Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL. Subject_2 This week I sat in the Outer-House, and so the observes are the fewer.
Sir Andrew Ramsay of Waughton v. David Ogilvie of Popilhall
Date: 4 January 1700
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There being mutual declarators of property, as to a piece of ground in Popill, between Sir. Andrew Ramsay of Waughton and Mr David Ogilvie of Popilhall, who founded on a decreet-arbitral, by which that ground controverted was, in 1647, adjudged to belong to the said Mr David's father:
Alleged for Sir Andrew, 1mo. A decreet-arbitral, being only a personal right, can never be obligatory against him, who is a singular successor to John Hepburn of Waughton, the submitter, especially being infeft. 2do. The said decreet is prescribed; nothing following on it by the space of forty years.
Answered,—Waughton never claimed more, save a commonty and servitude of pasturage; and therefore his apprisers from him can never be in a better condition, nor crave the property. 2do. The prescription was interrupted by the pursuer's minority.
Replied,—He having renounced to be heir to his father, and only bruiking by an adjudication led against him as lawfully charged, he cannot found on his minority, unless he represented.
Duplied,—The adjudication carried the privilege of founding on the minority to interrupt, as well as the minor himself had.
Though the cause was small, yet the point being somewhat intricate, the Lords ordained it to be heard in presence.
It was alleged, That a liferentrix having possessed the lands for many years, the fiar could not interrupt during her life; and so, not being valens agere, the prescription could not run against him.
