Some doubts & questions, in the law, especially of Scotland as also, some decisions of the lords of Council and Sessions / collected & observed by Sir John Nisbet of Dirleton ... ; to which is added, an index, for finding the principal matters in the said decisions.

F.

Faculty to alter,

LAnds being disponed with power to alter, without these Words, Etiam in Lecto; If that Faculty may be used in Lecto?

A Person having reserved a Power to alter in Lecto; May he then use that Power, in favours of any other Person than his Heir; seing he is not in legitima Potestate as to the disponing an Hereta∣ble Interest: and on the other Part, the Heir has no prejudice?

Faculty to Dispone.

BY a Write granted by the Earl of Callender, to his Lady, he gives her power to dispose of the half of his Estate, Quaeritur, The said Power being Personal, without mention of her Heirs, and she not having used the said Faculty; If the said Power be Transmissible? Found by the Lords That the Earl of Dumfermling as Heir to his Mother, had right thereto: and he having assigned the same to his Son, he recovered thereupon the half of the Estate, To see the Decreet.

Jus Facultatis.

ATtendendum, an quis aliquid faciat jure facultatis an jure servitutis; Fa∣cultas enim non minus aliis quam nobis patet: quia usus qui alii magis ex occasione quam jure conting it, Servitus non est, nec in eo temporis Diutur∣nitas

quidquam prodest, nisi accesserit prohibitio praescribentis, & patientia ejus contra quem praescribitur Jus Fluviat. p. 756. N. 71. & sequent.

Personal Faculty.

A Person giving a qualified Right, reserving Liferent and a Power to dispone: Quaeritur, If that Faculty may be comprised as a Personal Reversion?

Quae Facultatis sint?

ALiqua Dicuntur esse facultatis, quorum Libertas a Jure publico permissa est, quae non pariunt jus deducibile in Judicium: hoc casu nec nos contra alios praescribimus, nec alii contra nos; Exemplum est in Leg. viam. 2da. de via publica. Aliud Exemplum est in facultate privata, quae nullam antecedentem habet causam obligandi; ut si Rusticus sua sponte, nulla praecedente causa, per multos annos, Domino, certis temporibus, capones attulit; ex hoc actu merae fa∣cultatis nulla oritur Domino actio.

Quomodo intelligendum, Facultati non praescribi.

ALiqua dicuntur esse Facultatis ad acquirendum novum Jus, vel novam a∣ctionem; vel etiam ad eam Conservandam: atque ita pariunt Jus dedu∣cibile in judicium. Et hoc jus licet sit in libera potestate acquirere volentis, non tamen est in potestate illius contra quem acquiritur, vel conservatur, ut recusa∣re posset. Sic adire haereditatem est merae facultatis, & tamen tollitur & prae∣scribitur spatio 30 annorum; ergo & juri offerendi, & reluendi praescribitur. Hering. de Molend. quaest. 21. N. 17. & sequen.

Jus publicum tribuit cuivis de Populo, ut uni ex multis, nec privative ad alium, etsi ad singulos inde aliquid commodi perveniat: Inde illud quod dice∣re solent, Facultati non Praescribi, Dicitur de his quae à natura, aut publico Jure tribuuntur; itaque quocunque tempore, nemo praescribit ut qua ierit in publico nullus alius commeet, etsi nunquam ea commearit.

Ea quae de tali facultate dicta sunt, non recte Traducuntur ad ea quae pro∣prii & privati cujusque Juris sunt; id enim Jus est quod ad privatum quem∣que pertinet privativé, ita ut non ad alium: Omni siquidem Juri aut facul∣tati quae competit privato cuiquam privativé, potest praescribi. Idem Ib∣id. N. 20.

Faculty reserved to dispone.

IT being ordinary that a power is reserved by these who Dispone Lands, especially to their Friends, to Redeem or Dispone or Burden at any time dureing their Lifetimes. Quaeritur, Whether Lifetimes should be understood civily, during their Liege Poustie?

Item, Quaeritur. If the Receiver of the Disposition be Dead and the Lands in Non-entry, whether the Disponer may notwithstanding Dis∣pone and resign by vertue of the said Power? Ratio Dubitandi, The said Faculty is upon the matter a Heretable Commission and Procuratory,

which cannot be Execute post mortem mandantis: and there is no person that has the Right Established in his person so that it may be resigned.

Item. If the Lands be in Non-entry and Ward, will the Resignation by vertue of the said Faculty determine and put an end to the foresaid Casualities in prejudice of the Superior? Ratio Dubitandi. The De∣funct by whose Decease they accrue was the Superiors Vassal: And though the Disponer has the same power, yet he should have used it debi∣to tempore, while the Vassal was on Life, and before the pursuer had jus quaesitum: On the other part, the said power is of the nature of a Regress, so that quocunque tempore (as in the case of regress) Re-entry may be desired by vertue of the said Faculty.

A Charter being to be granted to a person conform to the said power; That Clause, Quaequidem pertinuerunt, what way it is to be conceaved; and if mention should not be made of the person who is Infeft for the pre∣sent, though he be not the person to whom the Right was Disponed with the said Power; But either an Heir or singular Successor?

If the Faculty to Dispone be not upon the matter a Reversion, materially and as to the effect of the same; so that the person having the same, may Dispone albeit he has not jus in re; And albeit the Heretor be either Dead or Forfaulted; As an order may be used against an Appearand Heir, or against the King or his Donator, in the case of Forfaulture or ultimus Haeres?

A Person who had the Faculty foresaid, having by vertue thereof Dis∣poned, but deceasing before Resignation, Quaeritur, What way the Disposition shall be made effectual, seing the Faculty was personal to himself?

Fee.

WHen by a Contract of Marriage a Sum is to be provided to a Hus∣band and Wife in Liferent, and to the Bairns in Fee; Which Failʒieing to the Father and his Heirs. Quaeritur. Before there be Chil∣dren where is the Fee? And if it be not fit to take it to the Father to the use and behoof of the Children, which Failʒieing to himself and his Heirs?

When it is intended that by Contract of Marriage the Parents should be only Liferenters, and that certain Sums should be provided to the Chil∣dren, so that they do not represent them, Quaeritur, What way the Fee can be provided to the Children that are not in being? Answer, The Fa∣ther may be infeft in Liferent for himself, and in Fee for the use and be∣hoof of his Eldest Son and his Heirs: Which Fee is to be to the Father and his Heirs, to the use foresaid: And they are to be obliged upon the Existence of a Son, to denude in Favours of him and his Heirs.

By Contract of Marriage betwixt Knockdaw, Sir John Kennedy, and Gilbert Kennedy of Girvanmayns, The said Sir John having married the said Gilbert's Daughter; The said Gilbert's Lands and Estate are dispon∣ed to the said Sir John and his said Spouse, and the Heirs betwixt them; which failʒieing, to such of the said Gilbert's other Daughters, as he should at any time appoint; which failʒieing, to the said Sir John's Heirs and Assigneys whatsomever: and now the said Sir John being deceased, and having a Son of the Marriage, Quaeritur, Whether the Fee did belong

to him, so that his Son may be served Heir to him in the Estate? It is Answered, That in the case of the Duke and Dutchess of Monmouth, The Conception of the Tailʒie not being unlike, it was thought the Dutchess was Fiar; albeit the Limitation of the Heirs did ultimatly resolve in the Dukes Heirs; upon that ground that there is a difference betwixt the case where the Lands are provided and Disponed to the Husband and the Wife, and the Heirs of Marriage; which Failʒieing either to the Hus∣bands Heirs, or Wifes Heirs: And in the case foresaid where after the Heirs of the Marriage there are diverse substitutions, in favours of the Wife's other Heirs; and after all in favours of the Husbands Heirs. In the first, if the Wife's Heirs be only substitute Failʒieing Heirs of the Marriage, the Husband is understood to be Fiar; Because as it is the essence of a Fee to have power to Dispone, and if the Fiar do not Dispone to transmit to the Fiars Heirs, and to be represented by them: And in dubio cujus haeredibus maxime prospicitur, That person is thought to be Fiar. But in the second case, there being diverse degrees of Substitutions and all in favours of the Wife and her Heirs, before her Husbands Heirs, The Wife is thought to be Fiar: And upon the Failʒeure of all her Re∣lations, the Husbands Heirs in the last place are Heirs of provision to her; And yet in the said case of Girvanmains, It is thought that the Husband is Fiar, there being these specialities in that case. 1mo. The said Estate is Disponed to the Husband, and his Spouse the longest Liver as said is and their Heirs of the Marriage; and there is no Liferent settled on the Husband, whereas there is a Liferent of a part of the Lands given to his Wife in satisfaction of what might fall to her either of her Fathers Estate, or of her Husbands. 2do. There is a provision that if there should be no Children of the Marriage to succeed to that Estate, the Husband should be obliged in that case, he and his Heirs to denude themselves upon payment of a certain Sum of Money; and he could not denude himself unless he were Fiar: So that it was intended that the Husband should be Fiar, but with the foresaid Provision to denude in the case foresaid, and to be restricted to a Tocher: For which and other Reasons arising upon the Contract, The Antecedentia and Consequentia being considered, It is thought that the Son should be Heir to his Father as Fiar.

