Whether Infeftments of Relief are valid without Possession.
Lord Cardross v. Van Sommerdyke, General Dalziel, and Old Lady Cardross
1682.
March. Case No. No 57.
Found, but not finally decided, that infeftments of relief were public from their date, without possession, confirmation, or declarator.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Found, that base infeftments of relief were public from the date, without possession, confirmation, or declarator; but this was afterwards stopped, 2do, Found, that it is not the priority of passing signatures in Exchequer, that gives preference, whether they be signatures of confirmation or apprising, or upon resignation; but that which is first expede at the seal will be preferred, even though the competing signatures be signed by the King; because a subscribed signature is an incomplete deed, till the seal is appended. 3tio, Found, that a bailie of regality's decreet of poinding the ground, of lands lying therein, clothed a base infeftment with possession, even as to other lands in eodem corpore juris, though lying in another jurisdiction. It was debated in this process, if a stranger Dutchman might buy or wadset lands here, without being naturalized, and this could be quarrelled by any but the King. See Foreign.
Harcarse, (Infeftment.) NO 589. p. 163.
* * * This is the same case with the above by P. Home.
