Whether Minority interrupts the expiry of the Legal.
Ramsay v. Brownlee
Date: 7 December 1736 Case No. No 190.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The legal of an apprising current in January 1652, being, by act 1661, prorogated until Whitsunday 1664, and the appriser dying during the time the prorogated legal was current, the question occurred, If the prorogated legal would run against his heir being a minor? If it did, the apprising would stand as a right of property; if not, it would be extinguished by intromission within the legal, as was further prorogated by a long minority. It was pleaded for the adjudger, That the privilege introduced by act 1661, was no more than a faculty of redemption for three years, which being stricti juris, cannot be extended even in favour of minors; they not being mentioned in the act. Answered, That a prorogation of the legal was intended, in the most proper sense of the word, and a prorogated legal must be of the same nature with the original legal prorogated so as not to run against minors. The Lords found that the legals of apprisings prorogated by the act until Whitsunday 1664, do not run against minors.—See Appendix.
