Publication by Process of Mails and Duties, and Poinding of the Ground.
Competition Creditors of Langton
Date: 16 July 1700 Case No. No 18.
The bare execution of a summons of mails and duties found sufficient to make a base infeftment public.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Rankeilor reported the competition betwixt Sir Robert Stuart of Allanbank, Lady Mary Kennedy, Jamas Cockburn, and other creditors of Sir Alexander Cockburn of Lanton. 1mo, It was objected against Sir Robert's right, that it was posterior to an inhibition served against Lanton by one Campbell. Alleged, Lanton was then denuded in favour of his son. Answered, He was retrocessed again, by which supervenient right the inhibition took place. Replied, The retrocession was qualified, that old Lanton might pay the debts for which his son stood bound with him, whereof Sir Robert's debt is one, and Campbell's is not, young Lanton not being an obligant in his bond. The Lords found inhibitions extended not only ad acquisita, to what stood in the debtor's person at the time of executing the inhibition, but likewise ad acquirenda, if it lay within the same shire where the inhibition was published, as has been oft decided: But found this was no voluntary deed of old Lanton's to secure Sir Robert Stuart, seeing the retrocession was given him to that very effect, to pay and receive the debts wherein his son young Lanton stood bound for him, whereof this of Sir Robert's was one; whereas Campbell, the inhibitor, was not a creditor to the son, but only to old Lanton the father, and so could have no benefit by the inhibition against this right. 2do, Objected against Sir Robert, They were confirmed before he attained possession. Answered, His base infeftment was made public, 1mo, By a decreet and rollment of the Baron-court. 2do, By a summons of mails and duties before the Lords, executed prior to their confirmation. The Lords shunned to go upon the Barons decreet, because they oft-times pass without citation, and it was repelled in Andrew Bruce's case; but they found the execution on the summons sufficient to make the base infeftment public, and to clothe it with possession. 3tio, They objected nullities against Sir Robert's sasine on some vitiations and razures in the parchment; but the Lords, after inspection, repelled the same. There were some other points in this cause which the Lords appointed to be debated in presence. See Inhibition.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 88. Fountainhall, v. 2. p. 104.
