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.
At a meeting of the freeholders of the county of Banff, Mr Innes claimed to be enrolled as a freeholder upon all and whole the lands of Coblehouse and others. It was ‘objected that the claimant is not regularly infeft in the lands of Coblehouse, inasmuch as in the instrument of sasine the word ‘house,’ forming part of the compound Coblehouse, is written upon an erasure.’ The claim was rejected by a majority of the freeholders. Mr Innes complained of that judgment, and pleaded —
Answered —An instrument of sasine is vitiated in substantialibus when there are manifest erasures in the specification and description of the lands to which it relates, and cannot be recognised as affording legal evidence that sasine of these lands, or those to which its warrants relate, has been delivered; Balfour , vol. i. p. 371.; Ross , p. 145.; Stair , B. 4, tit. 42, § 19.; Erskine , B. 3, tit. 2, § 20.; Bankton , B. 1, tit. 11, § 34.
The Judges of the First Division consulted the Judges of the Second Division and the Lords Ordinary, who, with the exception of Lords Cringletie and Eldin, gave it as their opinion, ‘that the erasures in the different passages of the sasine in favour of the complainer, as to the latter part of the word Coblehouse, vitiate the sasine, and render it null and void.’
For Complainer, Keay. John Gordon, W. S. Agent. For Respondent, George Robinson. Inglis and Weir, W. S. Agents. D. Clerk.
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.