A Bond being granted to a Man and his Wife, and their Heirs. Quae∣ritur, What Right the Wife will have to the Sum? Ratio Dubitandi, that there being no mention that the Sum should be due to the longest Liver, and the Heirs of the longest Liver, but to them both and their Heirs, It appears that the Heirs should be understood the Husbands Heirs as Personae digniores. Answer. It is thought that seing there is an joint Right to the Husband and the Wife, and it is the custome of Persons of their Quali∣ty being mean Country Persons, that the longest liver should enjoy all: The Wife indubie should enjoy the haill in Liferent and should have the Fee of the half.

De Feodo Pecuniae & Nominum.

PEcuniae & Nominum nec proprie Ususfructus nec Feodum est; usus∣fructus enim definitur jus utendi fruendi salvâ, rerum substantia: pecunia autem sive in specie, sive in nominibus est res fluxa: Et si in

specie sit facile diffluit & usu consumitur: Nomina autem etsi initio idonea; debitoribus decoquentibus, inania sunt. Quemadmodum vero ob utilita∣tem receptum est, ut pecuniae sit quasi usus fructus ita est quasi feodum: istud enim proprie loquendo est tantum in rebus soli & stabilibus & feu∣dis tantum; non vero allodialibus (ita dictis quod nullo laudato & recognito alio dominio, ad proprietarium pertinent pleno & integro jure nec libato & diviso in Dominium directum & utile: Licet autem apud alias Gentes praedia quaedam allodialia sint, nobis omnia sunt feudalia.) Et Feodum qui∣dem in feudis de proprietate & dominio dicitur, prout distinguitur ab usu fructu & aliis quae circa feuda versantur juribus: Per Metaphoram tamen Feodum transfertur ad pecunias & nomina ita ut is in Feodo esse dicatur cui jus summum & proprietatis competit: plaerumque vero evenit sive seculi vitio (in nova commenta prurientis) sive Notariorum Incuria aut imperitia ut Chirographorum stylus a primaeva simplicitate deflectat, sic haud raro nec immerito dubitatur penes quos sit pecuniae & Nominum Feodum.

Quaestio Prima.

SI igitur Sempronius Pater, Pecuniam crediderit & Chirographo sti∣pulatus sit eam & usuras sibi solvi si superstes sit; Eo autem per obitum deficiente Titio filio suo & Titii haeredibus & quibus dederit, seu assignatis: Ita tamen ut Sempronio liceat de pecunia & Nomine dis∣ponere Titio & haeredibus ejus inconsultis nec consentientibus: Quaeri∣tur, In ista facti specie ad quem nominis istius Feodum pertineat? Et videri possit Feodum ad Titium filium pertinere cum nulla sit mentio Sempronij haeredum: Et Feodi ea sit natura ut ad haeredem transeat, qui in jure eadem persona censetur: Dicendum tamen Sempronium in Feodo esse; penes Titium vero & ejus haeredes spem & jus successionis: Nam quae Feodi & proprietatis vel essentialia vel naturalia sunt (ut sciʐ.) Dominus de re sua disponere possit & ut ea ad haeredes transeat) ea Sem∣pronio competunt; potestas enim disponendi etiam non expressa in∣esset; & Titius Sempronio substitutus in jus ejus succedit & pro haerede ha∣betur (provisionis saltem ut loquimur) idque ex eo elucescit quod si ac∣cessisset etiam hypotheca & sasina, terris pro Pecunia in hypothecam da∣tis, i••sdem conceptis verbis Sempronio sciʐ.) & eo deficiente Titio filio & ejus haeredibus & assignatis; Titius eo casu extra omnem quaestionis aleam haeres foret: ubi autem eadem sunt verba & eadem ratio, idem jus est & esse debet.

Quaest. 2da.

IN ista facti specie supra memorata, Quaeritur etiam an Sempronius de isto nomine disponere possit, nedum inter vivos sed Testamento aut codicillis eo legato; cum debitum Chirographarium & mobile sit?

Respondendum videtur, Sempronium eo ipso quod tam haeredibus quam executoribus praeteritis, Titium elegit & substítuit sibi, instar haeredis provisionis, & interciso ordinario succedendi ordine quasi Tallia; Titium in ea re haeredem esse voluit: Voluisse etiam nomen esse haereditarium,

de quo moribus nostris nisi inter vivos non licet disponere; nec de ea re est Testamenti factio: Nec ad haeredem institutum in mobilibus seu exe∣cutorem nominatum pertinet, quod ab intestato ad Executorem dativ∣um non pertineret.

Quaest. 3tia.

IN ista etiam specie, Quaeritur, Si Chirographum in actorum codi∣cem seu Regestum (sive ut loquimur Registrum) referatur, vel a Sempronio, vel eo mortuo a Titio, ut instar sententiae habeatur & ex eo sit executio parata: An eo casu Titio executio competat; ita ut Literis Exe∣cutorialibus & Cornuationis (ut loquimur) impetratis, debitori man∣dari possit ut Titio solvat sub poena Rebellionis: Et comminatione ni pareat, eum Exlegem & Rebellem denunciatum iri?

Respondetur. Titio actionem quidem competere adversus debitorem, non executionem summariam, cum non sit Creditor primarius & ab initio, sed jure successionis ut substitutus & haeres talliae aut provisionis: Haeredi siquidem ex Chirographo nunquam executio summaria compe∣tit, nisi a decessore in acta relatum & post ejus obitum in haeredem tran∣slatum sit; vel haerede agente per viam actionis ut in acta referatur, de ea re sententia sequatur.

Quaestio ista, utpote de formula, haud magni momenti esse videtur; eventu tamen fieri potest ut sit maximi: Processus enim cornuationis ex longa & catenata serie diligentiae conflatus, magno temporis & operae & sumptuum dispendio ad ultimam forte metam deductus inanis corrueret; si constiterit Titium haud rite processisse, cum ei summaria executio haud competeret; adeo multum est bene coepisse: Sublato enim funda∣mento superstructa corruunt, & paria sunt in jure non fieri & non rite fieri.

Quest. 4ta.

IN specie supradicta Respondimus nomen in persona Sempronii pri∣marii creditoris haereditarium: Superest tamen adhuc scrupulus & quaestio an in persona Titii substituti sit etiam haereditarium, an vero ut mobile ad executores Titii pertineat? Sed

Respondetur, Nomen etiam quoad Titium haereditarium esse: absur∣dum enim foret, partim haereditarium partim mobile esse: & cum ab initio haereditarium sit non desinit esse haereditarium; nisi creditor vel substitutus facto aliquo declaret naturam nominis innovatam velle; li∣teris forte impetratis & debitore jusso solvere sub poena Rebellionis.

Quest. 5ta.

IN illa facti specie superius memorata, cum essent quinque rei deben∣di in solidum, uno ex iis defuncto, Sempronius creditor de eadem pecuniae summa sibi dari curaverat ab haerede ejus syngrapham seu oblga∣tionem corroborationis; sic dictam quod priore obligatione salva ad eam ut accessoria et auxiliaris accedat eamque corroboret: eaque obli∣gatione stipulatus fuerat pecuniam sibi solvi, ipsoque per obitum defi∣ciente

non Titio ejusque haeredibus in principali obligatione substitutis, sed Gaio ejusque haeredibus: Quaerebatur igitur utrum post mortem Sempronii, pecunia ad haeredes Titii praemortui ex prima substitutio∣ne; an vero pertineat ad Gaium ex seounda?

Respondendum, Videtur eam ad Gaium ejusque haeredes pertinere: Sempronius enim facultate usus quam sibi reservaverat, & quae etiam non expressa penes eum ut dominum & feudatarium fuisset, novissima substitutione priorem sustulerat: & licet notarii imperitia aut oscitan∣tia haud cautum sit pecuniam solvendam tam ex principali quam acces∣soria syngrapha Gaio & ejus haeredibus; id tamen jus supplet & sub∣intelligit: posteriora siquidem derogant prioribus; nec possibile est ut idem jus sit in solidum penes plures & diversos creditores: ad haec in ijs quae sunt facultatis & arbitrii, voluntas posterior operatur & praevalet utcunque expressa; & magis valet quod agitur quam quod concipi∣tur.

Quest. 6ta.

HAud dissimili ratione, si debitum sit haereditarium (hypotheca∣rium sciʐ.) addito pacto de terrarum hypotheca; postea vero creditor nova syngrapha in corroborationem accepta stipuletur pecuniam sibi et executoribus solvendam; statim nomen haereditarium esse desinit: Licet enim posterior syngrapha sit in corroborationem et absque praejudicio prioris, ita ut ex utraque syngrapha pecunia debeatur et exigi possit; mutantur tamen nominis qualitates et accidentia extrin∣sica; ex principali siquidem obligatione haereditarium; ex accessoria mo∣bile est: nec interest debitoris quos sibi velit creditor haeredes aut execu∣tores aut substitutos; adeo ea de re voluntas creditoris ambulatoria est & novissima derogat praecedentibus.

