Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
The Master of Balmerino v. Sir John Inglis of Crammond
Date: 23 February 1664
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The defence was, Minor non tenetur placitare. Answered,—1mo. It does not hold in redeemable rights of property. 2do. It takes not place but where either the defunct, or he who propones it, were in possession: but ita est this is only an infeftment of annualrent, redeemable; and they are not in possession.
The Lords were generally clear, that redeemable rights were hœriditas paterna, as well as others, and that a minor's whole estate might consist of such rights; and, by omitting defences, he might be ruined in the one as well as the other; and that they behoved to say, that the defunct was, at least, in possession. But, in regard it was alleged there was a contrary decision, in a reduction pursued by Deans of Woodhouselee against Sir William Primrose, finding the brocard took not place in redeemable rights, though, in that case, there was a back-bond declaring the trust; therefore, before decision, they appointed that former practick to be produced. And, however this axiom defends against discussing the reasons of reduction, yet it does not stop but they must satisfy the production.
