Debt contracted after Denunciation. - Alienation after Denunciation.
Dundas v. Strang
Date: 21 December 1626 Case No. No 35.
In an exhibition of writs, the defender alleged they had been impignorated. Repelled on account of denunciation and inhibition, prior to the impignoration.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Sir James Dundas pursuing Mr William Strang for delivery of evidents; the defender alleging, That the same was impignorated to him for some monies addebted by Borthwick of Newbyres, heritor of the lands, whereupon he shewed the said Borthwick of Newbyres his obligation and letter, bearing the hypothecation thereof; and, therefore, while he were paid of the sums addebted to him, he alleged, That he ought not to deliver the writs. This allegeance was repelled, and the writs ordained to be delivered to the pursuer, for two reasons, and replies separatim, 1mo, Because, that, before the debt, Newbyres's debtor had sold the lands, whereof these were the evidents acclaimed, by contract passed betwixt him and the pursuer, whereupon the pursuer had both denounced Newbyres rebel, and served inhibition against him, both before the bond made by him to the defender, and before the impignoration of the writs; 2do, Because the pursuer was infeft in the lands, and seased therein, which, albeit it was after the impignoration, yet it carried with it right to the evidents of the lands. But this last reply was not clearly admitted, seeing the Lords doubted, that the sasine after the impignoration would have been preferred, if it had depended upon a contract made also after the impignoration; but the first reply was enough per se.
Act. Aiton.Alt. Lawtie.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 555. Durie, p. 252.
