United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

It has been seen by the previous appeal, that the creditors had been successful before the Court of Session in obtaining a judgment, finding that the entailed estate of Barnbarrow was liable for John Vans' debts.

It was also mentioned that his son, Robert Vans Agnew, had also contracted considerable debts; and he in his turn raised an action of reduction against the heirs of entail, on the grounds, inter alia—1st, That the entail did not protect the estates against the contraction of debts. 2d, That he was entitled to set aside the contract of mutual entail because the counterpart of it had not been implemented on the part of John Vans, one of the contracting parties, but the same had been defeated by his contracting debts. 3d, That he ought to be allowed to relieve and disengage from the said entail as much of the estate of Sheuchan as would be equal in value to the extent of the debts contracted by John Vans. 4th, To sell and dispose of so much of the said lands and estate of Barnbarrow, as shall be sufficient to discharge these debts; and for their Lordships to interpone their authority to such sale, upon proof of the rental and value of the estate.

A remit was made to an accountant, as to the amount of the debts and the rental of the estate; but the Court ultimately pronounced this interlocutor:—

March 11, 1785.

“But, in regard there

Page: 62↓

is no clause or provision in the entail by which the heir of entail is empowered to sell the whole or any part of the said estate of Barnbarrow for payment of debt, and in regard the Court has no jurisdiction to authorise any such sale, assoilzie the defenders,—leaving to the pursuer and the other parties concerned to take such steps for their relief in the premises as they shall be advised.”

Against the interlocutors pronounced in this cause, with the exception of part of the last interlocutor, which is above quoted, the present appeal was brought.

After hearing counsel,