Intromission with the Predecessor's Rents is a Behaviour. What understood to be the Predecessor's Rents.
Gibson v. Grant of Rothiesmains
1684.
January. Case No. No 11.
A party's intromission with the rents of lands, in which his father died infeft and in possession, found to infer a behaviour as heir against him, though the father, at his decease, was denuded by expired apprisings.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Robert Gibson of Linkwood having pursued Grant of Rothiesmains for payment of a sum contained in his father's bond, as behaving himself as heir to his father, by intromission with the mails and duties of the lands, wherein his father died infeft; alleged for the defender, That he could not be liable upon that passive title, because his father was denuded by expired apprisings, long before his decease, and the defender countable to the comprisers for any intromission he had with the rents. Answered, That the defender's father having continued in the possession of the lands during his lifetime, notwithstanding of the expired apprisings; and he having continued his father's possession; it must infer a behaviour as heir against him, unless he had obtained a right or warrant from the comprisers to intromit before his intromission. The Lords repelled the defences, and found the defender's intromission with the rents of the lands, wherein his father died infeft and in possession, did infer a behaviour as heir against him, unless he had intromitted by a warrant or right from the comprisers.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 27. Sir Patrick Home, MS. v. 1. No 549.
