An interdicted person having alienated lands, warrandice was not sustained to take effect even against his person or moveables; because, if the deed was null quoad the granter himself, he could not be bound to warrant it.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Anent the action pursued by Matthew Stewart against Moubray, brother to the Laird of Barnbougle, for removing from certain lands, upon a warning, it was alleged by the said Moubray, That he had the said lands annailzied to him titulo oneroso by his brother, A. Moubray; and, therefore, should have a day to call his warrant. It was alleged by the party warranting, That he ought not to warrant the said lands; because, the time he annailzied the said lands, and long before, he was interdicted, in presence of the Lords, from all alienation of his lands, without consent of certain persons, who consented not to the alienation, as was known to the pursuer. The said alienation was null in itself, and ought to have no warrandice. It was answered by the said Moubray, pursuer, That the said alienation was made at the free will of the warranter, and not at the instance of the party; and, therefore, he should warrant his own deed, notwithstanding the interdiction foresaid; which answer of the said pursuer was repelled by the Lords, and no warrandice of the said alienation, by reason of the interdiction foresaid.