Quest. 7ma.

CUm in specie cujus saepius mentio facta est, Gaius substitutus sit Sempronio in syngrapha, in corroborationem data ab haerede tan∣tum unius ex pluribus correis debendi: quomodo agere poterit ad∣versus reliquos debitores nec ex principali nec accessoria obligatione Gaio obligatos?

Resp. Actione utili in factum Gaium adversus omnes correos expe∣riri posse (eam Angli vocant Action upon the case) narrata facti specie superius exposita: nec minus ut expeditior sit adversus debitores actio potest etiam agere adversus haeredes Titij substituti in prima obligati∣one, ut eam sibi cedant.

Quest. 8va.

CUm pecunia creditur, & Chirographo Sempronio creditori Titius ejusque haeredes & executores substituti sunt; diximus nomen istud haereditarium esse: verum sententiae isti refragari videtur consti∣tutio novella, Caroli secundi Act 32, Parl. 1. 1661, Ea siquidem statu∣tum

est, omnia nomina ad executores pertinere, nec haereditaria esse nisi in casibus ibi exceptis; qui (ut vulgo dicitur) formant regulam in non exceptis: ij autem sunt tres viz. Si obligatione haeredibus tantum con∣sultum sit & disertis verbis arceantur executores: si accedat hypotheca & investitura, quae est Ius reale & haereditarium, nec ad executores pertinet cum sint haeredes tantum in mobilibus: & si pactum sit de creditore inve∣stiendo ex quo investitura & sasina sequi potest. Idem Ordines prius sta∣tuerant tempore Turbarum & funesti inter Regem & populum dissidii An∣no. 1641. Act 57: quod adhuc extat in Codice apocrypho actorum istius temporis: Nec injuste quidem, si materiam spectes, sed frustra & irritum defectu potestatis legislativae quae penes solum Regem est: Is enim solus sancit, unus sancit pro authoritate, sed praevio Ordinum consilio & con∣sensu: sed,

Resp. Utrobique, tam Regia constitutione, quam illo ordinum statu∣endi conatu, agi tantum de ea nominum specie quae vulgaris & frequen∣tior est; Cum sciʐ. Ita in creditum itur ut pecunia debeatur, & red∣denda sit creditori ejusque haeredibus & executoribus; quo casu sanci∣tur ea ad executores pertinere: in aliis vero casibus, ubi singularis ali∣qua ratio obest suadetque nomen nec creditorem voluisse nec posse ad executores pertinere; Lex ista locum non habet: Et cum varii casus nec de regula nec legis sint, nec de iis cogitatum, eos omnes excipere nec necesse vix possibile erit: in compertum autem est Sempronium creditorem cum Titium ejusque haeredes sibi substituerit, Executores exclusos voluisse: Et in genere, ubicunque pecunia (ut ita dicam) talliatur; & interciso ordinario succedendi ordine, haeredibus Talliae, aut provisionis prospicitur nomen haereditarium est; e. g. Si quis Chiro∣graphum acceperit sibi & haeredibus forte inter ipsum & uxorem pro∣creatis, quibus deficientibus haeredibus de corpore suo, quibus etiam deficientibus aliis provisionis haeredibus; nemo ut opinor arbitrabitur nomen illud, quo consulto tot haeredibus consulitur haud haereditarium esse: licet in Chirographo nec de executoribus submovendis nec de investitura aut sasina danda caveatur.

Quaest. 9na.

QUod superius dictum est substitutum Sempronio ei in Jus nominis succedere & haeredem provisionis esse. Sed de ea re ambigitur, & Quaeritur an Sempronio haeres esse possit, qui eo defuncto e vestigio a∣gere potest adversus debitores ex obligatione etiam sine alia aditione; licet ex inquisitione quindecemvirali (ut moris est) haud compertum & declaratum sit, eum Sempronio in ea re haeredem esse: accedit quod haeres succedit in universum Jus substitutus vero in isto nomine in rem unam & singularem & forte exilem? Tenendum tamen est substitutum haeredem esse Sempronio saltem provisionis: quandocunque enim do∣minium & feodum alicujus rei sive fundi sive nominis est penes aliquem tempore obitus, ea ad alium transmitti & transire nequit nisi haeres sit: nec alio Titulo aut Jure succedit substitutus ubi nomen est Chirographa∣rium tantum; quam ubi est etiam Hypothecarium: certum autem est ubi debitum Hypothecarium est, sasina secuta, substitutum titulo haere∣dis,

nec aliter posse, succedere: imo substituto praemoriente, Sempronio substituti haeres Jus nominis haud nanciscitur nisi Sempronio haeres sit; Et ex Inquisitione constiterit & declaratum sit eum esse haeredem.

Quaest. 10.

MOribus nostris haeres nullum Jus consequitur nisi haereditatem ade∣at, sive ea sit in praediis sive in aliis rebus haereditariis. In ter∣ris autem duo sunt modi adeundi, ut sciʐ. a Superiore seu domino di∣recto, vassallo defuncto, haeres agnoscatur & ejus jussu & seu praecepto (quod Clare Constat dicitur) ut haeres investiatur: vel ex inquisitione Judicis ad quem ea res pertinet constet, & ab eo renunciatum sit eum esse haeredem, & Sasina secuta sit: In aliis vero rebus unicus adeun∣di modus ex inquisitione sciʐ. Cum igitur in casu superiori, substitutus nulla praevia Inquisitione secundum obitum Sempronii, statim & recte adversus debitorem agat, haud immerito dubitatur an Sempronio haeres sit? sed,

Respondetur, isto casu aditionem haud deesse imo necessariam esse; cum enim haereditas aut opulenta aut damnosa sit; ut invito non datur bene∣ficium ita damnum & injuria non debet inferri; nec ullo jure nisi civili apud Romanos haeres necessarius est, & apud eos unico tantum casu: sub∣stitutus autem ipso facto adit & haeres est, si debitum ut suum petat & ex Chirographo agat: Ideo autem solenni ex institutione adeundi modo haud opus est, cum ex Chirographoeum Sempronio succedere clare con∣stat, neo in claris ulterius inquirere necesse sit.

Quaest. 11ma.

UBi debitum hypothecarium est & sasina vestitum: substitutus post obitum creditoris nec recte agit nec aliquid Juris consequitur, nisi haereditatem adeat & a domino directe & sponte agnitus & sasitus sit, vel ex inquisitione Jussu & mandato Regis investitus: Quaeritur igitur quae sit ratio discriminis, cum Chirographarius substitutus statim mortuo cre∣ditore & jus habeat & debitum condicere possit; hypothecarius vero non nisi adita haereditate nec minus manifestum sit ex obligatione substitutum succedere!

Resp. Rationem differentiae in promptu esse; In Chirographario si∣quidem debito cum Jus personale tantum sit, & ex Chirographo evidens sit substitutum succedere; ut substitutus adeat nulla alia formula opus est sed ex Chirographo agendo; vel alio quovis actu Jure suo agnito adiisse censetur: Sin debitum Hypothecarium sit, cum penes credito∣rem duplex sit Jus, reale sciʐ. per Sasinam, & personale ex Chirogra∣pho; quod reali (utpote potiori & nobiliori) semper accedit; neutrum transit ad substitutum nisi adierit & sasitus sit, Sasina a domino volen∣te & sponte data, vel ex Inquisitione & Jussu & Mandato Regis. Cum igitur ut Chirographarius succedat, unica voluntas substituti ejusque factum requiratur; In Hypothecario vero tam voluntas & factum sub∣stituti adire volentis quam domini directi eum in vasallum recipientis: Ideo Chirographarius Jus suum petendo, vel alio actu Jus suum agnos∣cens,

confestim succedit; nec aliud agendum superest: In hypotheca∣rio vero, si dominus directus forte difficilior, substitutum recipere re∣nuit vel cunctatur; Inquisitio necessaria est, ut ex ea rite facta domino Regi innotescat substitutum, creditori haeredem esse; quo comperto, superior praeceptis Regis ex Cancellaria sua morem gerens substitutum recipit Sasina data: Si vero ter monitus (ut moris est) haud obtem∣perat, in subsidium ex praecepto Regis per Vicecomitem Sasina da∣tur.

Quaest. 12ma.

