Forfeiture of a Sub-vassal. - Effect of Rebellion. - Misnomer.
Finlayson v. Her Tenants
Date: 27 July 1626 Case No. No 49.
Found in conformity with the above.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Isobel Finlayson being infeft by umquhile Gray her husband, who was infeft in certain cottages in Coldingham by the King, as vacant in his hands, by the dishabilitation of John Stuart, son to the umquhile forfaulted Earl of Bothwell, provided to the priory of Coldingham; and, by the annexation of the said priory to the Crown, pursues removing against some tenants, possessors of the said cottages; wherein the said John Stuart compearing for his interest, alleged, that the said act of dishabilitation and annexation of the said priory, which was the ground of the pursuer's husband's infeftment, was rescinded and reduced by a posterior act of Parliament, with all infeftments depending thereon, and are declared null; and the said act ordained the nullity to be received by exception or reply, and therefore that infeftment cannot be a title, whereupon either to pursue or defend. This exception was found relevant, and instantly proven, by production of the said act of Parliament, and so absolvitor was given; albeit it was replied, that the defenders called were tenants to the pursuer and her husband, to whom they paid mail and duty; so that their possession could not be inverted until they were orderly removed by the excipient, and the said act could not prejudge the pursuer and her husband, who was not called thereto; likeas, the act of Parliament salvo jure cujuslibet, works so far for the pursuer, that by any other act in favours of a particular person, a third party's right never called cannot be prejudged; which replies were repelled, and notwithstanding thereof, the exception sustained.
