[1732] Mor 16623
Subject_1 WARRANDICE.
Craig
v.
Hopkin
1732. January.
Case No.No. 81.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Lands which were sold with warrandice from fact and deed allenarly, being evicted, but not through default of the disponer, the purchaser brought an action, not upon the warrandice, which was not incurred, but upon this ground of equity, That, if he has lost the land, he ought at least to have repetition of the price. It was answered, That when one sells with warrandice from fact and deed, the intention is not to sell the subject absolutely, which would be the same as selling it with absolute warrandice, but only to sell it so as the seller himself has it, that is, to sell what title and interes the has in the subject, the purchaser taking upon himself
all other hazards; and therefore if eviction happen otherwise than through the fact and deed of the disponer, he bears the loss. The Lords assoilzied. See Appendix.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting