Subject_1 GENERAL DISCHARGES and RENUNCIATIONS. Subject_2 SECT. VII.
If presumed to comprehend debts in which the granter is a substitute only.
Robert Baillie v. William Baillie
Date: 27 July 1671 Case No. No 27.
Renunciation of “all right and interest,” found to extend only to all right the renouncer had, and not to any right he might succeed to.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Laird of Lamingtoun having made a tailzie of his estate, wherein William Baillie, eldest son to his deceased eldest son, is in the first place, and to him is substituted Robert Baillie, Lamingtoun's second son, and the heirs of his body, reserving to the said Robert his liferent, from the fee of his heirs, in case they succeed; and, failing of Robert's heirs, to Mr William Baillie, Lamingtoun's brother's son; after Lamingtoun's death, there is a contract betwixt this Lamingtoun and Mr William Baillie on the one part, and Robert on the other, by which, Lamingtoun obliges himself to pay to Robert the sum of 600 merks during his life, and Robert renounces and dispones to Lamingtoun his portion-natural and bairns part of gear, and all bonds and provisions made to him by his father, and all right he has to the estate of Lamingtoun, or any part thereof, and that in favours of this Lamingtoun, and his good-sire's heirs-male, contained in his procuratory of resignation. Robert Baillie raises a declarator against Lamingtoun and Mr William Baillie, for declaring that this contract could not be extended to exclude him or his heirs from the right of tailzie in the estate of Lamingtoun, failing of this Laird and Ins heirs; and that it could only be extended to any present right Robert had to the estate of Lamingtoun, but to no future tight or hope of succession; seeing there is no mention either of tailzie or succession in the contract. It was alleged absolvitor; because Robert getting 600 merks yearly, he can instruct no cause for it but this renunciation, which must necessarily be so interpreted as to have effect; and so if it extend not to exclude him from the tailzie, it had neither a cause for granting the 600 merks, nor any effect thereon. It was answered, That Robert being a son of the family, and renouncing his portion-natural, it was a sufficient cause; and, though there were no cause, such general renunciations could never be extended to future rights or hopes of succession, unless the same had been expressed.
Which the Lords found relevant, and declared accordingly.
