In which circumstances intromission does or does not infer a Passive Title. - Action transmits against heirs in valorem only.
Black v. Wallace and Kings
Date: 26 January 1739 Case No. No 155.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mary Wallace being due the sum of 1000 merks by bond, a process for payment was brought after her decease against Elizabeth Wallace her sister, and John and Mary Kings, her children, concluding upon the passive title vitious intromission. The Lords found it only proved against Elizabeth Wallace, That she had some small moveables in her custody for the behoof of John and Mary Kings, which had been in the possession of Mary Wallace preceding her decease, and that she delivered these moveables to John and Mary Kings upon their receipt; and found such custody and delivery not relevant to infer the passive title of vitious intromission against the said Elizabeth Wallace; and found it proved, That the defenders John and Mary Kings did receive from the said Elizabeth Wallace some of their mother's body clothes, a five guinea piece of gold, and four small pieces, in value 23 shillings, and some houshold furniture, that had been in the possession of their mother before her decease, for which they granted receipts in process to the said Elizabeth Wallace; but in respect of the small value of these particulars, and that special receipts were granted for them, and of the uncertainty whether the articles of houshold plenishing did truly belong to Mary Wallace the mother, or to Mr John King her husband, and had only remained in her custody after the husband's death without title; and that by the proof it appeared, that the bulk of the effects of Mary Wallace had been rouped by John Wallace her brother; found, That John and Mary Kings their intromission with the small particulars contained in the receipts, could not, in law, be construed an intromission per universitatem, and therefore not relevant to infer the penal passive title of vitious intromission against them.
