Subject_1 SUPERIOR AND VASSAL. Subject_2 SECT. VIII.
A Superior may compel his Vassal to enter, but not entitled to Infeft him without his consent.
Black v. Elleis
Date: 8 December 1671 Case No. No. 31.
Effect of the superior's forfeiture.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr. Robert Black being donatar by the Duke of Hamilton, pursues non-entry of certain of his vassals; who alleged absolvitor, because the land was full by infeftments taken from the usurpers, partly by the heirs of the vassals, and partly by apprisers, who must maintain the obtainers in their rights, in respect of the act of Parliament 1661, ratifying such infeftments, and that these infeftments were necessarily taken when the family of Hamilton was forefault, and they cannot be compelled to renew the same during their life, seeing the act bears expressly, that the ratification is made for the ease of the lieges. It was answered, that the foresaid act could only relate to lands holden of the King immediately; 2do, The said forefaulture being most unjust, and rescinded, all infeftments founded thereupon fell in consequence; and though these infeftments might be a colourable title before citation, yet now the vassals ought to renew their infeftments, and the apprisers pay the composition, getting allowance of what they paid to the usurpers.
The Lords found that the vassals could not be compelled to take new infeftments, being either such as were heirs entered by the usurpers, or apprisers infeft, but did forbear to give out their interlocutor, till endeavours were used with the defenders, to see what they would do of consent.
