Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the action Stevenson against Stevenson, No. 36. p. 13268. where the Lords found that the sasine could not be drawn back, it was replied for the pursuer, that the defender could not quarrel the title, because he was his tutor, who of the law was holden to have obtained the pursuer in due time seised as heir to his predecessor. Duplied by the defender, that he was not bound to serve the pupil heir, to evict the lands against himself; moreover, the precept and sasine, which was the title of the removing, is procured many years after the expiring of the years of the tutory, and after his pupillarity, so that whatever fault is therein, cannot be imputed against the defender, who was not holden to answer for any deeds done thereafter; and if any had been omitted within the time of his tutory, which is not granted, he had against him of the law, actionem tutelæ. The Lords found the defender being once tutor, could not quarrel the pursuer's right, albeit the tutory was expired, and albeit he defended himself with a right in his own person acquired before he was tutor.
