William, Duke of Montrose; James, Marquis of Graham; John Graham of Duchray; George Graham of Kinross, and Others v. Sir James Colquhoun, Bart. of Luss [1782] UKHL 6

UKHL
William, Duke of Montrose; James, Marquis of Graham; John Graham of Duchray; George Graham of Kinross, and Others v. Sir James Colquhoun, Bart. of Luss
[1782] UKHL 6 · 1782-02-19
Held that the superior was not entitled to grant certain liferent conveyances of the superiority of the vassal's lands, so as to multiply superiors over him, and the dispositions reduced.The family of Colquhoun had at different times, by grants directly to themselves, or by purchase from other grantees, accumulated a very considerable estate, holding under the dukedom of Lennox, each of these parcels of land originally

Page: 806 ↓

In 1755, the present respondent obtained from the commissioners, appointed by the Duke of Montrose to manage the affairs in Scotland, a charter of all the lands he held under the dukedom of Lennox, consisting of no less than ten several parcels, for each of which there is a separate quit-rent or reddendo. Eight of these are held for payment of one penny Scots each. The ninth for payment of a pound of pepper if petatur tantum . The tenth was formerly held ward; but since the Act was made for abolishing ward holdings, it had been changed to a feu holding for payment of a quit-rent or feu-duty of 8 pounds 7 shillings and one penny Scots.The Duke of Montrose, wishing to give freehold qualifications in the county of Dumbarton, to several of his friends, did, for that purpose, resign the greatest part of the dukedom of Lennox, and particularly the estates held under the dukedom by the respondent, Sir James Colquhoun, in favour of his only son, the Marquis of Graham, who passed a charter thereof under the Great Seal.After which, the Marquis executed liferent dispositions in favour of the fourteen gentlemen, appellants in this cause, of parcels of the superiority of the lands held by the respondent, under the dukedom of Lennox, and assigned them severally the precept of sasine in his crown charter, by virtue, of which they were regularly infeft.The respondent brought an action to reduce and set aside these several liferent dispositions and infeftments, on the ground that the whole lands therein contained, were holden by him of and under the said Duke, and, therefore, could not be separated in the manner attempted by these dispositions, without multiplying superiors upon him.July 11, 1780.Aug. 8, 1780.

Lord Kaimes, Ordinary, pronounced this interlocutor:—

“Sustain the reasons of reduction, and reduces, decerns, and declares in terms of the libel.”
On a representation he adhered.The appellants reclaimed to the Court; and in his answers to that reclaiming petition, the respondent maintained, that a multiplication of superiors subjects the vassal to grievous inconveniences and hardships, because, 1st, In the present case, he must have recourse to fourteen superiors, and must have fourteen different charters, before he can be fully entered in, or invested with, his estate. 2d, He must account to, and settle

Page: 807 ↓

Feb. 1, 1781.Feb. 17, 1781.

The Court pronounced this interlocutor:—

“The Lords having advised this petition with the answers, they repel the reasons of reduction in so far as relates to the charter in favour of the Marquis of Graham, and with that variation, adhere to the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary reclaimed against, and refuse the desire of the petition: Find expenses due; and appoint an account thereof to be given into Court.”
On second reclaiming petition the Court adhered.Against these interlocutors the present appeal was brought to the House of Lords.After hearing counsel,It was ordered and adjudged that the interlocutors complained of be, and the same are hereby affirmed.Counsel: For the Appellants, Henry Dundas, Tho. Erskine. For the Respondent, David Rae, Ilay Campbell.