Vitious Intromission Purged by Confirmation, or by declarator of escheat.
Archibald Thomson v. The Laird of Renton
Date: 5 March 1629 Case No. No 195.
Found in conformity with No 193. p. 9866.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Archibald Thomson convened the Laird of Renton, as universal intromitter with the goods and gear of William Douglas of Ively, to hear and see a bond granted by William to the pursuer, registrated against him as intromitter foresaid. Alleged by him, He could not be convened as intromitter, because there was one decerned executor dative to William, which executor disponed the said goods to him. Replied, Not relevant, unless he would say, there was an executor confirmed before the intenting of this cause, who disponed the same to him; for there is no right that any man can have to intromit with the goods of a defunct, except by a confirmed testament. Duplied, No necessity, because the executor being decerned, he behoved to take a time before he confirmed, till he knew what goods and gear were to be confirmed; and being now confirmed, albeit after the intenting of the pursuer's cause, it must liberate the defender of his intromission, which was by the executor's warrant.—The Lords, found the exception and duply relevant; for it is lawful to an executor decerned to confirm at any time before year and day expire, and to purge his former intromission thereby, although there were never so many pursuits intented against him before his confirmation.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 45. Spottiswood, (Executor.) p. 120.
