Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A Person made a settlement of his estate upon his second son and his heirs, burdening him with provisions to his younger brothers and sisters. The eldest son had left the country, on account of the Rebellion 1715; but the father, by a special clause in the disposition of the estate, allowed it to be redeemable by certain persons for a rose-noble; and, in a separate deed, he named his eldest son, and two others for his behoof, to be the persons entitled to redeem it. The father died; the eldest son returned to the country; but without redeeming, took possession of the estate, in right of his apparency. The second son having ceded the possession, and accounted to him for the rents, got from him a disposition to a separate tenement. The eldest brother died without heirs, the second brother having predeceased him; upon which the estate was taken up by a son of the latter. The other brothers and sisters of the young man's father pursued their nephew for the provisions which were devised to them by the original settlement. The defender pleaded, That his father, indeed, might have been liable to make good these provisions, but that he did not succeed in the right of his father, being heir to his uncle, the elder brother, who was not liable for these provisions.—The Lords found, that these provisions were a burden upon the succession.
