If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Sir James Cockburn of that Ilk, v Lord Ross, Alexander Miln of Carridden, and other Creditors of Hamilton of Grange. [1686] Mor 1046 (12 February 1686)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1686/Mor0301046-135.html Cite as:
[1686] Mor 1046
[New search]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
[1686] Mor 1046
Subject_1 BANKRUPT. Subject_2 DIVISION II.
Alienation after Diligence.
Subject_3 SECT. IV.
Reduction not Sustained, even after Diligence, if the Debtor be not Insolvent, nor rendered so by the Alienation.
Sir James Cockburn of that Ilk, v. Lord Ross, Alexander Miln of Carridden, and other Creditors of Hamilton of Grange
Date: 12 February 1686 Case No. No 135.
A disposition granted after horning is challenged. Found that one horning is not sufficient; and that it must be otherwise shown, that the party was obæratus and bankrupt.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Sir James Cockburn of that ilk, his reduction contra the Lord Ross, Alexander Miln of Carridden, and other Creditors of Hamilton of Grange, being heard in præsentia, and he founding on an old disposition of relief, given in 1641 by Sir James Hamilton of Grange to the Lord Forrester; the Lords found the posterior disposition given by John the son, with infeftment following thereon, preferable to this old relief; unless Sir James Cockburn would subsume, that it was made real by an infeftment, and so not merely a personal right. Then Cockburn repeated a second reason of reduction, that Grange was standing registrated at the horn before this disposition.—Answered, This horning could never hinder him to dispone, because he was only denounced at Edinburgh, and not at Linlithgow, where the lands lie, and he dwelt, and so no escheat, but only caption, could follow.—Replied, It was enough to produce the effect of the act of Parliament 1621, against bankrupts.——The Lords found this not sufficient, unless they would conjoin with it, that he was then obæratus and bankrupt, one horning not being sufficient for that.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 77. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 402.
