Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER, LORD FOUNTAINHALL.
Sinclair of Ratter v. -
Date: 23 November 1671
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
It was debated in the case of Sinclair of Ratter against ——, if a man might pass by his father, who was infeft, and serve himself heir to his goodsire, who was also infeft, to the effect he might elude his father's creditors: or if the said passing over his father, and entering by his goodsire, be not a sufficient passive title to bind his father's debt on him, tanquam gerens sepro hærede.
It was alleged,—It was not; and his possessing in right of his goodsire was at most but vicious intromission, and tied him only to restitution of what he had meddled with, or in quantum lucratus est.
The Lords, in præsentia, found a man could not pass by his father who stood last vested and seased, and enter to his goodsire; and that the doing thereof inferred behaviour, unless he could condescend on some pregnant presumptions that he was ignorant of his father's being infeft: which is ignorantia facti, and so non-nunquam exemat; though it may be called ignorantia juris, unusquisque enim tenetur scire quæ sunt in publica custodia, and should seek the registers.
