Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Richard Hotchkis, W.S., and James Tytler, W.S., Trustees of the deceased Colonel William Dickson of Kilbucho v. John dickson, Esq., Advocate, of Kilbucho [1820] UKHL 6_Paton_615 (19 July 1820)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1820/6_Paton_615.html
Cite as: [1820] UKHL 6_Paton_615
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT
Page: 615↓
(1820) 6 Paton 615
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.
No. 102
v.
House of Lords,
Subject_Reduction of Deed — Erasure. —
Held, that a deed of entail had not been executed under the influence of fraud or compulsion, but voluntary on the part of the maker, and was, therefore, not reducible.
A reduction was brought by the appellants against the respondent, whereby they sought to set aside a certain deed of entail, which they alleged had been executed, not in terms of the entailer's intention, but through the fraud of the respondent, his brother, now possessing the estate, whereby their constituent's right in the said estate of Kilbucho had been limited to a liferent instead of giving him absolute powers over his own estate.
Nov. 16, 1813.
The Lord Ordinary pronounced this interlocutor “In respect, 1st, That it does appear that the execution of the deed of entail 1809, was, under all circumstances, a
Page: 616↓
June 2 and 28, 1814.
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,
John Clerk,
Geo. Cranstoun.
For the Respondent,
Alex. Maconochie,
Sir Saml. Romilly,
John A. Murray.
Note.—In the House of Lords, the appellants pleaded much on the deed being void as vitiated in substantialibus. It bore to have been executed on the 24th of April 1809; but the word fourth was clearly written on an erazure, and, therefore, they contended that this objection was fatal to the validity of the deed, but this was disregarded.