An infeftment qualified by a back bond, that it was only granted till the purchaser was paid a sum, was found summarily annullable by offering payment of that sum by an appriser.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr James Caithness being infeft in the lands of Plendergaist, pursues a removing against the Lady. Compearance is made for John Craw, appriser, who alleged, That the pursuer's right being qualified by a back-bond, bearing, 'That it was only granted till he were satisfied of a sum;' he offered to prove the payment of the sum. It was answered, That the appriser not being infeft, had no interest to remove, or hinder removing; 2do, That an infeftment could not be taken away by exception, not being an apprising, but behoved to proceed by declarator or reduction. It was replied, That an infeftment till a sum were paid, requires no redemption, but may be summarily taken off by payment or satisfaction, in same way as an apprising; and that the appriser, though not infeft, having right to the mails and duties, might exclude the pursuer, who thereby would exhaust the mails and duties.
The Lords found the defence of payment competent to the appriser, without infeftment.
