Forfeiture of a Sub-vassal. - Effect of Rebellion. - Misnomer.
Sir John Harper, Superior to Coltness v. The King's Advocate, &c
1686.
March. Case No. No 54.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A sub-vassal being forfeited, and his lands annexed to the Crown by act of Parliament, the treasurer appointed a factor to uplift the mails and duties; and there being a multiplepoinding raised by the tenants;
It was alleged for Sir John Harper, the forfeited person's immediate superior, That his casuality of non-entry was declared before the forfeiture, whereby he had right to the mails and duties till he got a vassal presented.
Answered, The King could not be a vassal, and the lands being annexed to the Crown, he could not validly present. Again, the King being seised jure coronæ, the running of the non-entry should stop, as when a vassal is infeft, or a charter offered to the superior.
Replied, The King cannot supply the place of a vassal, by whom the casualities of non-entry, escheat, &c. cannot fall, as by vassals infeft.
The Lords preferred the superior.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 315. Harcarse, (Forfeiture.) No 496. p. 137.
