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 £5, 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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Sinclare v Mr John Sinclare. [1672] 1 Brn 659 (18 July 1672) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1672/Brn010659-1613.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR PETER WEDDERBURN, LORD GOSFORD.
Date: Sinclare
v.
Mr John Sinclare
18 July 1672 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
James Sinclare of Roslin having set to his elder brother, Mr John, a tack of the lands, with a clause irritant,—That if two terms should run to the third, and the tack-duty be unpaid, the tack should be null, and it should be lawful to him to enter to the possession without a declarator; and accordingly he having entered to the possession without a decreet, thereafter pursues a declarator of the clause irritant.
It was alleged, No declarator; because the pursuer having arrested the whole duties, whereby the clause irritant might have been purged before any decreet upon the clause irritant, and so had incapacitated the defender to purge the same; which he was in pessima fide to do, the Lords being always in use to admit the defender to purge at the bar, whensoever the declarator is heard.
It was replied, That any arrestment used, or possession obtained by the pursuer, was after two terms were run in the third, and the clause committed which was lawful for him to do, and to enter to the possession, with consent of the tenants, without a decreet.
The Lords did sustain the declarator, and repelled the defence in respect of the reply.
Page 272.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