IN specie saepius repetita, cum Chirographo vel simplice vel hypothe∣cario Pecunia debetur Sempronio; & eo deficiente per obitum, Titio ejusque haeredibus; si Titius praemoriatur Sempronio superstite, & postea mortuo; Titii haeredes in ea re haeredes erunt Sempronio; nominis enim feodum penes Titium nunquam fuerat: Ambigitur, an qui Sempronio haeres esse vult, etiam Titio haeres esse debeat actu & aditione; & ut pra∣ctici loquuntur deservitione? An vero satis sit eum esse haeredem Titio habitu, & qui ei proximior & actu haeres esse queat si velit? De ista Quaestione licet magni momenti, & in praxi & quotidiano usu saepi∣us recursante, nulla (quod sciam) decisio est; adeo ut mihi inte∣grum sit dicere quod sentiam, salvo eorum Judicio, penes quos vel legis vel sententiae ferendae authoritas erit. Cum igitur pro utraque parte haud desint rationes, nec cae leves; in isto conflictu hae animum fluctuantem impulere ut pedibus in illam sen∣tentiam eam; requiri sciʐ. ut qui Sempronio haeres esse vult etiam Titio haeres sit habitu & proximior; nec necesse esse ut ei Haeres sit actu & adeat: In omnibus dispositionibus mens & voluntas disponentium attenditur, in iis autem dominatur quae Voluntates dicuntur institutio∣nibus sciʐ. & substitutionibus haeredum; quae nedum in Testamentis sed inter vivos fiunt, sapiunt tamen naturam Testamenti vel donationis mortis causa. Cum autem quis haeredes Talliae aut provisionis (ut loqui∣mur) instituit, id unice vult satagitque ut in rebus suis haeredes instituat: non vero ut aliis & in aliorum rebus vel instituat vel substituat haeredes. Et substitutio pupillaris qua pupillo, & exemplaris (ad pupillaris exem∣plum) qua furioso haeres datur, singularia sunt Iuris antiqui & municipa∣lis Romanorum, nec alibi usurpata: Quando igitur Sempronius vel alius quilibet, Titium ejusque haeredes sibi haeredes aut Talliae aut provisionis substituit, ratio haud habetur civilis adeundi actus, sed Juris adeundi & sanguinis, ut qui ut alterius haeres ad successionem vocatur, eatenus alteri uni forte ex liberis aut cognato suo ea necessitudine junctus sit, ut alteri haeres esse possit si velit & e re sua sit; si enim adeunti vel exigua spes lu∣celli affulgeat, quod aditurus sit haud dubitandum; sin alterius haeredit∣as damnosa sit, nec instituentis nec haereditatis ejus interest ut ei necesse sit alienam adire; quae nedum inanis sed etiam damnosa suam exinani∣ret quantum libet pinguem & opimam: Ut de vaccis proditum est per somnium a Pharaone visis adhuc deformibus & strigosis, etiam pinguibus & nitidis devoratis: Nec aliquid a ratione vel Jure magis alienum est, quam ut quod in favorem introductum est in odium & perniciem retor∣queatur. Adhaec in materia haereditaria, tam in Jure quam praxi & usu

& stylo, apud nos vocabulum haeres non pro eo qui adiit haereditatem sed pro adituro vel cuiadeundi jus est saepius accipitur; haereditas siquidem est jus successionis; & de adeunda (secundum doctores) magis proprie quam de adita dicitur: ubi enim adita est & successum, desinit esse haereditas & jus succedendi: hinc est quod ubi per Breve de morte ante∣cessoris mandatur Judici idoneo ut inquiri faciat, quis defuncto sit legiti∣mus haeres, intelligitur haeres habitu & cui Jus sit succedendi; non vero haeres actu & qui adiit; de quo cum jam adierit supervacanea esset tam inquisitio quam aditio.

Id in ista specie facti luce clarius est, si quis enim liberis orbus, fratres habeat; & inter eos, qui sibi haeres futurus esset, virum prodigum & & obaeratum; & consulto eo praeterito substituit ejus haeredes: ut reor, nemo opinabitur eum voluisse ut sui haeredes prodigo & decoctori actu haeredes sint: Et quod una via solicite curaverat ne fieret fratre praeterito, fortunarum suarum naufragium & jacturam voluisse fieri alia via fratris haeredibus institutis, si haeredes nedum habitu sed actu esse debeant: Imo aliquando, cum quis alterius haeredes sibi adsciscit & substituit, eve∣nire potest ut instituenti haeredes sint, alteri vero vix habitu haeredes esse possunt; si necessitudo & jus sanguinis haud desit obsit vero civilis aliqua ratio; ut v. g. fratris haeredibus institutis, si praemoriatur instituens fratre adhuc superstite, qui ei haeres fuisset si eo quo instituens diem obiit tempore decessisset; instituenti haeres erit, nec fratris mors operienda erit, & tamen ei haeres nec habitu esse potest qui instituenti succedit; Ea ra∣tione obstante quod adhuc superstes haeredem habere nequit, vel si fra∣tris haereditas integra & ex asse adita sit, adeo ut amplius haeredem habere nequeat, facultate adeundi per aditionem absumpta; quia si frater cu∣jus haeredes vocantur praemortuus sit sine liberis & perduellionis damna∣tus, instituente postea defuncto; si alius sit frater qui perduelli haeres foret si ad pacem & fidem Domini Regis decessisset, & instituenti haeres erit licet neutro casu fratri nec habitu nec actu haeres esse posset; obstan∣te sciʐ. non naturali ratione & sanguinis defectu, sed Jure & ratione civili, ob eas quas supra memoravimus causas.

Quae pro altera parte afferuntur, viz. quod ei quorundam sive opi∣nio sive error (& magis communis) suffragetur; & vulgo dicitur error communis jus faciat, hisce presertim rationibus subnixus, viz.) cum quis vocatur sub modo aut qualitate ut alteri haeres sit qualitatem nedum adesse sed praeambulam antecedere oportere, nec instituenti haeredem esse posse nisi prius alteri cujus haeredes vocati sunt haeres sit: cumque Haeres nomen Juris sit non personae, alterius haeredem non admittendum esse, nisi ex Inquisitione alteri haeredem esse compertum sit; ex In∣quisitione autem alterius haeredem renunciari moribus nostris nihil aliud esse, quam alterius haereditatem cernere, & actu adire. Istae inquam rationes facile diluuntur; nam cum patribus errasse utcum∣que excusat, errore autem ratione evicto & agnito, nemo adhuc erran∣dum esse sentiet: Et communis error quando est in facto, & circa con∣ditionem aut qualitatem personae, ut quondam. Barbarii Philippi; qui cum servus esset praetor Romanus fuit; in isto & similibus casibus, vel si forte praelatus vel notarius haud legitimus pro legitimo tamen tentus & reputatus sit, hactenus communis error Jus facit ut quae ab iis gesta

sunt haud corruant, publica utilitate postulante; ne publicus & commu∣nis error Reipublicae noceat: Error autem in Jure non excusat nedum Jus facit; & qualitas sub qua vocatur haeres alterius, haud deest si hae∣res sit habitu & proximus, ut superius demonstratum est. Denique qui Brevi Regis impetrato postulat ut judex inquiri faciat an haeres sit instituenti, ejusque tantum haereditatem adit, licet alteri haeres sangui∣nis & habitu & esse & per inquisitores renunciari debeat.

Quaest. 13.

AN eo ipso quod Sempronii haereditatem adiret Titii haeres; etiam Titii haereditatem adiisse videatur, cum Titii haeredes Sempronio substituti sint; adeo ut provisionis haeres Sempronio esse nequeat nisi haeres Titii sit quaerendum est? parum quidem interesse videtur utrum Titio haeres esse ex inquisitione, & postea Sempronio ex alia inquisitione etiam haeres esse comperiatur; an vero ex una & eadem Inquisitione tam Titio quam Sempronio eum haeredem esse declaretur. Caeterum voluntas & propositum (nedum maleficia sed &) Civiles actus distinguit; cum itaque Titii haeres Brevi ex Cancellaria impetrato inquiri postulat an sit Titio haeres, sine dubio Titii haereditatem adit; Id enim unice agit & vult, ut Titio actu haeres sit: Verum ubi Brevi impetrato de morte ante∣cessoris inquirendum curat quis Sempronio haeres sit, & clameo seu peti∣tione exhibita petit ut declaretur se haeredem esse Sempronio cum haeres proximus Titii sit, eo casu nec adit nec ei propositum est ullam nisi Sempronii haereditatem adeundi: An vero Titii sit haeres inquiritur tantum obiter & tanquam de qualitate praeambula; sine qua Sempronio provisionis haeres esse non potest; non vero ut Titii haereditatem adeat, & ei haeres actu sit: sufficit enim ut superius disseruimus ut Titio haeres sit sanguinis & habitu: adeo in Jure iidem actus ex animo & fine diverso plerumque diversos habent & sortiuntur effectus.

Quaest. 14.

NIhil quidem a Religione Judicantis magis alienum est quam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ea divino & omni Jure vetita aegre tamen vita∣tur; & quod de Marte & Venere & de Vulcani vinculis occultis sed te∣nacibus in fabulis est, verum est de Affectibus animum impedientibus, ne Verum & Justum cernere possit: imo ubi Lex & regula haud deest, interdum instar Lesbiae, colore aliquo eò torquetur, quò affectus impellit: ubi autem Lex aut regula deest, sibi homines Lex sunt ut ait Apostolus, sensu multum diverso: & Judicantis pro lege affectui gratificandi arbi∣trium sibi permissum arbitrantur. Curandum itaque quantum fieri po∣test, ne arbitrio, Legibus & Justitiae inviso, locus sit. Licet autem sit homonomia in ipso nomine Haeredis, & materia anceps & arbitraria; u∣trum haeres de eo qui est actu haeres, an de eo qui habitu & sanguinis hae∣res est tantum, intelligendum sit: Arbitrium tamen videtur istis regu∣lis substringi & coerceri posse.

