United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

This was a competition in regard to the succession of the deceased James Stewart, which rested chiefly on the facts adduced in proof, as to which of them was the nearest heir entitled to be served and to succeed to the deceased.

The service of the respondent, James Stwart, had been first expede; and so left no room, it was contended, for a second service in name of James Sharp; but James Sharp also served himself heir, and mutual actions of reduction were brought by the parties against each other, to set aside the one service as adverse to the other.

Nov. 29, 1799.

The Lords, of this date, pronounced this interlocutor:—“Having advised this petition, with additional petition for James Stewart, and answers for James Sharp, sustain the reasons of reduction in the action brought by James Stewart; and reduce, decern, and declare accordingly; repel the reasons of reduction in James Sharp's action, assoilzies James Stewart therefrom, and decern.”

The appellant preferred a reclaiming petition against this interlocutor, in which he admitted, that unless he could prove that he was the lawful heir of James Stewart, he could not challenge the respondent's service. He also seemed to admit that the proof he had brought was not only inconsistent with his service, the degree of relationship being altogether different; that several important links of the chain had been altogether omitted, and no evidence brought that James Stewart, in the island of Lewis, or his son and daughter, said to be the connecting links between the ancestors of the appellant and James Stewart, ever existed. But it was maintained, that the Court might nevertheless warrantably decide in favour of the appellant, on two grounds; 1st, An alleged general opinion or reputation, during James Stewart's life, and afterwards, that the appellant was his nearest and lawful heir; and, 2dly, The declarations of James Stewart himself

Page: 61↓