Citation in Simple Reductions of Voluntary Rights.
Vernock v. Hamilton
Date: 7 March 1637 Case No. No 75.
In a reduction of alienation of lands, which, with content of curators, the pursuer had made when minor, the curators needed not be called, tho' they had given their own warrandice against reduction.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One Katharine Vernock, sister and apparent heir to —— Vernock her brother, pursues one Hamilton for production and reduction of a disposition of land made by her said brother, he being minor, and albeit done with consent of his curators, yet being done to his enorm hurt and lesion, and in his minority, she desired the same to be reduced; and likewise desired another disposition, made by herself to the same defender of the same land, to be reduced super eodem capite, viz. that she was minor and enormly hurt; and it being alleged, That no process ought to be granted in this cause, because the libel bore, That the minors were induced to these alienations, by the inducement of their curators, and therefore no proces ought to be found in this pursuit, while they were cited to defend, specially seeing they were obliged in the alienation made to the defenders, to Warrant the land to them:—The Lords repelled the allegeance, and found no necessity to summon the minor's curators to any such pursuit, seeing there was nothing concluded in this process against them; and any clause of circumvention done by them, which was libelled in this summons, the pursuer past from the same, and insisted only upon this reason of minority and lesion; and the Lords bad no respect to that part of the allegeance, bearing, That the curators were obliged to warrant the alienations, for that was no cause why the pursuer ought to be compelled to summon them; and albeit the minor had actionem curatelæ against them, yet that debarred her not from this pursuit.
Act. Craig.Alt. ——.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 138. Durie, p. 835.
