Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a reduction and improbation at the instance of a posterior against a prior appriser;
Alleged for the defender, No process; because the pursuer was not infeft.
Answered; It was not necessary for the pursuer to take infeftment, his right being only an apprising of the legal, especially if the lands held ward.
Replied; No person but he that is infeft can reduce rights that are real by infeftment, or pursue removings; although a bare comprising may be a title to call for production of contracts, or personal rights; nor is the pursuer within year and day of the first effectual apprising.
The Lords sustained the allegeance and reply for the defender.
Thereafter the pursuer alleged, That this is a dilator, which cannot be proponed now, after the taking of terms; which the Lords found relevant, and repelled the defence in hoc statu processus.—See Title to Pursue.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 186. Harcarse, (Improbation, &c.) No 581. p. 162.
