Inglis and Others v. Wilson [1909] ScotLR 979 (16 July 1909)

Inglis and Others v. Wilson [1909] ScotLR 979 (16 July 1909)

The disposition to the investment company, containing an obligation to infeft a me vel de me, was not a contravention of the prohibition against subinfeudation; the irritancy clause did not render the disposition void ab initio but allowed the superior to set it aside; as the disposition was not set aside and confirmation was not refused, the investment company became impliedly entered with the superior by virtue of the Conveyancing Act 1874; consequently, the defender’s title was valid and no duplieands of feu-duty for non-entry were due, only the casualty on entry.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 979
Parties
Pursuer: Jane Stuart Inglis and others; Defender: James Wilson junior
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 July 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House
Outcome
Lord Ordinary's interlocutors recalled; defender decerned for casualty only; assoilzied from duplieands claim.
Legal Topics
Subinfeudation, Entry of Successor, Feu Duty, Irritancy, Penalty Vs. Additional Feu Duty, Conveyancing (scotland) Act 1874
Property Law Conveyancing Feudal Law Subinfeudation Entry of Successor Feu Duty Irritancy Penalty Vs. Additional Feu Duty +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Stuart Inglis and others

Pursuer

James Wilson junior

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disposition to investment company contravened prohibition against subinfeudation
  2. 2 Effect of irritancy clause on disposition
  3. 3 Validity of defender's title and liability for duplieands of feu-duty

Ratio Decidendi

The disposition to the investment company, containing an obligation to infeft a me vel de me, was not a contravention of the prohibition against subinfeudation; the irritancy clause did not render the disposition void ab initio but allowed the superior to set it aside; as the disposition was not set aside and confirmation was not refused, the investment company became impliedly entered with the superior by virtue of the Conveyancing Act 1874; consequently, the defender’s title was valid and no duplieands of feu-duty for non-entry were due, only the casualty on entry.

Court Disposition

Lord Ordinary's interlocutors recalled; defender decerned for casualty only; assoilzied from duplieands claim.

Orders

  • Defender to pay £22, 10s. sterling with interest at 5% from 22 September 1882.
  • Defender assoilzied from claim for £938, 14s. 4d. duplieands and interest.