United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

At a meeting of the freeholders of Stirlingshire, held for electing a member of parliament, the following objections were stated to the respondent's title to be admitted to the roll, viz. 1. That the claimant's sasine is void and null, in respect that the dispensing clause in the charter gave no authority for taking infeftment at the Manor Place of Kilsyth, quoad his lands; for although it bears that a sasine to be taken there should be sufficient for the whole lands and others mentioned in the charter, it contains no declaration that such sasine should be sufficient for any particular part of these lands; 2. The claimant's pretended qualification is altogether nominal and fictitious, and was never intended to give him a free and independent freehold for his own behoof; 3. That, in the valuation book, the lands of Clangor stand valued at £710. 18s. Scots; and the teinds thereof at £100 Scots, and although these cumulos were thrown together and divided in 1707 among the different parcels composing the lands of Clangor, and which division was approved of by the Commissioners of Supply in 1786, upon the application of Sir Arch. Edmonstone, and the different parcels of land now claimed on do, with the teinds thereof, according to this decret of approbation, stand valued at £410. 13s. 4d. Scots, yet the titles produced by the claimant do not give him any right whatever to the teinds; and, consequently, it does not appear that he is possessed of the valuation required by law.

In answer, it was stated; 1. That the clause of dispensation in the charter did authorize the taking of sasine in the way that had been done. Clauses of union and dispensation, when properly expressed, may support an infeftment in a particular parcel of lands, although taken at a place beyond the boundaries of such parcel. The objection says, that the clause only allows infeftment to be taken of the whole lands at the Manor Place of Kilsyth, or upon the ground of any part of the lands, but gave no authority for taking infeftment of any particular parcel, except upon the ground thereof. The bare perusal of the clause must show this objection to be frivolous; the words “ pro omni parte earundem,” certainly mean, for every or any part of the lands; and being used after the words “ pro dictis totis terris” plainly point

Page: 201↓