Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 WARRANDICE.

Farquhar of Gilmilscroft
v.
James Hair

1738, June 7.
Case No. No. 1.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

The Lords allowed a proof before answer of what was treated at the roup, and of any circumstances that may prove the purchaser's knowledge that these marches were controverted. The President, Royston, Justice-Clerk, Minto, and Dun, thought the seller bound to convey with marches as in the tack with warrandice; and I was upon reading the papers of the same opinion in the belief that the sale had been by a rental, in which case he must have made good that rental and whole subjects for which that rent was paid, and consequently the tack; but at advising it appeared that the sale was not by any rental, and therefore I thought the seller not bound to warrant the marches contained in the tack, even though the tack was read at the roup. But the vote being stated, Whether dispone the marches in the tack with warrandice?—or an act before answer?—I was for the last.