Not competent to object against a Party's title, without a Legal Interest. - What understood to be a Legal Interest.
Laird of Pitsligo v. Alexander Davidson
Date: 23 July 1630 Case No. No 29.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a reduction of a retour pursued by the Laird of Pitsligo against Alexander Davidson, whereby the defender was served general heir to William Forbes, Laird of Pitsligo, the pursuer's grand-uncle; alleged, The pursuer had no interest to quarrel his service, because he was not the party who was next of blood to the said William, although the defender's retour were reduced, and so could not call his descent in question Replied, He had good interest, because the defender, upon that service, had intented a reduction of certain infeftments pertaining to the pursuer, for eschewing whereof he had reason to reduce his title. Duplied, Although he reduced his retour, yet there was another heir of line to William, that had the right the defender hath to reduce the pursuer's infeftments. The Lords found the pursuer had very good interest to pursue, except the defender would renounce any right he did pretend to quarrel the pursuer's lands.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 519. Spottiswood, (Interest,) p. 181.
*** See Durie's report of this case, No 111. p. 7402., voce Jurisdiction.