1mo.

Ubicunque alterius haeres ad alterius haereditatem vocatur satis

est eum alteri haeredem esse habitu; utque ei facultas & jus sit adeundi si velit & prosit, non vero necessitas si nolit aut noceat.

2do.

Tum materia subjecta tum id quod agitur multum inspicitur: In materia igitur non successoria, ubi mentio fit haeredis, nec agitur ut succedat sed ad alium finem & effectum, intelligendus est semper haeres habitu non actu; e. g. In tabulis nuptialibus seu Contractu quem ma∣trimonialem dicimus, synalagma est & mutua ultro citroque obligatio; sponso enim de dote; sponsae de doario cavetur; & liberis de successio∣ne: quia vero obligatio sine actione & executione inanis esset, nec uxor nec liberi sub potestate & ferula mariti futuri, contra eum agere queunt; ideo clausula executiva introducta est, qua cavetur; ut actio & executio com∣petat Necessariis quibusdam & eorum haeredibus, ad ea persequenda quae uxori & liberis ex eo contractu debentur aut praestanda sunt: Eo casu si aliquis ex haeredibus egerit, ex ea clausula qua sibi non consulitur sed ob sanguinis & necessitudinis vinculum in aliorum rem officium & sollici∣tudo injungitur; nemo rationis compos nedum Jurisprudens opinabitur, eum summovendum nisi actu haeres esse velit; & haereditati damnosae se implicare non obstante Juris regula officium nemini debere esse damnosum. Haud aliter sentiendum eo casu quo decimae (ut plerum∣que fieri solebat) ad longum tempus locantur, conductori ejusque haere∣dibus & assignatis; ita ut locatio durante vita conductoris, & secundum eum trium haeredum successive duratura & aequaeva sit. Haeredes enim, cum quaeritur quamdiu locatio duratura sit, intelliguntur qui sanguinis & & habitu haeredes sunt, licet non actu; si enim (ut saepe evenit) locatio∣nis Jus cessum fuerit nec ad haeredem pertineat, haud credendum tres haeredes, Jure alienato, in aliorum rem alienanti haeredes fore actu, & adituros: Cumque locatio sit conductori haeredibus & assignatis, durante tot haeredum vita, non agitur ut penes haeredes Jus istud semper futurum sit, sed ut sive sit penes haeredes sive singulares successores, ut ejus dura∣tio, cum ex natura locationis perpetua esse nequeat, definiatur ex vita trium haeredum.

Sic in judiciis declaratoriis Juris, Nonintroitus forte aut aliis ejusmo∣di & Rescissoriis, quia non sunt actiones rei persecutoriae, nec iis aliquid dari vel fieri petitur sed agentis jus tantum asseritur & declaratur; ne∣cesse tamen est ut omnes quorum interest conveniantur; defunctis iis quorum interesse poterat haeredes eorum necessario citandi sunt; nec ne∣cesse tamen est ut sint haeredes, actu & vel adeant vel repudiant.

3tio.

Ubicunque haeredibus sanguinis consulitur, cavetur tamen ne actu haeredes sint; ne adeundo litibus aut debitis haereditariè subjaceant: Aequivocum haeredis nomen de eo qui proximus & habitu haeres sit intel∣ligendum est, exemplum fuit insigne in ea cujus superius meminimus facti specie, cum sciʐ. Frater adhuc liberis orbus, fratre parum frugi aut prodigo; ideo eo praeterito fratris haeredes resignatione facta sibi si non agnascantur liberi haeredes substituit; veritus ne si frater succederet etiam sua profunderet.

Illud quoque addi potest, quod instrumentis sponsalitiis cum vir ad secunda vota convolat, saepius haeredibus prospicitur; ut a sponso terrae & praedia dentur vel acquirantur, aut ut certa pecuniae summa colloce∣tur sub usuris; & terrarum aut ex iis annui reditus hypotheca; sed ea

lege ut penes Conjuges ususfructus tantum sit, haeredes vero ex conju∣gio feodum & proprietas; ut superiore ita isto casu liquet id agi, ne hae∣redes patri succedant cum ex priore matrimonio liberos forte habeat ei haeredes in universum futuros: liberi vero ex secundo matrimonio in Terrarum aut annui reditus feudum ex pacto ipsis concessum succedere nequeant, cum penes patrem haud futurum sit: Ea igitur interpretatio fieri debet ut id quod agitur & actus valeat, & evitetur absurdum; maximum autem foret si quod una via prohibetur aut cavetur alia eve∣niat: & dum Charybdis evitatur, incurratur Scylla non minus exitiosa.

Quaest. 15.

SUperius Respondimus Titium ejusque haeredes, Sempronio in Chiro∣grapho substitutos, ei haeredes esse provisionis: Quaerendum an Sempronii Creditoribus teneantur? & quidem dicendum est eos teneri & obnoxios esse; nam omnis haereditas etiam particularis, & in Chiro∣grapho praedio aut alia re particulari, eatenus est successio in universum Jus; secundum haereditatis definitionem: ut nedum commoda sed incommoda & onera ad eum pertineant & redundent, sed quatenus de∣bitis subjaceat & oneribus: quaestio difficilior nec levis momenti est, & alio forte loco ubi de haeredibus Talliae & provisionis & aliis particularibus haeredibus agetur, magis opportune ventilabitur.

Feus.

IF a Feuer may Refute as in the case of other holdings? The difference being, that Feuda are Beneficia, & invito Beneficium nec datur nec reti∣netur: Whereas Feus are Emphyteuses and upon the matter perpetual Locations; and as in Locationibus either ad tempus how long so ever, the Conductor cannot renounce, so their appears to be eadem Ratio in Feus.

Whether there be Non-entry in Feus, and the Liferent Escheat of the Feuer doth belong to the Superior, seing they are not proprie Feuda? And yet it is thought sapiunt naturam Feudi.

If there be Non-entry: Whether before Declarator, the Superior will have right to the retoured Duty, which is the Feu-duty, besides the Feu-duty due to himself: And after Declarator to the full profits?

Feuda Nobilia.

FEuda nobilia sine Nobilitate dari possunt: Adeo ut aliquis ab Imperatore investiri posset in Ducatu aut Comitatu, nec tamen Dux aut Comes sit. Thes. Besold. in litera I. 18. verbo. Innhabern. des. p. 428.

Fiar.

1. WHen Lands are Disponed to a person, without mention either of Heirs or that he is Fiar or Liferenter; or that they are Di∣sponed Heretably. Quaeritur, If he be Fiar?

2. In Conjunct Fee where there are no degrees of Substitution, whe∣ther is the Husband or Wife Fiar?

3. When Lands are given in Conjunct-Fee to the Husband and Wife, and their Heirs; who is Fiar?

4. If the Husband be Fiar, whether at least the Heirs betwixt him and her, are to be understood his Heirs: or his Heirs whatsoever?

5. If Lands be Disponed to two Brothers by their Father, and their Heirs; if they be both Fiars ex semisse?

6. If when Lands are Disponed by a Father to two Brothers and the Heirs of their Body; if one die without Heirs of his Body, whether it be substitutio reciproca?

7. When Lands are Disponed to Husband and Wife and their Heirs of the Marriage; and these failʒieing the half to the Husbands Heirs, and the other half to the Wifes: Quaeritur, Whether the Husband be so Fiar, that the Wifes Heirs, failʒieing Heirs of the Marriage, will be Heirs of Provision as to the half?

8. When it is intended that the Wife should be a Joynt-fiar: If the Right should not be to the Husband and her; and after their Decease the half to his Heirs and the other half to her Heirs?

9. When a right is given to Two Persons and to the longest Liver of them Two, and the Heirs of the longest Liver, who is Fiar? And if the Fee be in pendenti?

10. When the Fee is provided by Contract of Marriage to Bairns; and accordingly a Right is granted in the foresaid terms, there being no Bairns for the time: Quaeritur, When a Child is born whether the Fee be immediatly in its person?

11. If it be in solidum in its person and thereafter others be born Quae∣ritur, Quid juris, and if concursu faciunt partes?

12. In Conjunct-fees where there is no substitution, the Heirs deter∣mine the Fee.

13. Where there are degrees of substitution, The person whose Heirs succeed first is Fiar; And all the Substitutes thereafter are Heirs of Provi∣sion to the Fiar by progress.

14. When a Band is taken to a person and his Heirs; if his Grand∣child by a Daughter decease having no issue, whether the Child being Heir, his Father will succeed to him; albeit his Father cannot be Heir to the Grand-father, and haeres haeredis should be haeres instituentis?

Fiars of Bonds

A Bond being in these terms, To a man and his Wife and the Heirs of the Marriage; which failʒieing to the longest Liver of them two and the Heirs of the surviver, Quaeritur, who is the Fiar?

