Whether the sale understood a lump bargain or by rental. When subjects turn out disconform to the rental. When part of the subject has been evicted. Relief to a purchaser for an incumbrance not known at the time of sale.
Hugh Inglis, and Others, v. George Dempster
Date: 27 June 1788 Case No. No 31.
No diminution of the judicial rental sufficient to annul a judicial sale.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Between the year 1780, when a judicial rental of the lands of Skibo was made up, and the subsequent sale in 1786, the rents had fallen about a sixth part.
On this ground Mr Dempster, the purchaser, offered a bill of suspension, insisting, if he could not obtain a proportional abatement of the price, that he should be allowed to renounce the bargain altogether. He contended, That as so remarkable an alteration, if not intimated by the seller, would vacate a private sale, there was no reason for giving a different effect to one carried on under the authority of the Court of Session.
The Court, however, were unanimously of opinion, agreeably to many former determinations, that the plea here urged for Mr Dempster was inadmissible. As it was known that the chief object of the judicial rental was to ascertain the bankruptcy, and that in the interval which preceded the actual sale many alterations would necessarily happen, it was the business of intending purchasers to make a proper enquiry into the matter; and nothing but an undue concealment of the facts could annul a judicial sale, otherwise unexceptionable.
“The Lords found the letters orderly proceeded.”
Lord Ordinary, Hailes.Act. Blair.Alt. Geo. Fergusson.Clerk, Sinclair.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 210. Fac. Col. No 26. p. 43.
