United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

In 1755, the present respondent obtained from the commissioners, appointed by the Duke of Montrose to manage the affairs in Scotland, a charter of all the lands he held under the dukedom of Lennox, consisting of no less than ten several parcels, for each of which there is a separate quit-rent or reddendo. Eight of these are held for payment of one penny Scots each. The ninth for payment of a pound of pepper if petatur tantum. The tenth was formerly held ward; but since the Act was made for abolishing ward holdings, it had been changed to a feu holding for payment of a quit-rent or feu-duty of 8 pounds 7 shillings and one penny Scots.

The Duke of Montrose, wishing to give freehold qualifications in the county of Dumbarton, to several of his friends, did, for that purpose, resign the greatest part of the dukedom of Lennox, and particularly the estates held under the dukedom by the respondent, Sir James Colquhoun, in favour of his only son, the Marquis of Graham, who passed a charter thereof under the Great Seal.

After which, the Marquis executed liferent dispositions in favour of the fourteen gentlemen, appellants in this cause, of parcels of the superiority of the lands held by the respondent, under the dukedom of Lennox, and assigned them severally the precept of sasine in his crown charter, by virtue, of which they were regularly infeft.

The respondent brought an action to reduce and set aside these several liferent dispositions and infeftments, on the ground that the whole lands therein contained, were holden by him of and under the said Duke, and, therefore, could not be separated in the manner attempted by these dispositions, without multiplying superiors upon him.

July 11, 1780.

Aug. 8, 1780.

Lord Kaimes, Ordinary, pronounced this interlocutor:—

“Sustain the reasons of reduction, and reduces, decerns, and declares in terms of the libel.”

On a representation he adhered.

The appellants reclaimed to the Court; and in his answers to that reclaiming petition, the respondent maintained, that a multiplication of superiors subjects the vassal to grievous inconveniences and hardships, because, 1st, In the present case, he must have recourse to fourteen superiors, and must have fourteen different charters, before he can be fully entered in, or invested with, his estate. 2d, He must account to, and settle

Page: 807↓