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 >> Grant v Grant. [1666] Mor 7045 (24 February 1666)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1666/Mor1707045-114.html
Cite as: [1666] Mor 7045

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


[1666] Mor 7045      

Subject_1 INHIBITION.
Subject_2 SECT. VI.

Whether Inhibition secures not only the Debt, but all Diligence following on it. - Inhibition has effect only from the date of the Decree of Reduction.

Grant
v.
Grant

Date: 24 February 1666
Case No. No 114.

A creditor used inhibition, and afterwards apprised for the debt. Between the inhibition and the apprising, the debtor sold the lands.

After the apprising was expired, it was found that the appriser was not bound to accept payment of his debt.


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

George Grant having apprised a wadset right from Grant of Mornithe, and thereupon obtained a decreet of removing, and mails and duties, against Grant of Kirkdails, reduction was raised thereof, and of the ground of the same, viz. of the wadset right, on this reason, that the one half of the sum was paid, and the wadset renounced pro tanto, long before the apprising.—It was replied, That there was an inhibition for the sum, whereupon the apprising proceeded, after which inhibition, if any payment was made, or renunciation granted, the same was reducible ex capite inhibitionis.—It was answered, That all that the inhibition and reduction thereupon could work, was in so far as might extend to the satisfaction of the sum; and now they were willing to satisfy the whole sum, cum omni causa.—It was answered, That no satisfaction could be now accepted; because apprising having followed upon the same, and being expired, and no satisfaction being offered within the legal, or the time of the reduction, it cannot now be admitted.—It was answered, That the inhibition could not only work, that nothing done after the same should be prejudicial to the sum, but altered not the case as to the apprising led long thereafter; unless the inhibition had been raised upon the apprising.

The Lords found, That inhibition could not be taken away or satisfied by payment of the sums after the expiring of the apprising; wherein the President remembered of a former case, that even in the obtaining of the reduction ex capite inhibitionis, the offer to satisfy the sum whereon it proceeded was repelled, in respect an apprising thereupon was expired.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 476. Stair, v. 1. p. 366

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/1666/Mor1707045-114.html