Behaviour not inferred if the intromission can be ascribed to a singular title.
Alexander Rorison v. Sinclair of Ratter
Date: 23 November 1671 Case No. No 44.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Umquhile William Sinclair of Ratter, being debtor to Alexander Rorison, he pursues this Ratter, as representing his father, to pay the debt, and condescends that he has behaved himself as heir by intromission with the rents of the lands of Ratter, wherein his father died last vest and seized, as of fee, and produces his infeftment. The defender alleged Absolvitor, because his intromission was upon a precept of clare constat, as heir to his grand-father, which was sufficient to purge his general passive title, though it cannot defend against the pursuer in time coming, seeing the defender was in bona fide, and knew not his father's infeftment. It was answered; That he cannot pretend ignorance of his father's infeftment, having his writs in his hands, and it is but a mere pretext to immix himself in his father's heritage, without representing him according to law, which would be a common road, if it were once allowed.
The Lords repelled the defence, and found the defender liable, as behaving as heir.
