In reduction of a vassal's right by the superior's heir, the Lords refused to sustain process, till the pursuer should be infeft in the superiority.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Earl of Glencairn pursued Mr. Porterfield, son to umquhile Mr. John Porterfield, to hear and see the infeftment made by the said Earl's predecessor of the place, tower, and fortalice, of Dowhill, with certain lands adjacent thereto, to be reduced, revoked, and rescinded. The reason of the summons was, that Mr. John Porterfield made a bond and obligation, after the infeftment was given by the Earl's goodsir, that he should not receive or fortify the Earl's enemies within the place of Dowhill; the whilk was alleged to be done by the defenders, and so had contravened, and therefore the infeftments be reduced. And as the summons contended the property to be consolidated with the superiority to the Earl's behoof, it was alleged by the said Porterfield, that the said Earl had no action to pursue the reduction of his infeftment, because that he libelled not he was infeft, seised, or retoured, in the superiority of the said lands, but libelled him only to be heir general, which was not sufficient to give him power to reduce the defender's infeftment, and to make consolidation, except he would allege that he was infeft in the superiority of the said lands. The which allegeance the Lords found relevant, and found, except he was seised and retoured in special, he could have no action as general heir.
