Scotland v. Mercer [1813] UKHL 1_Dow_229

UKHL
Scotland v. Mercer
[1813] UKHL 1_Dow_229
REPORTS OF APPEAL CASES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS During the Session , 1812–13. 53 Geo . III.FROM SCOTLAND.ON APPEALS AND WRITS OF ERROR.SCOTLAND.APPEAL FROM THE COURT, OF SESSION.

No. 20

Scotland Appellant v. Mercer Respondent

June 21 , 1813 .CASE OF SALE OF ESTATE HELD FEU, WITH CLAUSE OF PRE-EMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUPERIOR, UNDER PENALTY OF NULLITY OF SALE, AND IRRITATION OF FEUAR'S RIGHT.Mercer purchases an estate held in feu , with clause of pre-emption in favour of the superior, under penalty of nullity of the sale and irritation of the feuar's right. The purchaser in open Court consents to take the estate without the usual warranty. The sale sustained.August 1795. The Respondent, as trustee for Lord Keith, purchases the estate of Craiglaw, from the Appellant's father.Thomas Scotland , the Appellant's father was owner of a small estate called Craiglaw, in Perthshire, held in feu of the family of Aldie, of which Miss Mercer, Lord Keith's daughter, is the representative. This property, the Respondent, the factor on the Aldie estate, agreed to purchase as trustee for Lord Keith, and a minute of sale at the price of 1100 l . was accordingly drawn up on unstamped paper, signed by Thomas Scotland, and attested by Mr. James Keay, a respectable Solicitor, and another witness, and kept by the purchaser. This contract was executed in August 1795, the Respondent paying down 100 l . of the price.The Appellant inhibits his father, and raises action of reduction of sale on ground, that fee in himself, dismissed 1798.The Appellant having heard of his father's intention to sell inhibited him, and raised an action in the Court of Session, for declaring his own right as having the fee vested in him; his father being, as he alleged, merely a tenant for life. This action was depending at the time of the contract, and was finally dismissed only in 1798. During the whole

Page: 230 ↓

Clause of pre-emption in feu; charter in favour of superior.On examining Scotland's title deeds another difficulty occurred: it was discovered that by the original grant or feu charter of the lands of Craiglaw to Scotland's ancestor, which was dated in 1711, it was declared “not to be lawful to the feuar to sell or convey the lands so feued to any person, without first making an offer to the granters of the feu, or their successors; and upon their paying the value thereof, which had been paid by them (that is 600 merks, or 33 l . 6 s . 8 d sterling) the feuar should be obliged to denude (divest himself) in their favour. Or if the feuar should sell and convey without making such offer, then the feu right, or any deed granted by the feuar, should be void and null.” And this proviso was repeated in the instrument of sasine following on the feu charter, and in the subsequent investitures.Farqhuarson v. Keay . Fac. Coll 1800.Conveyance postponed, and why?A question on a similar case was depending in the Court of Session—whether such a proviso was available against a purchaser from the feuar, and it was deemed advisable to postpone the enforcing of the contract, 1st, Till the termination of the Appellant's above-mentioned action, and 2dly, Till the decision of the case in question, as this might be of material consequence in fixing upon the proper method of conveyance.Death of old Scotland in 1801, before conveyance, and action of reduction of sale by Appellant.In August 1801, old Scotland died, upon which the Appellant, as heir-at-law, brought an action in the Court of Session, calling for the production of the minute of sale, and concluding that it should be reduced on these grounds: 1st, That there was but

Page: 231 ↓

Dec. 6, 1806. Court of Session decides in favour of the Respondent.Appeal to the Lords.The Appellant, having by appointment of the Lord Ordinary, given in a condescendance offering to prove the facts alleged in his reasons of reduction, and a proof being allowed, several witnesses were examined as to the state of old Scotland's mind, and the value of the land at the time of the bargain. The evidence was contradictory, but the

Page: 232 ↓

“George Joseph Bell, for the Defender, stated, that the Defender all along considered himself bound by the minute of sale, under reduction, to implement the bargain in the terms of that deed, and that he did not, nor does he now consider himself entitled to any claim whatever against Thomas Scotland or his heirs, upon the warrandice in the minute, in consequence of any effect which might have been, or which may at any time hereafter be given to the clause of pre-emption, in favour of the superior of the lands in question contained in the charters thereof.”—
The Court then pronounced the following interlocutor:
“The Lords having resumed consideration of this process, and advised the state thereof, testimonies of the witnesses adduced, writs produced, and a minute now given in by the Defendant, and heard counsel further, repel the reasons of reduction, assoilzie the Defender, &c.”
From this decision the Appellant appealed to the House of Lords.Sir S. Romilly and Mr. Brougham (for the Appellant.) They submitted, 1st, That the preponderance of evidence, as to the imbecility and

Page: 233 ↓

Fac. Coll. 1800.Messrs. Adams sen. and jun . (for the Respondent.) 1st, The Appellant had totally failed in the

Page: 234 ↓

June 25, 1813.Ordered and adjudged that the appeal be dismissed, and the interlocutors complained of affirmed.Solicitors: Agent for Appellant, Campbell.Agent for Respondent, Chalmer.