Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of suspension betwixt Donald Hewtam and Robert Baillie, minor, contra whom decreet was recovered, as to enter heir to his goodsire, the Lords received his renunciation by way of suspension, and also received his renunciation, with this limitation, “renounces all lands or successions pertaining to his goodsire, except those lands which are contained in his contract of marriage, and wherein his goodsire is obliged to infeft his father;” whereupon inhibition was used; because the Lords found, that the contract with the inhibition preceding the debt, was titulis singularis. This also found betwixt Adamson and Hamilton, 30th November 1620.
In the said action, there being a decreet arbitral produced given betwixt the tutors taking burden of the minor on the one part, and his uncle, Alexander Baillie, on the other part, whereby all questions which Alexander Baillie might lay to the minor's charge, as heir to his father and goodsire, were submitted, and a discharge thereof, ordered to be given to the minor, the Lords found, that the said decreet could not hinder him to renounce to be heir, quia non se gessit pro hærede; for these arguments; 1mo, The minor submitted, he not being past 21 years of age, and being able to subscribe, but only the tutors taking burden upon them to him 2do, A discharge given to him of all things that may be laid to his charge, as heir, non inducunt agnitionem quia sunt verba suspensive et dubitative prolata et sic non probant voluntatem agnoscendi hæreditatem, per legem gentium D. De acqu. hæredirate; 3tio, It must be an express act circa ipsam hæreditatem, as was decided betwixt Munro and Graham, that the discharge might stand, in respect the minor renounced not purely and simply, but with exception of the lands contained in the contract of marriage, and so he is capable of a discharge of all actions preceding the contract.
