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 >> William Douglas, Chamberlain to the Duke of Roxburgh, v Thomas Chatto of Mainhouse. [1712] Mor 1752 (26 November 1712)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1712/Mor0401752-032.html
Cite as: [1712] Mor 1752

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


[1712] Mor 1752      

Subject_1 BONA FIDE CONSUMPTION.
Subject_2 SECT. VII.

Whether a preferable infeftment without interpellation will induce mala fides.

William Douglas, Chamberlain to the Duke of Roxburgh,
v.
Thomas Chatto of Mainhouse

Date: 26 November 1712
Case No. No 32.

An adjudication, with a decree of mails and duties, against a person, year and day at the horn, but before his liferent escheat was gifted, sustained as a title of bona fide possession, till interpelled by a decree of declarator.


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

In a process of special declarator, at the instance of William Douglas, as donatar of the liferent escheat of Henry Main, by virtue of a gift from the Duke of Roxburgh superior, against Thomas Chatto, as possessor of some lands belonging to the rebel:——The Lords sustained an adjudication, with a decreet of mails and duties, obtained by the defender against the rebel, after the rebellion, but before the pursuer's gift, for a debt anterior to the rebellion, as a sufficient title of the defender's bona fide possession, till the same ceased by pronouncing of the decreet of general declarator of the liferent escheat; albeit the adjudger was neither infeft, nor had charged the superior; in respect a simple adjudication, with a decreet of mails and duties, is a sufficient title to possess and intromit with the rents.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 109. Forbes, p. 635.

*** The remaining sections of this Title are in Volume V.

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/1712/Mor0401752-032.html