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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Burnet v Auchterlony and Ogilvie. [1697] Mor 8363 (12 February 1697)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1697/Mor2008363-049.html
Cite as: [1697] Mor 8363

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1697] Mor 8363      

Subject_1 LITIGIOUS.
Subject_2 DIVISION III.

Litigious by Denunciation on a Horning.
Subject_3 SECT. II.

Alienation after Rebellion bars not the Completing Rights, where there is an antecedent obligation.

Burnet
v.
Auchterlony and Ogilvie

Date: 12 February 1697
Case No. No 49.

A party was creditor to a person before he was put to the horn. After rebellion, he granted to his creditor a back-bond. Another creditor, who had obtained a gift of escheat, was preferred.


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

In the competition between Mr George Burnet and Auchterlony, and Ogilvie in Montrose, the Lady Halgreen, by her husband's order, had delivered some blank bonds to these defenders, wherein they had filled up their own names; and being pursued for the money at the instance of Mr George, as donatar to Halgreen's escheat, they alleged that they were anterior lawful creditors to Halgreen, as well as the pursuer, and that they had received these blank bonds in part of payment; and the filling up their names was equivalent to an assignation.—Answered, Though their debts were anterior, yet their bonds are granted after the rebellion, and year and day was expired; and so the donatar must be preferred, unless they had received actual payment before the gift and declarator; in which case, favore solutionis, the creditor so getting payment is secure against the donatar, as has been oft found; and particularly, Veitch against Pallat, No 91. p. 2874, No 127. p. 1029, and No 159. p. 1073. The Lords preferred Burnet the donatar.

Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 556. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 767.

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/1697/Mor2008363-049.html