HENRY RAEBURN v JOHN BAIRD (Court of Session)

That the property had been conveyed in 1785 to Thomas Henderson and Bain Whyt pro indiviso, on condition of payment of the granter's debts, and certain provisions therein mentioned; but no evidence was produced that these were paid.

That Mr Henderson had conveyed his half of the property to certain trustees, of whom Bain Whyt was one, for certain specific purposes: That Bain Whyt, instead of applying the subjects in terms of Mr Henderson's trust, had made a title to Mr Henderson's half, by adjudication in implement, in favour of himself, his heirs and assignees, and got himself infeft in the other half of the subjects which had belonged to Mr Henderson, and then sold the whole property to Dr Hamilton, through whom the pursuer had acquired it.

That one of the infeftments had contained more words than was allowed by the stamp laws upon one stamp.

With these objections, the defender's agent stated that he could not advise his father to purchase on such a title.

On 12 July, the pursuer's agent answered these objections, by stating, 1st, That the debts and legacies by the granter of the disposition to Mr Henderson and Mr Whyt were not made real on the property, but merely took the disponees bound by acceptance to discharge the same, and therefore merely formed a personal obligation on the disponees, with which a purchaser had no concern. 2d, To remove any objection on the second head, a ratification had been obtained from Mr Henderson's heir-at-law; and as to the 3d objection, the infeftment had been transmitted to London to obtain an additional stamp.