An attainder, by description from an estate of which the person was apparent heir, was sustained.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A claim was presented in behalf of Duncan, son of Evan, and grand-son of Lauchlan Macpherson of Cluny, for the said estate, surveyed by order of the Court of Exchequer, by Janet Fraser his mother; for that it had not belonged to any attainted person, but to the said Lauchlan, by whose death on the last day of June 1746, it descended to Evan, and by disposition from him, 22d April 1749, was conveyed to the claimant.
Answered, Evan Macpherson of Cluny was attained by act of Parliament 19th Geo. II. consequently the claimant can derive no right by disposition from him; the title of Cluny was a proper description of him; or admitting it was not, yet, as was admitted in the case of Lord Forbes of Pitsligo, the statute of additions not regarding proceedings in Parliament, he was sufficiently described by his name and sirname.
Replied, It is not admitted that an attainder in Parliament would be held good without some further description; but supposing it, the case is different where something is added which does not apply to the person, as was determined in the case of Thomas Ormonde; the title ‘of Cluny,’ without saying ‘younger,’ as is ordinary when a title is given to an apparent heir, must either denote the estate of the person mentioned, or his place of residence; and by neither is he right described, as he was not proprietor of that estate, and there were several other Evan Macphersons residing upon it; it is not the custom of Scotland to design a man of a place from his residence, nor in England without some further addition.
Duplied, The description neither relates to his right of property, nor place of residence, but is a popular appellation, well known in this country, where gentlemen are named of their estates, and retain the same titles after they have sold them; which are also given to their eldest sons.
The Lords repelled the claim.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 206. D. Falconer, v. 2. No 104. p. 119.
