Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The warrandice was from fact and deed. The assignation to the title-deeds was the same as in the disposition in Miss Anstruther's own favour, ‘together with the procuratories of resignation, precept of sasine, and clause of warrandice, obligations for making writs forthcoming, and whole other obligements and clauses therein contained, and all actions or executions,’ &c. with warrandice from her own proper acts and deeds only.
No infeftment was passed in favour of Sir Alexander. His right continued personal; and, in this situation of the titles, he executed the deed of entail under reduction. That deed proceeds on the following narrative:
Defences were given in for Mr Robert Anstruther, and also for Mr Philip Anstruther, the next heir, and for Dame Sarah Anstruther, the relict of the entailer. The record having been closed on the summons and defences, the Lord Ordinary appointed cases, in which the following objections and answers were stated:
st , It was objected that the entail was ineffectual, because the late Sir Alexander had merely a personal title to the lands.
dly , It was objected, that the deed of alteration executed by Sir Alexander in 1814 annulled and rendered void the entail of 1810.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.