A Bond being granted to a Husband and his Wife and the longest liver of them two in Conjunctfee; and to one of their Sones expresly named and the Heirs of his Body: whilks failʒieing to the Heirs to be procreat betwixt the Husband and the Wife; whilk failʒieing to the Wifes Heirs and Assigneys, Quaeritur, Whether the Fee of the said Sum pertaineth to the Husband, or to the foresaid Son, or to the Wife? Ratio Dubitandi, That the Right of

Succession terminates upon the Wife and her Heirs, which seems to import that she is Fiar. 2do. As to the Son the said Sum being provided to his Heirs in the first place It seemeth that the Fee should pertain to him: Seing the Heirs of his Body are to succeed in the first place, and the Fee of Money (as it is said of the Ʋsufructus of Money, That it is quasi Ʋsu∣fructus) is quasi feodum & Proprietas: and properly that is said to be Pro∣perty which belongeth to a person and descendeth to his Heirs: And yet it is thought that the Fee of the said Sum doth belong to the Husband, in respect the Money being his own was lent by him in behalf of himself and the foresaid persons: and albeit when a Bond is conceived simply to a Husband and his Wife in Conjunctfee and to her Heirs and assigneys, she is Fiar; for the reason foresaid, that it is to belong to her and her Heirs only. Nevertheless when there is diverse degrees of Substitution of Heirs of diverse persones and of a Wife in the last place, the person whose Heirs are provided for in the first place ought to be understood to be Fiar: and these in secundis tabulis and in a more remote degree, to be only Heirs of Provision Failʒieing the former: and if the Son had survived or his Heirs, It is absurd that they should be Heirs to their Mother and not to their Fa∣ther; And that the Mother being Fiar should have power to Dispone of the Sum in prejudice of her Husbands Children. And albeit the said Sons Heirs be first named yet it is thought that he is not Fiar, seing he is to be Heir of Provision to his Father: as if an Infeftment were granted to his Father and Wife in Conjunct-fee; and failʒieing of them be decease, to a certain person their Son and the Heirs of his Body: The Son in that case would be Heir of Provision.

A Bond being granted to a Man and his Wife and longest Liver of them Two and their Heirs: And the Wife having survived, Quaeritur. If she will be Fiar of the said Bond?

A Person having Infeft his Creditors for security of Debts, and while they be payed respectively. Quaeritur, Quatenus They are Fiars whe∣ther in solidum, or ex parte: And qua parte? Respondetur, They are Fiars proportionally, and ex parte effeiring to their Debt.

Fiars in Tailʒies.

BY a Contract of Marriage; Lands being given in Tocher and the Right thereof so conceived that they were Disponed to the Husband and the Gentlewoman in Conjunct-fee and Liferent, and to the Heirs of the Marriage: Whilk Failʒieing to the Heirs of the Husband his Body in any other Marriage: Whilk Failʒieing to the Womans Heirs and Assigneys whatsomever. Quaeritur, who is Fiar? Answer. That though where there is but one degree of Substitution, (viz. Failʒieing the Heirs of the Marriage the Womans Heirs) The Woman is Fiar; Because res pertinet ad eos quo∣rum haeredibus providetur: But where there are diverse Degrees of Sub∣stitution (as in this case) the Husband (cujus haeredibus maxime prospicitur) It is thought should be Fiar; Seing not only the Heirs of the Marriage got∣ten by him, But in the next degree his Heirs of any other Marriage are substitute: and in ultimis tabulis, The Wifes Heirs, and as Heirs of Pro∣vision to the Husband: and the Husband having given a Jointure, it is

thought to be in Lieu of the Tocher, and to belong to him as Fiar and not as simple Liferenter.

A Bond for a Sum of Money being granted to a Man and his Wife and longest Liver of them Two, and to their Heirs and Assigneys secluding Executors: And the Wife having survived the Husband, and a Bairn being likewise on Life of their Marriage: Quaeritur, Whether the Relict will be Fiar?

If a Bond be granted to Two Brothers in the terms foresaid, and one of them deceasing having left Children, and the other surviving having also Children: Quaeritur, who is Fiar?

Fictio Juris.

QƲaeritur, A Debitor being disseas'd what way can the Compriser be Infeft? Answer. The Decreet of Reduction putteth the Debi∣tor quoad the Creditor in the same case as if he had not been denuded Fi∣ctione Juris.

Fiscus.

IN Dubiis ubi non est plena Probatio fisco non favendum. Besol. Thesaur. liter. L. p. 556. vide Auctores ibi citatos.

Commissa Fisco.

MErces committuntur Fisco ex causa fraudati vectigalis ipso Jure; ita ut statim desinant esse ejus qui deliquit: itatamen ut ob contradictionem par∣tis requiratur sententia declarativa. De Jure fluminum. 206.

Flumina.

FLumina a Rivis distinguuntur magnitudine, vel aestimatione circumcolentium Hering. de molendin. Quaest. 15. n. 4.

Flumina Publica.

FLumen publicum est illud quod perenne est. Th. Scipman. de Jure Fluminum seu. jus Fluviaticum p. 3. n. 20.

Flumina publica sunt in potestate & patrimonio Principis, & de Regalibus sunt, idem P. 5. n. 52.

Publica sunt superiorem non recognoscentis, & Majestate fulgentis, Ibid n. 7. & quorum usus omnibus Expositus est.

Flumina publica sunt, quae sunt perennia & de Regalibus, plerumque navi∣gabilia, & quae navigabile aliud faciunt, & ad principem pertinent: Ʋsu ve∣ro patent singulorum commodis & utilitati, non etiam commercio seu Juri emen∣di, acquirendi, alienandi. Quaest. eadem. Num. 10.

Flumina Censitorum vice funguntur, & ex privato in publicum addicunt, & ex publico in privatum, dum uni adimunt & alteri addunt, Jus fluviat. p. 5. 24. &c.

Forfaulture.

A Subvassal being Forfaulted, Whether His Majesties Donator will have Right to the Estate free of Servitudes, and Rights not consent∣ed to by the immediat Superior? Caldwells Relict contra Dalʒiel.

When the Lands fall in His Majesties Hands by Forefaulture, or other∣ways by the suppressing of Benefices, or any other occasion; if there be Vassals holding of the same; May he Dispone the saids Lands and Supe∣riorities? Ratio Dubitandi; That a Superior cannot interpose. Answer. There is a difference betwixt Vassals holding Originally of His Maje∣sty, and these who hold ab initio of other Superiors: As to the first they cannot be prejudged so as to be put to hold of any other than His Ma∣jesty, and to be more remote from the Fountain: The others are not pre∣judged, seing they are put in the condition they were in formerly: and as the former Superior might have Disponed the Superiority, and resigned; so His Majesty cannot be denyed the same Power: and His Majesties Disposition is Fictione Juris equivalent to a Resignation, seing there is no other Superior in whose hands the King can resign.

If a Subvassal, to a Vassal holding of the King, be Forefaulted for Trea∣son; will subaltern Rights granted by him fall under Forefaulture? Se∣ing it is pretended that such Forefaultures belong to the King not as Supe∣rior but Jure Coronae and as Prince; & noxa caput sequitur: and the King has no prejudice having a Vassal. Yet I think that these Rights should fall, Quia resoluto Jure Dantis resolvitur Jus accipientis: And if the Subvassal should Forefault his Lands by Recognition, his Vassals Right would Forefault: And it is against reason, That Treason being Crimen gravius, The Forefaulture and poena should be Levior: And Trea∣son is Crimen feudale and against the King as Superior paramount: and as the betraying of a mediate Superior will import Forefaulture, not only of the Subvassal but of his Vassals; there is the same or greater reason, that Treason against the King should have the same effect: and the reason that the Forefaulture of the Subvassal should belong to the King is, because the Crime is committed against him as highest Superior.

If the Kings immediat Vassal should confirm the Inferior Rights, if there be any alteration of the case? Seing the King is in place of the Vas∣sal, because the Crime is committed against the King as Superior, and he should be in no better case: and the Vassal if he were to have the bene∣fite of the Forefaulture, could not Question the said Rights.

If a person Infeft in Liferent be Forefaulted for Treason, will the Liferent expire though he survive? Seing he is nullus, and after Treason doth neither transmitt cedendo nor delinquendo.

A Person being Infeft in Trust and to the use and behoof of another; Quaeritur, If he commit Treason will he Forefault the Right of the Lands to His Majesty? Seing albeit his Right be to the use and behoof of ano∣ther yet he is Vassal; and as the French say he is homme vivant & confis∣quant; and there is no reason the Superior should be defrauded; and the granter of the Right is to be blamed that he trusted such a person.

By the English Law, though a person Dispone for Onerous Causes, he is not Lyable to warrand unless he be expresly bound; otherways the

acquirer is presumed to take his hazard: But with us no Warrandice, is absolute Warrandice.

Quaeritur, If a Donator to a Forefaulture has Action for Exhibition and delivery of the Evidents?

The Vassal of a Subject, having granted a subaltern Right to be holden base, and the same not being confirmed by the mediate Superior: Quae∣ritur, Whether the Subvassals Right foresaid, will fall under the Fore∣faulture of his immediat Superior being Forefaulted? Answer. It is thought that it will fall under the Forefaulture, in respect that if the per∣son Forefaulted had committed a Crime against his Immediate Superior whereupon the Lands would have recognosced or Forefaulted to him, The Subvassal his Property would have fallen under the Forefaulture; and there is eadem if not major Ratio in the case of Treason, The King being Superior Paramount, and the Crime against him being also a Crime against the mediate Superior; there being no greater wrong than to be a Traitor to the Superiour. Caldwell and Glanderstoun.

