If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, 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!


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

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Hume v Hume. [1661] Mor 10373 (6 December 1661)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1661/Mor2510373-056.html
Cite as: [1661] Mor 10373

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1661] Mor 10373      

Subject_1 PERSONAL and TRANSMISSIBLE.
Subject_2 SECT. III.

What Rights go to Assignees.

Hume
v.
Hume

Date: 6 December 1661
Case No. No 56.

Where the order of redemption was used by the reverser himself, the assignee was found to have sufficient right to insist in declarator of redemption against the wadsetter.


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

James Hume, as assignee to a reversion and order of redemption, used by the Earl of Hume, against Abraham Hume, pursues declarator of redemption and removing in the same process. The defender alleged, Absolvitor, because the reversion expressed not assignees; and therefore, the defender cannot be obliged to renounce to the pursuer an assignee. 2dly, At the time of the consignation, the Earl required the wadsetter to subscribe the renunciation to a blank person upon a back-bond, declaring the same to the Earl's behoof, which he was not obliged to do by the tenor of the reversion. 3dly, No declarator till the Earl produce the sum at the bar, seeing he lifted it himself.

The Lords found, That albeit the reversion expressed not assignees, yet seeing the order of redemption was used by the Earl himself, the assignee had sufficient right; but decerned the defender to renounce only in favour of the Earl and his heirs, but not to dispone to any other person, as the Earl desired; and declared, there should be no decreet extracted till the consigned money were produced and given up, neither did they decern in the removing till the parties were further heard thereupon.

Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 75. Stair, v. 1. p. 65.

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/1661/Mor2510373-056.html