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 >> John Hyslop v. Walter Francis, Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, and Others [1821] UKHL 6_Paton_819 (29 June 1821) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1821/6_Paton_819.html Cite as: [1821] UKHL 6_Paton_819 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 819↓
(1821) 6 Paton 819
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.
No. 154
and
House of Lords,
Subject_Entail — Lease — Purgation of Irritancy.
These appeals had reference to the Queensberry leases which in the former appeals ( vide ante, p. 520 et 540) were found to be beyond the powers of the heir of entail. On the case going back to the Court of Session, the executors contended that, supposing the leases to be a contravention of the entail, yet it was competent for them and the tenants to purge the irritancy, but the Court, 25th February and 6th July 1820, refused purgation of the irritancy; stating that as the Duke was now dead, no contravention or forfeiture could be declared against him. Vide Shaw's Appeal Cases, Vol. i., p. 59.
The
“My Lords, *
In these two causes, on account of the many interests involved
_________________ Footnote _________________ * From Mr Gurney's short-hand notes.
Page: 820↓
The substance of the question under these two appeals is, that the Court of Session has denied the application of the doctrine of purgation to the leases in dispute.
Where a reversal of a judgment is moved in this house, it has been usual to state the grounds upon which such reversal is proposed to be made; but where an affirmance is moved, it has not generally been the practice to state the reasons for such affirmance.
After a most painful and anxious attention to the printed papers in these causes, to the arguments at the bar, which were most able and ingenious, and to all that could be urged in any way, and after having carefully looked at all the authorities referred to, having looked back to the summons, and recollecting what passed formerly in these cases in your Lordships' House, with every feeling for the parties interested, I cannot refrain from stating that I do not see cause to reverse the interlocutor pronounced by the Court of Session.”
(Judgment of affirmance would then have been given, but there were not Peers enough to make a House without Lord Montague, who was a party. The Lords, therefore, adjourned moving the judgment till Monday).
