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 >>
Stuart v Lundie. [1632] Mor 10617 (7 December 1632)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1632/Mor2510617-002.html Cite as:
[1632] Mor 10617
What title requisite. - What time requisite. - Connection of possession.
Stuart v. Lundie
Date: 7 December 1632 Case No. No 2.
This reply of nullity against the defender's infeftment, that it was granted by a person whose right was reduced in Parliament, was received summarily in a removing, not-withstanding of 10 years possession.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One Stuart pursuing Sir James Lundie to remove from an husband-land in Eyemouth, holden of Coldinghame, conform to an infeftment, granted there of by John Stuart to the pursuer, to which John Stuart, Coldinghame was erected, and Sir James defending with an infeftment granted to him by the Earl of Hume, who was infeft upon the inhability of John Stuart, declared in Parliament, conform to a charge executed against him as superior by the said Sir James, who had comprised the said lands from Thomas Lumsdane, and conform thereto, he has been since ten years in possession of the said lands, which ought to maintain him in this judgment possessor;—this allegeance was summarily repelled in the same place, because of the reply underwritten, without necessity to reduce, because the infeftment alleged by the excipient was found summarily null, as said is, seeing the same was granted by the Earl of Hume, who, the time of the charge given him to receive the pursuer upon the alleged comprising, was not then superior, but only John Stuart the pursuer's author, in respect before the defender's infeftment from the Earl of Hume, the Earl of Hume's right was reduced in Parliament, and John Stuart declared to have the only right to that Abbacy to whom it was erected, and so the right being null, the ten years possession was not respected, and the exception was repelled.
