Right in security is, in general, not broader than the real debt at the time of granting the security.
Lady Kinloch v. Dempster
Date: 13 June 1750 Case No. No 25.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A person granted an heritable bond on his estate for a certain sum. The creditor at the same time gave a back-bond, acknowledging that he had only advanced a part of the sum for which the debtor had given his bond, but that he bound himself to pay up the rest on demand; and when the whole sum should be advanced, the back-bond should be discharged; but if the whole sum should never be advanced, the heritable bond should be restricted to the sum really advanced. The granter of the heritable bond had constituted an annuity to his wife upon the estate, in which she was infeft subsequent to the creditor's infeftment on his heritable bond, but prior to his paying up the whole of the sum in terms of the back-bond. In a competition between them, the Lords found, That the creditor in the heritable bond was preferable for the sum paid by him prior to the Lady's infeftment, but that she was preferable to him as to what he had paid posterior to her infeftment; because a security in relief can be no broader than the debt existing at the time when it was granted. In this case great weight was also laid on the clause of act 1696, concerning debts contracted after the date of the sasine; and, as reported by Lord Kames, it appears that the judgment went upon both grounds.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 240. Rem. Dec. Falconer.
*** This case is No 104. p. 10290. voce Personal and Real.
