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 >>
Hay v Hays. [1699] Mor 942 (7 February 1699)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1699/Mor0300942-066.html Cite as:
[1699] Mor 942
Reduction of Alienations made by Bankrupts where the Reducer has done no Diligence.
Subject_3 SECT. VIII.
Of Second Gratuitous Alienations of the same Subject.
Hay v. Hays
Date: 7 February 1699 Case No. No 66.
Found in conformity with Alexander against Lundies, No 64. p. 940.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a competition betwixt Anne and Helen Hays, daughters to Leyes, and John Hay of Pitfour, being two assignees to one sum; Pitfour craved preference on his posterior assignation, because it was first completed by intimation.—Answered, Where both the rights are gratuitous and lucrative, the first, whether intimated or not, is preferable on the act of Parliament 1621, because the second is granted in prejudice of my warrandice, which, even in donations, is from all future facts and deeds, as was expressly decided, 15th of July 1675, Alexander contra Lundy, No 64. p. 940. 2do, The sum assigned is the ground of an adjudication; and so being an heritable right, needs no intimation, as Stair affirms lib. 3. tit. 1. —Replied, The second assignation bears onerous causes, besides the narrative of love and favour, and the adjudication is posterior to the first assignation.———The Lords having read both assignations, they found neither of them were onerous; and therefore, on the clause of warrandice, preferred the first, though not intimated.