Quaeritur, Quid Juris, If the mediate Superiour had confirmed the Subvassals Right?

Quid Juris in the case of Forefalture for Treason? And if there be a difference in the case of Forefaulture in Parliament and before the Ju∣stices?

Lands being Comprysed and a signature being past upon the Comprysing, but no Infeftment being taken thereupon: Quaeritur, If the Debitor commit Treason in the interim, whether the same will fall under Forefaulture? Answer. It is thought that it will not, seing the Debitor was fully denuded; there being no vestige of Right in his per∣son; seing he is divested by the Comprysing as if he had resigned, and the Superiour had accepted the Resignation.

Quaeritur, Quid Juris, If there were only a Comprysing without a Signature? And the Question may be more general; Viz. If in all cases the Heretor be so denuded that he cannot prejudge the Compryser, by any Deed whereupon Recognition or other Forefaulture may follow, in favours of the Superiour: otherways a Malicious Debitor may, of pur∣pose, do such a Deed to prejudge his Creditor.

To consider if there be a difference betwixt a Disposition and Resig∣nation accepted by the Superiour: And a Comprysing; whereupon no∣thing has followed?

Item. If the presenting of a Signature on a Comprysing to the Exche∣quer, be equivalent to a Resignation in the Superiours hands and ac∣cepting?

Item. Whether a Charge to other Superiours to enter the Compryser be equivalent to a Resignation?

If after a Person is Forefaulted, an Estate should fall to him, as appearand Heir to any person, he being yet on Life; whether would the same pertain to the King or to the next Heir, as if he were Deceased? Seing he is nullus being Forefaulted, and is not in a Capacity to be Ap∣pearand Heir.

If a Forfaulted person have Children that are ante nati; Whether or not will they be prejudged by their Fathers Forfaulture: as to any Capacity or Estate belonging to him? Whether will they succeed to their Grandfather

or any relation upon the Fathers side; Seing their Blood is corrupted and they cannot represent their Father being nullus as said is?

A person having Married an Heretrix, and being thereafter Forfault∣ed, Quaeritur, If the Blood of the Children be so tainted and corrupted That they cannot succeed to their Mother? 2do. If the Mother should not dispone in her oun Lifetime; Whether her Estate will fall to the King by the incapacity of the Children, being her appeirand Heirs?

An Heretrix being Wife to a forfaulted person, If als long as he liveth the King will have right to the Mails and Duties Jure Mariti? 2do If she may dispose of her Estate without his Consent seing he is nullus in Law: And yet is her Husband, the Marriage not being dissolved with the Fore∣faulture?

A Father having Disponed his Estate to his Son, with Reversion and power either to Redeem or Dispone; Quaeritur, If the personal faculty may, notwithstanding, be comprysed during the Fathers Life; and may be used even after the Death of the Father? There is the same Question as to Forefaulture.

A Woman being Heretrix of Lands in Scotland; and the same being Tailʒied to the Heirs of her Body, whilk Failʒieing to certain other Heirs: with the ordinary Clauses irritant that she and they should not have pow∣er to prejudge the Tailʒie; Quaeritur. If her Husband being Forefaulted, the Blood be so corrupted that her Children cannot succeed, and if their Interest of Succession will fall to the King?

If a Tack set for an Onerous Cause and for payment of Debt; will pre∣judge the Donator to the Forefaulture?

The Creditor having an Action of Reduction competent to him for Reduceing an Infeftment as being in defraud of him; if thereafter the Debitor should be Forefaulted, and the Creditor reduce the said Right; what way shall he be Infeft; seing he cannot Compryse or Adjudge; the Debitor being Forefaulted?

There being a Minute of Contract anent the selling of Lands, and the Buyer being thereafter Forefaulted; Quaeritur, If the King or his Dona∣tors will have Right to the said Minute in the same manner as the Buyer? or if the Seller can raise a Declarator to be free of the Minute? Seing al∣beit where there is a clear Right and Interest belonging to a person Fore∣faulted, the same will pertain to the King; yet when a Bargain is only in fieri, and there are diverse obligements upon the part of the Fore∣faulted person, the Seller ought not to be in worse case, and in place of a Subject have so powerful an Adversary. The Earl of Tarras, and the Heirs of Walter Riddel.

The Laird of Cesnock having acquired from Castlemaines the Barony of Castlemaines, but not being Infeft but base before the Forefaulture, Quae∣ritur, If by his Forfaulture, these who had Rights holden of Castlemaines not confirmed by the King will be in any hazard? Answer. It Is thought not: Seing any Right Cesnock had to the saids Lands, was not as the Kings Vassal: In which case the subaltern Rights would have fallen; and Castlemaines remaining the Kings Vassal, Cesnock had only the Right of property holden of Castlemaines: And as to Castlemaines Right holden of the King, Cesnock had only Jus ad rem by the Contract or Disposition; so that thereby the King by the Forefaulture may come to Castlemaines

Right, and force him to denude himself of the same; but it cannot be said that the said Estate came in the Kings hand by the Forefaulture of a Vassal.

Sempronia having Right to certain Lands which are parcels of a Barony Feued to her Authors by the Earles of Argyle who held the same Feu of the Arch-Bishops of St. Andrews; who did confirm the subaltern Rights grant∣ed by the saids Earles: Quaeritur, Whether the saids Lands belonging to the said Sempronia do fall under the Forefaulture of the Earl of Argyle, notwithstanding the confirmation granted by the Bishops: In respect the saids Rights are not confirmed by the King?

In Answer to the said Querie, It is thought, that the saids Lands do not fall under the Earles Forefaulture, for these Reasons.

1mo. The Earle of Argyle did Forefault only what did belong to him∣self, Nam noxa caput sequitur; and the saids Lands did not belong to him in Property, but only in Superiority: And there is a difference betwixt the said case, and the case of Lands holden immediatly of the King himself; which by the Forefaulture of his Vassal are Forefaulted; and does return to the King as he did give them pure and free, and without the burden of any other Right granted by the person Forefault, but such as the King did consent to and confirmed: Whereas in the case in Question, The said Earl did not hold the foresaids Lands immediatly of the King but of the Arch-Bishop, who stands still His Majesties Vassal: And as his own Right is not prejudged by the said Forefaulture, so the Right of the sub-Vassal consented to and confirmed by him, is not prejudged by the said Forefaulture.

2do. Lands holden of the Bishop waird, or which would fall in his hands upon Recognition or otherways by the deed of the Earl of Argyle, being Disponed by the Earl to be holden of himself; will not recognosce by the Earles Deed in Disponing the Superiority or otherways, if the Bi∣shop had confirmed the Subvassals Right; And there is the same reason in the case of Forefaulture, in respect by the common Law when Lands do fall and are confiscat, they fall to the immediate Superiour: And by our custom in the case of Treason the King has that Priviledge, that the Lands which are Forefaultare Confiscat and Forefaulted to him; because the Crime is committed against him. And therefore the Lands holden of o∣ther Superiours do Forefault to the King, no otherways than they would belong to other Superiours, if the Forefaulture did belong to them; In which case the confirmation of the Subaltern Rights by the immediate Su∣periour of the person Forefaulted, would save the Subaltern Rights that they could not fall under Forefaulture.

3tio. By the Law and Custom of the Kingdom it is lawful Subinfeodare; and albeit it may be pretended that if the Bishop had not confirmed the Fews granted by the Earl of Argyle they would have fallen by his Forefaul∣ture though lawful ab initio, seing res devenit ad aliam causam & resoluto Jure dantis resolvitur jus accipientis: Yet in the case of confirmation by the Bishop, there is a great difference; seing the Subaltern Right doth not only depend upon Argyl's Right so that it falleth with it; but has another Foundation whereupon it does subsist; Viz. The Bishop's own Right and the confirmation granted by the Bishop; and specially in this case, seing it appears by the confirmation that the same is granted not to gratify the Sub∣vassal,

and to prevent prejudice to him by the Forefaulture of Argyle if it should fall out, but in order to the Bishop's own Interest and Advantage; In respect by the confirmation there is reserved to the Bishop, beside the Feu-duty payable to Argyle, a Feu-duty to himself and his Successors; with a Clause irritant if it be not payed: And fictione brevis manus, the Feuar is in the same case as if the Bishop ab initio by one Charter had Dis∣poned the saids Lands to the Earl of Argyle in Superiority, and to the Feuar in property for payment to the Earl of Argyle of the Feu-duty men∣tioned in Charter, and to the Bishop the said other Deuty: In which case Argyl's Forefaulture could not prejudge the Feuar of the Right of Pro∣perty granted by the Bishop himself, nor the Bishop of the said Additional Duty.

