Pactions, Declarations, &c. by Back-bond or otherwise, qualifying real Rights.
Workman v. Crawford
Date: 20 November 1672 Case No. No 40.
A back-bond of trust is not effectual against a singular successor, by infeftment in lands, unless he either knew of the back-bond, or paid no money for the purchase.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
George Workman pursues reduction of a disposition and infeftment granted by James Stirling to John Crawford, on this reason, that he having disponed the tenements in question to James Stirling, he gave him a back-bond of the same date, obliging himself to denude, being paid of the sums due to him, and yet Stirling contrary to his trust, had disponed the lands to Crawford; like as the pursuer had declared the trust against Stirling, and had reduced his right, and therefore Crawford's right from Stirling behoved to fall in consequence. It was answered for Crawford, That long before any declarator against Stirling, he had acquired Stirling's right bona fide for onerous causes, and was not called to the declarator against Stirling; and albeit Stirling's back-bond was sufficient against himself, yet being but a personal obligement, not contained in the infeftment, it could have no effect against a singular successor being infeft.
The Lords found the defence relevant, unless it were replied that Crawford's right was without an onerous cause, or that he knew of Stirling's back-bond, when he received the right and so was partaker of the fraud.
