Forfeiture of a Sub-vassal. - Effect of Rebellion. - Misnomer.
Earl of Nithsdale v. Irving
Date: 27 November 1621 Case No. No 48.
If the forfeiture shall be rescinded, the intermediate acts of the vassal are good.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of removing, pursued at the instance of the Earl of Nithsdale contra Irving, founded upon an heritable right to the lands of ——, made to the said Earl, by his umquhile brother the Lord Maxwell for the time, wherein it was excepted by the defender, that the sasine of the pursuer could give him no action, because the sasine was given by warrant of the charter and precept granted by the said Lord Maxwell, who, after the charter and precept, and before the sasine, was forfaulted; and so the sasine behoved to fall, the author's right falling, and the King by the forfaultry having become in the right, which was an impediment to the lawfulness of the sasine. It was answered, That the forfaultry was rescinded ab initio, which made the sasine to convalesce; which depended upon the preceding charter and precept.——The Lords repelled the exception, in respect of the reply of rescission of forfaultry, and found, that there needed no other warrant to that sasine, nor no new sasine after the forfaultry; but that the said sasine, taken by virtue of the said precept, was sufficient, notwithstanding the intervening forfaultry, in respect of the rescission thereof as said is.
