An assignation to an order of redemption need not be registered.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of redemption betwixt the Earl Marischal, and his brother, John Keith, the Lords found, That an assignation to an order of redemption, which was used by umquhile Earl Marischal, father to the Earl, now pursuer, conform to a reversion which was personally granted to himself, and to the which order so used by him before his decease, the Earl his son, pursuer, was made assignee by him, albeit the reversion was not granted to assignees, and upon the which order, the assignee thereto sought declarator, it was found, That this assignation needs not to be registered in the Clerk of Register's books, conform to the order prescribed anent other writs by the act of Parliament 1617. Under the which act, the Lords found, That this assignation, or the like assignations, to orders of redemption, was not comprehended, and that the act extended not to the same.
Act. Nicolson.Alt. Hope.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 330. Durie, p. 78.*** Haddington reports this case:
The Earl Marischal, as assignee constituted by his father to the order of redemption used against his son, John Keith pursued a declarator. It was excepted, That the assignation was null, hot being registered within 40 days in, the secretary's register. The Lords repelled the allegeance, because the act of Parliament expresses not assignations to orders of redemption, and the granter of the reversion cannot impugn the assignation made by the last Earl to the Earl his son.
