United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Archibald and James Canison v. David Marshall [1764] UKHL 6_Paton_759 (27 January 1764)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1764/6_Paton_759.html
Cite as: [1764] UKHL 6_Paton_759

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT

Page: 759↓

(1764) 6 Paton 759

CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.

No. 133

Archibald and James Canison, Appellants

v.

David Marshall, Respondent

House of Lords, 27th January 1764.

Subject_Reduction — Force and Fear. —

A reduction was raised of certain deeds impetrated from the respondent's mother, under the threat that the deed granted in her favour by her father was forged, and that he could procure them to be hanged for it, whereby she, with consent of her husband, was induced to grant a disposition of the estate left her by her father, and also to execute a renunciation of her right: Held these deeds invalid and ineffectual, and reduced accordingly.

William Weir was proprietor of one half of the estate of Sunnyside, and an action of reduction was brought by the respondent, as heir in general to his mother, Anne Weir, or Marshall, against the appellants, to set aside a disposition executed in 1736, by his mother, with his father's consent,

Page: 760↓

in favour of Alexander Canison, setting forth expressly, that William Weir, deceased, had in his lifetime made a disposition of his whole heritable estate to his daughter, Anne Weir (Mrs Marshall), and her heirs, upon the failure of his son, Robert, and the heirs of his body. That Alexander Canison and his curators, raised a process of reduction and improbation for setting aside that disposition as false and forged, and had threatened to have the respondent's father and mother hanged, as the forgers of it. That being terrified by such unjust and arbitrary threatenings, they were vi et metu compelled and concussed to grant the deed in question, without receiving any consideration therefor, and a note of a 100 guineas was also extorted from them; and therefore concluding not only for reduction of that deed ex capite vis et metus; but also for repetition of payment of 100 guineas, with interest from 13th March 1736, and for an account and payment of the rents of a half of the said William and Robert Weir's estate for the year 1736, and subsequent years, at the rate of £100 sterling per annum.

The appellants still insisted in their allegations of forgery, which the respondent denied.

Nov. 24, 1762.

A proof was allowed and reported. Upon the result of which the Court pronounced this interlocutor:

“Find the reasons of reduction relevant and proven, and therefore reduce the disposition granted by Anne Weir, second lawful daughter, and one of the two apparent heirs portioners, and of line of the deceased William Weir of Sunnyside, with consent of, David Marshall, surgeon in Hamilton, her husband, in favour of Alexander Canison, only lawful son of the deceased John Canison, town-clerk, Hamilton, renunciation and discharge granted by the said Anne Weir, with consent of her husband, in favour of the said Alexander Canison, both bearing date the 13th March 1736, and both ratified by the said Anne Weir, of the same date, with the instrument of sasine following thereon: as, also, disposition by the said Alexander Canison, in favour of James Canison, writer in Hamilton, and Archibald Canison, merchant there, defendants (appellants), dated 10th April 1749, and instrument of sasine following thereon, with the charters and infeftments obtained from the superiors, in favour of the said James and Archibald Canison, in so far as relates to the equal half of the heritable subjects thereby conveyed, which belonged to the deceased William Weir, and afterwards to the also deceased Robert Weir, his
Page: 761↓
son; and decern and declare accordingly. Find the defendants (appellants) liable in the expense of process, of which ordain an account to be given in; as also in the expense of extracting the decree, as the same shall be certified by the collector of the clerk's dues, and decern, and remit to the Lord Ordinary, who pronounced the act, to hear parties' procurators on the other conclusions of the libel, and to do and proceed therein as he shall see cause.”

Jan. 21, 1763.

On reclaiming petition the Court adhered.

Against these interlocutors the present appeal was brought to the House of Lords.

After hearing counsel,

It was ordered and adjudged that the interlocutors complained of be, and the same are hereby, affirmed, with £100 costs.

Counsel: For the Appellants, C. Yorke, Al. Forrester.
For the Respondent, Thos. Miller, Alex. Wedderburn.

1764

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010