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 >> Elizabeth Ramsay v Ker of Westnisbet. [1667] Mor 203 (9 February 1667)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1667/Mor0100203-022.html
Cite as: [1667] Mor 203

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


[1667] Mor 203      

Subject_1 ADJUDICATION and APPRISING.
Subject_2 ADJUDICATIONS and APPRISING pass periculo petentis; and all Defences are reserved contra executionem, unless instantly verified.

Elizabeth Ramsay
v.
Ker of Westnisbet

Date: 9 February 1667
Case No. No 22.

Adjudgers of the hereditas jaeens found to have right to be infeft by the superior salve jure; tho' it was not till afterwards that the superior was allowed a year's rent for entering them.


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

Elizabeth Ramsay having pursued an adjudication of certain lands, upon the renunciation of Barbara Nisbet, insists upon that member of the summons against the superior John Ker, that he should receive and infeft her; who alleged no process, unless the pursuer show the right of the former vassal, whose heir had renounced; for the pursuer can be in no better case than the apparent heir, who, if she were craving to be entered, behoved to instruct her predecessor's right. The pursuer answered, That her adjudication against the defender, as superior, is in common form, which has ever been sustained upon good ground, because a creditor has no interest to have his debtor's rights, when he is seeking adjudication, which must be his title to demand the rights; but the superior is obliged by law to receive the adjudger, without instructing any right farther than the adjudication, which has been frequently so found in the case of apprisers.

The Lords having considered the case, and parallel with that of apprisers, found this difference, that superiors got a year's rent for receiving apprisers, but not adjudgers; yet in respect of the common custom of these summonses, they repelled the defence, and decerned the superior to receive the pursuer, salvo jure cujuslibet et suo.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 13. Stair, v. 1. p. 440.

Exceptions against adjudication after it is led, how proponable. See Competent.

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/1667/Mor0100203-022.html