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] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Robert Blackwood of Petrevie v. Henry Allan and Others [1757] UKHL 1_Paton_640 (23 March 1757) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1757/1_Paton_640.html Cite as: [1757] UKHL 1_Paton_640 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 640↓
(1757) 1 Paton 640
REPORTS OF CASES ON APPEAL FROM SCOTLAND.
House of Lords
No. 118.
[M. 6991.]
Subject_Inhibition.—
An inhibition sustained which was objected to as setting forth two separate debts by bond, in the narrative of the letters, while the will only referred to a bond without distinguishing which, the omission of the letter S in the word “bond” being a clerical error.
A Ranking and sale of the estate of Dudhope was brought, over which several heritable securities were granted. Upon one of these heritable bonds, an inhibition at the instance of Allan was led, and the question in the ranking was, whether his inhibition was effectual to secure a preference over a subsequent disposition in security? The objection stated to the inhibition was, that it was null and void, in respect that in the narrative of the letters, it set forth, that Robert Allan was creditor to Sir George Hamilton, by bond, for the sum of L.4000 Scots, and that he was creditor to the said Sir George Hamilton, and Sir Robert Milne, by another bond, in the sum of 3000 merks; yet the will of these letters ran thus:—Our will is, “&c.—That ye prohibit and discharge the said Sir George Hamilton and Sir Robert Milne to wadset, dispone,” &c., “in prejudice of the said complainer, anent the implement and fulfilling to him of the aforesaid bond” The will, the use of the word “bond” in place of “bonds,” made it uncertain to which of the bonds the warrant applied. The executions returned by the messenger against the debtors, and also against the lieges, were in precisely
Page: 641↓
Dec. 5, 1749.
The Lord Ordinary at first sustained the objection to the inhibition; but on representation and reference being made to the case of Maclellan v. Allan, 8th July 1725, where, in a competition between Sir George Hamilton's creditors, the same objection was stated then to the inhibition that is now stated; the Court overruled it; and he therefore maintained that the same judgment ought to be applied in this case.
June 27, 1750.
Nov. 6, 1750.
The Lord Ordinary repelled the objection to the inhibition, in respect of the former judgment in the case alluded to. And on reclaiming petition, the Court adhered.
Against these interlocutors the present appeal was brought to the House of Lords.
Pleaded for the Appellant:—That an inhibition was a writ which must be correct in all its parts, particularly in so essential a part as the will, which is the warrant for execution. In the present case that warrant is defective. It does not specify clearly the debt in respect of which it is granted. The narrative of the inhibition sets forth two separate and distinct bonds, unconnected the one with the other, but the will only refers to one bond, without
Page: 642↓
Pleaded for the Respondent:—It clearly appears, from the various steps of procedure, that the inhibition proceeds upon the bonds; and therefore the objection, in the strongest light, is founded on a trifling clerical error, namely, on the omission of the single letter S, which, neither in law nor equity, ought to vitiate the inhibition so as to destroy the preferable right of a creditor under it, against whose debt otherwise no other objection applies, or is pleadable. This error, though appearing in the will of the letters of inhibition, was correctly inserted in the record of inhibitions, which ought to suffice. And the objection is res judicata, because it was pleaded before against the same inhibition, and repelled by the Court in 1725.
After hearing counsel, it was
Ordered and adjudged the said appeal be dismissed, and that the said interlocutor complained of be, and the same is hereby affirmed with costs.
Counsel: For Appellant,
Al. Forrester,
Al. Wedderburn.
For Respondents,
Rob,
Duudas,
C. Yorke.
Note.—Lord Elchies has this Note, p. 209, “Inhibition.” “In the register (of inhibitions), they had erroneously added the letter S, and I at first sustained the objection; but afterwards on showing me a decreet, 8th July 1725, in a question on this very inhibition, with Callender of Craigforth, where the same objection was repelled, I thought it did not become me to contradict a judgment in point of the whole Court, therefore I gave my interlocutor in respect of that former judgment, repelling the objection. Pittrivie reclaimed, and the President and others were
Page: 643↓
