Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
William Duff v. The Earl of Seaforth
Date: 24 June 1697
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
William Duff in Inverness, pursuing the Earl of Seaforth, on the passive titles, for payment of a debt due to him by his father; and, referring the same to his oath, one of the articles whereon he was craved to be interrogated was, whether he had not intromitted with and used his father's Parliament-robes. This the Earl reclaimed against, as neither pertinent nor relevant to infer vitious intromission, seeing that was only in consequence of his assuming the title and dignity of Earl, which was never found to infer a passive title. Yet the Lords thought his using his father's Parliament-robes, was all one as if he had intromitted with his hangings, his horses, arms, or any other moveable furniture, which has been sustained to infer a passive title, where they were of any value, and such a considerable heirship as might import a behaviour. Yet see Dury, 6th. November 1622, Laird of Dundass against Hamilton.
The Lords ordained the Earl to depone anent the interrogatory, and reserved the consideration what it should import till the advising of his oath; for it was urged such robes may be poinded as well as any other moveables; and so, being in commercio, why should not the apparent heir's meddling therewith infer a gestio pro hœrede. See January 15, 1630, Cleghorn against Fairley.
