The donatar of a forfeiture was found not to be excluded by an apprising granted by the Crown, the immediate superior, before the gift.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Earl of Argyle having pursued George Stirling to remove, he alleged, Absolvitor, because he stood infeft on apprising. It was replied, That the apprising and infeftment could not defend him, because the person from whom he apprised being a vassal of the Earl of Argyle's, and his right not being confirmed by the King, the same could not exclude the pursuer, the King's donatar, and the appriser could be in no better case, because he being infeft by the King before the pursuer's gift, when the King had both superiority and property, it is equivalent to him as if the King had confirmed his author's right. It was answered, That infeftments upon apprisings that pass in course, and are not noticed in Exchequer, cannot prejudge the King, and take away the benefit of the gift, which must pass by a several signature.
Which the Lords found relevant, and repelled the defence and duply, and decerned.