4to. By the Acts of Parliament K. Ja. 2d. and K. J. 4. anent the set∣ting of Feues and by custom ever since, The setting of Fews was so speedful and necessar in order to the policy of the Kingdom; That Vas∣sals are not only allowed but invited to set their Lands in Feu; which in effect is a general confirmation of all Fews; so that the Fewers should not be in hazard either by the Waird or Non-entry or by any Deed or delict of their Superiour; but should be lyable only to pay their Feu-duties to these who should have Right upon occasion of the same: and the said Barony being of a large and vast bounds, albeit it was Fewed to the Earl of Argyle; yet for the labouring and bringing it in, it was necessary to set it in parcells to other Fewers holden of him: and the Fews in Question are granted before the Year 1606.

A Subvassal holding of a person Forefaulted, and his Right not being confirmed either by the Forefaulted persons immediat Superiour, or by the King, Quaeritur, If his Right will fall under the Forefaulture? Ratio Dubitandi; Licebat infeodare, & noxa caput sequitur: and yet is thought it will fall under the Forefaulture; Because resoluto jure dantis &c. And though it be lawful to grant Sub-altern Rights yet it is alwayes cum sua causa.

A Superiour being Forfaulted, and his Vassals Right not being con∣firmed, and so falling: Quaeritur, If His Majesty should confirm the Vas∣sals Right, if that will be habilis modus to secure against a poster or Do∣nator? Ratio Dubitandi; The Vassals Right being altogether extinct by the Forefaulture, there is nothing to be the subject of a confirmation, which cannot be of non entis; and the Vassal should have obtained a Gift upon the Forefaulture. And contra, The Vassals Right not being null of it self, but such as could not prejudge the King when Lands return to him by the Forefaulture of the Superiour, because he did not consent to the same; his consent thereto at any time may convalidate the Right before Jus be quaesitum to a Donator.

If, after Forefaulture His Majesty having granted a Remission, the per∣son Forefaulted is redintegrated to his Estate, as if the Forefaulture had not been: or if he should take a new Right upon the Forefaulture?

When a Forefaulted person has Right to succeed to any other person as Heir; so that not only his own Estate but what would belong to him if he had entered Heir, would fall to the King by his Forefaulture; Quae∣ritur, will the King be Lyable to the Debts of the Defunct; seing he does not succeed to the Traitor's own Estate and Patrimony, but in haereditatem

quae est nomen universitatis, both as to the Debita and Bona: and there is no reason that the Defuncts Creditors should be prejudged, unless they had been in culpa either themselves or their Debitor.

His Majesty having presented, upon Forefaulture, a Vassal; If that Superiour should be thereafter Forefaulted; Quaeritur, If the Feu not being confirmed, will fall under his Forefaulture? Ratio Dubitandi: The Feuer is in the same condition with other Subvassals; so that if he do not apply for confirmation he is lyable to the same hazard. And yet on the other part it may be thought, that the reason why Confirmation is neces∣sary is, because when Lands return to the King they return as they were given free of all Rights and Burdens, but such as the King did consent to; which doth cease in this case; seing the King is not only Consenter to the Subvassals Right but is Author by the presentation.

A Person having committed Treason, and thereafter his Kinsman to whom he might have succeeded, being Deceased, Quaeritur, If that De∣functs Estate will fall to the King, or go to the next Heir? Ratio Dubi∣tandi: That there seems to be a difference, betwixt the case in the fifth Question of the Title Heirs, when a person being Appearand Heir, and having haereditas delata before he commit Treason, the same should fall to the King; seing he was Haeres habitu, and had jus radicatum in his Person before his Treason, and therefore Forefaults the same to the King. Whereas in this said other case, when the Succession fell, the Traitor could not have any Right in his Person being nullus and incapable of Succession: So that it cannot be said that he is Legitimus and propinqui∣or haeres.

A Person holding Lands Ward of the King did give an Infeftment to be holden of himself Blensh, and the same being confirmed by the King, the granter was thereafter Forefaulted, so that the Subvassal did come to hold of the King: Quaeritur, Whether he will hold as he did formerly, or Ward as his immediat Superior did?

A Person being Appearand Heir both in Land and Heretable Sums, but not being served Heir; And being Forefaulted after the Decease of his Predecessor: Quaeritur. If he doth Forefault not only the Lands but the said other Heretable Estate? Answer. It is thought there is a difference betwixt Lands, and any other Heretable Estate; seing the Appearand Heir is obliged to enter to his Lands to the Effect the Superiour may have a Vassal Lyable to Service or other Duties; so that his not entering is delictum, vel quasi; and the Lands are in Non-entry: And he is in the same case in Relation to the Superiour, as if he were entered: Whereas, as to any other Heretable Estate, he needeth not owne or claim the same but if he pleases; and he cannot have Right unless the same be settled upon him by a Service: and consequently cannot Forefault that which is not his. Vide supra, in the Question concerning Cesnocks Forefaulture.

A Band being granted to an Englishman, but bearing Registration in Scotland; and being granted by a Scotsman: If the Person Creditor be guilty of Treason, whether it will fall under Forefaulture in England, or Scotland?

Cum essent Sempronio duo filii, Primogenitus patre adhuc vivo perduellionis damnatus fuerat; postea patre mortuo, utroque filio superstite (nam perduellis fuga se subduxerat) de haereditate patris ambigitur an ad primogenitum & ex

ejus persona ad Fiscum pertineret? Nam Jure civili quod indigno aufertur fisco quaeritur: & Jure nostro haeres apparens, Majestatis damnatus, nedum sua sed bona haereditaria & praedia quae sua forent, si adita esset haereditast, amittit & ad fiscum transfert.

Sed distinguendum, Et multum interest, an filius, praemortuo patre, crimen postea admiserit; an vero (ut in casu praedicto) ante patris obitum Majestatis reus & damnatus sit: priori casu cum primogeniti persona adhuc integra sit, con∣festim a morte patris dies cedit & haereditas ei delata est; adeo ut qui etiam pa∣tre superstite haeres fuerat in spe, Jam incipit haeres esse habitu & spe certa & radicata, cum libuerit actu & aditione haeres futurus: si igitur postea maxi∣mam capitis diminutionem patiatur, haereditas ipsi delata & jus succedendi infis∣cum transit: altero vero casu, filio ante mortem patris damnato, haereditas pa∣tris morte nec delata est nec deferri potuit, utpote poena servo, & qui in jure nul∣lus, nec personam habeat in qua successionis jus radices agere queat: his conse∣quens est, fratrem juniorem patri haeredem fore; quia absurdum esset patrem a crimine alienum, & forte tam suis quam familiae meritis commendatum, ex de∣licto filii nihil amittere dum viveret (noxa enim caput sequitur) morientem autem tum bona tum familiam & memoriam perdere: nec perduellis aut fisci melior debet esse conditio, quod damnatus poenae se substraxerit: & extra quae∣stionis aleam est, secundogenitum patri haeredem futurum primogenito patri prae∣mortuo.

2da. In ista specie facti suboritur quaestio, viz. si venia data restituatur pri∣mogenitus, an frater desinit esse haeres? Et quidem distinguendum est, 1mo. An cum restituitur, haereditas integra & ex asse adita sit, fratre ex inquisitione haerede renunciato, & in omnibus quae patris fuerant praediis investito (cum enim terrae in haereditate sunt, ante investituram haud censetur esse aditio) isto casu restitutio quae est ex gratia nemini nocet nisi concedenti; nec adimit jus fra∣tri quaesitum: & quod rite constitutum & quaesitum est haud corruit etsi casus evenerit a quo incipere non poterat.

2do. Sin restituatur primogenitus, haereditate nondum ullatenus adita; eo casu quia res adhuc est integra & sublato obice per restitutionem, qui oberat ne haeres esse possit; incipit haeres esse habitu & aditione actu haeres erit.

3tio. Haereditate partim adita partim non, fra re in quibusdam terris in∣vestito in quibusdam haud sasito; novissimo isto casu frater in iis quidem terris in quibus investitus est haereditatem retinebit; in reliquis primogenitus haeres erit: tantum adeo discrimen est inter jus inchoatum & id quod penitus consum∣matum & quaesitum est: Multa enim cadunt inter calicem supremaque labra.

Forisfamiliation.

QƲaeritur, If the granting of a Provision to a Child importeth Forisfa∣miliation; so that the Child cannot claim a Bairns part? Or if it be to be considered what the subject of the Provision is? Viz. Whether it be Heretable or Moveable: Seing in the first case it seems that the Pro∣vision being out of a different Subject should not exclude from a share of Moveables? David Scot Son to Walter Earl of Buccleugh.

Funeral Charges.

IF Funeral Expences should be deduced as a Debt off the whole, or only off the Deads part?

If the Funeral Charges for Burying the Husband, should affect the whole Moveable Estate, or the Deads part? Answer. It should affect the Deads part; seing it is not a Debt contracted during the Communion: And the Deads part cannot be used or employed better than to Bury him.

If the Funeral Charges should be deduced in Relation to the Quot, so that the Quot should be only of the Deads part free of the said Debt? Answer. It is thought, it should not be deduced, for the reason contained in the preceeding Querie.