Subject_1 ADJUDICATION and APPRISING. Subject_2 RANKING of ADJUDGERS and APPRISERS.
Doctor Ramsay v. Mr William Hogg and Alexander Seaton
Date: 22 December 1664 Case No. No 6.
Of three apprisers, the first and third only being infeft; found, that the second who had charged, was preferable to the third, tho' infeft.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
These three parties having apprised the same lands, the first appriser being infeft, the second not being, and the third being infeft: The first appriser declared he would not insist for the mails and duties of the whole, but only possessed a part. The question came, Whether the second appriser, not having charged, should be preferred to the third, who was infeft.—It was alleged for the second appriser, That he needed not be infeft, because the first appriser being infeft in all, he had the only jus proprietatis, and there was nothing remaining, but jus reversionis, which the apprising alone carried; and, as the second appriser might redeem the first, as having the right of his reversion; so he might force him, either to possess the whole, whereby his apprising might be satisfied, or give warrant to the second to possess the remainder; so likewise he might use redemption.—It was alleged for the third appriser, That if the question were of the redemption of the land, the second had good right; but the question being for the mails and duties, a right of reversion could never carry these without a sasine.
The Lords, considering the point in law, and the great disadvantage the leiges would sustain, if all apprisers were necessitate to take infeftment, They preferred the second appriser.
