United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

The complainer appealed, but no appearance was made for Lord Fife.

Appellant.—The erasure is such as to exclude all suspicion of fraud. The instrument was recorded on the very day the sasine was given; and the record agrees with the sasine in description. The deeds referred to in the instruments are identified. The erasures occur in three places: in stating the contents of Mrs Innes' charter of resignation,—of her disposition and assignation to the appellant,—and in the enumeration of the lands in which sasine was given. None of these erasures can be considered as vitiations in substantialibus. As to the two first,— the charter and disposition are admitted to be unchallengeable; but the instrument of sasine merely gives the contents of these deeds; and there are no legal grounds for holding that an error in that recapitulation,—an error that can be instantly corrected by reference to the principal,—must be fatal. As to the third erasure :—it occurs in a passage in the instrument, which passage, without injury to the appellant, might have been omitted altogether. Symbolical delivery was given, “Totarum et integrarum illarum partium et portionum de prædictis terris et hæreditate de Netherdale componen. primam portionem lie lot earundem.” If the notary had stopped here, this clause would (the instrument narrating also the dispositive clause of the charter, and the conveyance to the appellant “of all and whole those parts of the aforesaid lands and estate of Netherdale, comprehended under the first lot of the same”) have been sufficient to include all the different parcels of land contained in lot first. But the circumstance of the notary having, ex superabundante, again entered on an enumeration, was not of such moment as to weaken the previous certification, that sasine had, de facto, passed on all; and at all events, it was admitted