Digest of Entail Cases in Which Deeds of Entail Have Been Challenged on the Ground of Alleged Defects in the Prohibitory or Fencing Clauses; With the

Digest of Entail Cases in Which Deeds of Entail Have Been Challenged on the Ground of Alleged Defects in the Prohibitory or Fencing Clauses; With the

By (author) 

List price: US$16.23

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1856 edition. Excerpt: ... review; sustain the defences, assoilzie the defender, and decern. The pursuer having appealed, the House of Lords ordered and adjudged that the interlocutor of 23d November 1838 be REVERSED. SMITH v. DUFFUS. C. of S. 28th January 1842. Held ( in a question with an onerous creditor ) that the prohibitions contained in this Entail against the contraction of debt, which might be the ground of adjudication, were not fenced with an efectual irritant clause. In virtue of a deed of entail dated in 1.707, and which had been unsuccessfully attacked in 1799 for an alleged defect in the prohibitory clause (for which see ante page 2), Lord Duifus succeeded to the estate of Hempriggs. The present was an action of declarator and adju dication against him at the instance of Mr Smith of Olrig, on the narrative that the pursuer had obtained decree against his Lordship and others for L.18,600, and concluding to have it found that the limitations and conditions of the entail did not apply to Lord Dulfus; that the deed of 1707 was not framed in accordance with the provisions of the Act 1685, c. 22; and that so much of the estate as corresponded to the debt should be adjudged to belong to the pursuer in satisfaction thereof. These conclusions were rested mainly on the pleas--1st, That as Lord Duifus had not succeeded to the dignity as well as to the lands of the entailer, he was not subject to the entail at all; 2d, That the irritant clause did not declare null, debts contracted by the heir in possession, nor other deeds done by which the lands might be adjudged. The following are the clauses which were founded on in support of these pleas: --" That it shall nowise be leisome nor lawful to the said Dame Elizabeth Dunbar, nor to the heirs of taillie...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 80 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 4mm | 159g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236906195
  • 9781236906199