Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION IV.
Decisions common to qualifications upon the old extent and valuation.
Subject_3 SECT. III.
Nominal and Fictitious.
Alexander Goldie of Southwick v. Alexander Gordon, younger, of Campbelton
Date: 5 January 1762 Case No. No 140.
A charter proceeding upon a disposition, bearing, That no debts contraded, or deeds done, or to be contracted or done, by the disponee during the life of the disponer, without his consent, should affect the lands disponed, or the rents thereof,' found to be a sufficient title for enrolment.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
At the Michaelmas meeting of the freeholders of the stewartry of Kirkcudbright, held upon the 13th of October 1761, Alexander Gordon, younger, of Campbelton, claimed to be enrolled as proprietor of certain lands which had been disponed to him by his father.
Alexander Goldie, a freeholder, present at the meeting, objected, That the claimant's title was altogether nominal and fictitious, and that no true and real estate was devised to him by the disposition from his father, which, besides being limited to heirs only, expressly provided, “That no debts contracted, or deeds done, or to be contracted and done, by the said Alexander Gordon, during the life of his father, without his consent, should ever affect the said lands, or rents thereof.” A clause which plainly pointed out, that the claimant had no estate at all during the life of his father.
The claimant answered, that he was in the absolute and irredeemable possession of the lands : that the clause of restriction in the disposition could have no influence, as there was no express prohibition from selling, and no clause declaring any debts contracted by him to be null; and that it was common for heritors to be admitted upon the roll, who are fettered with the strictest entails.
Thereafter, the claimant took the oath of trust and possession; but Mr Goldie having still insisted, that it appeared ex facie of the titles produced, that no estate was vested in his person during the life of his father, the vote was put, and, by a plurality of voices, the claimant was admitted upon the roll.
Mr Goldie complained to the Court of Session upon the grounds above stated; and,
The Lords repelled the objection*.
Act. Copland.Alt. Lockhart.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 423. Fac. Col. No 72. p. 163.
* By mistake in the Faculty Collection, the objection is said to have been sustained.
