Bonds of provision when set up as claims on estates forfeited to the Crown, found not to be good unless delivery is proved
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Alexander Fraser, second of the late Lord Lovat, entered a claim upon the forfeited estate of Lovat, in terms of 20th Geo. II. Cap. 41. for £4000, contained in a bond of provision, granted by Lord Lovat in favour of the claimant.
Objected for the Crown: That this bond was never a delivered evident.
Answered for the claimant: That delivery of bonds of provision is presumed by law, though found in the father's custody, whom law presumes to be the proper keeper of such bonds; and that, in the case of the children of Bowhill, after the rebellion 1715, bonds of provision to the children, with a clause empowering the father to revoke, were sustained by the Court of Inquiry; and that non-delivery, and a power of revocation, are equivalent.
Replied for the Crown: That, though the law presumes delivery of bonds of provision, when the question is among the children, yet the case is entirely different, when such bonds come to be set up as claims against the Crown: Were these to be allowed, a way would be found out to defeat every forfeiture whatever. The case of Bowhill was erroneously judged, and no precedent to this Court.
“The Lords dismissed the claim.”
Act. Ferguson, Lockhart, J. Dalrymple.Alt. Advocatus A. Pringle.Clerk, Kirkpatrick.
Fac. Coll. No. 119. p. 177.
