If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Forfeiture of a Sub-vassal. - Effect of Rebellion. - Misnomer.
Lo Balmerinoch v. L Covington.
Date: 27 March 1627 Case No. No 50.
Effect of forfeiture by sentence of Parliament. See No 53. p. 4722.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action at the instance of the Lord Balmerinoch against the Laird of Covington, who held the lands of the pursuer by ward-holding, for the double of his marriage; the defender alleging, That he was apparent heir to one of his forbears, who held and was infeft in the office of the crownery of Clidsdale by ward-holding of the King, whereby his marriage fell to the King; likeas the King had gifted the same to a donatar, so that the same could not pertain to this pursuer, and the pursuer replying, That that infeftment of that office could not prejudge the pursuer, because the same was granted, and proceeded upon the forfaulture of Sir James Hamilton, who was infeft in that office before the forfaulture; and it was of verity, that that forfaultry was by sentence of Parliament reductive, upon process and citation of all parties having interest, reduced and found null, with all that followed thereupon, this reply was found relevant to prefer the pursuer to the King in the defender's marriage, the same infeftment of the said office, which depended upon the forfaultry, having become extinct by the said sentence reductive, deduced in Parliament as said is; which the Lords found sufficient, albeit the defender's predecessors were not specially called to the reduction, seeing, after that reduction, none of the defender's predecessors were alleged to be infeft in that office, there being divers of his predecessors intervening betwixt him and that person, who was first infeft upon the said forfaultry, to whom the defender alleged himself to be apparent heir; and seeing it was replied also, that, since that reduction of the forfaultry, the Marquis of Hamilton stood infeft by the King in that office; which the Lords found relevant, albeit the defender's predecessors' infeftments were not reduced in particular, nor none representing him called to that reduction. Before this interlocutor, the parties were reputed to be privily agreed amongst themselves.
Act. Stuart & Lermonth.Alt. Nicolson & Rollock.Clerk, Hay.
Durie, p. 295.
