hæres; That the gift is not declared, which ought to have been done: 2do, That the pursuer was infeft after the term of removing; and though he had been infeft before the term, and after the warning, the infeftment could not be drawn back in favours of him a singular successor:
Answered: It is absurd to require a declarator of a gift of ultimus hæres, the defunct having no heirs to be called in such a process; for if he had heirs, there would be no place for an ultimus hæres.
Replied: There ought to be a declarator, though proceeding but upon a general citation of all persons having interest, at the market cross, as was found the 31st of July 1666, in the case of Thomas Crawford contra Town of Edinburgh, No 7. p. 3410.; and Balnagown against Dingwall, No 6. p. 3409.
‘The Lords found, That a gift of ultimus hæres ought to be declared as well as a gift of bastardy.’
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 228. Harcarse, (Removing.) No 840. p. 240.
