Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 ADJUDICATION.

Spreull
v.
Spreull Crawfurd

1741, July 15.
Case No. No. 30.

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

The Lords found, that Milton could have no benefit by his own Fraud, in taking the disposition from his nephew, which was in effect a conveyance of the reversion of his own adjudication, and that therefore the legal is still open. 2do, That the debts acquired by him were in trust for the behoof of his nephew, and that he must communicate the eases, and that this case falls not under the act 1696. As to this I gave no opinion, but wanted to hear it debated betwixt the President and Arniston, the two lawyers who had argued it in the former process, in 1733, betwixt these parties. But Arniston was the first who gave his opinion, strong in express contradiction to the argument he had then maintained, (and indeed convinced me, as per my note a part in this case,) and the President agreeing with him, none of us opposed. 3tio, We found this point not determined by the former decreet, where the Inner-House interlocutor only found no sufficient evidence of the trust of the disposition, and the Ordinary only applied that interlocutor. 4to, We found that the pursuer was not barred by the transaction in 1717, when it was not known that his elder brother was dead, and therefore the ratification of Milton's adjudications could only be for all right the pursuer then had. 5to, That the 7000 merks paid Milton by that transaction, though not out of the common debtor's money, but for a conveyance of Blairgham, and houses in Glasgow, part of the subjects adjudged by Milton, must be imputed towards satisfaction of the debts due to him, agreeably to the decision 14th January 1669, M'Kenzie against Ross, (Dict. No. 10, p. 299.)