Subject_1 FIAR, ABSOLUTE, LIMITED. Subject_2 SECT. II.
Prohibitions, - to alter a Destination, - to uplift without consent.
Mary Ure v. The Earl of Crawfurd and Hugh Crawfurd
Date: 17 July 1756 Case No. No 10.
A prohibition upon a first institute to sell or contract debts, or to do any other deed whereby the lands might be affected, was found to imply a prohibition to alter the course of succession.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
James Ure received a disposition of the estate of Shirgartoun, in which a certain line of substitutes was settled, and he granted, of the same date, a separate obligation, whereby he bound himself not to sell nor contract debt, nor to do any other deed whereby the lands of Shirgartoun may be any ways affected.
He afterwards disponed these lands gratuitously to the Earl of Crawfurd and and Hugh Crawfurd; a reduction of this disposition, as granted in contravention of the above prohibitory clause, being brought by his heir after his death,
It was pleaded for the Earl and Hugh Crawfurd; That the favour of property being great, and the interpretation of restraints upon property being limited to the very words of the restraint; and it having by many decisions been found, that a prohibition to alter the course of succession, or do any other deed whereby the lands might be affected, did not imply a prohibition to sell, it ought here to be found, vice versa, that a prohibition to sell, or do any other deed whereby the lands might be affected, did not imply a prohibition to alter the course of succession; since those decisions proceeded on this ground, that the disponer had not been by express words prohibited to sell; the present decision ought to go on this ground, that the disponer was not by express words prohibited to alter the course of succession.
‘The Lords reduced the disposition to the defenders.’
Act. Elliot, Williamson, & And. Pringle.Alt. J. Dalrymple, Brown, & Lockhart.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 214. Fac. Col. No 205. p. 303.
