Subject_1 PERSONAL and TRANSMISSIBLE. Subject_2 SECT. III.
What Rights go to Assignees.
Hume v. Hume
Date: 6 December 1661 Case No. No 56.
Where the order of redemption was used by the reverser himself, the assignee was found to have sufficient right to insist in declarator of redemption against the wadsetter.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
James Hume, as assignee to a reversion and order of redemption, used by the Earl of Hume, against Abraham Hume, pursues declarator of redemption and removing in the same process. The defender alleged, Absolvitor, because the reversion expressed not assignees; and therefore, the defender cannot be obliged to renounce to the pursuer an assignee. 2dly, At the time of the consignation, the Earl required the wadsetter to subscribe the renunciation to a blank person upon a back-bond, declaring the same to the Earl's behoof, which he was not obliged to do by the tenor of the reversion. 3dly, No declarator till the Earl produce the sum at the bar, seeing he lifted it himself.
The Lords found, That albeit the reversion expressed not assignees, yet seeing the order of redemption was used by the Earl himself, the assignee had sufficient right; but decerned the defender to renounce only in favour of the Earl and his heirs, but not to dispone to any other person, as the Earl desired; and declared, there should be no decreet extracted till the consigned money were produced and given up, neither did they decern in the removing till the parties were further heard thereupon.
